- a * : 
 
/k. 
 
 // 
 
 from f0e fei6rar£ of 
 
 (professor ^amuef (JttifFer 
 
 in (JJtemorp of 
 
 3ubge ^amuef (tttiffer Q0recftinribge 
 
 (presenfeb 6p 
 
 ^amitef (Jttiffer QSrecftinrtbge feong 
 
 to f 0e feifirar^ of 
 
 (princefon £#eofogicaf ^emtnarg 
 
 COLLECTION OF PURITAN AND 
 ENGLISH THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE 
 
 TJ1EIRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 
 PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY 
 
 VCla 
 
 < ! 
 

Die Lunae 24. January 1647. 
 
 ORdered-by the Lords in Parliament affembled^ 
 That Majier Adoniram Byfeild , one of the 
 Scribes of the Ajfembly, do takgfpeciallcare 
 in the printing ofthefe things following ; And that no 
 other Jhall pre fume to print the fame 5 viz. The Rea- 
 ions of the Di (Tenting Brethren againft the third 
 Proposition concerning Presby terialGovernment, 
 And the Anfwer of the AfTembly to thofe Reafons, 
 as well thofe formerly printed for theufe of the Houfes, 
 as any other Reafbns and Anfwers never formerly 
 printed : As alfo the Papers and Anfwers of the Dif- 
 fering Brethren, and the Committse of the Affembly 
 put into -the Committee of Lords and Commons and Af- 
 fembly of Divines jor Accommodation. And that none 
 fl ball pre fume to print or reprint any of the particulars 
 above recited^bnt fuch as fball be thereunto appointed 
 by the faid Adoniram Byfeild,^ they will anfwer the 
 contrary at their perilL 
 
 John Browne Cler. Parliamentoram. 
 
 I do appoint Humphrey Harmed , and no other perfon 
 to print the Reafons , Anfwers, and Papers above 
 mentioned. 
 
 Adoniram Bjfa/d Scrib*. 
 
■■I ^JJ 
 
 my • THE .JimA^O^ w " 
 
 \eas o n s 
 
 Prefented by the, 
 
 H Diflfenting Brethren 
 
 
 Presbyteriall 
 
 Ǥ AGAINST CERTAIN 
 
 ^PROPOSITIONS! 
 
 5>y CONCERNING 
 
 M GOVERNMENT. 
 
 31 And the Proofs of them Voted by the ||£ 
 31 Afjembly of Divines -> fitting by autho- 
 
 «oj> rity of Parliament^ Wejiminftcr. 
 
 <■*£ Together with the Answer of the Affembly of&€» 
 «0£ Divines to thofe Reasons of Diflcnt* 
 
 3§ LONDON, 3& 
 
 *o£ Printed by T. R. and E. M. for Humphrey Harvard,*^ 
 ^g and are to be fold at his Shop at the George on Ludgatc 
 «0-S hill over againft Bell-Savage. 1648* 
 
jAtJYMrLtj trf ML- 2 ] o<?<f&n/m.$ MtTvfivMX 
 
 yAcmttj & o c e/i<w< 
 
 •*v 
 
 
Die Jovis 3. Fcbr. 1647. 
 
 ORdered by the Lords in Parliament Affembled^ 
 That Mr. Thomas Goodwin and Mr. Whita* 
 kcr, {ball have the over fight and pemfall of fitch Pa- 
 pers and Writings as Mr. By field hath order to Print r 
 And that the faidMr. Goodwin and Mr. Whitaker 
 haw free liberty toperufethe Originals of tbefaid Pa- 
 pers and Writings before they go to the Prejp m 
 
 Joh. Brown Cler.Parliamentorum. 
 
 The Papers and Writings above mentioned have been ex- 
 amined and perufed, this wejeftifie. 
 
 Tho. Goodwin. 
 
 Je r. Whitaker. 
 
 TH E DifTenting Brethren entred their Diflent with 
 Reafons in writing to be prefenredto the Honourable 
 Houfcs by the AfTerably, onely to thefe Propositions, tf*. 
 
 1. The third Proportion concerning PresbyteriaU 
 Government. 
 
 2. The Propojitions concerning the Subordination of 
 Affemblies. 
 
 3. The Proposition concerning the power of Ordinate 
 on^whether in a particular Congregation, though it 
 may ajfociate. 
 
 (A) 3 The 
 
The third Proposition concerning 
 
 TresbyteriaUGovermncnt) as it was Voted in the 
 
 Atfcmbly and fent up to both the Honourable 
 Houfes of Parliament. 
 
 He Scripture doth hold forth that many particular 
 Congregations may be under one Tresbyteriall Go- 
 vernment. 
 
 This Propofition is proved by instances. 
 I. Inftance, Ofthe Church of Jcrufalem, Vvhich 
 conjifled of more (Congregations then one, and all thofe 
 Congregations we're under one T^resbjteriall Cjovernment, 
 This appear eth^ thus, 
 
 I. The Church offerufalcm confided of more Congregations then 
 one, as is manifefi, 
 
 1. By the multitude ofBeleevers, mentioned in divers texts col- 
 lated: 
 
 Both before the difperfion ofthe Beleevers there, by meanesofthe 
 persecution ( mentioned in the Atts oftte Apoftles, chap. 8. in the be- 
 ginning thereof) Veitnrjfe Ads ch. I .v. 1 1 .and ch 2. v 41 46. q-j.and ch. 
 4*v.4. andch. 5. v. 14. *Wch. 6. v. 1.7. 
 
 nAndalfo after the difperfion, Allsch. 9. v. 31. and ch. 12. v 24. 
 andch, 21. v, 20. 
 
 2. :£;/-/tf.manyApoftlesand other Preachers in the Church of 
 Jerufalem. yyV/^r*? n~ere but one (Congregation there, then each Apofile 
 preached but feldome^ which n ill not confifi with Acts ch. 6 V. 2, 
 
 3. The diverfity of languages amongft the Beleevers, mentioned 
 both in the fee on d and fix t chapters ofthe Afts, doth argue more Congee* 
 gat ions then one in that Church, 
 
 II. All thofe Congregations were under one Presbyteriai Govern- 
 ment, Becaufe, 
 
 t. They were one Church, is4el. ch. 8. v. 1. and ch. 2, v. 47, com- 
 paredwith ch 5. v. 1 1, ch. I 2. v. 5, andch 15. v. 4. 
 
 2. The Elders of that Church are mentioned kt^s ch. if. v. 3c. 
 andch. 1^. v. 4 <5. n. andch, 21. v. 17. 18. 
 
 3, The Apoftles did the ordinary ads of Presbyters as Presby- 
 ters in that Churchy rvhich provcth aFresbyteriall (fhurch before the 
 difperfion, Adsch.6, ^Thc 
 
4. Thefeve'all Congregations in J erufalem being one Church , the 
 Elders of chat Church are mentioned, as meeting together for ads 
 of Government, Atls ch. n. v. 30. and ch. 15. v. 4. (. 22. and 
 cb. 21. v. 17. 18. andfo forwards; which proves that the fe fever all 
 Congregations were under one Presbyteriall Government . 
 
 And whether thefe Congregations were fixed or not fixed, in regard 
 of officers or members , it is all one as to the truth of the Propo- 
 fition. 
 
 Nor doth there appear e any material! difference betwixt the fever all 
 Congregations in Jerufalem,<W/7;? many Congregations no\X> in the or- 
 dinary condition of the (fhurch, as to the point offixedneffe in regard of 
 officers or members. 
 
 Therefore the Scripture doth hold forth, that many Congregations 
 may be under one Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 II. Inflame Of the Church of Ephefus; For, 
 
 r. .That there were more t^ongreganions then one in the 
 Church of Ephefus, appeares by Alls ch. 20. ^.31. where is men- 
 tion of Pauls continuance at Ephefus, in preaching for the fpace of three 
 years-, and Ads ch.ip.v.i 8,19,20 Where the ejpeciall effeel oftlx^ord id 
 mentioned, andw, 10. and 17. of the fame chapt% where is a diftintHon of 
 Jew cs and Greeks, and I Cor. ch, 16. V, 8 p. where is areafon of 
 Pauls flay at Ephefus untill Pentecoft, Wv, 19, where ts mention of 
 a particular Church, *«/&* houfe of ssiqnila and Trifcilla then at E- 
 phefus, as appeareth, ch 1 8. v. 1 9. 24. 16* all which layed together do 
 prove that the multitudes of Believers did make more Congrega- 
 tions then one in the Church o£ Ephefus. 
 
 2. That there were many Elders overthefe many Congregations 
 as one flock, appeareth, Ads ch. 20. v. 17.25.28. 30. 7,6. 
 
 3 . That thofe many Congregations were one Church, and that they 
 were under one Presbyteriall Government, appeareth, Rev. ch. 2. 
 thefirftfixverfesjojnedVffith Adsch. 20. 1 7. 28. 
 
 Concordat cum original!. 
 Adoniram "Bj field Scriba. 
 
 The Propositions concerning the Subordination of Af- 
 fcmblies as they were Voted in the Aflembly of Divines. 
 
 •s 
 
 *Ynodicall Affemblies.may lawfully be of fever all for ts,aj Provincial!, 
 Nationally and Oecumenical!. 
 
 It 
 
2 Jt is lawfull and agreeable to the word of God that there be afubordi- 
 nation ofCongregationall, Clafftcall } ProvincUll and National Affem- 
 bhes for the Government of the Church. 
 
 Proof of it, 
 Math. chap. 1 8. holding forth the fub ordination of an of ending 'Brother 
 to a far ttc ftlar Churchy it doth alfoby a parity of Re of on hold forth the 
 fubordination of a Congregation to fuperiour Affemb lies. 
 $Jn the fever all forts of Affemb lies for the Government ofthe£hurch % 
 it is laWfull and agreeable to the word of God that appeals may be from 
 the inferionr to the fuperiour rejpetlively. 
 
 The prooft brought for the fubordination of Affemb lies . proves the 
 lawfulneffe of Appeals from the infer lour to the fuperiour. 
 
 it is agreeable to the light of nature , that he who is Pronged and de- 
 prived of his right by one power , Jbouldhave recourfe to another power, 
 Which mayreftore unto him his Right againe, andrefcind the fentence 
 whereby he Was wronged; elje there would be no poWerfull remedy pro- 
 vided to remove wrong and topreferve Right. 
 
 The Proportion concerning Ordination, ask was voted in the 
 Aflembly of Divines, 
 
 It is very requifite that no fingle Congregation that can conveniently 
 Affociate, do affume to itfelfe all and fole power in Ordination. 
 
 r, *B*caufe there is no example in Scripture , that any fingle Cong-re' 
 gat ion Which might conveniently affociate, did affume to itfelfe all and 
 fole power in ordination^ neither is there a^y rule which may warrant fuch 
 apratlice, 
 
 2. Becaufe there is in Scripture, example of an Ordination in a 7>ref- 
 bytery over divers Congregations ; as in the Church of Jerufalem, 
 where Were many Congregations ; thefe many (Congregations were 
 under one Trefbytery ,[and this Prefbytery did ordain. 
 
 Concordat cum Originali. 
 Adoniram By field Scriba. 
 
 To the firft of thefe. i . The Diffenting Brethren gave in after the 
 debate Reafons againft the Propofition itfelfe. 2. Againft the proofs 
 of the Proportion. 1. From theinftance of the Church of fertf- 
 falem. 2, Ofephefusfm this Order as followeth. 
 
 Rea- 
 
%EASO y^S againft the Third Tropofition , 
 concerning Presbyteriall Government 
 
 and the Principles thereof: vi%. 
 
 The Scripture holds forth, That many particular Congregations 
 may- be under one Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 Humbly preferttcd. 
 
 If many Congregations having all Elders already affixed rejpeflively unto them, may 
 be under a Prefbyteriall Government : Then all thofe Elders mufl fuflaine a fpe- 
 ciall relation of Elders to all the people of thofe Congregations as one Church, and 
 to every one as a Member thereof 
 
 But (or a company offuch Elders already affix ed,&c. to fuftaine fuch a r elation > car- 
 ries Wu a it fo great and manifold incongruities, and inconfiftencies, With What the 
 Scripture jpeaks of Elders in their relation to a Church committed to them, and 
 likewife With the Principles of the Reformed Churches themfelves, as cannot be 
 admitted. 
 
 »/4nd therefore fuch a Government may not be* 
 
 Thefirfi Tropofitibrt. 
 
 Hat according to the Scriptures, fitch a Tresbjteriall govern* 
 ment neceffarily drawes fuch a fpeciall relation > is evinced by 
 parts thus. 
 
 i . They mufl have the relation of Eiders to all and every one 
 of the Members ; for Church and Elders are Relative:. And the 
 Argument for the Presbyteriall government is taken by the 
 Presbyteriall Divines from this, That many (Congregations in 
 Scripture, are made one Church, and the Elders thereof Elders of that Church. 
 
 2. That nlation they have, muft be a more fpeciall relation, as is evident 
 from the praftife and principles of this Government. For when the Congrega- 
 tions in Shires are divided into fe/erall Presbyteries or Deanries , the Elders 
 (though Neighbours) of a bordering Presbyterie, intermeddle not with the 
 Congregations under another Presbyterie,. and yet Neighbour Elders. It is 
 
 B there- 
 
JReafons of the Ditfenting Brethren 
 
 therefore a fpcciall relation puts the difference, that thofe of thefe Presbyteries 
 do judge the Congregations under them, as having a Jpeciall relation to them, 
 fuch as not to other Congregations. 
 
 The minor Proportion. 
 
 For the proof of which, we prefent thefe incongruities as follow. 
 Firft, this breeds many incongruous dlffirop onions to the Order fet by Chrift, 
 about the Officers of the Church. 
 
 1 . To extend a Tafters power of ordinary ruling beyond the extent of his 
 $rdinarj teaching, is againft the order which Chrift hath fet ( and all extent of 
 power muft as well have an Institution of Chrift, as the power or office it felf, 
 the difference of Evangelists and ordinary Taslors lay in extent of power) but 
 the extent of a Paftors ordinary ruling power, is but to that Flock as his whole 
 Flock which he is able to feed. The firft Proportion is confirmed, firft by Scrip- 
 ture; fecondly, by Reafon. 
 
 Firft, by Scripture, AB.io. 28. Take heed to jour [elves, and to all the flock over 
 *ihe which the Holy Ghofi hath made yen Overfeers to feed the flockj)fGod y which he 
 hath purchafed with his own bLud. Whence firft we fee the fpeciall limitation of 
 their extenfive power and revelation \jo aflockj] &[All in thatflockf\ is by the 
 Holy Ghoft\ and not by man, and therefore is not to be extended by man, fur- 
 ther then the Holy Ghoft hath appointed. 
 
 2. The extent of that relation to that flock^, and the whole flockjhey feed, and 
 to feed all that flocks alike. And if they be preaching Elders, then to feed by 
 preaching, and therefore are Overfeers to them to feed them, and this becaufe 
 they feed them. 
 
 3. He fpeaks to preaching Elders efpecially, that feed by doctrine: for he 
 propounds his own example to them, v. 20. That he had revealed the whole coun- 
 felofGod. And Teter feconds Paul in this, 1 Pet.^.i. Feed the fleckjf God which 
 is among you y taking the over fight thereof The flockh vuiv among you : is that flock 
 any of them had relation to a9 his flock rejpectively* Peter here writing unto 
 the Churches in feverall Nations, cku v.i. whereas in e^tf.20.28. the charge is 
 to the particular Elders otEphefw to that whole flock ; therefore that note of 
 reffiectivenejfe is here put lv vytiv among you : that is, that flock which refpe- 
 ftively belongs to you, asColojf. 1. 17. Who uforjouafaithfullMinifter, that 
 is, your proper Paftor : So the flock c* C^v is your feverall proper flocks that 
 belong to you. And hereby it appears that their overfight is not extendible be- 
 yond thek feeding, Thusalfo Hebr. i^ver.j. Remember them that have the 
 rule over you , and have /poken to you the Vcord of God ; which he fpeaks of 
 preaching Elders, and of ruling Elders (of whom he fpeaks, ver. 17. ) obey 
 
 them 
 
concerning Presbyter tall Government ] 
 
 them that have the Ru L E over you % for they Watch for your fouls, M thofe that mufl 
 give an accompt. And whether thefe places note out two fort of Offices, Prea- 
 ching Elders, ver,y, and Ruling Elders, ver.iy. or but one fort, and io but feve- 
 rail acts of the fame Office, however, if but one, yet (fill the ordinary rule over 
 them was not farther extendible then their ordinary preaching « if tiro forts of 
 Officers, they being Officers together in the fame Church, if the Paflors power 
 of ruling extends no farther then his preaching, then the meer ruling Eiders 
 power, (or his that is affiftant to him) muft extend no farther then the Paflors 
 alfo ; this is the natural/ obligation to obedience, and fo is the meafure to fee 
 the bounds of the extent of ordinary Church fewer. Tis one argument ufed 
 againft Epifcopall power, that they are inforced to obey him that fpeaks not 
 the word to them, nor watches over their fouls • And this holds as well againfl: 
 thefe Presbyteriall Officers. When a man to be excommunicated comes before 
 fucli ,if he faies 1 am not bound to obey you in fuch an authoritative way,nor do 
 I owe a fubjeclion as to a power of cenfure in you, for many, yea moft of you, 
 never /pake the word unto me, nor did watch over my foul ; nay, perhaps the 
 man can fay, he never f aw their faces afore. 
 
 And it avails not to fay that they may occafonally preach ; for take two 
 places more, the i Thejf^. 12. fpeaking of respect to their Officers, KnoW them 
 that labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonifbyou : Thefe two 
 labour, and are over you, are commenfurable ; that is, who make it their cal- 
 ling to have a care of you, which the many Paflors and Elders in a common 
 Prcfbytery cannot. And labour, in what ? 1 Tim.i. 17. expounds \t,That labour 
 in word and Dotlrine : The Elders that rule well K are worthy of double honour, 
 eJpeciaHy thofe that labour in the word and Dotlrine. And expound this latter 
 known place, wfether of Teaching Elders only, or ruling and teaching both 
 ( as the Reformed Churches doe ) however it affords this to us ; that the ex- 
 tent of ruling in cither the one or the other, is but as large at teaching : And if 
 it be meant of Teaching Elders only, that both rule and labour in the word and 
 'Dottrine, yet if they be limited in labouring in the Word (as they are being 
 fixed Paftors to their own Congregations,) then in ruling. And if it be meant 
 of ruling Elders ( as diftincT: from them ) yet their ruling is but of the fame ex- 
 tent, that the others labouring in the word is, and that is extended but to one 
 Congregation. 
 
 And fecondly, Reafon is for this ; For in a Paflors Office in which Preaching 
 and Ruling are joyned, yet his power of ruling, flows in him, from, and is the 
 adjunct of his power to preach, and to be fure it is not extendible further ; and 
 however, yet there is the fame proportion of either, and then by juft reafon, the 
 e xte nt of the Church, which is the fubject of his ordinary ruling, cannot be ex- 
 tended larger then what is the ordinary fubject of hi* preaching, and fo tVfe* 
 
 B 2 relations 
 
Reafons of the Diffenttng Brethren 
 
 relations are of equall limits ; If a father hath the power of gowning, at a fa- 
 ther, then it is extendible onely to thofe he is a father to.And that a Paftor hath 
 his ordinary ruling power annexed to his ordinary power of preaching, is pro- - 
 ved by thele reafons. 
 
 Firft, If not upon this ground, thenupon fome other : not by any JpecUll fa- 
 cu'ty and Office, over and above this of Preaching, for then he fhould be ordai- 
 ned a riding Elder over and above his being firft a preaching Elder as a new fa- 
 culty given him ;or by being made a Ruler firft, and then this of preachine &, 
 peradded, as the Bifiops firft made Deacons, then Presbyters. But 
 
 Secondly, zAUthe keyes are given him at once, the keyes of ruling with the 
 keyes of knowledge) the power oftheftaffeintrinfecally followes, his being a 
 Paftor or Shepherd ; and though the one is a power of meer order, namely, 
 that of Preaching, and that of his Ruling be a power of jurifditlion (to be exer- 
 cifed with others and not alonej yet ftill his receiving power to joyne with 
 others in thofe acts of Rule of jurifdiftion is from this his power of Order, and 
 the ordinary extent of his authority thereinjs extendible no farther then his or- 
 dinary call to preach. Yea 
 
 Thirdly, The extent of the power of the Apoftles themfelves, in ruling in all 
 theChurc'hes wis foundeduyon, and extendible with their commilfion to preach 
 in all Churches, and their very call and obligation being not to preach in a fee 
 fixed re!ation,as ordinary Paftors calling is, but to all Churches in all Nations : 
 Hence their power of ruling was anfwerable. It was their very call to be uni- 
 verfall Paftors, and therefore univerfall Rulers ; yea and in reference to thofe 
 that are without, their authority of ruling was narrower, in the extent of it, then 
 of their preaching* The Apoftles might preach to Heathens 3 and their call 
 was fo to doe, to convert them, but they had not powe'rtor*/e*#mcn: 
 What have I to doe to judge them that are Without I But in this way of Presby- 
 teriall Government, though they alfo may occafionally preach where they may 
 not rule, yet the proportion of their ordinary ruling, is extended beyondthe pro- 
 portion of thtir ordinary preaching, which it was not in the Apoftles themfelves. 
 
 Secondly, It breeds an incongruous diffiroportion between the Offices of Ru- 
 ling and Preaching Elders compared among themfelves, for this Government 
 makes this Extent of the Ruling Elders office and relation,to be larger then that 
 of their Teachers or Paftors ; for the Paftor, qua Paftor, is limited to his particu- 
 lar Congregation he is fixed to,for the ordinary performance of his officers the 
 Deacons alio are ; but the Ruling Elders Office, qua Ruling Elder, is exten- 
 ded over all thefe Congregations in this Presbyterie. The Ruling Elder per- 
 formes his office in the higheft perfetlion of it, as to admonifh, excommunicate 
 in all thefe Churches^but the Paftors are limited in the higheft work of their 
 
 Callings, 
 
concerning Presbjteriall Government. 
 
 Callings,(Preaching being more excellent then RvI.ing,yc2L then Baptizing is) mh 
 to one Congregation ; Thu in the firft Epiftle to Tim* chap.$. v.ij. ( interpret 
 it as yi;u willj juftifies this. 
 
 Thirdly, ]t perverts the order and diftintthn of Teaching Elder x, and meer 
 Rttlmg Elders (as the Reformed Churches call them) or Church Govemours 
 ( as the Aflembly ) That whereas Chrift hath made fome Teaching Elders, and 
 fame Ruling Elders, and thefe diflintl'm this, that the Treaching Elders Of- 
 fice is to preach and rule , the Ruling Elders Office only to rule : this frame of 
 Presbyteridl government, makes one perfon, not only to do both thefe works, 
 (which in a particular Congregation every Paftor doth) but formally to beare 
 both thofe Offices, in refpccl: of a double relation he doth fuftein, namely, of a 
 ^Paftor, to be a Preaching Elder to the Congregation where he is fixed, and a 
 meer ruling Elder to the reft of the Congregations of the Clafficall Church : 
 for it is demanded, when a Paftor in a particular Congregation is in this com- 
 mon Presbytery, what fort of Officer he is to that Presbyteriall Church > An 
 Elderhe is, becaufe he doth the work of an Elder ; A Teaching Elder to that 
 Church he is not, for to that whole Church he labours not in the word and Do- 
 clrine. Timothy, Epift.i. ch.f. v. 1 7. Therefore a meer ruling Elder he mud be, 
 and fo the fame man bears two forts of Offices, and by this means there arc 
 ffto forts of meer ruling Elders: whereas in a particular Congregation, a Pa- 
 ftor though he rules, yet he ruleth as a Paftor to that Congregation. And this 
 diforder and confufion is further fct out, in that, by this means the fame Of- 
 ficer hath ifutl relation to ->e Church, and but half a relation to another, and 
 caufeth him to perform the whole of his Office to one Church {the particular 
 Church he hath relation to ) and but the half thereof to the other. 
 
 Fourthly, It makes an incongruous di/proportion between the Extent of the 
 relation of thofe two Offices of flders and Deacons unto a Church. If the 
 Scriptures had intended many Churches making one Church, and the Elders 
 of thofe many Churches to have been Elders in common to thofe Churches as 
 one Church, then in like manner the Beacons of all thofe Churches fhould 
 make up a common Deaconry , and be Deacon* in common unto all thofe 
 Churches in an ordinary way as the other are Elders : But this is contrary to 
 the pra&ife of the Reformed Churches, though fubjed to the Presbyteriall Go- 
 vernment, in which the Deacons have the ordinary relation of Deacons in no 
 rcfp: j cft extended further then to a particular Congregation, nor do they ex- 
 ercife Ads of that Office in an ordinary way to 0f/;rr"Congregations, nor o- 
 therwife to neighbour Congregations then to any other ; much leflfc is there a 
 ctmmon Deaconfbio of them all. And why fhould not the later be creeled over 
 alhhofe Churches as one Church, as well as a common Elder/hip? efpeciaily 
 
 B3 if 
 
6 Retfons of the Diverting Brethren 
 
 if in matters of this nature, par ratio fhould carry it ; every Church, qu% 
 Church, bein^ a body, hath a relation to all its Officers as Organicall members 
 thereof; So Rom 12. and the 4. And the Apoftle writing to Thilippi, a Church 
 in a City, he writes to the Bilhops \jhe Elder s~\ and the Beacons as both *« 
 like Officers of that Church . And <tAc~ls 6. The Deacons of the Church 
 offcrufalem (if there were many Congregations as our brethren fuppofe) were 
 chofen by the whole multitude when gathered together by the twelve. And 
 therefore were Deacons of the whole Church as well as the Elders, Elders 
 thereof. Now if the Deacons Office fhould thus be extended to all the Con- 
 gregations as the Elders is, then why fhould not each Church be bound to bring 
 contributions to the Deacons of each Church, and to be diftributed in com- 
 mon ? and fo our purfes fhould be fubjed to the Deacons in common, as far as 
 our pcrfons to the Elders in eommon, and they might challenge the fame power 
 in their Office over the one, that the Elders do over the other • and then alfo 
 txb Congregation were in inordinary and (landing obligation -bound to re- 
 lieve all the Poor in thofe Churches, as well as thofe in their own Parifhes, not 
 only by the common law of Charity, but by vertue of Jpeciall relation of their 
 being one Church, which relation in all thefe things, doth beget the like Obli- 
 gation that it doth in government ; and fo all things of this nature fhould be a- 
 like common to all and each, and there fhould be a common Treafury for this 
 one great Diaconat Church, as we may in a paralel alluiion to that other name 
 of Pre/by teriall, call it. 
 jj A fecond head of Incongruities, and Inconfiftencies which will follow upon 
 
 it, are in the mutuall duties required, and that doe neceltarily follow upon this 
 ftanding relation for a conftant government of thefe Slders to all this people of 
 thefe Churches, and of the people to thefe Elders* 
 
 i . From the People to all thefe Slders. According unto what the Scripture 
 fpeaks of, as due to ftanding Slders, they owe at leaft honour and efteem ; 
 yea, maintenance to all their Elders, whether thofe that ordinarily rule them 
 or preach to them ; and they owe it for both, 1 Tim. chap. 5. v. iji.de 1 8. Let 
 the Elders that rule well, be counted Worthy of double honour, especially thofe 
 that labour in the word and Dotlrine. Which honour is exprefled by the Ana- 
 logy of that law, ver. 18. notito mujleup the mouth of the Oxe that treadeth 
 out the come. And this is certainly due to Elders, for all, that is the work^ 
 of Slders, whether performed apart, or together, by way of jurifdiction in 
 a Prejbytery ; And it cannot be denied, but that their constant ruling as m 
 the Prejbytery , is one great part of the Vcorke of Sixers , and fo muft be 
 here intended, for which an esfeciall honour is due. And as they are to feed all 
 and every one in the flocks, as as4l~ls 20. ver. 28. fo 'maintenance and honour is 
 due from all people to all and every one of thefe Slders, as well to thofe 
 
 that 
 
concerning Presbyter rail Government. 
 
 that rule, as thofe that labour in the Word and Doctrine. And in rcafon, \i the 
 Elders that rule wefi (and performe the lefTer acts of ruling) in their partU 
 cular Congregations, and the Prcfbyteries thereof are to have this honour ia 
 their relations, then all thofe Elders that rule well in the common 7-refbytery 
 ( and perform the greateft acts of ruling) are to have the like from all that 
 (flafficall Church ; the emphafis being put upon ruling uv//, and in thofe acts 
 done by them the excellency of ruling confifteth, and the precept is not to ho- 
 nour Prefbyteries in fome abftract notion, but Elders : becaufc the particular 
 perfons of the Elders are to be the object of it, and thofe molt who excell mod: 
 in that rule, that rule well or beft ; but when there are many Congregations 
 that have their proper fixed Taftors and Elders whom they maintain for per- 
 forming one part of the Elders workX for they perform but one part of it) 
 how fhall they perform this due to all the reft for that other fart of it ? and it 
 is due from every perfon as he is able, or he cannot perform his duty. How bur- 
 thenfome, how confufed would this be ? And then how to proportion this, 
 fuppofe it fliould not be maintenance ', but honour and efteem, this people will 
 not be able to judge • not only for that they cannot be prefent at their work, 
 and fo cannot judge of it -, but becaufe either it muft be proportioned to them 
 zsconflant Preaching Elders, or as Ruling ; not as to Preaching Elders, for they 
 labour not to them asfuch ; (the ground upon which it is required is, That they 
 tread out their Corn) and to honour and efteem them as Ruling Elders only, were 
 to honour Preaching Elders below the rank and degree of their Office. So 
 
 Secondly, It brings the like Incongruities upon the performance of thofe 
 duties of Elders, which the 2(eW Teftament indifferently requires of all thofe 
 that it acknowledgeth to be Elders unto a people, and therefore no fuch con* 
 ftant relatim of Elders to fo many (fhurehes may be. As firft, ^Praying with 
 the fick, Send for the Elders of the. Church to pray for them, fam. chap. 5 . ver.iq. 
 What, are thefe Elders of a Presbyteriall Church bound hereto ? this duty lies 
 in common upon Elders of Churches, and how fhall we diftinftuifri when the 
 Scripture doth not / Secondly, Vifitingfrom houfe to koufe, as Paul in his ex- 
 ample indrafts the Elders of Ephefw, <tAtlxh. 20. v.20. Thirdly, Watching 
 over mens fouls, at thofe that mufi give accompt, Hebr. chap. 1 3 . ver. 1 7. To 
 watch, is not to ftay till caufes are brought by appeals or fo, from the Con- 
 gregations, but perfonally to obferve and overfee them, as fouls committed to 
 them, which they muft give an accompt for. Fourthly, of Preaching, (if Plea- 
 ching Elders ) infeafon and out offeafon. The Bifhops, they faid the flock was 
 theirs,and the whole care committed to them : and to falve the incongruity of 
 not being able to preach themfelves to them, they profeffed a derivative dele- 
 gated power to inferior Paftors, whom they called their Curat s. This was plain 
 dealing: but thefe Elders make all the ^hole flocks theirs and this from thofe 
 
 Scriptures 
 
§ Reafons of the Dlffenttng Brethren 
 
 Scriptures 'that fpeak of Elders and pcl^, and themfelves not jurats, and (o 
 perfonally obliged according to the rules in Scripture, and yet cannot performe 
 ir, which is a Worfe Incongruitie. 
 
 If k be laid, that they may fart thefe duties among them. 
 
 Vbi Script ura non diflinguit, ntc nos deb emus difiinguere. Now all thofe duties 
 that are fpoken of Eiders to the flecks, they are without diftinclion,3s in refpe<$ 
 of the object to whom they are extended. Tout faith to thofe of Ephe f w,Teedthe 
 flocks Peter the like to thofe he w rites to The Flock^ , <* uV" refpe&i vely , To feed 
 and to take the o verfght of them. The author to the Hebrewes, To watch over their 
 fouls; And to the Thejfalonians, he defcribes them to be thofe that are over them t 
 & labour and admonifh them. When thofe Injunctions are thus laid upon ^//,how 
 fhall the conferences of Elders be able to part and diftinguifh their difchargc of 
 them, and to fay, Though I am an Elder in common to all in thefe Congrega- 
 tions, yet I am bound but to governe them in greater matters, and to admonifh 
 them as with others, when publicly met in a. Confiftorie, and am bound to no 
 other alls of Elder (bip ; and yet to this particular Congregation, I am obliged 
 to private admonition, rule, watchfulnejfe, &c. Where hath the Scripture fee 
 thefe bounds, or thus parted them } And therefore certainly all thefe places 
 hold forth fingly, only the Elders and v their duties of a particular Church fixed 
 thereto, as knowing no other : 'Twas neceflary Chritt fhould have fet the 
 bounds and given the diftinction, and not indifferently lay all thefe upon all. 
 And either in thefe places the duties of Elders in a common Presbyterie arc 
 contained, and that under the notion of Elders to thofe, or they are not to be 
 found in the New Teftament. And all thefe may be brought in fever al Arguments 
 alone by themfelves againft the main Proportion, though here they come in onely as 
 branches of the minor. 
 III. Laftly, This is inconfftent with the ordinary way of the Call of Elders held 
 
 forth in the word, and the Principles of the Reformed Churches. 
 
 There are two parts of this Call. Firft, Choice. Secondly, Ordination. 
 
 Firft for Choice, Chamier in the name of all the Reformed Churches, allowes 
 the people this , the approbation of their Elders, and fo in Scotland. And if the 
 zApoftles themfelves allowed them the choice of the Deacons, that had the 
 charge of the Church treafury/& took care of their bodies; then much more of 
 their Elders that have to doe with their conjeiences. Looke what ever the rivht 
 of 'the people is in the choice of them that fhould preach to them, there is as 
 much reafonthey fhould. have theexcrcife ofitinthe choice of thofe Elders 
 that in a common Preshyterie doe rule over them, for they perform one part of 
 the Elders duty, namely Ruling,** the ^Preaching Elders do the other ; and there- 
 fore by the equity of the fame law, that fpeakes of Eiders indefinitely, if they 
 choofe any Elders as Elders to them, they are to choofe thefe alfo, there being 
 
 no 
 
concerning Vresbyteriall Go vernwent. 
 
 no diftin&ion put of chufing Preaching Elders onely , but Elders indefinitely : 
 And further, the greateft and higheft acls of power over them , are committed 
 in an ordinary way unto them, as of Excommunication , of all punifhments the 
 mod formidable : there is put as much, if not more then every mans life(that is 
 a member of that Clafficali Church J into their hands , the enjoyment ofallOrd'r- 
 nancesfor ever : And fo the power of depofing their Minifters already nYd to 
 them, and oirefuftng toordaine thcm,they {hall approve : And therefore in anti- 
 quity, of all othjr the perfons of the TSifhops, who had the power of ail thofe, 
 were chofen by ail the people, and by Panegyricall meetings. 
 
 And it is ftrengthened by this further parallel : A Minifters Call hath two 
 part i : firft, Ordination, which belongs to the Elders Secondiy,C/.^;7r, m which 
 the peoplchwc fome intereft : Thele Elders , as Elders in common, and thefe 
 Congregations as one Churchbe. relatives , and fo that intereft which a Church, 
 quJi Church hath, is commenfurable to the intereft of thefe Elders , qua Elders : 
 If therefore in ordaining,i\\ the Elders in a common Presbytery, do joyne to or- 
 dain an Officer, then all the people, qua Church , mud: j'oyn in chufing or appro- 
 ving him : neither can their common right of chufing be fw allowed up by the 
 intereft of their Elders ordaining him. 
 
 And if it be faid they allchufe by venue of the general! La\V of combination y as the 
 Shires ^Parliament men. The conftitution of the State makes the one; if t.he like 
 be found in Scripture it will be fufficient : but if not , but that this intereft muft 
 be common to the people of the Claflicall Church, it is asked , when a fix'd Pa- 
 ftor is to be chofen to a particular charge , Vehat Office he Jball be chofen to by the 
 people of the other Congregations ? Not to a Paftors Office, he is not to be fuch to 
 them ; if to be a ruling Elder onely, then, befides that he hath two Offices ( as 
 afore ) fo now he muft have two choices , and two Ordinations : We chufe him 
 for our ? aft or , faies the particular Church he belongs to : and we, fay the other, to 
 Ru r ing. And befides, in his Ordination , the people have an intereft ofprefence 
 and joyning in the fading and prayer at his Ordination : and this therefore muft 
 be performed, either in a panegyricall meeting of all., ( which cannot be ) or in 
 all the feverall Churches, which will multiply the Ordination of them. 
 
 The Ma\or Propofttion confirmed, 
 
 IN regard that the main Argumentation of fuch as contend for a Presbyteriall 
 Government (as in their writings and otherwayes appearesj is from the 
 mention of the Elders of fuch and fuch a Church ( zs,ferufalem, &c) having 
 many Congregations ( as they fuppofe.) The confequence of the Major was taken 
 fo much ror granted as on all (ides agreed on , as it was lefle infifted upon the 
 prft day ; but being denyed and anfwered thus , that they beare not the relation 
 
 C of 
 
Reafons of the Differing Brethren 
 
 ofElders> but of a Prefbytery , becaufe, quodconvenit toti qua toti, nort convenit 
 cuilibet parti; And that if Elder s,ytvin fenfu compofito non divifo, As a Qolonell is 
 a Colonell to a particular Regiment, but in a C ouncell of War ,not fo tc all Regiment si 
 A head of a particular Tribe is an head to hi^s own Tribe divifively, but not fo to all 
 the Tribes ; and the like* 
 
 For that Logicall Axiome : Tis true, quod convenit toti qua toti,non convenit 
 cuilibet parti : and fo here, that which doth competere toti, to the whole of thefe 
 Elders, be 1 ongs nor to every part ; for take them all as met together, they are 
 a Trefbytcry^nd accordingly each Elder is not a "Prefbytery to all thefe Congre- 
 gations, nor doth the Argument fuppofe it , but onely that if they be a common 
 prefbytery to all thefe Congregations,that they then bear the relation of Elders- 
 As take an heap of (tones, 'tis true, each ftone is not an heap of ftones, but each 
 ftone is a ftone in that heap. So this Company of Elders, muft be fuppofed both 
 a ^Prefbytery, and alfo Elders to this whole people and every member of them : 
 which is farther proved thus ; 
 
 iv The Scriptures would have the people look^at them and honour them as 
 Elders in all acls of Ruling as well as in ^Preaching , and efpecially wherein the 
 moil: and chief of ruling lies, and wherein the excellency of their ruling is feen ; 
 They rule 020/? and befi when met in this common Prefbytery : upon that rela- 
 tion we are to honour them, as performing this rule , and under that relation 
 they muft be faid to perform it : The Elders that rule well^ are worthy of double 
 honour, efpecially thofe that labour in the Word and "DoUrine, Tim» 5*17. And be- 
 (ides, otherwife we deftroy the relation of Elders , qua Elders, in the higheft 
 acls of governing, which are exercifedonly in a Prefbytery. 
 
 2. Ihe Ne\\> Teftament doth indifferently and promifcuoufly ufe the Word 
 Prefbytery , and the word Elders , of the fame perfons in relation to the fame 
 people ; and therefore to whom thefe Elders are fuppofed to be a Prefbytery, 
 they muft bear the relation of Elders, Mat. 2U 23. thofe that are called Elders 
 cf *the people yare called, Luke 22. ®fiz<r@uTi?iov t«" A*»', the Prefbytery of the people : 
 Jo as if they related as a Prefbytery to the people, to the fame people they rela- 
 ted as Elders* 
 
 Secondly , For that diftin&ion of their being Elders onely in a community to 
 all thofe Congregations as one Church, infenfu aggregato , but not infenfu divi- 
 fo, to every perfon thereof, as was inftanced in "Burgeffes, &c. Firft, This Church 
 as it is totum aggregatum, is but an abftraft notion , but the rule and government 
 of the Elders in a prefbytery, fal's upon perfons in particular , and every mem- 
 ber of that Church; if therefore they be Elders in the "Prefbytery to that Church, 
 k muft be that they are Elders to every perfon therein. Again , it Jfluft be re- 
 fiiembred where we are namely upon Vvhat the Scriptures holdforth^ fo the Pro- 
 portion runneth. And if there had been thofe differing relations of Elders, 
 
 ( which 
 
concerning Vresbyteriall Government. 
 
 ( which from thofe fimilitudes in Common-wealths, Armies, and the Universi- 
 ties are given ) it were neceffary the Scripture fhould have held it forth by like 
 differing names and rc(pe£ls>ox by differing charges jwhcteby it might appear that 
 this relation obligetruhem to this duty, and this other relation to that, which 
 being not done is therefore to us afittion, That it was neceffary appeares from 
 the inftanccs rhemfelves , As in that of the Tribes , there were genera/I Elders 
 of all the Tribes, and there were (and perhaps fome of them the fame men) that 
 were Heads and Elders of the particular Tribes. But as this was a differing rela- 
 tion and refpecT in the fame , or divers perfons , fo they had names and titles of 
 difference and diftindion : For the Heads gener all ( as we may call them ) were 
 called Elders of the people, The particular Elders of particular Tribes, were cal- 
 led by the way of distinction from them ,Elders of fitch Cities, Families, &c . And 
 there were as diftincT lawes given in fuch cafes. The Elders of tne feverall Tribes 
 did fuch zndfuch particulars in their Tribes r effectively, and the gener all Elders 
 had refer ved cafes of Blaffhemy, &c. fet down by the Law. So in that inftance 
 of the Heads of Colledges, and Heads of the Vniverfty, there is as a differing, fo 
 a diftinguifhing Character : the names are changed , the particular bodies arc 
 called Colledges, ^e gener aRbod^ the Vniverfity,md their feverallfpeciall rela- 
 tions to their Colledges is expreffed by the Title of M afters of Tuch and fuch 
 Colledges, and the other by the title of 'Heads to the Univerfity. Yea, and ac- 
 cordingly there are differing ft at ute s, the /^//ftatutes for each Colledge a-p art. 
 or for Colledges as Colledges , and the duties of Mafters in their fpeciall relati- 
 ons :and there are (tatutes for the Vniverftt ie and their duties as Heads there- 
 of : and this diftincTion and difference was neceffary , if there were this diffe- 
 ring relation. But for the cafe in hand, if we come to the New Teftament to 
 find out thefe faetzWjurisdittions and Relations of Elders , therein we frill read 
 but limply and (ingly Elders and Churches as Relatives, no fuch note of diftinUi- 
 on. And alfo fpeaking of the duties of Elders to the people , and people to Elders^ 
 it fpeakes (imularly and univocally : fo as whoever will Cake upon them to be 
 Elders, all thofe duties fall upon them, let them diftinguifh how they can. And 
 to confirm this , the inftances in the Minor ferve, And where the Scripture doth 
 not diftinguifh, we are not to diftinguifh. And if the Elders of a particular Con- 
 gregation are Elders to that Church , both infenfu divifo 3 and every member 
 thereof, and alfo infenfu compofito , in their Pre/by teries unto the whole ; then 
 thofe gener all Elder svnnfk.be^e the like relation to that Clajjicall Church and 
 every Member of it ; elfe the difference is fo vaft , and the confequent difference 
 of duties thereupon depending fuch, as it was neceflary a diftinfiion fhould 
 have been made in Scripture, that each might kno\\> their duties. 
 
 If all the Records, LaVces, and Ruled cafes of this Khgdome, (liould in fating 
 down the ordinary government thereof, have made mention onely and lingly of 
 
 C z Eurgcffei 
 
Exceptions to the p roofs 
 
 burgeffes (as the Rulers'; ard of Corporations (as the Correlate to them) and u* 
 fed no other diftinguifhing word; and there were undeniably Burgeffes of every 
 Incorporate Town continued from antiquity : if any would afterwards pre- 
 tend that this word Corporation was intended by our Anceftors to import an 
 <*s4ffociationox. Community of many of thefe Corporations into one Shire , and 
 that by 'Burgeffes of thofe Corporations were meant a community of all chofe 
 Burgeffes in one body for Government , and fo pretend the fame names w.thout 
 diftlncYion, and lay they were alfo meant : yea, and further , if the Lawes and 
 Charters concerning fuch Burgefles in each Corporation , the duties given them 
 in charge by the Law . in their relations to their Corporations , did run without 
 any diftinElion of what the Burgefles in the fw^okA greater Corporation fhould 
 do in that relation and community , from what the fame Burgefles in their leffer 
 Corporations in a more proper relation do : Yea,and if the Duties fet down in 
 thofe Lawes mutually between Corporations, and thofe Burgefles friould argue 
 an inconjiftency with the government of Burgefles over many Corporations in 
 common ( as the minor here (he we? it to be in our cafe ) but all naturally fall in 
 with that ofBurgefies over finale Corporations : In this cafe to fay that there- 
 fore this KingAome did hold forth, there might not be ( that is , according to the 
 lawes thereof ) fuch a government of the Burgeffe of Corporations over manyCor- 
 porations , were not this a right way of arguing to overthrow fuch a pre- 
 tence t 
 
 And ifin anfiver to fuch arguments it fho'ild be faid, that both thefe might 
 be confident : For, that in forein States ; and Kingdomes, and Societies, there 
 are Buraeffes of particular Corporations , and there are "Burgeffes in an <*Affem- 
 bh of parliament ( fo called by way of diftinCtion ) met in common , for the or- 
 dinary government of all thofe Corporations in common, and therefore the like 
 may be here in this. The reply were eafie, that what ever fuch diftin&ion there 
 is in other States, yet the queftion is of fuch EurgefTes as the Lawes of thu 
 State hold forth, the queftion is of fuch Burgeffes zsthU Kingdom hath fet 
 up where there is no diftinBion of 'Burgeffes of Corporations, and Burgeffes inPar- 
 liament mentioned. But on the contrary onely, one Jingle uniform ftile and title 
 in the Lawes, namely, 'Burgeffes of the Corporation and duties fuited thereunto* 
 Now parallel to this cafe are our Arguments, and the Anfwers given thereto. 
 
 Laftly, if they be Elders onely infenfu aggregator yet fo farre as they are ac- 
 knowledged thus Elders , fo far will many of the incongruities in the Minor fol- 
 low them, and fa 1 upon them , as that (till they are but meerely Ruling Elders, 
 ami that there be Deacons infenfu aggregator 
 
 Reafons 
 
from the Church ofjerufatew. 
 
 Reasons againft, and Exceptions to the firft proofe of 
 thcFiKST Assertion, viz,. 
 
 7 hat the Church of]emCdkn)Con/ifijhofwore CsngyegiUom then. 
 one, ftofcihe multitude of Beleevers, 
 
 I^Irft, Rcafuns to fliew there rvere not more then could meet in one place. 
 The Holy Ghoft hath from firft to laft as on purpofe (hewed this , as if 
 his fcope had beeri aforehand to prevent and to preclude all reafonings to the 
 contrary. 
 
 i. In the beginnings of that Church, their meetings are let out to us by two 
 Adjuncts. Firft, that they met o % ao9u 4 u*/oi', with one accord in the fame duty of 
 prayer, ±ABs I. 14* And fecondly, \-m ri euJri y together in one and the fame com- 
 pany, ver.i$, Which therefore is there and ufually tranilated in one place. And 
 that here by thefe words the intent of the Holy Ghoft is to fhew their meeting 
 in one and the fame Aftembly, is evident. For whereas in the 1 5. verfe \\s faid 
 Peter flood up in the midft of them , ( as therefore being prefent together in one 
 company) he adds, And the number of them that were \m-j£auiij that ispr^tff 
 together in company , were an hundred and twenty. 
 
 2. Then ch.2. v. 1. Another meeting of theirs for worfhip at Pentecofl is con- 
 tinued to be exprefTed in the fame phrafes a fecond time , They were ail with one 
 accord in one place. 
 
 3. Then, when about three thoufand , yet RiWfome of their meetings then for 
 fome a&s of worfhip are recorded to have been as before with one accord , as 
 joyning unanimoufly in the fame duty , and in ftead of that former exprefllon 
 \-m rl aurb f ufed of the formes meetings)there is the mention of the place it felf, 
 where they met , fet down to fupply it , and fo to interpret it , and ftiews it 
 was (till in one Affembly , verf 46. They continued daily with one accord In 
 The Temple, as mentioning the very place where they had their moft fre- 
 quent meetings which were for bearing, as being there altogether in one zAf- 
 fembly ; and not as comming thither only for Jewifh worfhip : for it is faid of 
 thefe as of the former meetings mentioned , which were proper to-tliemfelvesj 
 That they continued With one accord. And though they held thefe meetings in 
 this place for preaching, that the Jews might be prefent to hear, &c. Yet that 
 hindred not , but it was a (fhurch meeting to them ; wherein they continued 
 mth one accord ; which expreffion is ftill uCed of all their Chriitian meetings 
 throughout this Story, Atls 1,14. & 4. 24. & 5. 1 2. &. 1 5 . 25. 
 
 C 3 4, Wheg 
 
Exceptions of the proofs 
 
 4, When there was a farther addition to thefe, Chap. 5. Verfe r , ( whether to 
 five thoafand or no, is fpoken to afterwards ) yet in that Chapter, he making a 
 defcription of their State,in almoft all the very fame particulars by which he had 
 done it before, Chap. ?. from Verfe 43* unto the end ( as by the' parallel com- 
 paring of thefe two parages of the Story will appear ; ) helaftly fpeakingof 
 a meeting of theirs ( which is the point in hand ) as carefully puts in, as in the 
 former. Verfe 14. And they were All With one accord in Solomons Porch , the 
 fame words he had ufed Chap. 2. Verfe 46. Their union and joyning together 
 with one accord being carefully indigitated , and the place named in ftead of 
 \m to 'jjjt'q, as was obferved before. And that the [_Allthat mef\ were not the 
 Avoftles only , appears not only by the forementioned parallel of this with 
 Chap. 2. Verfe 46. where their being with one accord in the Temple , is fpoken 
 of all the multitude, and fo here. But fecondly, that all the Apoflles fhould be 
 met with one accord in any duty, and not the people who are faid to continue in the 
 apoflles Dotlrine and Prayer, and h{u>$vuaJb'v ( or With one accord) ftill in the 
 ftoryof this Church referring to communion in fome holy duty , as Chap. 1. 
 Verfe 14. and Chap. 4, Verfe 24, is moft unlikely. And Solomons Porch was a 
 place large enough to hold them, and fitted for preaching and to hear, which in 
 fobn i o. Verfe 22. is called the Temple ; and fo is the place intended in Alls 2. 
 Verfe 46. The) met in the Temple, that is, in the Porch of Solomon, It was the 
 outer Court , as fofephus lib. 20. cap, 8. It was the place where Christ 
 ufed to Walking preach, and the Apoflles alfo, chap. }. v. 1 *, The multitude ran 
 to Solomons Porch. 
 
 5. When again upon mention of this multiplication of Difciples, the Dea- 
 cons mo. to be chofen, the Apoflles called the multltude,chap. 6. v. 2. and not per- 
 fons felecled , but all; for v. 5. they are called \jhe whole multitude^ and they 
 are fpoken to, as together, For the faying pleafed Q the whole^ and the [wholeji 
 chofe fcven men out from among them , andfet them before the apoflles, ver. 6. 
 as being in one place together , andthey prayed ( in which the multitude had an 
 intereft to joyne with them ) and laid on them hands. And this meeting was 
 certainly a (fhurch meeting , and yet ftill in fome one place ; and therefore 
 though it might fall out that alwayes they fhould not have met together in one, 
 yet they both did and could. 
 
 6. zAfter that great difperfion mentioned, chap. 8. v, 1. Then as they might 
 more conveniently meet in one place and affembly , fo that they did fo , it is as 
 carefully recorded , that fo the Holy Ghoft might hold forth this from the 
 firft unto the lafi mention of this Church, Aft. 15. AEl. 21. 22* The multitude 
 muft needs come together. And to interpret ouoQv^uicfSy ; or with one accord , 
 which the Holy ghaft carries through all, to be intended of the joyning of the 
 fame perfons in the fame ad: of worfhip ( for which they ftill did meet) 
 
 is 
 
from the Churches of Jervfakm. 1 ; 
 
 is genuine; for ic imports that which U the fpirit and life of publickjworfbip, which 
 of all other actions done by a multitude , is to have the neareft union of jpirits , 
 as that wherein the Communion of Saints in worjhip conjifis. And then naming 
 the place where they metalfo,it muft needs import Oneneffe of Affcmbly which 
 alio holds forth in this example this duty : That as Saints when met in worjhip 
 fhould joyn with one accord, fo living in a place together, fhould as farre as pof- 
 fibly may, joyn themfelves to one zslftembly : and this carries with it fuch an ap- 
 pearance as is not in the other fenfe. And that the Holy Ghoft fhould in the 
 fameftory of the fame Church fet forth the unity of their firfb meetings, as in 
 one and the fame individual! zAffembly, by this exprefllon of being in one , and 
 with one accord^ Aft. i . ?. and in the next mention not far off , carry along one 
 of the fame exprellions, nameiy [with one ace or d^\ and together therewith fhall 
 name the place of their meeting , and yet in the latter intend not One , but 
 meetings in feverall companies in that place , This we humbly fubmit to bet- 
 ter judgements. 
 
 Secondly y Exceptions. 
 
 i. For the mention of five thou fand , Chap. 4. Verfe 4. This cannot be 
 evinced from that place that the five thoufand were a new number added 
 to the three thoufand. The words are thefe , Hovcbeit many of them that 
 heard the tyord , bcleeved ; and the number of the men ^as about five thou- 
 fand. But that this number of five thoufand fhould refer to them that be- 
 lieved , is not certain; feeing both the Greek will bear it and favour it, as 
 well to be meant of the number that heard, as of the men that belecved ; 
 and of the two, that former is the more probable , that he fhould fay of the 
 men that heard they were five thoufand, and that of them that heard many 
 beleeved, this founds well , and is no way forced ; but five thoufand men to 
 be converted at once , is that which was never afore nor fince. And the 
 great conversion that our Divines have inftanced in , is the three thoufand, 
 ^ABs Chapter 2. and not in this five thoufand* And if the fcope of the Holy 
 ghoft therein , why the number of the men that heard fhould be here recko- 
 ned to be five thoufand, be asked after , it was to fhew what had occafioned 
 the perfecution , which he had fpoken of , in the Verfe before. Namely this, 
 that fuch a multitude of the people fhould be taught and preached to ; this • 
 fretted the Pharifees that came upon Teter and fohn; and with this agrees Bl ,^- in 
 the fecond Verfe , that they were grieved they taught the people , the eftedl j cor.i 
 whereof is , that many of them that heard belcevei , notwithftanding this i|- S/q 
 perfecution ; but how many of thefe is not cer-taine. And 'Bexa and Calvin f ^• , 
 
 and c:ifhlh ' 
 
Exceptions to the proofs 
 
 and many others of our proteftant Writers judge this number not to bt of tint 
 new acceffion of Converts , but the tot all number including the former ; and 
 the wfyvv although tranflated men , is when put alone ( asthere ) all one with 
 dM9grj?wv 9 Females as well as Males ; which efpecially maybe fo taken, be- 
 caufe it is fpoken of fuch a promifenom auditory. And if any fhoul • affirme it 
 meant of Males onely, and them now converted , it would make a greater 
 Hiiracie then any other recorded , efpecially when the people are faid to be con- 
 verted verfe 2. that did alike run to fee the Miracle. 
 
 2. Exception is , That it may be fuppofed that all that are mentioned to be 
 converted, remained not conftant Members of that Church abiding at Jerufalem 
 untill the difperfion ; and fo, though the Holy Ghofts fcope may be to {hew the 
 increafe of Converts to the faith, yet not of fuch ai continued all that while at 9e~ 
 rufalcm ; and our reafons for that are thefe. 
 
 Yix[\ 9 ihok three thoufand who were converted, Ch. 2 were not fettled dwel- 
 lers at Jerufalem , but ftrangcrs , Commorants of the ten Tribes , which were 
 d'ljperfed in all thofe Countries mentioned in the 2. Chap, Verfe o. who came 
 up to the feafl of Tentecofi, as the manner of the Jews was. ABs 21. 20, 27, 28. 
 Jews that l'ved in *Ajia, came to the feaft of Pentecoft as Paul alfo did , com- 
 pared with AUs 20. 16. And the word which is tranflated "Dwellers at feru* 
 falem, is interpreted by an eminent Critick , Sojourners at ferufalem during this 
 Feaft, (although the word fignifies both) & to that end he quotes the Septuagint 
 * in 1 Kings 17. 20. where Elijah cries unto the Lord, faying, Lordmj Cjod 9 haft 
 thou alfo brought evill upon the Widorv 9 ya^ vflyf k&toixju with whom Ifojoume 
 onely ? and that which confirmes it is , that they are faid to be dwellers or inha- 
 bitants of Mefopotamia and Judea, and Cappadocia 9 Verf. 9. They could not fix ~ 
 edly belong as dwellers to both. They were therefore r&ther fojourners in ferufa- 
 lem now at the Feaft, though fixed dwellers in all thofe places : For if they were 
 fixed dwellers in ferufalem , to what end whilft they were at Jerufalem fhould 
 the Svangelift tell us they w ere fo jour vers in Mefopotamia 1 . and. they muft needs 
 rather be dwellers there,becaufe they are faid to underftand every one his own lan~ 
 guage.hnd that which ftrengthens this is^hat in the Greek there is this difference 
 in the words in verfes 5 and 9. in that they are faid wtqiymv iv hpv<m\^ in Hie- 
 rufalem 9 as for the prefent there: yea, and as to come , £W TrwnWi^^ from 
 out of every Nation : but in the ninth Verfe he changeth it, and fayes, woiK*v7*g 
 iviv itew<s>QTttt*4*v as inhahiters of Mefopotamia 9 and thofe other Countries where 
 their fixed poftejfions were. And therefore verfe 1 4. he cals them Men 9 Jews 
 and Dwellers at Jerusalem, as two forts; and v. 22. Men of 1 frae I , the 
 flile given thofe of the ten Tribes Scattered; Men devout , as Verfe 5 * who came 
 up at thofe folemne times, having wives and children and their families at home, 
 to whom they ufed after a time to returne. Now although thefe were added 
 
 and 
 
f rem the Church pfferufalcm. 
 
 and made members of that Church, and are faid to continue in the *A- 
 poftles dottrine: yet that will not neceflarily imply that they continued 
 all the time till the difrerfion at ferufalem; but whilft they were there, 
 they were <a-pa**af]«p£ vht, that is, they cleaved to the Apoftles : but to 
 think that many of them comming as ftrangers fhould not go down to 
 their wives and children, which Nature taught them to provide for, and 
 religion taught them to take care of their fouls, or to fetch them up to 
 them : fo as this might well be a fluid Church, ebbing and flowing as 
 touching the refidence of its members : yea,fome of thefe were offudea, 
 v.9. and fo of the Country about ; and of them might be Churches ere- 
 cted in their proper dwellings is rationally fuppofable. For in that per- 
 fecution,in Acl£*\ . it is faid that T aul perfecuted Difciples in other pla- 
 tes then at Hierufalcm, A&s 26.10. Which things Ialfo did at Hierufa/em, 
 (faies he) and in other places, at Damafitu. And alfo it is confirmed by 
 this, that upon the ceafing of Pauls perfecution it is faid, Aft. p. 3 1. then 
 had the Churches reft through fudea and Galilee^ and are faid to be at reft 
 in diftindion from the perfecution raifed, ch.8.1. 
 
 3 Exception is, that they in thofe Countries and times had often great 
 Affemblies confiding of many thoufands hearers at once, that did and 
 could hear, Luke 12.1. Chrift preached to Myriads, many thou/ands ; and 
 Aft. 1 3 ^.almoft an whole City came to hear the word ofGodby PauL And 
 at fharenton, how many thoufands may and do bear, is well known ; and 
 fo in many places of England. And LMofes fometime fpake in the eares 
 of all the people , and fo £zra 10.9,10. And 'tis known by experience, thac 
 as in hot Countries they may fee as far again, through the purenefle of 
 the aire, fo they may hear at a far greater diftance, then in our colder 
 Climate. 
 
 4 Exception is, that this being the fir ft Church , and whereof all the 
 Apples were the Officers, thofe therefore, that dwelt there, would cer- 
 tainly abide together as owe Church without parting or dividing, even till 
 they came to the utmoft proportion that the confutation of a Church 
 Was capable of; and fo Maximum quod fie : And continue together in one, 
 forthemor?unitedftrengthand glory of holding forth the name of 
 Chrift in one body, united for the honour of Religion and communica- 
 ting in Ordinances together. 
 
 5 Exception is, that they had during all this time of their multitudes 
 qntill the perfecution of Paul ztofc, the greateft freedome and liberty 
 even to the utmoft ; for thefeople magnified them, ch.5. v.i 2. they hadfa- 
 
 D rwr 
 
1 8 Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 vour with all the people, ch.2.v.47. InforniKh, that although the Rulers fell 
 upon two of them, John and Peter, yet they were enforced to let them 
 %Q&'i ding -nothing how to punifi them, becaufe of the people, chap.4. v. 2 1 . 
 Bend es that, it was no new thing amongft the Jewes for Setts to have 
 great multitudes to follow and cleave to them, and to preach in any 
 place, (as in Spaine and Italy) and to baptise openly as John and Chrift 
 did. 
 
 Reafons and Anfwers to the Appendix added to 
 the former Proof, vi\. 
 
 That the difperfion mentioned in Ad. 8*1. doth notfimfly prove 
 fuch afcattering, as that there might not remain more Congre- 
 gations then o$e in that Church, A&.9.31.& 1 2.24.8c 21. *o. 
 
 THus having fhewed the multitudes not arifing to that number, but, 
 that they might meet in $r,e : now after the dijptrfon much lefle. And 
 to that end let the greatnejfe of the Perfecution be confidered to demon- 
 Rnte the greatnejfe of this diff erf on - 9 Its called not a Perfecution one- 
 Jy, but a great ^Perfecution, both extenfivcly and intenfively ; for the 
 extent of it to all forts of perfons, entring into every -houfe, verf. 3. and 
 for the height of it, it being to imprifonment , even unto death, chap.22.4. 
 Alls 16. 1 o. It is alfo called, a making havoc^ofthe Church, verf. p. The 
 ebjett of this Perfecution was not Preachers onely, but Chrift ions of all 
 forts indifferently, for it is faid indefinitely to be upon the Church, v. 1. 
 and verf. 3. It is is call'd an entring into every houfe, hay ling men and 
 yeomen : and in chap. 26. PWfpeaking of this very Perfecution (where- 
 in he had a fpeciall hand ) faies verf. 10. that he imprifoned many of the 
 Saints (not Preachers only) and ve r. p. hisaimewas promifcuoufly a- 
 .gainft the 2{ame of J e sus , and fo any that profeffed his Name : Unto 
 this end compa e the varying the expreflion ufed by the hofy Ghoft, when 
 fpeaking of this Perfecution, and of another mentioned, Abl.12.1. there 
 it is faid, Herod ftr etched forth his hmd to vex Certain of the Church ; 
 but here it is againft the Chur c h in Jerufalem,Men and women in every 
 houfe, AndAi l except the Apoftles (the word ttkiiv [/xcepf] there is {o 
 (hew, that none of the Apoftics) were flattered, though the generality 
 
 ef 
 
from /^Church fif-ferufalet*. 
 
 of others were; if men gifted fled away, then others alfo, except vvc 
 fuppofc the people more conragious to ftay by it then the Teachers. And 
 whereas it is faid, that thefe that were difptrfed, neat about preaching 
 the word, verf. 4. Firft, it argueth not that Preachers only or chiefly were 
 difperfed ; for ( as Cfhin faith ) it comes in to (hew what was the fruit 
 of the difperiion ; and we may well fuppofe women and whole fami- 
 lies to have been fcattered abroad, who yet preached not : And fecond- 
 ly, it was ordinary in thofe times, far men that were not by Office Mi- 
 nifiers, occafionally to teach the Word in private waies of converfe, yea 
 and otherwife ; And that is not call'd teaching oncly, which is by way 
 of Sermon to a multihude, for verf. 25. of this chap. "Philip in private 
 conference taught the Sunuch, as Aquila and PrifcilLi taught Apollos ; 
 & they are not called ZvcLyfiMraJ, a* having an Office, but wtyJtti&W') 
 as referring to the all, the work^ they did ; And that the word feems 
 to found as if they made it their work. It may well be attributed to 
 the zeal of thofe daies to gain Profelites, and not to an Office com- 
 mitted to them ; they went not forth by miff on but persecution. And 
 here the many Congregations are brought but to an ( it might be ) and the 
 grand Propofition it felf, is but an ( it may be ) And how can it may be, 
 be proved by an it might be? efpecially in fuch things as need have a 
 ftrong foundation for matters^ upon which /• great alterations are like 
 to be made. 
 
 <c But it is faid, that it appears that there Were multitudes of believers 
 tt there after that time, by Atts 0.3 1 .& 1 2. 24. & 21.20. 
 
 Firft, For Aft.9. 3* . *orxs9uW7o, fignifies not ordinarily a great num- 
 ber made up, but an increafe {Mat. 21. 12.^-1 Tet. 1.2. Graoe be multi- 
 plied, it is the fame word) not in number, but in meafure. Again, they 
 are the Churches of fudea, Galilee, and of Samaria. But what is all this 
 to prove that there were fo many in the Church of Hierufalem as could 
 not meet in one? # 
 
 For Atls 2 1 . 3C. worett (jivpUAi? how many thoufands doth not argue 
 it ; For firft it was the Feaft ofTentecofl : when Paul came now up to 
 Hierufalem in Atls 20.16. it is faid of this journey, that he hafled if pof- 
 Jible, to be at Hierufalem upon the day ofPentecoft : When the feWes out 
 of all quarters came to Hierufalem, and the great concdhrfe that ihen 
 would be there at the Feaft, moved him to'aime to be there at that 
 time. And by the journall of "Taul thither, from his firft fetting out 
 
 D 2 • from 
 
ao Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 from ThMpfh ckap.20. v.6. (which was when the Paffeover was ended, 
 eight weeks before this enfuing Feaft of Penteeeft) and alfo by compu- 
 ting the daies of his travailing, which the Holy Ghoft hath recorded, 
 -verf 16.21. Atlsn. 2. it appears he came in few weeks unto Tyre, 
 (but forty miles off from Hierufalem)time enough to come to the Feaft; 
 and no wonder if at the Feaft he found thoufands of the Jerres. And this 
 is confirmed by the 27 verfe, for the ? ewes which laid hold on him in the 
 Temple, were as it is faid, ferves ofAJia , not of Judea\ Secondly, the 
 word /uvp/a*, being put without any other word or number, fignifies no 
 more then a great multitude, ASpvfSAv tajt'9®- ; or agreatnejfe, as lv y.vei<f 
 trivia, as T/^rahath it ; and being put indefinitely^ is all one to fay thou- 
 fands, ox many ; as the Latins alfo ufe a definite for an indefinite, as 
 S extent a peftum pro f err e deer eta, as Tullj fpeaks. 
 
 To the fecond Proof of the firft head. 
 
 By the many Apoftles and other Preachers in this Church of 
 Hierufalem ; For if there were but one Congregation, then 
 each Apoftle f reached hut feldome^ which will not ft and with 
 Atfs6.z. 
 
 Firft, For the Aposlles. 
 
 THey took all opportunities to fill their hand* with work, preaching 
 daily in the Temple and in every houfe, Adte 5.42. ch.2.46\ /Walfo 
 taught in Ephefus, 2$,puMickly in the Congregation, fo, fromhoufeto 
 honfe, Aft. 20. 20. Alfo when any in the places abroad in Judex, or clfe 
 where, were converted (and many Churches were then creeled in Ju- 
 dex) the Apoftles Vtent abroad, as cfap. 8. (hews ; and befides, how were 
 the twelve imployed, when for forty daies they met in an upper room P 
 jift.i* and had but an hundred and twenty for their flock. 
 
 Secondly, For the many Teachers. 
 
 In thofe times there were mmy gtsif ted me* that were not Officers, 
 who occafionally inftrufted others, as Aquila did Af olios : yea thofe 
 
 guifts 
 
from the C h u r <; h of$er*f*lem. 2 1 
 
 guffts were (6 plentiful, that in that one Church oiCorinth % 1 Ctr.i^.ij. 
 almoft all of them had Doelrines, Propheejing, freaking with tongues, and 
 
 yet thefe were not Officers : fo as if Congregations fhould be multiplied 
 according to the number of mch guifted men, then there would have 
 been almoft as many teachers as members of Congregations. And the 
 fewring out of the Hoij Ghcft, which was more ordinary then, did not 
 make every man a Teacher by Orfice, for then all thofe in SamarU 
 fliould have been made Teacher s ? Acts 8. And that not ay of thefe were 
 in Office, feems evident by this; That when the Demons were chofen, 
 chap, 6. there is no mention made of Elders in their Ordination^ in which 
 if any Elders had been, they had had an intereft : We read sA&s 15. 
 Whea there were Elders, though Apoftles were alfo then in that Church, 
 both are mentioned together. And it appears the Apojltes had mana- 
 ged all the affaires of that Church untill then : thofe Deacons being the 
 fir ft choice of any fort of Officers : the work oiAdminifirauon of all forts 
 having layen on the Apoftles hands. 
 
 To the third ^roof of the firft Head. 
 
 The diverfity 0/ Languages among}! the Believers^ A&s 2 . 8 5 p> 
 10,11. & Ads the 6. doth argue more Congregations then 
 one in the Church o/Hierufalcm. 
 
 Firft, 'tis true, there were, in that 2. of the Attsfiut of aR Nations that 
 heard the Apoftles fpeak in the feverall Languages of the Countries 
 they were born in - } but yet thefe were all either Jewes or Profelites, 
 %v\o£hs, worfhippers, as v. 5 . who came up to worihip, and fome parts 
 of the WorShip were audible ; and though borne in other Countries (the 
 Jewes being difperfed ) yet all were generally learned andundtrfto&d the 
 Hebrew tongue, the language of their own Nation, even as to this day 
 the Jewes and their Children doc ; which feems evident from the ftory 
 in the 20,11, & 22. chap, of the Alls, Paul came up with divers Grecians 
 to the Feaft of Pentecofi, chap. 20. f .4. unto which the Jewes out of aU 
 quarters came, and being ?.ll at a folemn meeting in the Temple,^/?. 21. 
 ver.iy. The Jewes out of zsffia,ftr angers, ftirred up all rhe people againft 
 hlty and when, ch. T2*v.2*f£i made afpeech t* them, and thej heard he 
 
 Ds $aks 
 
m vi Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 Jpa$e the Hebrew tongue, they kept filence and heard him patiently : And 
 further thofe mentioned, Atl. 2. did under ft and all of them ^Peters Ser- 
 mon ; and though others fpake, beikfes Peter to them in their own lan- 
 guage the rronderfull things of God, yet that, was but a preparatory figne 
 to them ; as 1 Cor. 14. 22. making way for their Converfion, y; 11, 12. 
 & 1 ?. but the means' o£ their Converfion was Pf/wv Sermon after ; and 
 • .it was ^ aifo, that gave direction to them all what to doe to be faved : 
 and therefore it muft be fpoken in fome one common tongue, they aM 
 underftood; and thofe gifts or languages given to the Apoftles, were 
 not our of a necefllty to inilruft rhele ne'ti Converts onely, but to ^V 
 them when they ftiould go abroad into all the world, and to be a figne 
 to the fewes at prefent to convince them. 
 
 Secondly, for the Grecian Widows, Afts 6. the Hellenifis that lived 
 amongft the Jewes, might well be fuppofed to underftand Hebrew ; 
 and that thefe had not feverall Congregations from the reft, appears by 
 this, That the whole multitude together met, and chofe the Deacons, 
 It was a joint acl: : And if of differing languages, wherein the one under- 
 (land not the other, occafioning fuch a diftin&ion of Congregations (as 
 the Proof would hold forth) how could |fcey all have agreed in one mee- 
 ting on the fame man} But the Argument as well holds againft the 
 Prefbyteriall Affociation of thofe Congregations into one Church, people and 
 Elders, unto which and in the communion and exercife whereof fuch 
 Correfpondencics and Intercourfes ara needfull, as they require one 
 common language* 
 
 To the fecond Branch of this Argument. 
 
 7 hat all thefe Congregations were under one Presbytcriall Go- 
 vernment. 
 
 "PROOFS. 
 
 1 . Becaufe they Were but one Church. 
 Though it be one, yet they not being more then could meet in one, 
 the Argument concludes sot. 
 
 2 Proof. The Elders of that (fhurch are mentioned. 
 There is no mention of any Elders in this Church, untill after the a- 
 forefaid Disjerfion, Acl* S. And fo the weight of this Argument will de- 
 pend 
 
from the Ch urc h ofjerufakm. 
 
 pend upon the proof of this; That after the dijperfion there were many 
 Congregation;, which the Reverend Affcmbly (loth not Jo poftively affirm* 
 The proof of their beingyW k a Prefbjtery ( as the Propofkion intends) 
 doth depend upon this their being r.7/7^ Elders to that Church : vvc no 
 where read them called zPrefbytery, & that therefore they are Elders, Luc 
 they areTH ere fore *Pre(bytery(zs here it is argued)becaufe they are 
 Elders to that Church ; Now if they be Elders in common^ becaufe a Prefi 
 bytery, ( as was faid in anfwer to our firft Argument ) then they are not 
 to be argued a Trefbytery only, because they are Elders in common ; For 
 then the Argument runs in Circulo. And the chief and fir ft reafon of their 
 being Elders (for no other is mentioned ) is accordingly held forth in 
 their being Elders to that Church in common^ whereas according to 
 Prefbyteriall Principles, there is a primary relation of Elders, qua Elders, 
 to their particular fixed Qongregftions. 
 
 Reafons againft the third proof of the fecond Branchy vi\. ] 
 
 That the Apoftles did the ordinary Acts of Presbyters as Presby- 
 ters /* the Church of Hierufalem, doth prove a Presbyteriall 
 Government in that Church before the di {per ft on. 
 
 THe^rotf of the V?hole depends upon this Propofition : for though be- 
 fore the difper (ton there had been many Congregations, yet not under 
 Tilder 7, but Apoftles. 
 
 Now it is granted that the fubftance of Minifteriall Ac^s were one and 
 the fame in Apoffles and Evangebifts who were extraordinary, and in <?- 
 ther ordinary LMinifters. But firft, though for the Acl of Minifteriall 
 power, it was the fame in the Apoftles, and them, yet in the extent of 
 fewer ( which is the point in qucftion ) therein the Apoftles jur if diet ion o~ 
 va many Congregations is not the pattern of ^Presbyteriall Elders over 
 many. "For the Apoftles potoer Was univ erf all over att Churches, and upon 
 that was founded their power over thofe Congregations fuppofed many •' 
 And Epifcopacy may as ftrongly argue and infer,that becaufe in Crete (by 
 Apoftolicall warrant)*^ man \Tituf\ did ordain Slders^rc. That there- 
 fore there may be one man \_a Bi(hop~] that hath power to ordain, &c. in 
 and o\cr feveral Churches. And this Argument vvil be ftronger from the 
 
 . inftance 
 
 *} 
 
14 Exceptions t$ the Proofs 
 
 inftance of an Evangelift for EpiftopAll power, then this oi ApoftolkaR g& 
 vemment, for the Prejbyteriak, by how much it is the more inferior Of- 
 fice, but that of the Apoftles is more immediate and tranfeendent, and fct 
 the power of an Evangelift is neerer to an ordinary fucceffion; and it wil 
 as well follow, that any one Treftyter ato:te might govern many Congre- 
 gations, becaufe $*e ofthefe Apoftles mights that becaufe the Apoftles did 
 govern thefe joy ntly, that therefore m.vtj Trejbyters over fever all Congre- 
 gations may. 
 
 Secondly, each ofthefe sApo files, as he had by vertue of his Apoftoli- 
 caU (fommiffton the power of them all, Co he had relation of Minlftery un- 
 to affthdefuppo/ed Congregations, unto every perfon thereof for the per- 
 formance of all forts of duties, of preaching to them, 'admonishing 
 them, &c. But thus in the Prefbyteriall government over many Congrega- 
 tions fixed, and their Pallors and Elder f fixed to them, thefe verall 81- 
 ders are denied to have the relation of Elders to each Congregation, but 
 make up only an Elder jbip in common as united over all thefe. But the A- 
 poftles here have the relation to both. And therefore if this ssfpoflolicall 
 frame be made a Pattern, then it follows that all the Elders ofthefe Con- 
 gregations were directly and immediatly Elders to each Congregation 
 and every member of them, and not only of a common Prefbytery, for *o 
 the Apoftles were. 
 
 If it be alleaged that thofe acts of government, performed by them in thai 
 Churchy were for thefubfttnee of them ordinary Acts,fuch as Pre/byters per^ 
 form,and that therefore anfttoerably their perfons themfelves are in them to be 
 confideredas Elders, becaufe that the Apoftles Were not only Apoftles, but EU 
 ders alfo,as i Ioh. I *& I Pet. 5 . I .and therefore might and did atl as Elders in 
 ordinary atis of Church government >& are therfore therein to be lool(t at, as a 
 juft pattern to us,& to have ruled thefe Congregations 0/Ierufalem as a Col- 
 ledge. or body of Elders united, c ondefc ending fo to atl as common ^Prejbytgrs 
 taking the confent of the Church, as Acl:. 6. as likftvife they did in every 
 £hnrch Where they came joy ning With the Elder fhip thereof \ as Elders, and 
 not as «sf pottles, and therefore that they might give a pattern, and Example 
 of an ordinary Prefbytery, especially feeing that what they thus did, they 
 did as an united body to many Congregations conftdered as one Church. 
 
 ltisanfwered tothefirft, that although the aApoftles are called EU 
 
 ders, yet they arc fo called virtually, not formally, and but becaufe e^- 
 
 pofllejhip contams alt Offices in it ; fo as they are Elders but upon this 
 
 ground, thit they are ^Apoftles : and therefore John in that very Epiftle 
 
 • where 
 
from the C h «r c h tftferufalem. 2 J 
 
 where he (tiles himfclf an Elder, he yet writes Canonicall Scripture as an 
 Apoftle, and takes on him to threaten Diotrephes, as an Apoftle, to rr- 
 member him, which as a formal! Elder he could not have done ; and fure- 
 \y thofe Orrices which Chrift diftinguifhech, Ephef. 4. He gavefome A- 
 pottles, feme Taftors andTeachers, the fame perfon is not formally both, 
 though virtually he may be. All that they did in that Church of Jerufa- 
 lem they are faid to aft A s Apostles .their preaching is called the A- 
 postles Doctrine, their bringing cheir monies to them, as to the 
 Officers of that Church, is to them not as Side rs, but as Aposlles, They 
 laid it down at the A P s T L E s F E E T ; yea in that Aft of ordaining the 7 
 De*tcons,it is hid,theyfet them A foreThb Apostles (c.6.6.)&they 
 laid on their hands; And it is very hard to diftinguilh and fay that the men 
 were Apoftles, but the power they acted by, was as Elders, when the name 
 of an Apoftle imports the Office. Yea in that the very All of govern- 
 ment about Deacons they muft needs aft as Apoftles : for they do not 
 (imply ordain the men, but do anew, by vercue of Apoftolicall authority, 
 infiitnte the Office of 'Deacons by declaring Chrifts mind, which none but 
 Apoftles could immediatly and at firft have done ; fo as the fame perfons 
 in this fame Ad inftanced in, muft act partly as Apoftles, and partly as El- 
 ders, and by what infallible rule fhall we diftinguifi f 
 
 To the fecond, viz,. That they ailed here as it were in a joint body cr in 
 Collcgio over thefe many Congregations. It is anfwered, that an AJfocu- 
 tion of Elders in an Elderfhip over many is not argued from hence. For 
 jirft, they had all fingly the fame power which they exercifed joyntly, 
 and that they fhould exercife it joyntly here to that end to give a pat* 
 tern for Elderfhip, is not eafie to prove. They exercifed it together, be- 
 caufe it fell out that they were together ; and it was fit none of them 
 ftiould be excluded : but it depended not upon this union of all in a body, 
 as Acts of Elders in a Prefbytery do. As Parliamentary power is not the 
 refult of Parliament men, but as aflfembled in Parliament ; yea and the 
 authority of Iurifdiftion thence arifeth : not fo here, One Apoftle might 
 have done that which *//here did. Yea may it not be faid that becaufe 
 two Apoftles, Paul & Barnabas, ordained Elders in every Church, Aft. 1 4. 
 as joyned in the fame Aft, and fo acting not as Apoftles, but joyntly ,that 
 therefore Mo Elders affoc'uited may do the like ? Secondly, it is hard to fup- 
 pofe that thefe Apoftles, when /*// together, fhould aft with an inferior 
 power to what they put forth in a like cafe alone. If Peter had been him- 
 felf alone in a Church new planted ; then, and there, he muft be fuppofed 
 to aft as an Apo(tle 3 becanfe he alone governed:And (lull thefe Apoftles, 
 when they are all in one and joyne all together in one Aft, be yet fuppo- 
 
 E fed 
 
2$ Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 led to fall lower in their power under the form-all exercife of it ? Thirdly, 
 if they had acted as Elders in a Co/ledge, they might mifcarrj as Elders 
 doe ; and fo the minor part of them have been fubject to Sxcommumca- 
 Hen of the greater, And what power was there on earth to have excom- 
 municated an <*Apoftle who held his Office immediatly from Chrift, and 
 who whilft he was in that Office had power over all Churches ? 
 
 To the third, t/k..That they in their proceedings dad joy ne With ethers. As 
 in this choice of the Deacons they didjoyne with the multitude) as alfo when 
 they came to any ether Churches they ufed to do. Neither doth that 
 argue, that they acted not as Apo files, but as Elders. For firtt, they joy- 
 ned in Acts with others, a id joyned others with themfelves, wherein they 
 yetatledasApoftles; thus in writing Scripture they joyned others with 
 them, as Paul joyned Silvanus and Timothem in his Epiftle to the Thef- 
 falonians ; and not meerly in the falutation, for the expreflions run in 
 their names alfo in that Epiftle, And All. 15. The Apoftles, Elders, yea 
 and Brethren joyned in a Letter to the Churches ; But thefe as Apeftles 
 (therefore/o called in dislintlion from the Elders Jand the reft according 
 to their feverall interefts : as the Brethren did all according to their in- 
 terefts, fo the Elders and the Apeftles in theirs. So in ordaining Timothy 
 the Prefbytery laid on hands, yet they zszTrefbytery and PW as an 
 Apoftle : for elfc a Prefbytery had not had power to ordain an Evange- 
 lift. Yet fecondly, the tApoftles did where ever they came leave the El- 
 ders and people to the exercife of that right belonged to them, although 
 they joyned with them ; neither did therein lie their Apoftolicall autho- 
 rity, to doe all alone ; for then they feldome or never acted as tApoftles 
 in Churches : Paul alone excommunicated not that Corinthian, and yet 
 as an Apoftle wrote to have it done by them, ( for it was Canonicall 
 Scripture) and therefore alchough that this Church offerufalem fhould 
 chufe their Deacons -, is a juft example of the priviledge of a Church ( for if 
 the J poftles when they were prefent allowed this intereft to Churches, 
 then Elders fliould much more)yet what the Apoftles did by an tApoftt- 
 ticall power in thefe Congregations, cannot be drawn into example for 
 Officers, in that thing wherein their power Apoftolicall hy, which was to 
 exercife atls of jurifd.ction in feverall (fhurches* 
 
 Neither fourthly, will that help it, That they exercifed this Government 
 v. thefe Congregations (fuppofed many) as confideredto be one Church. For 
 if they acted not as Slders,then the correlate to it, namely,CWf£,could 
 not be confidered as Prefbyteriall. 
 
 Reafons 
 
from the Churc h tfjerufalem, iy 
 
 Reafons againft the fourth and laft Proof of the 
 fecond Branch, W£. 
 
 7 hat the Elders did meet together for Acts of Government y Ad. 
 n.ult.eH5-4- 6.22. dr 21.17,18. 
 
 FIrft, the Argument from sAct. li.ult. lies thus, 77*r* 7w* £7^1- 
 in Iudea rte received lAlmes, v. 39.30. compared : Therefore the El- 
 ders o/Ierufalem *&/ wffr together of Acts for Government. In this Argu- 
 ment, as the ferfons are miftaken, To the Act : for the Elders of ferufa- 
 lem are not mentioned, but of Judea, as by comparing v. 29. 30. it ap- 
 pears. And by this it might be as well argued, that the Elders in f tide a 
 met for "Trefbyteriall Government, as that the Elders offerufalem ; fee- 
 ing their Almes were carried to the Elders of fudea, as it is there faid. 
 The receiving Almes ( which is the only <*Act that is mentioned) was noc 
 an Ad of Government, for Beacons may meet to receive Almes % and yet 
 meet not for Acts of government. 
 
 For that fecond place mentioned, Act. 21. 20. where it is faid, Paul 
 came to lames, and all the Elders wereprefent : although we read that all 
 the Elders were prefent, yet that they mcc for Ads of Presbyteriall go- 
 vernment, appears not ; the oecafion of the meeting was Pauls entertain- 
 ment, whom fome of the Brethren had received at his fii ft coming, v* 1 7. 
 and now the Elders meet to receive him alfo. A Chriftian duty of love 
 and refped due to fo great and famous an *Apoftle. And ^Paul went 
 not as cited, but to vifit andfalute them, as v. 19. Secondly, the Acts that 
 parted were none of them Pre/by teriall, for Paul gave them an Hiflori- 
 call relation of what things God had wrought by his Miniftery, the matter 
 of which relation was intended to provoke them as Brethren and fellow- 
 labourers, to glorifie God (as v. 20. is faid they did) and not to give them 
 an account, as to a Conpftorj, that met for Government. Such narrations 
 the Apoftles made even to whole Churches, as Paul and Barnabas at 
 Antioch, Ad 14.27. When they had gathered the whole Church together 
 (which Church was of no more then to meet in one AlTembly ) they re- 
 hearfed in like manner, as here, all that God had done by them : and how 
 he had opened a dore of Faith to the Gentiles. Neither will the advice 
 they gave to Paul to prevent the fcandall and fence the people would 
 take at him, argue authority, much kflc government : Neither was there 
 zny A.& of Government put forth over their own Churches if fuppofed 
 many, E 2 Reafons 
 
*8 Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 Reafons dgainjl the alledging, Aft. 1 5 . for the meeting of the El- 
 ders o/Jerufalem, For Presbyteriall Affs of Government. 
 
 1 . TF it were a meeting of Elders for AEls of Government, then it was a 
 
 JL Presbyteriall meeting for Acts of Government : But that it was no 
 fuch meeting appears,becaufe there was nothing done in it,that may feem 
 to have any boni in it, but fuch as bound the Churches of Antioch> Syria, 
 Cil'tcia, as much as ferufalem, but this cannot be any Presbyteriall meet- 
 ing, for Afts of Government : For fuch meetings hav& only authoritative 
 porrer over their own Church* 
 
 2. Thcfcope and end of this meeting was to QStfatisfaBion to the of- 
 fended Brethren of Antioch, and dogmatically to declare their judgements 
 in a difficult cafe of Confcience, not to put forth any Ad: of furidicalt 
 fewer upon any, as appears in the matter of their debate, and the ijfue of 
 all. Of which more fully afterward. And if it be faid that Peter reproved 
 fome of their own Members prefent, fuch as had taught the necefiity 
 of the Ceremoniall Law, Why tempt you God, &c. This was not delivered 
 as an $Act of Government formally, by any vote of the Presbytery, but in 
 the way of Difcourfe. 
 
 " But it was affirmed to befuffcient to confnne the Proportion, if it be A 
 <: Synodicall meeting. 
 
 PresbyteriafUnd. Synodic*!! both it cannot be. For SynoAs y thcy are (or 
 ought to be) extraordinary and occafonall: Presbyteries zreftanding and 
 ordinary. Synods are madcupofCommiffioners fent from Presbyteries, 
 and Presbyteries are made up of the Elders of particular Congregati >ns. 
 The ^Members of Synods are Elders of fuch Churches which arc (accor- 
 ding to the principles of Presbyteriall Government; compleat Churches, 
 having full power of jurifdicTion for all Acts of Government within them- 
 felves ; but the members of Presbyteries are Eiders of fuch Congregations 
 which are neither compleat Churches, nor have within themfelves full 
 and compleat power. And thefe cannot be one. The Elders of the 
 Presbytery at ferufatem, (when this once became a Synod by the addition 
 of the Elders of other Churches) ccafed to be any longer a Presbytery to 
 that Church, and muft become with them a new body to all the Churches, 
 thefe other Elders did come from. And then to argue thefe Acts done 
 by thefe (becaufe the Elders of ferufatem were prefent and Members of 
 this Synod) were Presbyteriall Afts of the Elders offerufalw, is all one 
 
 as 
 
from /^Church of^erufalem. 2 g 
 
 as to go about to argue from the Ails of Government put forth by a Par- 
 liament at JVeflmiafter, to the power of the Burgeffes and Common 
 Councell of the City of H+ftminfter, becaufe there the Parliament fits, 
 and the Burgeftcs of that City are parts and members of that Parliament! 
 Or, as if all the Kingdome were governed by famy farts • and out of 
 thofe Cou; ,ty Courts, Knights, and Burgeffes fhould be chofen to make 
 up a Parliament > when the Parliament is met, there can be no Argument 
 drawn from the power of a Parliament to prove the power of a County 
 Court. Or from the power of a County (fourt to prove the power of a 
 Parliament* Thus Synods are made out ^Presbyteries^ therefore we can- 
 not argue from the power of Presbyteries to the power of Synods. 
 
 But ilcondly, we deny it to have been fuch an ordinary fermall Synod. 
 The jurifdidion of Synods is founded upon this neceffary requifite there- 
 unto, That there be (fommiffi oners from all thofe Churches rcprefenting 
 them, pre fent, or called to be fo. And the power of the jurifdidion cannot 
 reach not extend further then to fuch Churches as havefent Commifllo- 
 ners thereunto. The weight then of this Synodic all power depends on the 
 proof of this, That all thofe Churches fent Commiffi oners to this Afembly, 
 which if either it be not proved, or the contrary thereunto found true, 
 the authority of thofe decrees (is from thofe Elders here J will prove, not 
 to have been <*Acl: of Government, further then the Ape files authority, 
 whojoyned in it, wasftampedonit. Toanirmc that Commiffioners 
 from them all were prefent , becaufe the decrees did bind them , is to 
 begge what is denyed, when another juftreafon may be given of their 
 binding, if any fuch authority were in them : and our Reafons to the con- 
 trary are thefe. 
 
 Firft,We find a deep filence about it : For we read but only of two Chur- 
 ches between whom it was tranfaded, they ofAntioch fending to Jerufa- 
 lem, and their Elders there,C%?. 14.27,28. compared with chap. 15. 2,3. 
 and the Meffengers which were fent from this Adembly going only to 
 Antioch, v. 3 o, 3 1 . as thofe who were chiefly troubled ; only the benefit 
 redounded to all they wrote to : yea, although TWcame through P he- 
 nice and Samaria, ver. 3. yet we read not a word of any of the Churches 
 of thofe parts, their fending of any Commiffioners unto this Synod, as 
 ht£ it been intended fuch, certainly they would : and there was this Jpeci- 
 altreafon, why thofe of this Church were thus eledively fent unto, be- 
 caufe they were the Mother Church from whom the Word of God came > 
 and from whom thofe men that troubled them had gone forth , and had 
 pretended to teach what they had received from them ; and befides they 
 were inanefpeciall manner verfedinthis queftion, it being about the 
 
 E 3 ob~ 
 
go Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 obfervation of their law ; and there alfo fome of the Apofties were pre* 
 fcnt,(how many we know not, for difperfed they had been long before) 
 and if any number of others out of thofe otfer parts offudea, had come 
 up hither, it would have been faid, as zAcl. 1 1. ult. The Elders offudea, 
 not oncly offerufalem ; yea, it is not fo much as faid, that tbeu that were 
 fent from Antioch, were of the Elders of that Churchy but that they fent 
 TV/*/ and Barnabas, and certainc others of them. 
 
 And fecondly, the contrary feemes cleere : namely, that thofe Letters 
 and Decrees were written and fent onelj from the Elders offerufalem, 
 and not from all thofe Churches : For firft, the Decrees are every where 
 attributed to the Elders in fcrufalem. So Chap. 16. 4. The Decrees of the 
 Apofties and Elders in Jerufalem. trperCvrifav ffi bt h^va^p. Now the 
 ufuall ftile of the New Teftament,is by way of diftin&ion of Churches to 
 fay the fhurch in fitch a place, the Elders in fitch a place, as the Church of 
 Antioch, Act. 13. 1. and the Church at Corinth, 1 (for. 1. 1. and by the 
 likereafon the Elders in fuch a place dofignifie the proper Elders of the 
 Church in that place or City, whileft but one, and therefore, if by the 
 Elders in Jerufalem, had been meant in this place onely the Elders met 
 from all Quarters at Jerufalem, as the place of 'that zAffembly, there had 
 been a great ambiguity,feeing the more ufuall and proper import of that 
 expreflion is to note out the fixed (landing Elders of a place, and the 
 Church in a place. Again, fecondly, in the fourth verfe Paul and Barna- 
 bas are faid to be received of the Church and Apofties and Elders, namely 
 offerufalem> as in particular relation to it. Yea,thirdly,the (landing El- 
 ders of that place aflumed to themfelves to have written the Decrees, 
 Chap. 21.25. As touching the Gentiles wee have written and concluded. 
 Fourthly,and accordingly the conclusion of their Letter is made the fpe- 
 ciallAcl: of that Church, and the Elders thereof, w. 22.1tpleafedthe 
 Apofties and Elders with the whole Church(t\\2it is,) of ferufalem,2LS ver. 4, 
 to fend chofen men, and the Letters run thus, The Apofties, Elders and Bre- 
 thren. Fifthly, the matter of the Letter argues it, v.i^.Torafmuch as cer- 
 tain that Went out from us have troubled you with words, to whom we gave 
 no fuch commandement. How could this be faid by a Synod of the Elders 
 of thofe Churches, which were themfelves troubled by them ? It is mani- 
 feft therefore they came out from this Church of Jerufalem, who wrote 
 this, and they pretended the Apofties Dotlrine ; which is called a Com- 
 mandement , becaufe the Apofties taught no other, then what Chrift com- 
 manded, as Mat. 2^. ult. And to fay the Denomination was from the 
 more eminent part, namely, the Elders of that Church had been deroga- 
 tory to the Synod, if it had been fuch a meeting. And fixthJy, if the El- 
 ders 
 
from the C h u k c h oftferufilcm. 3 \ 
 
 ders of al! thofc Chnrches had been prefent, there had been kfic need for 
 the Apoftles and Elders of fcrufalem to have fent chofen men to carry 
 the Letters, and withall to iliew the grounds of thofe their juigements 
 by word of mouth, t/*r. 2 3. 2 7.31. This needed not, if their own Elders 
 had been prefcnt,and fo had been to have returned ; and if- they were 
 fent as Meflengers from the Synod, then to a// the Chuu h s as wt U as t :> 
 Antiock^nd why doc they then go no further then unto Antioch? 0W.3 3. 
 Yea, and although Paul and Barnabas delivered thofe rcfults to all the 
 Cities, yet, as it fhould feem accidentally and not Principally intended, 
 they goe not on purpofe chiefely to deliver thofe decrees, but ver. 36. of 
 Chap. 1 5. it was Pauls motion upon other grounds to go vifit the Churches 
 in every City,where they had Preached,and fo but occafionally delivered 
 thefe Decrees, £hap. 16. 4. So as they came to them, not as fent in a 
 mandatory way, as to Churches fubjett to that Synod by a Synodicall 
 Law, (as fuch Canons are ufed to be km) but as the judgement onely of 
 thU Church ; and the Apoftles delivered them for their edification. 
 
 And in the thi d place, If there were any further authority or jurifdi- 
 ttion in their Decrees, it was from the Apoftles>who were prefent and con- 
 curred in it, and who had power over all the Churches. And according- 
 ly though the Elders in the whole Church were prefent and joyned with 
 the Apoftles, Quantum infe, to confent and approve their Decrees with 
 that feverall rejpetlive khtde of judgment proper unto them , yet all the 
 authority put forth over thefe Churches was that tranfeendent authority 
 of the Apoftles, which is not now left in all the Elders of the world joy- 
 ned together; and that therefore thefe Decrees made, and thedecifi- 
 on of thefe queftions here, were by infallible Apoftolicall authority : And 
 to that end they fubjoyned that Apoftolicall Seals, It feemed good to m 
 and the holy Ghofi. And although the ordinary Elders, yea, and the whole 
 Church joyned in this, yet but according to their Meajure, Analogic, and 
 Proportion of their faith, feven as in writing fome Epiftles Timothy and 
 Silvanus joyned with Paul, but yet Pauloudy wrote Apoftolically, and 
 the authority in them is looked at as£#; ) or elfe becaufe perhaps they 
 having the holy Ghofi falne on them through the Apoftles Dodrine then 
 delivered, (which was then ufuall) perfwading their hearts unanimously 
 ("though afore diflenting 3 as ver. 25,) to accord;in that refped they might 
 fpeak this in fuch afenfe, that no ajfembly of men wanting Apoftolicall 
 prefence and inftroftion, may now fpeak. And although it may be ob- 
 jected, That then thii Letter and thefe Decrees fhould bee for mall So ipture, 
 Andfe binde us ft ill, it is anfwered ; That they are Scripture, and written 
 for our learning 5 and if the cafe were the fame upon which they obliged 
 
 them 
 
3 2 Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 them then, (Wei matter of offence j that then they would bfnde us now: 
 but the things being enjoyned, but as iw«^ things of a fuper-ttdded 
 cafuall necefllty and not abfolute, in cafe of offence oneiy and not (imply 
 for the things themfelves, therefore now the necefllty being ceafed, the 
 obligation ceafeth : yet fo as the equity of the rule and ground thefe 
 were commanded upon, to abftain from things that offend our brethren 
 doth hold in like cafes to the end of the world. 
 
 And laft of all,there is no aft of fitch authority & government put forth, 
 in it, which the Proportion intendeth ; which will appear,if we either con- 
 fider the occajion and rife of it, or the iffue andrefult of it* 
 
 It was notafetftated meeting by common agreement of the Chur- 
 ches, but Antioch fends to ferufalem unknown to them • there are no 
 fummons fent to fend up Delinquents, nor can we finde thefe difturbers 
 are fcnt to ferufalem to be cenfured by thofe EccUfiafticall puni(hment$, 
 in which Government doth properly lie and confiit; The fubjecl: mat- 
 ter fent to them for their decifion was meerly matter of Doctrine, about 
 this queftion, verfe 2. and about this word \verfe 5, Namely, whether the 
 Ceremoniall Law was ft? be obferved? Concerning which they wrote 
 their judgements dogmatically, which they were called to doe, being thus 
 fent unto. Neither doth it argue that it was more then to determine 
 this queftion doctrinally they came up for, becaufe that Paul and Barna- 
 . has could have decided that before, ("being themfelves Apoftles)and chat 
 therefore their comming up was for difciplne againft Delinquents 1 for 
 as the cafe ftood, they liftned not to Paul and Barnabas as Apoftles, but 
 pretended the judgement of the other Apoftles; For indeed Paul and 
 Barnabas did declare their judgements, (The s»V* or contention, ver. 3. 
 being attributed unto them as contending againft the fali'e Teachers for 
 the Truth) and fo as even the Church of asfntioch refted not in their 
 decifion : Otherwife Paul and Barnabas might have as Apoftles cenfured 
 thofe Delinquents without comming to femfiilem, as well as by Apofto- 
 lique authority have decided the quition : For Apoftolicall power ex- 
 tended to r Difci[line as well as Doctrine. If it be faid, That even do- 
 Urinally to di liver the truth when it is done by a company of Elders, hath 
 Authority or Power in it , as when Chrift faid, Goe and teach, all po- 
 we* is given me : It is granted an Authority cxercifed in doctrine 
 and fo to be in Synods, but yet not furifdiclion, which the Propo- 
 fition intends, which is when doctrines are delivered fub p<tna, under 
 the/w^ofthatEcclefiafticall punifliment of Excommunication if not 
 received. One Minifter alone hath a dogmaticall authority as a Mini- 
 fier to rebuke, exhort, and yet acts of furifdiclion are not his alone, but 
 of others conjoyned with him. Neither, 
 
* from the Cn uk c n of Jerusalem. • 
 
 Neithcr/econdly, doth the titles given to thefe rtfults of theirs argue'a fu- 
 rifdiftion in that they are called t* iiyyoLTA and -m uKpiofya, All, 1 6. 4. For ai- 
 though the word Jiypa. is ufed for an Imperial/ decree Xu&.i .yet but rarely, 
 &: more commonly fas Stephanas znd'Budaus obferve)for J.oElrine and opinio* 
 in matters morall or fpeculative,as Vlaionis Dogma,&c. and thence is tranfla- 
 ted to import the Judgements of Divines given, in matters TheoJogicall, al- 
 though delivered with certainty. And fo the ufing of this word implyeth the 
 fubjcEl to have been doclrinall one\y and fo delivered. And further theful/jeEt 
 matter of this decifion being about rules and ceremonies, and the notobfer- 
 Virion of them, the [Dogma] is elegantly, and perhaps on purpofe, given to 
 thefe Apoftolicall Canons by way of oppofition and contradiction to thofe 
 that taught and obferved fuch rulcs,who'are faid Jbyu* 7 ityv in fo doing, Colof 
 2. 20. being led away by the falfe Dogmata, or Heterodox thefe s of falfe Tea- 
 chers that enjoyned chem. And for that other word x&ptffid transited [or- 
 dained^ it plainly notes out but this, that thefe do&rinall Thefe s were the 
 joynt declared and avowed Judgement and conclusions of thefe (andfoanf- 
 wcreth to thofc other words in their letters, [It feemed good unto us, being 
 with one accord, &c.~]hQoft\£szn<i Elders thus met with one accord agreeing 
 therein, and particularly^ unanimouflyj^;^;^;and therefore when fames 
 gives his judgement he uieth the fame word viva (Verf.ip.of this 1 5 .Chap.) 
 This is my judgement, which being voted and agreed upon by the reft they are 
 called uxpivWct. Netrher doth this argue any acl: of authority that the things 
 here declared to be obferved are indifferent, forfome of them come under 
 a ww// confederation, and all come under the cafe of offence. 
 
 Neither doth the language they commend thefe to them in, found of that 
 Jurifditlion or government intended in the c Tropofition ; for although they feeme 
 to fpeak as guided infallibly in their vefo\ut\on,[itfeemethgood to us and to the 
 holy Gfoft] yet their expreflions are carryed fo,as to avoid Jurifdiilkn. Thofe 
 words,(jT0 lay no other burthen] if any,muit import this Jurifditlion > y but thefe 
 words, as Ludovicus de Dieu hath well obferved, are fas they may be) taken 
 pafflvely therein agreeing with the ^yW^tranflation ; Itfeemethgoodto us t^- 
 the holy Ghofl.that no other burthen be laid on you : That whereas thefe Teachers 
 of thecircumcifion had gone about by their doctrine to bind, the Law ofMofes 
 upon mens confidences, and to put on them a burthen too heavy for them to 
 bear, as Peter fpeaks Verf. p. and had taught this to be the command of Chrifl: 
 and his Apoftles, and the judgement of the Church of ferufalem ; Theydif- 
 claime this, and profeffe they would have no fuch burthen put upon them, and 
 they gave thefe Teachers no fuch commandement^ that is, never delivered or ut- 
 tered any fuchDoctrine to be commanded.And if it be taken actively ', yet the 
 declaring it to be the command ofChrift is the impoftion here intended, for 
 the fame words arc ufed of the Teachers, who yet had not affumed by vertuc of 
 
 F 1 ' . an 
 
 3 j 
 
3 4 • Exceptions to the Proofs 
 
 an Ectlefiafiicall authority to impofe thefe things, but by way of Doftrine, 
 So Vttfc the tenth, Why tempt you God to put ayoa{ upon the neckjfthe Difci- 
 ples ? Verf.5. And it is well known that in the Scripture phrafe to teachind 
 to declare, though by way of Dodrine, and to prejfe mens confciences with 
 things as the commands of God, is faid to be a binding and impofmg a burthen 
 on them. So of the Pharifees (and thefe were of the feet of the Pharifees,o£ 
 whom, and to whom that was fpoken, Verfe 5.) it is faid, Matth 25.4. that 
 the Pharifees bind heavy burthens & grievous to be borne, and lay them on mens 
 Shoulders ; which is fpoken but of a Doctrinal 1 declaring and prefling mens 
 confciences with the rigour of the Law ; and this is fo well known to be- the 
 Language of the Jewes,that it need not be infifted on. 
 
 Neither doth it follow that if they may lay thefe burthens by way of Doctrine^ 
 they may cenfure for the neglect of them, for every Minifter in his Sermon im^ 
 pofeth thofe burthens, whiift they urge & declare thefe duties to men,and yet 
 have not power Ecclefiaftically to cenfure them. For though,tt being a com- 
 mand of Chrift, they could not but hold it forth as fuch and fo urge it; yet 
 not by way of Jurifdi&ion, but with thefe/of* words, [Which if you obferve 
 you doe welir\ 
 
 Laftly, although thefe falfe Teachers had fubverted their faith 9 znd, againft 
 their own light, had vouched their \)©&rine to be the * f Dotlrine of the Apo- 
 ftles, which deferved the higheft cenfure being a fin fo fcandalous, yet they 
 proceeded not to cenfure them, by way of admonition" or excommunication 
 (which are ads of government) but onely do declare their finne and errour, and 
 give their Judgement of it. 
 
 Reafons 
 
from ^ChUrc h of$erttfalcm. 
 
 R E A S O N S, 
 
 Againft the two laft Affertions of the Affembly concerning the in- 
 fiance of the Church of^erufalem. • 
 
 a/fjfertion. 
 Whether thefe Congregations be fixed or not fixed,/>/ regard ^/Offi- 
 cers or Members, It is all one as to the truth of the Proportion. 
 
 Our Reply. 
 
 WHcreas in the clofe of the proof e from the Church of Jemfalem, for 
 many Congregations to be under one Presbyteriall Government, 
 it is afferted : 
 
 Whether thefe Congregations be fixed or not fixed) it U all one as to the truth of 
 the Fropofition. 
 
 This Reafon is offered againft it. 
 
 There is this ^Difference. Every Congregation having Elders fixed to *V, is a 
 Chur c h ; for the relation of Elders & Church is mutual!,^ / 1 4.23. They 
 ordained Elders in every Church.This relation of Elders' Co aChurcft is zjpceiall 
 diftincl relation to that Congregation of which they are Elders, fops they are 
 not related to other Congregations.And thefe Congregations wcEcclefi* pri- 
 m<t ; Churches formed up though uncom pleat, as being according to our bre- 
 thren opinion,members of a more^wma/PresbyterialChurch.But if Congre- 
 gations baveno fixed Officers, thej are not Churches according to their Principles. 
 
 New it makes a great difference as to the truth of the PropoJjtion y whcthcr many 
 Churches may be under the government ofone y or whether many Congrega- 
 tions (which to them are no Churches) may be under the government of one I 
 Whatfoevcr our Brethren fhew of divers Congregations to be under the go- 
 vernment of a Church Pr&byteriall, yet they no where fhew any one patterue 
 or example in Scripture wherein many Churches were under the power of one y 
 nay, nor where any one Church was under the power of another. 
 
 asfffertion. 
 
 That there appeares no materiall difference betwixt the fever all Con- 
 gregations in zperufalem^ and the many Congregations now in the 
 ordinary condition of the Churchy as to the point offixedneffe^ in re- 
 gard of officers and CM embers. 
 
 Our Reply. 
 
 ANd hftly jf there Wr re many Congregations in ferufalewjjaving their Offi- 
 cers fixed to them, and not in common, then during the time before the 
 difperfion, the 0fpoftl<:s muft bt thofe Officers, that were thus fixedly difpofed 
 
 ¥ 2 of 
 
3<£ Other Retfom agalnft 
 
 of to thofe feverall Congregations,/^* over onc,others over another, as wdi- 
 nary Elders Now are. Now fuppofe this number of Beleevers to have been as 
 many thoufands as is argued, as 10. or i 2000, foules,and thefe to be divided 
 into as many Congregations as might be divided to twelve Apoftles ^ fever ally 
 to watch over; Or fuppofe the feverall Congregations made up of 2000. 
 f which is an alotment fmall enough to be fet apart for the paines of two 
 Apoftles.) 
 
 HercuponTH 1 S great incongruity doth follow: that Apoftles are brought to the 
 ft ate and condition and workjof ' Parijh UMinifters : To whom, yet it was com- 
 mitted, and infeparably annexed to their Office, yea, and conftituted it, as 
 Apoftles to have the care of all Churches ; and if when the Churches were mul- 
 tiplyed and difperfed into feverall Countries, they were to have the care of 
 them, then much more when they were in one City. Some of the writers 
 againft Spifcopacy, (when thofe that write fork, allcdge the inftahce of 
 James abiding at Jemfalem y as the Bifiop of that Ciuirch) have judged it a 
 debafing of the Apoftoiical power to limit it to one Dloceftn Church : but this 
 policion doth debafe all the Apoftles at once much more, it makes them not 
 jBifbops to many Churches, but ordinary Elders ; in that one or tvyo of them 
 (perhaps) are over one (ingle (jhurch : yea, & which is yet more incredible, *f 
 
 - thefe Churches & their •government were like to thofe under the Presbytery, 
 and no materiall difference between them and ours, thefe Apoftles were in their 
 Tarifles not onely fubord'mate in their government to the common Presbytery of 
 all the Apoftles, but limited to lejfer Acts of Government'. For fo the letter Elder- 
 fhips in the Churches under the Presbyteriall government arc ; confined onely 
 to examine, & admonifli, and prepare for the greater Presbytery, and there- 
 in not enabled to ordaine Elders ove r the Congregation, or excommunicate a 
 member : Peter and John joyned together were by this principle not enabled to 
 it. And yet, if we doe not fuppofe fuch a limited government in thofe feverall 
 Congregations, here can be no patterne for the Presbyterian government as it 
 is practifed. Or if otherwife, we fliould fuppofe them fixed Officers for teach- 
 ing onely, to one of thofe Congregations, and to have ne government at all 
 over it, but to bring all to the common Presbytery of A ps files, that is a greater 
 'incongruity then the former: fortfe caftsthem below the condition of our 
 Tarifi Elders, for unto them, the greater Presbytery doth allow fome mea- 
 sure and part of the Government, but fuch a feppofition would allow Jpe- 
 
 . files) none > in thek feverall Congregations. 
 
 Other 
 
the Presbyteriall Government. 57 
 
 Other REASONS againft tfamaine Propofition, 
 
 The Serif tures holds forth, That many Congregations may he un- 
 der ^PRE UYT ERIALL G O V E R N M E N T. 
 
 BY particular Congregations either firft an Aflembly of Chriltians meet- 
 ing for wo r (hi pone ly, as to hear, pray,&c. orfecondly, an.Affcmbly fo 
 furnifhed with Officers as fit for Difciplrne having a Presbytery as meant ; in 
 fiie latter fenfe, which is that the proofs are brought to confirme, and that 
 that is pra&ifed where this government is fet up, the proportion is equivalent 
 to fuch an aflcrtion as this - y M.zrj presbyteries may be under Fresbytcriall go- 
 vernment, as thus, Parochiall Presbyteries maybe under one ClafTicall, many 
 ClaflicalL under one ProvinciaI!,&c. which is the fame as to affirme that one 
 Presbytery may be over another. As the Biiliops arfirm,That one Presbyter may 
 be over another. This is evident,if you aflert a Presbyteriall government may 
 be over a Congregation that is compofed of a Presbytery & people: for it cannot 
 befaid to be over a Congregation, ifitbeover the people onelj, that is not 
 over their Presbytery alfo, For then the Presbytery wiil be Independent, and 
 the»people under two Presbyteries coordinate and not fubordinatejxhkh (lands 
 not with common reafon. 
 
 This then being the A (fertion ,it is thus Argued Against. A Presbytery 
 over a Presbytery, or power over power neceiTarily implyethnw forts of Prcf- 
 byteries, or Ecclefiaftkall Jurifdiclions, fpecially diftincl or at lead more then 
 numerically. ^A greater ar lejfer vary nQt the kind in a Phyficall or Theolo- 
 gicall confederation, but in a Toliticalli^doth : He that hatfi a greater power 
 then I have , that is a power over my power, a power" to order, direct or cor- 
 rect the power I have, this mans power and mine differ as tWo forts or kinds 
 of power. And although this fupcrior Presbytery be made up of Presbyters 
 fentasCommifli©nersfromihecongregationall or parochiall Presbyteries, 
 yet this hinders not at all but that they may be thus diftindt. : For fome Ci- 
 ties and towncs corporate, their Officers arefentup, and fit. as Members of 
 Parliament, yet this Honourable Houfe hath a power diftinct, and fuperiour 
 to that which is in London ot'Tork: though the fuperior Presbytery be made 
 up of JVesbyters from feverall Congregations, yet it is made up of Presby- 
 teries, it hath the perfons materially confidered, but not that power formal- 
 ly confidered : for as while the Parliament (its and certain Burgefles from 
 Burrough townes fit as Members in it, thefe Townes nofcrithftanding ftill 
 retaine a-11 the power thofe Corporations were ever invj^d with, fo par- 
 ticular Congregations whiift fom^of their Elders fit in the ClaiTicall Presby- 
 tery, have Eldcrlhips or a Pretbytery [till. Now that it is very probable 
 
 the 
 
3 8 Otiur Redfons dgainft 
 
 the Scriptures hold r.ot forth Two Sorts Of Presbyteries 
 Thus Specifically Dis t in CT,may be thus argued. 
 I, Firft, where the Scripture holds forth diftincT forts in any kind, there 
 
 will be found either diftincl: and proper names and titles, or at leaft fome 
 adjunct or difference added to that which is common or generall ; In the 
 Apoftles times there were Presbyters over Presbyters, Apoftles were fu- 
 perior to Prophets, and Prophets a diftincT order from Teachers ; There- 
 fore in I Cor. 12. God hath fet feme in the Church : Firft Apoftles, feconda- 
 rilyTrophets, thirdly Teachers, after that Miracles, then gifts of Healing, 
 &c. They have not only particular names and titles,but fpeciall notes of 
 diftincTion added, tr$afS9 ctVo^W, Mn^ov TrpofnT&s, as in Gen. 1. where 
 no diftincTion of names is given, The Sun, the Moon, and Stars of Hea- 
 ven, are all called Lights, yet there are termes of difference added, they 
 are called firft, great Lights, and then the greater to rule the day t and 
 the lejfer t$ rule the night. 
 
 Throughout the New Teftament we find this word njHr&vriexiv, but in 
 three places, whereof there is but one that holdeth out the Government 
 in hand, and in that place you have the nakedwordonly without the ad- 
 dition of any fuch exprefTion, greater, lefer, fuperiour, inferior, or any 
 kind of adjuntl, that can pofTibly put a thought in us, of 'more Presbyte- 
 ries then one. Notwithstanding fo ufefull are peculiar diftincT names 
 where there are diftincT forts or kinds of admiration, as it is not omit- 
 ted by any Church in their Ordinances for Government • in Scotland the 
 loweft is termed a C ori or y> tne next a CUJfis or Presbytery, the third 
 a Provincial Synod, the fourth a Generall ssfffembly. The French in thefe 
 termes, Conftftories^vAColloqudls and Synods', fointhe Spifcopall Re- 
 publique there was the like variety. 
 U t Secondly, As the Scriptures hold forth nothing in any title or name 
 to diftinguifh,no more can we thence difcover any forts of Government 
 different in natuYe ; for triali of this,let it be fuppofed there is a Tarochi- 
 all or Confiftorian Presbytery for one fort, there is another fort we call 
 Qlafficall, what Scripture gives light by any kind of reafoning to warrant 
 thefettinguponeofthofeabove, or over the other ? Doe you read any 
 where God hath fet in his (fhurch, firft Presbyteries, fecondarily, Claffes, 
 then Confiftories f Or is there any thing in the word directing a different 
 compofition or confticucion in thefe > m 
 
 Firft, For die materidefhz Perlbns that thefe Presbyteries are mademp 
 of,are the fame ; The Confiftory hath gifted men fet a part to the Office 
 oftheMlniifc; Thofc that are in a Clafficall Presbytery are no other- 
 wife qiialihe^Qr indeed doth the Scripture require any thing but a Pref- 
 byuration to quatifie men for any fortj if there were forts .of Presbytery. 
 
 That, there is a greater number of Presbyters in the one then in the 
 
 other, 
 
thi Prubjteridll Government. 5 2 
 
 other this alters not the ftate in refpecl: of the matter « for if the number 
 be competent.that is, fo many as tm$ or three' may agree, Afat.iB.lt mrfi- 
 ceth. The Honourable Houfe cf Commons, is to all Parliamentary purpo- 
 fes as much a Honfe, when but tiro or three dove forty , as when fome 
 hundred. Nor doth this alwayes fall out chat all Clafficall Presbyteries 
 have a greater number then fome -Parochial!. Scripture shave determi- 
 ned neither how few will conftitutc a Claflicall Presbytery, nor how ma- 
 ny may be in a Parochial : Practice many times makes them cquall. 
 
 Secondly, Now for the Formate, the uniting of this matter into a Con- 
 fejfus or Cttw. Presbyters become united into a Presbytery in the Claffi- 
 call, by having -Paftorall changes in fuch adivifion, whofoever commeth 
 fo to be difpofed of, he is no fooner P after to fitch a Panfb, but he is eo 
 nomine, Member of fuch a Claffis. The Presbyters of a Prochiall Presby- 
 tery are as needy united and more : Thgy are united in the choice and 
 call of the fame Congregation they govern,. & united in the whole work 
 of the Mtniftery over the fame people ; fo that they are not on\yfeflow 
 Geverxours, but fellow Labourers in the fame Vineyeard. There is thercm 
 fore no juft ground for fuch a diftinction ef difference between Pre bytery and 
 Presbytery in rejpect either of the Matter or the F© R M . 
 
 Thirdly, Nor thirdly, do we find any thing in the Scriptures mi- III, 
 king them , as from different imployments, or functions, to differ ; firft, 
 we pretend and fo it is in the propofition, the one is fupvriour, the other 
 iuferiour; But how can you fay the Scriptures have made thisdiffe- 
 rcnce,when there is not a word ipoken this way in any place ? Presbyteri- 
 an Writers themfelves in fome expreffions feeme to take away utterly 
 fuch difference as this • in one place you fhall read the Claffis can doe 
 nothing, renitente Ecclefia, but it is «*#and invalid ,• Thus the Affertion 
 for Difcipline, and avouches Zepperus, Zanchy, and others as of this opi- 
 nion. The Congregation, though but minima Ecclefiela, yet may reforme, 
 that is, fufpend, excommunicatefilQ, Renitentibus torre/fondentus. So J 0- 
 etiu4 vnrwsThefes, & defperata cdufa Papatus, lib. 2, Setl.c. 12. Surely 
 according to what thefe Reverend Divines have exprefled, it is hard to 
 be faid, which of thefe Presbyteries hath the greater or fupcriour power. 
 
 Secondly, the imphyment or work of a Presbytery is to ordaine, ex- 
 communicate, fufpend, admit Members, appoint times for worfhip and 
 the like. The Claffical Presbytery rcferve ordination, & excommunicati- 
 on to themfelvesabut the other are left to Parochial Presbyt try .Thus fome 
 Presbyterians ^/We the work, O thej s yoti\b\y other wife. But how can 
 we affirme any fuch dtftgmnent from the Scriptures, if you have-not two 
 forts 9 either in name or nature t6 be found ihere ? and none of thefe 
 zAcls or Adneinifiratiom but maybe done, by that one, the Scripture 
 mentioneth , which doubtleflc they may , feeing Ordination feemeth. 
 
 to 
 
^.o Other Reasons againft, <fy. 
 
 to be fpecifyed in the Text; if the greater,then doubtleflfe the lefler. The 
 Paftor in one place is laid t6 exhort, in another to comfort, in another to 
 vifit the f eke, tiiis will not warrant diftinl~l forts of "P^iftors, for there be- 
 ing but one fort f^oken of in Scriptures, we.muft interpret all thefe feverall 
 Adminiftrations to belong to that one. 
 
 It was not found an eafie work in this Afembly to finde twof$rtso£ 
 Elders, teaching, and ruling. F^otwithftanding all the Scripture hath faid 
 of tTiefe, and in fome places, fo plaine, as if of purpofe to diftinguifh 
 them. If it be fo hard a matter by Scripture light to hold forth two forts 
 of Prejby teries, it mud needs be more difficult to find out two forts 
 of Prefljyteries, efpecially feeing ( as it is generally granted, and this by 
 xhcPresbyterians themfe!ves)that for above fifty yeares after ChriH:,and in 
 the Apoftles times, there was but one kinde of Presbytery. 
 
 It hath been the wifdome of States to keep and preferve the bounds 
 and limits of their Judicatures evident, and diftincl:, and as free from 
 controverfie as may be. If Laws and Ordinances about matters ofmeum 
 and twin, and fuch inferiour claimes fhould not be fo evident,the autho- 
 rity of thefe Courts will be in a readinetfe to relieve wrongs and injuries 
 through luch miftakings. But Controverfies and clafhings about thefe 
 high and publique intcrefts are no other intheifliie then the dividing $f 
 a Kingdome within it felf. 
 
 Is man wifer in his Generation then fefus (fhrift ? He u our Law- giver •, 
 the Government is laid upon hi* {boulders ; he is the wonder full Counsellor f he 
 Prince of Peace. And therefore furely though other matters of practice 
 / and duty fhould have obfeurity in the rule, Yet it is molt probable, He 
 hath ordered Authority and furifditlton with the Officers and Offices for 
 the managing of it, fo evident, as not to put us to fearch in a dark corner 
 for diretlions. We cannot be faid to be cleer in our rule when we are thus 
 inforcedoutofowe word, and but once ufed, to raife fo many Thrones, 
 or Formes of Government, efpecially it being forefeenby Chnft that 
 fuch is the nature of man as nothing occafions more bitter contention 
 then that lulling which is in us to have Authority and JurifdiUion over 
 others, 
 
 Tho. Goodwin, William Bridge, 
 
 Sicfubfcribitur; Philip Nye, William Greenhill, 
 
 fer. Burroughes, William Carter. 
 Sidrach Sympfon. 
 
 Concordat cum Origmal'u 
 
 zAdoniram Byfield, Scriba. 
 
THE 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 ASSEMBLY of DIVINES, 
 
 UNTO 
 
 The Reafons of the feven diffenting Bre- 
 thren, againft the Propofition of divers Con- 
 . gregations being united under one Presbyteriall 
 GOVERNMENT. 
 
 And fr 'ft, to their fir [i and maine Argument. Concerning 
 which we obferve : Fir/l, That 
 
 (His rlrft maine Argument is equally ftrong againft 
 all Government by Synod?, which the whole 
 Chriftian Church hath ever acknowledged unto 
 this day. 
 
 Secondly, it is as ftrong ( though they intended 
 it notj againft Elders doing any acl of Elders out 
 of theirown particular Congregation, what need 
 foever there be of it : So that if any particular 
 Congregation cannot preferve it felfe, it muft be left in corrup- 
 tion and to perdition, rather then any Act of the Elders ot an 
 other Congregation may be exercifed for their relief, by any Ec- 
 
 Bb defiafticall 
 
3 The Anfwer of the Aftembly of Divines y to the Reafons ofth e 
 
 clefiafticall or Presbyteriall power : As fuppofe a Minifter fliould ad- 
 minifter the Sacrament in another Congregation upon any exigent, all 
 the incongruities and abfurdities of this Argument fall upon him. i. It 
 may be alledged againft him, Then he muft ftand in relation to them as 
 an Elder of that flock ; Church and Elder are ReUta y as well as Church 
 and Elders, and then he muft watch over their Soules, &c. Then his 
 whole work muft be h ^?r, then may he rule them, his Preaching and 
 ruling power muft be commenfurable ; then may they challenge to e. 
 led: him, then may the Deacons of his PariLh come and colled Almes 
 among them, &c.And fo of all the reft of the Incongruities, and difpro- 
 portions. This Argument therefore carrying with it fo much mifchief 
 to the whole Church, muft needs befalfe either in the major % or minor, 
 or both, which to difcover, we premifc thefe few pracogmta. 
 
 Firft, The whole Church of Chrift is but one, made up of the Col- 
 lection and aggregation of all who are called out of the world by the 
 Preaching of the Word, to profeffe the Faith of Chrift,unto the unity 
 thereof: From which union there arifeth unto every one fueh a relation 
 unto, and dependancc upon the Catholike Church, as parts have to the 
 whole, and are to do all Chriftian duties, as parts conjoyned unto the 
 whole, and Members of the fame Common-wealth and Corporation, 
 Eph. chap. 4. ver. 3 , to 14. 
 
 Secondly, All the Minifters and Officers of the Church are given to 
 the whole Church for the gathering and building of it, 1 Cor. chap.i 2. 
 ver. 28. Eph. chap, 4. ver. it, 12 . And they are all to teach and rule, 
 and perform all other miniftrations with reference to it, and the beft 
 advantage of it. 
 
 Thirdly, When this whole number of called men, and their Officers 
 were no more then might meet together in one place, they taught and 
 ruled, and did all other minifteriall and Chriftian works in one undi- 
 vided body refpedively. 
 
 Fourthly, Their number increafing, fo that they could not with edi- 
 fication meet all together according to the will of Chrift, they divided 
 into feverall companies for their better ordering and increafe, and fuch 
 feverall Companies joyned together in one externall fellowship and 
 communion of the fame publique Profeffion, and rule of Faith, wor- 
 ship of God, and EcclefiafticallDifcipline,and practice of love, and the 
 duties of it, are in the Scripture called Churches, and tofomeone of 
 thefe fhould every believer joyn himfelf. 
 
 Fifthly, And being thus joyned, the Officers and Mcmbc s fhould 
 not ad: or work, as if they were independent Corporations, but only 
 as parts of Chrifis body, and are all to regard the common good of the 
 whole, and all things in thefe fmaller bodies are to be mannaged 
 
 ice 
 
DuTenting Brethren, againfi the Inflance of the Church <?/Jerufalem. 
 
 for the greateft advantage of the whole, Ephefians Chap. 4. ver. 1. &c. 
 Sixthly, As it is the will of drift, that particular Chriftian men and 
 families fliou Id be aflociated into fome particular Aflfembly, for their 
 own and others edification, fo (as much as may be) fhould fuch parti- 
 cular Atfembliesaflfociate with other Aflfemblies,for the common and 
 mutuall good of them all, fometimes they (landing in need of others, 
 or others of them ; fometimes themfelves fingly are inefficient to their 
 own bufineffe; fometimes divifions grt)w between the people and their 
 Elders; fometimes the people rent from their Elders; fometimes the 
 Elders mifcarry in their adminiftrations to the people ; fometimes a 
 whole Church groweth corrupt in doctrine or conversation ; fome- 
 times it is not commodious and expedient to ufe their power without 
 afliftance and counfell ; in all which cafes they (land in need of the 
 help of others, and when other Congregations are in the like condi- 
 tion, they (land in the like need of them. Some things alio being of 
 common concernment to them all, as when fometimes error, Herefie, 
 Schifm, overrun many of thefe Congregations ; fometimes divifions 
 grow betwixt Church and Church; fometimes Minifters are to be tranf- 
 lated from one Congregation to another, and many the like things fall 
 out, which are of common concernment, and cannot be done by any 
 of them alone : And in all fuch cafes, and for all fuch ends they are ty- 
 ed to aflociate, as much as particular men are tied to aflbciate with a 
 Congregation if it may be obtained, and no excufe can be pleaded 
 for a Congregation and their Officers, which may not be pleaded for 
 a particular perfon, the unity of the body of Chrill being as flrong for 
 the one as for the other, and the neceffity and benefits of the one as of 
 the other. 
 
 Seventhly, In fuch Affociations, as the mutuall confent of parti- 
 cular men and families orderly regulated joyning in one Congregation 
 gives them power and authority one over another according to the 
 rule of Thrift, without hurting or deftroying, but rather helping and 
 ftrengthning of the Liberty of their feverall perfons and families : So in 
 this AfTociation of Congregations their mutuall confent orderly regu- 
 lated gives them a fufficient call for the Elders to exercife their power 
 of Elders (which is no where any other then minifterialU and the peo- 
 ple their intereft in fuch things as are above mentioned, without impai- 
 ring or hurting the liberty and privileges of the Congregations, but ra- 
 ther preferving and ftrengthning of them; this affociation ofCongre- 
 gations,as that alfo of Families being fuch a joyning as proceeds Ex cha- 
 ritate,ex debito mntrnfocietatis ce/endcc,as is between friends and equals, 
 T^on ex debito inferiors conditions ad prafiandum obfequium, as 
 between Mafters and Servants. This is mod cleer in the continuall 
 intercoufe held in the Churches of the New Teftament betwixt 
 
 B b z feverall 
 
The Anftoer of the Ajfembly ofpivwes, to the Reafons of the 
 fevcrali Churches or Congregations, one with another, even 
 while they enjoyed the perfonalj prefence, direction and authority of 
 the Apoftks, 2 Corinthians Chapter 8. Verfe 14* 19. with Romans 
 Chapter 1 5. Verfe 26* Coloffiaiis Chapter 4. Verfe 1 6. <isf£ls Chapter 
 I 1 .Verfe 29, 30. Cjalatians C^ap. 6. Ver. I, 2, J, 9. with GaUtians 
 Chapter I. Verfe 2. Alls Chdf>ter 13. Fb/e 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. *Atls 
 Chapter t$. Verfe i, 3, 4. Sometimes by Letters written to many 
 Churches as one body, fometimes by CommilTioners, fometimes by 
 Synods, fometimes in a particular matter concerning one Church, 
 fometimes in matter of common concernment to many Churches ; 
 And it is impoffible the common good of the whole Church 
 fhould be preferved without thefe Auociations : It being cleerly 
 the will of Chrift, that the Communion of Saints not only internali 
 but alfo externall among them all (hould be maintained and in- 
 creafed ; A 11 being tycd to ftrive together in one fpirit, to help one 
 another, to flrengthen the weake, to admonijh the unruly, u -with- 
 draw from them that walke inordinately. The inftitution of Chrift 
 making his Church one, and apponting all thefe as means proportion- 
 able to attaine that end, and no where limitting them to be as 
 meanes to particular and individuall men only ; but left them to be ap- 
 plyed according to the prefent condition of times, places, perfons, of 
 one, or more, or many, whether men or Churches : The very light of 
 nature requiring, that all due and lawfull means fhould be ufed for the 
 attaining of fome neceflary end,warrants us to conclude,thac the means 
 appointed or commanded for particular Chriftians, fhould be as appli- 
 able to whole Companies of them, unleffe Gods word hath fome 
 where forbidden it. Jfit be demanded whether it be not left free to 
 Congregations and their Officers, whether they will joyn in fuch /\flfo- 
 ciation or not ; becaufe their mutuall confent is that which is pleaded 
 as the next foundation of it f We anfwer, It is here as it is in the cafe of 
 joyningwitha particular Congregation: All are injoyned to it by 
 Chrift to be Members of fome Congregation ; but when they joyn to 
 this Congregation rather then to that, the mutuall confent between 
 them* and the Congregation with whom they joyn, is that w rh immedi- 
 ately gives themthat fpecial relation to one another « So is it here, what 
 further rules are about the regular fetling of Congregations or fuch Af- 
 fociations as thefe are, what is the Magiftrates power or duty in fetling 
 the bounds of Congregations or fuch Presbyteries, or what he hath to 
 do with fuch as refufe either to aflfociate with particular Congregati- 
 ons, or ( lufllcall Presbyteries, or what the duty of t-he Churches is a- 
 bout it,belongs not to this prefent queftion,it is ftifficient here to fhew, 
 that fuch as are willing thus to affociate may fee a warrant for it. 
 Eighthly, fuch proofes and evidences rauft be admitted by our Bre- 
 thren 
 
Difftnting Brethren, Againft the Inftance of the Church of Jerufalem. 
 
 thren in this point, as are acknowledged and allowed by them in other 
 parts of Church government, wherein they agree with us, which are not 
 alwayes immediately out of Scripture fufficiently cleare to convince 
 pertinacious adverfaries;And yet the Scripture-grounds compared with 
 light of nature are fufficient to fatisfie pious and moderate men. 
 
 Thefe things premifed, we proceed to this their main Argument,^/*,. 
 J f many f articular Congregations, having all their Officers fixed, &c. 
 
 Where firft in generall we note,that they have framed this Argument 
 only againft the joyning of thofe many Congregations into one Pref- 
 bytcriall government, who have all their Officers fixt, which is not our 
 Propofition, nor was our inftance brought to prove it: We determined 
 not whether all Congregations can have all Officers fixcd,not whether 
 they muft have them if they could, whether the feverall Congregations 
 fo united muft hav* each their own particular Presbytery, or whether 
 they muft all coalefcere in unum tantum Presbyterium ; Nor do we find 
 it certain, whether ifl Jerufalem the officers were fixed or not fixed. 
 
 We doubt not to affirme that there may be divers Congregations 
 joyned in one Presbytery only, and the Officers to teach and govern in 
 Common, when it (hall be found moft for their edification, and fo it is 
 in fome reformed Churches at this day ; and the truth thereof was alfo 
 acknowledged by one of thefe dijfenting Brethren, who refufed to enter 
 his dhfent againft the Propofition if taken in this fenfe : And we doubt) 
 not alfo to affirm, that where there is this joyning of many Congrega- 
 tions, there may be diftind Presbyteries in the feverall Congregations, 
 who may have either fome or all Officers fixt, and they may do what 
 belongs to that Congregation, only fo far as they are able, and their 
 joyning into a Common Presbytery is for their helping &ftrengthning. 
 So that our Propofition may ftand true, though their whole Argu- 
 ment were granted, and the whole ftrengthof it is by their new fra- 
 ming of it appliable only againft the Appendix in the inftance of feru- 
 falem, viz,. That it i* all one as to the truth of the propojitien^drc* 
 
 And unlefle the fixing of Officers do wholly alter the State of the 
 queftion, their argument muft fall to the ground : for inftance, fuppofc 
 in ferujalem there were ten Congregations and twenty Officers feed- 
 ing and ruling them in common, no one of them fixed to any one 
 Congregation. This kind of Presbytery would parte for a lawful! 
 government, and none of thefe incongruities or absurdities are charg- 
 ed upon it by this Argument ; but if they fhould find by experi- 
 ence that it would be more for the edification of the Congregations 
 to have two of the Officers fixed to each Congregation to teach and 
 govern them in firch things which concern themfelves, and yet all of 
 them agree in a Common Colledge with mutuall advife and confent 
 
 Bb 3 to 
 
The ssfnftoer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafens of the 
 
 to tranfacl all things which (hould be of dificultie or common concern- 
 ment : Such a Presbytery ftiould make them liable to all thefe Incon- 
 gruities and abfurdities by this their Argument. Yet notwithftanding 
 we fhall examine it, as themfelves have framed it, viz. Jf many Congre- 
 gations having all Elders already fixed refpetlively unto them may be un- 
 der a Prcsbyteriall government jhen all thofe Elders muft fuftain a fpeciall 
 relation of 'Elders to all the people of thofe Congregations as one Churchy 
 and to every one as a member thereof. But this carries Vrith it great and 
 manifold incongruities and inconfiflences with rules of Script ure^ and prin- 
 ciples of reformed Churches themfelves ; therefore it may not be. 
 
 We anfwer, firft to the confequence of the major by denying it, That 
 in fuch a government, the Elders do the work of Elders, is granted, and 
 that in that work, and becaufe of the work there done, they bear a 
 fpeciall relation of Presbytery to the Churches, is as readily gtanted : 
 Bnt that therefore they muft be judged fingly Elders of thefe Churches, 
 tyed to do all the Offices of Elders to them as to the Congregations 
 where they ate fixed, Or that all the Congregations who joyne in fuch 
 an Aflociation muft neceflarily be one Church, one particularTFtfft 
 Church fas it is called J is utterly falfe ; when many Elders of feverall 
 Congregations meet in a Synod and do fuch Acls as our Brethren grant 
 they may do in relation to many Congregations ; We fuppofe they 
 will not deny that they do thefe Acls of Elders as Elders : yet they are 
 not thereby every one argued to be Elders of every one of thefe Con- 
 gregations, or thefe Congregations argued to be one Church. Or when 
 a Minifter adminifters the Sacrament to another Congregation, or to 
 the people of another Congregation, he doth it as an Elder, and as ha- 
 ving a fpeciall relation to that people at that time, and in that work, he 
 being called to it ; yet it followes not that he is, or therefore muft be an 
 Elder ofthatChurch,bound to performe all Offices of an Elder pub- 
 likely and privately to every one of them. 
 
 And if it be excepred againft this, that fuch an occafionall AEl doth 
 not indeedprove it, but to do it ftatedly or ordinarily will prove it. Wc 
 anfwer, that which is lawfull for him to do once or twice, is not made 
 unlawfull to do oftentimes when the fame call and occafion requires it ; 
 he may not once do that which is unlawfull, he may not once do that 
 Aclofan Elder out of his own place which foould needlefTely difable 
 him from his work in his own place, but fuppofing him faithfull in that, 
 he may and ought to put forth any act of an Elder for the good of ether 
 Churches, yea for all the Churches in the world (if he be able and 
 thereunto called ) as well as to pray and write books for the benefit of 
 all. If he be able without prejudice to his own work at home, he may 
 keep a weekly Lecture in another Congregation for the benefit thereof: 
 
 Or 
 
Diffenting Brethren, tgainft the Inftance of the fhttnh ^/Jerufalem. 
 
 Or in adminiftration of Sacraments, fuppofe a Minifter, who hath but 
 a fmall Congregation, it may be a hundred fouls,fhould live by another 
 Minifterwhohad a Congregation of two or three thoufand fouls, he 
 may ordinarily aflift that other Minifter in the tdminiftration of the 
 Sacrament of the Lords Supper when it may be done without prejudice 
 to his own little flock. If any fhould fay, it is not ld^ full for a Minifter 
 to adminifler the Sacrament in another Congregation, becaufe it is a 
 Church Atl, but yet may receive the people of another Congregation to re- 
 ceive the Sacrament Vcith his Churchy the practice of fome is. 
 
 We anfwer, if by a Church Acl be meant, that they who receive to- 
 gether muft be one Church, that is falfe, and we thinker Brethren 
 will not own it ; for if fo, none may receive the Sacrament in any 
 Church, but thofe that are members of that Church. And if it be grant- 
 ed, that they ftill are members of another Church 5 Then it is granted 
 that an Elder may do an Act of an Elder amongft thofe to whom he is 
 not a fixed Officer ; ' and furely he may as well do it when he goes to 
 them,as when they come to him for it: A man doth as truly lend money 
 to his neighbour, who comes to fetch it at his houfe, as when he carries 
 it to his neighbours houfe, though his courtefie is more in the latter. If 
 it fhould be yet further faid, that though all this fhould be granted,that 
 Elders may preach and adminifler Sacraments to others, yet it will not fol- 
 low that they may exercife AEis ofdijcipline towards others, though they 
 Jhouldcall % them thereunto in fuch an Ajfociation. We anfwer firft,where 
 is that limitation in the Scripture for the one and not for the other ? 
 Neither can our Brethren object it, who acknowledge the Elders power 
 of teaching, ruling, and adminiftration of Sacraments to be commen- 
 furable. And we further fay, that of all the Acts of an Elder (wherein 
 he is to apply the will of God to others) none are fo fafc for him to 
 performe as thofe belonging to difcipline, both becaufe they are to 
 be performed z« Collegio, with the advice and affiftance of others, and 
 are all to. be performed feemtdum allegata & probata only. We fay 
 therefore cleerely, that when many Congregations do mutually agree, 
 that the Elders of their feverall Congregations fhould joyn by mutual! 
 advife, counfell, and authoritie of Elders to manage all matters of 
 common concernment, difficultie, &c. among thcmfelves : All thefe 
 thus joyned in a body or an Elderfhip to thofe Congregations,and each 
 one doth the Ads of Elders in the Presbytery to thofe Congregations 
 in ail thofe things for which they, are thus aflbciated; yet every one of 
 them feverally, and particularly,is not to be looked upon as an Elder of 
 every one of thofe Congregations,and bound to do the whole work of 
 an Elder to every one of them. And thus it is likewife in human affaires, 
 in the Jewifh Common-wealth,the heads of the feverall Tribes,whcn all. 
 
 pyned 
 
The Anfwer of the AJfembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 joyned together, were as a Parliament to all Ifrael, and might in that 
 affociatcd body do many things which could not be required of parti- 
 cular Elders, or heads of the Tribes : So is it with us, the Knights and 
 BurgeiTes aiTembled in Parliament may in that Body do many things, 
 in relation to the whole Kingdome, which none of them may do feve- 
 rally and fingly : So may Colonels aflociated in a Councell of War, fo 
 may particular heads of Co Hedges joyn'd in the Confiftory : fo may the 
 Aldermen of feverall Wards, when joyned in the Court of Aldermen. 
 And whereas they reply to this, page 8. that in all thefe Inflanc es, thefe 
 have their diftinEl names, Laws, and Voork^fet out by their feveralfiates ; 
 Tor example, The Scripture held out in that of the Tribes, that there Were 
 general I heads of the Tribes who were called Elders of the people, the others 
 were called Elders offuch andfuch Cities, offuch and fuch Families, and 
 fo forth, and had their fever all work^Cet out by Loft ; ih* generall heads 
 had referved cafes ofblafphemy, efc. the like, they fay, is in the other in- 
 fiances found among ourfelves, Colonels^ Maflers of Colledges, Alder- 
 men of Cities, Burgejfes of Tokens, and Parliament, have both their Titles, 
 and works fet doWn reflectively, what they may do in their lejfer Sphear 9 
 and what they may do in their greater AJfociations .But for ours the Scrip- 
 ture holds forth no fuch thing, they are called Elders fimilarlj and univo- 
 cally, and We/hall reade but /imply and fingly, Elders and Churches, as re- 
 latives, without any fuch note ofdiftinclion* 
 
 We Anfwer, (not to difpute how hard it would be for our 
 Brethren to prove clearly that diftindtton of the feveral names 
 and work of thefe Elders m Ifrael, &c) we inquire not after names, 
 but things : And as for the thing in queftion, we have already 
 eleered , that the Scripture holds out, that as the Church is 
 one, and all the Elders given for the good of that one Church; fo their 
 Officers f when orderly called for J fhould be exercifed in any part of 
 it for the good thereof: and that a mutuall confent and agreement, is a 
 fufficient warrant and call for the exercife of this power, whether in 
 one Congregation only, asfuppofe in Cenchrea, or in many, as fuppofe 
 inferufalem, or yet more, as fuppofe when Antioch and Jerufalem 
 joyned,/tf#. Chap. 1 5. that in any of thefe, or all of thefe, they may, 
 and ought, upon fuch a call, exercife any of their gifts and offices, as 
 the Church, or any part thereof ihall ftand in need .« As in a County or 
 Kingdom, when the State fets many CommifTioners for preferving the 
 Peace of that County or Kingdom in all their meetings, whether 
 in Parishes, in relation to the Parifh only, or in Hundreds,in relation to 
 the Hundred only ; or in their Quarter or Generall SeiTions : While 
 in all thefe meetings, they regularly feek to prcferve the Com- 
 mon Peace, they are warranted to all by their CommiiTionifo is it here. 
 
 As 
 
' DilTenting Brethren, again]} the Inftance of the Church o/Jerufalem. 
 
 As for the alluflon oiBurgejfes in fever all Corporations, and their ar- 
 rogating greater power, or poWer of larger extent then the Laws allow, 
 under pretence of their names of Burgejfes and Corporations, becaufe in 
 fome other State or Kingdom, there were Burgejfes who had fuch po\\\ 
 thofe would claim : which allufion they largely profecute. 
 
 We Anfwer, It would fully confute us, if we challenged any other 
 powe r, or extent of power then Chrifi hath given to all his Minifters 
 to exercife in any part of his Church upon a call. 
 
 We fay again, That this power of Mini ft er s is no where any other 
 then Mini(teriall,and that is not to be exercifed any where at their own 
 wills, but according to his direction, and the call of his Church, and 
 then they may do it. 
 
 But we alfo anfwer fecondly, That it would fuit the Qyeftion in 
 hand far better, to fuppofe that all and every the Parishes in London, 
 yea, in all England, were every one of them fuch an abfolute Corpora- 
 tion, and the leverall Inhabitants fuch BurgelTes, that they had not on- 
 ly all power in themfelves to do their own bulinefTe, without any o- 
 thers claiming any Authority over them, how bad foever they fhould 
 grow ; but that alfo it fhould be pretended to be againfi their funda- 
 mental Liberties to alTociate with any others formatters of difficulty, 
 mifcarriages, or common concernment to do any thing for fupprefllng 
 any enormities among themfelves or others, otherwife then by taking 
 or giving counfell and advice, which if they refufe to follow, they may 
 deny familiarity to them, but ufe no other Authority to reclaim them. 
 Such a Comparifon would truly fet forth the (late of the Controverlie; 
 by which we might conjecture what rents, dividons, mifchiefs, confufi- 
 ons, all Cities, Townes, and Parifhes would quickly be filled and over- 
 run withall. 
 
 Thus Tour Honours fee with what cleer evidence, and upon what 
 juft grounds and reafon we deny the confequence of their major Propo- 
 rtion, which is the only foundation upon which all the reft is built. 
 
 We now proceed to examine the proof es of their Major ; Firft, fay 
 they, they muft have relation of Elders to all and every one of the members: 
 Tor Church and Elders are Relatives, 
 
 We Anfwer firft, If by CWc^ there, be meant a particular Church, 
 we deny the truth of that Propofttion, Relata do fe mutuo ponere & toile- 
 rs And a Minifter of the Goipel, is fo made a Minifter to the Catho- 
 like Church o(Chrift t that he doth not ceafe to be an Elder alwayes 
 when his relation to a particular Church doth ceafe. 
 
 Secondly, When they ftandin relation to a particular Church ; yet 
 if the meaning be, that they are Relatives, fo that every Act of an Elder 
 muft Argue him to ftand in relation to an Eid«r in all duties of an Bl- 
 
 C c der 
 
1 The An/Veer of the Affembly of Divines y to the Reafons of the 
 
 dcr to that Church or people to who he performs one Aft; We have al- 
 readyfhewcd the faifity of it. An Eider in his work is not limitted by the 
 Law of God to one Congregation, as the office of a Parent or Hus- 
 band, are limited by the law of nature to their own children or wife, to 
 whom they muft perform the duties of thefe relations wholy & only:or 
 as a Conftable is limited by our Laws to one Parish. But rather,as in the 
 former Comparifon of CommiiTionersfor the peace, who though they 
 ordinarily exercife their Authority in fome one certain Di vifion, where 
 their residence is, yet occafionally extend it to all parts of the County, 
 *as a call requires them ; So we fay the Eiders receive their power arid 
 CommiiTion for the whole Church o^hrifl, and may exercife it where- 
 ever they have a call, and no where without a call ; and the mutuall af- 
 fent and agreement of the perfons among whom, and to whom they 
 fliould exercife it, is the proximam fundament um kujus exercitii. And 
 whereas they further fay >That the Argument of the Presbyterial Govern- 
 ment^ taken by thePresbyterial Divines from thisjhat many Congregati- 
 ons tn Scripture are made one Qhxrch, and the Elders thereof Elders of 
 that (fhurch* 
 
 We Anfwer, when a multitude gf believers,(though many thoufands) 
 agreed together in one presbyterial Govcrnment,whohad but one on- 
 ly Presbytery, and who probably did all in common, for feeding and 
 governing; they were ufually called by the name of one Church, and the 
 Elders were the Elders of that Qhurch : and fo it may be ftillin the like 
 condition.They found it bed, in thofe times of perfection, and publike 
 unfetlednefs, to have one common Treafury for all their poor, and one 
 common finfiftory for all matters of cenfure.-But doubtlefs had the num- 
 ber of believers grown to fuch a multitude, as that it would have bred 
 confufion to have all their Ecclefiaftical Affairs managed in one Court, 
 and took them off from the reft of their work;the light of nature teach- 
 €th us to conclnde,that they would have had more (fonfiftories then one 
 for Government, as well as upon the former increafe of believers, they 
 grew to have more meeting places then one for Word and Sacraments, 
 and yet would have held fuch a correfpondency as matters of difficulty 
 and Common concernment fhould have been managed by Common 
 confent* But whether all thofe Congregations growing fo numerous, 
 and thofe Presbyteries thus divided (hould have been called one (fhurch 
 ftill ; we know not, nor is it of any moment. We fay again, VVe are 
 not inquiring for names and things. 
 
 Secondly, their other proof is from the practice of the Elders, Who do 
 thus joyn in a Presbyterial Government ; becaufe When Congregations in 
 Shires are divided into fevcralPresbyteries 7 the Elders (though Neighbors) 
 of a bordering Presbyteri e/wtermtdle not with the (Congregations under 
 *!n;therPresbyttrie» VVe 
 
Diffefl'ting Brethren, againfl the Infiance of the Church of Jerufalem. i r 
 
 We Anfwer, It is true, they do cake themfelves bound intfpeciall 
 relation to thofe Congregations who are aflfociated in that Presbyterie, 
 in thofe things for which they arc Aflbciated, and their mutuallcon- 
 fent and agreement gives them that relation andcalling to thofe things; 
 And the cafe is here as it is in particular Congregations, all Beleevers 
 are tied to joyn to fome Congregation or other, to whom they bear a 
 fpeciall relation, befides that which they owe to the whole univerfail 
 Church, yet peradventure their habitation is neercr to fome who are of 
 another Congregation, then to fome of their own. 
 
 And wc adde yet further, that thefe feverall (flafft rail Presbyteries 
 may have the like Affociation and correfpondencies amongft them- 
 felves as matters of difficulty and common concernment may occafion 
 and require. 
 
 Their Major, and the proofes of it being thus found inefficient, We 
 need not infift longer upon the pretended incongruities,anddifpropor- 
 tions, which they have fo largely profecuted in their minor, and the 
 proofes of it : yet fo far as there is any thing in them of any feeming 
 weight,we fhall take them into confideration,wherein we (hall difcover 
 fome things to be falfe in themfelves, other things not to be prejudicial! 
 to our Aflertion. Asfirft, For extending the poVeer of ordinary ruling, 
 J^eyond the power of ordinary Preaching. 
 
 We Anfwer, This extends not his ordinary power of the one,beyond 
 the ordinary power of the other, but only the ordinary exercife of the 
 one, beyond the ordinary exercife of the other, having herein a call to 
 the one, and not to the other ; which is no incongruity or abfurdity fas 
 we have before (hewed;,) And as for their alledged Scriptures,^?.; 20. 
 2$.2 c Pet.<).ColoJf.i.ij.Hekii.lj. 1 The(f.$.i2. 1 Tim.$.i 7. None 
 of them prove the contrary,they only (hew that all thefe things belong 
 to their Office, and that this is the ordinary andufuallpradtifeand 
 work of Elders where their work lie?, but none of them prove it un- 
 lawful for an Elder upon a call .to do one of thefe, where they have 
 not occafion, and a call to do the reft. 
 
 And as for the comparifon, that this was made the ufna.1l Argument a- 
 gain (I Bi flops, that people were forced to hey him, ^ho preached riot to 
 t hem, nor watched over their fouls, &c. This Argument, fay they, holds 
 as Well againft the Presbyteriallway. 
 
 We anfwer, That the exceptions againft Epifcopall way, were, that 
 they challenged thefe things as belonging to them, as men of a higher 
 order, Challenge that to one which belongs to a Coiledgc, Spoiled 
 bothPaftors and people of their power and liberties, ArTociated not 
 Congregations with them, but Subdued them unto them ; Were not 
 mutually fubjedt to the Presbyterie, whom they would have fubjed to 
 him ; Things were not carried in a way of confederation as inter pares ; 
 
 Cc 2 They 
 
I i The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines Jo the Reafons of the 
 
 They and their power being wholly extrinftcall to them, bufineffenot 
 being of mutuall concernment. Thefe and the like were the exceptions 
 againft the Epifcopall way : but not that it was unlawfull for him be- 
 ing a Presbyter to exercife an Act of Government, upon affociation 
 toward them to whom he ordinarily preached not : And this is appa- 
 rent, becaufe even the Nonconformifls who pleaded thus againft him, yet 
 judged ordination received by impoikion of their hands to be valid 
 quoad fubflantiam atlas, becaufe they were Presbyters. 
 
 To the Reafons, firfl, becaufe the rulingpoWer fioWes from their poWer 
 of preaching, and therefore mufi be extendable no further : as the poWer of 
 a Father is extendable only to his Children, 
 
 We anfwer, Firfl:, it is falfe, that his ruling power flowcs from his 
 preaching power, fome have the gifts & power of ruling who have not 
 of preaching.Secondly,Were it granted,yet it follows not, that he mull: 
 do' the one where ever he doth the other ; both are given him together, 
 but neither to be exercifed without a call, and fometimes he may be cal- 
 led to exercife the one and not the other, as we have before fhewed. 
 
 To the reafon of their Reafons, Firfl, fay they, if it flow not from his 
 power of 'Preaching, it ma ft flo\\> from fome thing elj 'e : We Anfwer, all 
 his office and authority is conferred together by Chrift his gift, as the 
 Fountain, and the Churches call, as the mcanes. 
 
 To their fecond, All the key es are given together ; ejre. 
 
 Anfwer, We grant it, (and this confutes their former Reafon ,\kd£ the 
 power of ruling flowes from their power of Preaching.-) And we grant 
 alfo that the one is extendable as far as the other, even to the whole 
 Church otChrifi, but ever as he fhall be called, and as the good of the 
 Church requires, yet the exercife of the one is not neceffary to be exten- 
 ded actually as far as the exercife of the other. 
 
 To their third, the inftance of the Apoftles, that their power was ex- 
 tendablewith their commiffion to Preach>&c. 
 
 Anfw. Very true,fo was their power to adminifter the Sacramcnts,yet 
 Raul took nothimfelf bound to exercife his power of baptizing in all 
 places, where he took himfelf bound to Preach,but attended chiefely to 
 that which might moft benefit the Church. And our Brethren feeme to 
 us not a little to weaken their own Argument, and ftrengthen our An- 
 fwer. in their alledging in the fame place, that though the Apoftles (as 
 Apoftles) power of ruling was extendable With their TreachingjYet grant 
 that they might exercife the one, Where they might not exercife the other. 
 For if an Apoftle, as an Apoftle, may exercife one Acl of his Miniftery, 
 where he may not exercife another, then may a Presbytery a Presbyter 
 exercife one Adl of his Miniftery, where he may not exercife another. 
 
 To their fecond head of incongruities,fto it makes a difproportion be^ 
 *weentheWorkesor offices of Ruling and Preaching Officers compared be- 
 
 tiveea 
 
DilTentin g Brethren, ugAlnft the Inftance of the fhurch cf J e ru fa lc m . 13 
 
 f#eenthemfelves,becaufe a P aft or, quapaftor, is limited in thehigheft 
 workjtf Preaching to one Congregation, and not in his riding. 
 
 We Anfwer, The Pallors are given to the whole Church, and are not 
 limited in their higheft Office of Preaching to one Congregation .- his 
 ordinary exercife of Preaching may pofiibly be limited to one Con- 
 gregation, yet not necciTarily, for he may keep an ordinary Lecture 
 in another. Nor doth it ( as their next head of incongruities imports ) 
 make him a Ruling Elder tofome, and a Preaching Elder to others: 
 Thcfe two make him not two Officers, but' are two branches of his 
 one Office, either of which he is to exercife as a call requires \ And it is 
 no incongruity or abfurdity to fay that he may have a Relation to one 
 Congregation to do fome Acls of his Office upon a call, and yet not 
 tied to all. 
 
 To the next head concerning the extent of the Deacons Office, the 
 fum whereof is; That then the Deacons Office might be extended to 
 more Congregations then one. We Anfwer, fo it was in ferufalem, and 
 fo it may be ftill, as the like condition of the Church may require : were 
 the poor Saints to be maintained now as then, only by voluntary Con- 
 tributions, divers Congregations might be aflbciated in this work alfo, 
 for the common care of their poor: And with us ( where God in mercy 
 hath othcrwife provided for the poor) the Law hath ordered, that if 
 one Parifhbe not able to maintain their own poor, the Neighbour 
 Parifhesare to joyn with them in it ; So.that neither by Gods Law,nor 
 mans Law, doth this carry any incongruity with it. Yet neither from 
 hence doth it follow that therefore it mull be fo, thai, the "Deacons 
 Office mull extend in the exercife of it, as far, and no farther then the 
 Preachers; The Deacons Office in the Churches of Afta, was extended 
 to fend reliefe to the Churches of Ierufalem } 'm a time of Famine ; when 
 yet they fent not their Preachers to preach to them of ?fr#/*/fw,becaufe 
 ' there was no Famine of the Word ; And the Churches at Antioch fent 
 fome of their Elders to Preach,where they fent none of their Deacons to 
 diftribute almes : All thefe things are to be managed and excrcifed as 
 the common good of the Church doth require. 
 
 To their next head of Incongruities from the mutua.ll duties which 
 necejfarily folloW upon this ftanding relation, Firft,That the people muft 
 honour andefteem,j/ea,yeeld maintenance to thofe Who thus ordinarily rule 
 them, which they prove ^y^Tim.5. 17, 18. and if 'that the Elders of 'a 
 particular Elocke, are to have their maintenance for their preaching 
 there, and performing the lejfer <*AEls of ruling there, much more fiould . 
 thej be maintained for performing the greater AUs in the Claffis : What 
 reafon (fay they) is there that particular Congregations fijpuld maintain 
 their own Elders for performing one part of the Elders worf^, and that they 
 fhouldyet be bound to maintain the reft for all the other part of the work^c : 
 
 C 3 Mnd 
 
1 4 The Anfwer of the Ajfembly of Divines, to the Reafoni of the 
 
 andyet due it is from every perfon as he is able ; how bnrthenfome andean* 
 fufeda thing would this be ? 
 
 To all which we Anfwer,that it is moft true, that Elders are to be ho- 
 noured and maintained for their works fake, even becaufe they are 
 wholly fet apart to this work i and where they do the whole work of 
 an Elder to a particular Congregation, it is reqmute that they fhould re- 
 ceive a lufficient maintenance ; but yet it follows not that all muft ne- 
 ceffarily contribute to their maintenance who receive any fruit of their 
 Miniftery . Suppofe the State, or fome able and weli-aflfe&ed perfon 
 in a place fhould fet apart a plentifull and honorable maintenance to 2 
 Minifter, for the fervice of his Miniftery in fuch a Congregation, fo that 
 he might live plentifully upon it, without the peoples contributing any 
 thing to him, are the people notwithftanding bound to contribute an- 
 other honorable maintenance to him, becaufe of his work among them? 
 or if a combination of Minifters fhould affociate freely tobeftow a 
 weekly Lecture in fome great town or City : yea, fuppofe they fhould 
 do it every day of the weeke * Are the people to whom they are wil- 
 ling freely to Preach, bound to maintain allthofe? 
 
 Again it is a miftake that our Brethren fay, that Minifters united 
 in ClafficaU Presbyteries have maintenance for performing one fart of their 
 Office. We fay, they performe all which belongs to their Office, which 
 concernes their Congregation only, if they be able ; their joyning in 
 the Gaffes is formatters of common concernment, and to help them, 
 wherein they are inefficient to do their own work belonging to their 
 own Congregations. 
 
 To their fecond,wherein they fay,tW thofe^toho are thus ajfociated^muft 
 then be bound to all other Offices of Elders, as to vifite the Jick^ to vifit the 
 ■people from houfe to houfe y to Vratcb over them all, to preach to them infea- 
 fonandout of fealon. 
 
 We anfwer as before, they are bound only by their Aftbciation to 
 the duties for which they aflbciate. And 04 for the Gravamen of theirs 
 to make the Presbyterian way to appear ^fcorfe then that of the Bifbops- 
 
 We anfwer,we are forry our Brethren delight fo much in this compa- 
 rifon ; the Bijbops arrogated to themfelves to be the only Paftors of the 
 Diocelfe,robd the Paftors of their authority,fpoiled the people of their 
 Liberty, made all their fervants and vaffalls.The Presbyterian way is not 
 U that of Mafters over Servants,but fociall, as between equalls,between 
 brethren, friends, colleagues, confederates, &c. where all Judge, and all 
 are judged,where no Congregation is above another Congregation,no 
 Minifter above another Minifter, where every Elder is left to injoy the 
 whole orhce of an Elder, and each Congregation left to the h eedome 
 of a Congregation in what belongs to them, and they able to perform 
 ltjand the Claffes,to corroborate ftrerigthen and help them We are not 
 willing to fay more of this odious comparifon.* To 
 
Diflfenting Brethren, againfi the Infiattce of the Church of Jerufaiem. if 
 
 To their objection which they fuppofe may be made, that they may 
 part the workjbetween them, of Which they indeavour a large co/ifutation. 
 
 We anfwer, we never made this abi'urd objection, we fay not that 
 men may part that work among many, and leave buc one part of it to 
 one,when God would have one do all ; we fay every Elder mult indea- 
 vour to do all his own work, and be afliltant to his Brethren in help- 
 ing forward their work .- But what ftrength foever there bcinthetr 
 objection, fure we arc, the infhnces brought by our Brethren to confute 
 it,arc very improper to give a fatisfadory folution.Whcn the Elders a- 
 mong the Hebrewes are faid to watch over the fouls of the people, and the 
 fame Elders are charged by Peter to feed the fiock^of Cjod among themjfaz 
 fame charge which was given to the Elders ofEphefus,Ach 20. and this 
 flock contained all the ftrangers fcattered throughout Font™, Galatli, 
 Cappadocia, Afia as\&£ithyma ; fure thefc Elders were compel' d to part 
 the work among them. 
 
 And further,whereas they dcmw\d,fVhere hath the Scripture parted that 
 Wor^fo that he Who u fixed- in one Congregation to do all the Workjyfan El- 
 der,pjouldpart with others infome of theirwor^& leave part of his to them? 
 
 We anfwer, we affirm no fuch thing, but on the other fide we defire 
 cur Brethren to (hew where the Scripture hath made fuch a fixing of an 
 Elder to one Congregation, as that it fhould be unlawfull for him to do 
 any Ad of an Elder to any part of the reft of the Church of Chrift, to 
 whom he is yet given by Chrift as an Elder. For our part we conceive 
 that both the divifion of the Church into Congregation?, and of fixing 
 particular Elders to them, is no further of divine Institution then order 
 and edification did firft occafion,and do ftill require it fhould be fo ; we 
 conceive, it is here as it was in the Church of the J ewes, to whom the 
 whole f ribe vULevi were given as their Minifters When all the Ifra- 
 elites lived together in one body ("though many hundred thoufands) as 
 when they were in the VVelderneiTe,the whole Tribe of Levi were but 
 as one body or Colledge ofElderstothem all, and for ought we know 
 fed them all in common, and afterwards when the Tribes came to be 
 fixed in their feverall divifions, the wife providence and grace of God 
 ordered it fo, that the Levites were alfo fcattered; and fixed among 
 them. 
 
 To their laft head of incongruities, that this is inconfiftent With the 
 ordinary way of the calling of Elders, both for their choyce and ordination ; 
 fir ft, then ail the people of thefe Congregations muft choofe all thefe Elders 
 Who rule them, as Well as thofe that are to preach to them, as this they 
 largely infift upon, de firing to know under what notion or c on f deration 
 they are to choofe him Who it tv be their ordinary fixt Elder, and: he other, 
 who are only to rule them. 
 
 We anfwer, what ever the peoples right be in choofwg their Elders, 
 
 this 
 
1 6 The tAnffter of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafens of the 
 
 this Afiociatien is no abridgement of it in any kind : We fay clearely, 
 that the feverall Congregations/^/? choofe or except of the one to be 
 their Paftor to doe ail offices which concern a Paftor or Miniftera- 
 mong them : And all the Congregations joyntly in this AfTociation do 
 choofe or accept of, or aflociate with all the reft to be a Presbytery, to 
 tranfacl with themfelves all matters of difficulty and common concern- 
 ment. 
 
 And as to that aggravation added tothisreafon, that if the higheft 
 Alls be committed to them, as that of Excommunication ( of all funi fo- 
 ments the mo ft formidable, a matter of as great, if not more concernment s 
 as life it f elf } the injoying of all ordinances for ever, together Vvith the de- 
 pofition of their Minifters, that then there isfo much the more reafon, that 
 all the people fhould have the election of them. 
 
 We anfwer, firftjif all who are liable to excommunication,and injoy- 
 ment of Ordinances, and Minifters,&c. muft- therefore eled them, then 
 women muft elecl as well as men : Secondly, the cenfure of Excommu- 
 nication, with the formidable confequences* of it, arc far more dange- 
 rous in our Brethrens way,then in this of the Presbyterie, becaufe in this 
 way, if any man be wronged, he may have the benefit of his appeale, 
 and be cleared by more righteous Judges ( a courfe ever followed by 
 the Church, and agreeable to the light of nature) but in their way, if 
 two or three ( it may bey ignorant or corrupt Elders, prevailing with 
 the major part of fit may be) a very fmall Congregation, do once de- 
 liver a man to Satan,and will not be iaduced by counfell to revcrfe their 
 unrighteous fentence ; the innocent wronged man muft lie under this 
 doome all the dayes of his life without any remedy, and muft be held by 
 all the Churches of Chriftfto whom their fentence doth but innotefcere) 
 as an excommunicate perfon, and fhun'd accordingly, none having 
 power to abfoive him. Thirdly, neither is the fentence of Excommuni- 
 cation fo dreadfull as they make it, (Tor as the Apoftle faith of the Ma- 
 giftrates Svjovd,Rom.i^. If thou do well, &c t ) good men need not feare 
 it, if men deferve it not, either it (hall not touch them,or if it do, clavis 
 errans non ligat, and if it be juft, it was done in heaven before, and they 
 only on earth declare and apply the will of Chrift to him, and that for 
 the deftrudion of thefleiTi, that his fpirit may be faved ; and upon hk 
 repentance be received again into the bofome of the Church,and there- 
 fore Excommunication fhould be imbraced as a foul-faving Ordinance 
 of Jefus Chrift, as well asthe Word and the Sacraments. And as to that 
 of Ordination, we (hall not need to fay much, becaufe our Brethren fay 
 little of it ; and do in their judgements not look upon it as a matter of 
 any great weight,efteeming the whole eflence of the Mmifteriall calling 
 to be in the peoples choyce, and his ordination at fometimes not at all 
 requifite ; and when it is ufed, it is lookt upon only as a lblemne admit- 
 ting ofhim into his place. To 
 
DhTentiag Brethren, againft the Inftance of the Church o/Jerufalem. 1 7 
 
 To t heir Reafons again ft, and Exceptions to the firft proof of the firft 
 A (fert ion, \iz.Thit the Church of ferufa/em<onC\&c& ofmoix 
 Congregations then one, from the multitude of Bdecvcrs. 
 
 A gain ft W'hU'h 
 
 HPHey bring firffc Reafons to Chew there were not more then could 
 ■*• meet in oue place. 
 
 14 The Holy Cjhoft hath from fir ft to /aft f fay they) as on purpofe fieWcd 
 r| this : as if his [cope had been before hand, to prevent and preclude allrea- 
 "foninvs to the contrary. 
 
 We incline to beleeve, that the Holy Ghoft intended rather to (hew 
 the early accomplishment of that Promife, ler. 32. 39. of Giving one 
 heart and one \*^j,by his fo frequent mentioning of 0//0 5^.*^ and vm tI 
 dvTQ as adjuncts of the firft Chnftian Church meetings:then (as our Bre- 
 ^r^fuggeft) to prevent and preclude all reafonings againft this AfTer- 
 tion of theirs, viz,. "That the Beleevers in Ierufalem were not more 
 then could meet in one place. 
 
 " To the firft branch of their Argument brought from the forementioned Reafiti I 
 c: adjuntls as they (land upon Record, Ads 1.14,15. 
 
 1 . We anfwer, firft, that their being hu.o^wiAHv ('which properly fig- Anf\\ 1 
 nifieth confent of minds)dothnot all argue their being in one place; a 
 thoufand Congregations may be faid upon a Sabbath or Feaft day to Q 
 be opo$vft*M¥ in prayer, and yet may be met in feverall and far diftanc 
 places. 
 
 2. That their being aflfembled cmt -n *\iii doth not necefTarily inforce 
 it,becaufehere the words may, and in fome places muft admit of ano- 
 ther Tranflation,asy4#.4.26,27.where cm lav-n fignifies not a conven- 
 tion of perfons in one place, ('who can make it appear that ever Herod, 
 Pontius Pilate^ the Gentiles, and the people oflfraelwctc fo affembled a- 
 gainft Chrift?) but only a confent of mindes in one thing. Accordingly 
 mSymmachus hisTranflation of the fecond Pf. out of which thefe words 
 are taken, in fteadof the Septuagint s Imt -rl'dvrl, we finde the word 
 ifjLodvpLctcNy, Montanus renders it inidem .-and fuch as meet in confuta- 
 tion to carry on the fame bufineflfc, may well be faid to be gathered to- 
 gether -rttWl ctvr) though they meet in feverall places: as with us, The 
 Lords and Commons alTemble themfelves vm TJauTo, and are but one 
 Parliament, though met in two Houfes. 
 
 3. Not denying thofe AEl. 1. 15. to have mettogether in one place 
 ( though we deny the two adjuncts of fa'o$u;.etS i &v and vmilAvi* to 
 prove itj our anfwer to the Argument is, That it falls fljort of What our 
 Brethren intend to ajfert : Becaufe it doth not appear from hence, that 
 
 D d . the 
 
1 8 The Anftoer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 the whole Church was there a{Tembled,but the contrary rather. We will 
 not infift upon the word IvoyA-av ( the number not of men, but of 
 names^ which according to fome is to be retrained to men of chiefe 
 Note andEminencie 3 fo^z'.?.4. ^nd Chap. 11.13. Nor will we urge 
 that poflibly thefe were fuch, every one whereof was capable of Electi- 
 on to an ApoftleftAp : which was the Tc l$yh of this meeting ; ( for that 
 this was a different meeting from that fpoken of 1/.14. is evident by the 
 tranfition, And in thofe dayes, &c. J But this we fay,That however taking 
 in only men of Note and Difciples of longeft ftanding in Chrifts 
 School fEven thofe that companied Vrith the Apoftles all the time that the 
 Lord fefus went in and out among them, beginning from the Baptifme of 
 John unto the day of our Saviours Afcenfwn : of whom ver. 21,12.) It is 
 very probable that the number of fuch did not exceed one hundred and 
 twentie : yet that there were then no more Beleevers in Jeruft.lem can- 
 not well be imagined by any that fhall duly confider the Preparation 
 made/<?r Chrift by Johns Baptifme and Miniftry : the yeares of Chrifts 
 own Preaching and Miracles : the Commiflion he gave to the twelve 
 Apoftles and feventy Difciples, together with the operation which his 
 Death, Refurrection, and Afcenfion had upon the Beholders. Who can 
 butthinkthatbyall thefe many more then one hundred and twentie 
 were converted to the Faith ? VVhen the Lord Jefas had but begun his 
 Miniftry, the Pharifees heard that he made and baptized more Difciples 
 then John. Joh.4.1. of whom notwithstanding J tis laid, Mar. 1.5. There 
 ^ went out unto him all the land ofJudea, and they of Jerufalem, and were all 
 baptised of him. The fame men afterwards took up this Complaint a- 
 gainft Chrift, Ioh. 1 2. 19. Behold,the world is gone after him', what ground 
 had there been either for a Report or a Complaint of this nature, if 
 the whole multitude of his Difciples, or of the Converts in Jerufalem 
 had come within the narrow compafle of one hundred and twentie? 
 1 Cor. 1 5 . <5. we read of five hundred Bethren before Chrifts Afcenfion. 
 
 4. Suppofe it fhould be granted that the whole multitude of Be- 
 leevers in Jerufalem were here met in one place, it will not from thence 
 followjthat fo they might do, and did afterwards when the Church was 
 multiplied. 
 
 2. ci But afterwards. Ads 2.1. Another meeting of theirs is exprejfed 
 u in the fame words, They were all met with one accord, &c. 
 
 To which we Anfwer dill .-That its not proved that they all there 
 mentioned were All the Church. Be^n faith, that in two ancient 
 Coppies hefindes h 'A^Woand brings probable Reafons why they 
 All fhould be meant of the Apoftles only : As firft, the coherence 
 with the very laft words of the fore-going Chapter mentioning the 
 Eleven Appoftles. Secondly, their being filled with the Holy Ghoft, and 
 fpeaking with tongues, ver, 4. which was promifed to the Appoftles, 
 
 and 
 
Diflenting Brethren, tgainft the Jnflance of the Church of Jerufalem. 19 
 and they commanded to wait at Jcrufalem for it, Acls 1 . 24,8. Thirdly, 
 the multitudes calling them galileans,ver.j. Fourthly,the not mentio- 
 ning of any other in the whole Chapter but the Apoftles only, ver, 14. 
 Piter (lands up with the Eleven,\^j» They faid unto Peter and the reft 
 of the Apoftles, ver.42. in the Apoftles fellowship, ver- qi.fignestyere done 
 by the zsfpoftles, from all which it is likely that this meeting was of the 
 Apoftles only, and if fo, it's then nothing to our Brethrens purpofe, 2. 
 however if it be a meeting of the whole Church, the Church was not 
 then multiplied to a greater number then in the firft Chapter. 
 
 *' But when they Wert about three thoufand, yet ftill fome of their meet- Reaf.x. 
 " m $> s f or f ome ^ s °f Wor[hip are recorded to have been as before 
 "hpjoSvtMLflVyandinfteadofthc other expreffienhTnii dvr: ,7 'he place it 
 "f elf Where they Were isfet doWn 9 tofupply and interpret it, and to fheW, it 
 " was ftill in one Affembly. as ver.46. They continued Ita&vpttHf in the 
 cf Temple, where they mo ft frequently met, not for Iewijb PVorJhip, but 
 "for hearing the Word, at Which though the IeWes wereprefent } yet ithin. 
 " dered not, but that to them it was a Church-meeting, &c. 
 
 By all which, this only our Brethren undertake to prove, that fome An fa 
 of their meetings for fome Ads of VVorfhtp were in one place, wherein 
 they feeme to yeeld the caufe : for if they could not meet together for 
 all Ads of VVorfhip, and efpecially for thofe which are peculiar to 
 Church-Communion, our Aflfertion is not at all infringed.They met in- 
 deed in the Temple to hear the Word, which (^though nolewifli wor- 
 fhipj yet was common to Iewes and Chriftians, as themfelves con- 
 fefle : But can they prove that in the Temple they adminiftred the Sa- 
 craments, which are the diftinguifhing Ordinances of the Chriftian 
 Church ? Interpreters of all forts from the very next words colled the Brentius. 
 contrary, viz* that the Lords Supper was adminiftred in more private Aretius. 
 Congregations, they continued daily with one accord in the Temple, but 
 it was from Houfe to Houfe that they brake bread, which was Sacra- Beza. 
 mentall breaking of bread,asthat phrafe is underftood generally by all, 
 Atls 20.7. and by our Brethren themfelves in the 42. ver. of this fecond 
 Chapter, where the Syrtackhaxh the very word Euchariftia, which is 
 expreflely faid, ver.46. to be m^'viuo* in opofition to U -^r-^, and for B e2a . 
 the phrafe vj-t oUcr, we find it ufed for an houfe appointed for Church 
 meeting, Rom. 16. 5. and 1 C0r.16.19. however it is not rationally fup- nm 16. 
 pofable that the whole multitude of Beleevers met in the Temple to re- 
 ceive the Lords Supper: forfirft the Sacrament was no Temple Ordi- 
 nance, and therefore not to be adminiftred in the Temple : norfecond- 
 Jy could it have been done with fafety : for if the Apoftles were fo 
 quarrel'd for preaching Jefus and the RefurreEHon in the Temple, 
 Acl.q.*. ('though never challenged for adminiftring the Sacrament in 
 itj and Paul fo aflaultedfor being fuppofed to bring a GV^into the 
 
 i>d 2 Temple, 
 
20 The Anfwer of the Affembly cf Divines Jo the Reafons of the 
 
 Temple, what would it have been to have brought in a new Ordinance, 
 and a new worlhip into the Temple ? Our Brethren themfelves are fen- 
 (ible of this, and therefore although in the Affembly fome of them 
 difputed for their receiving the Sacrament in the Temple, yet now they 
 wave it, and content themfelves to fay, they met there fome times for 
 fome Alls of worftiip. 
 
 Reaf 4» "Fourthly, fay they ,When there was a further adddition, K6k.^.\.(in which 
 ri Chapter is a paralell defcription to that, Chap. 2. 43. ad finem) [peaking 
 i% of another meeting, the fame words are ufed, ver. 41. That they -were 
 Cc oufidvuafov-, as Acls 2. And m ftead of the Temple there , is Salomons 
 cc Porch here : Which was a place large enough to hold them, called the 
 " Temple, Ioh. 10.23. the outward Court by lofephus lib. 20. cap. 8. 
 u 'where Chrift ufed to wal^und preach, and the hpo&lcsalfo, Acl.3. II. 
 <c And that the Apoftles only did not meet here, firft, is apparent from the 
 cc paralell place* \&s 2* Secondly, its unlikely the Apoftles (Ijouldmeet and 
 tl not the People, who are f aid to continue in the Apoftles dotlrin andfel- 
 
 Anftfr.l. lowjhip. 
 
 That this was another meeting cannot be denied,but that it was a mee- 
 ting of All the Church or for. All AEis of worfhip is not proved,nor can 
 be,which if not proved, this makes nothing againft ourPropofaion. 
 Secondly,If this place be fo paralell to that of ^#.2.43. &c.thefame 
 3. anfwer will ferve here,which was made thereto which we refer them. 
 
 Pineiade Thirdly, What Salomons Torch in our Saviours tiftie was, and why fo 
 
 rebut Silo- ca |{ e( ^ j s thought by fome too difficult a qucftion to be refolved. 
 
 c.K.l.i'c.' Fourthly, In that place of lofephus we rind no mention of the out- 
 
 j 9 f ward Court, but he is conceived by Pineda to be contrary to himfelf in 
 
 Mdiomt. the defcription of the Temple, and the fame Author conceiveth it was 
 
 in Iow.io. mo ft unlikely to be Atrium Populi, 
 
 z >* Fifthly , That they all that met here were all the (fhurch, will not be 
 
 ^* proved from the pretended paralell of Atts 2. and that the zApoftles 
 5* fhould meet with one accord without the (fhurch \% not fo unlikely as is 
 imagined, why might not the Twelve go to the Temple without the 
 Chnrch as well as Peter and John did ? Alls 3.1. fpecially it not being 
 faid that they were preaching there, but working miracles ; nor can the 
 <i^//here fpoken of be referred to the Church in the 1 i.^r.more then 
 to the many which heard, who were not of the (fhurch expreft in the 
 fame verfe, but rather appeares to be meant of the Apoftles only, they 
 being mentioned in this 12 . verfe*. 
 
 Reaf 5 • " Fifthly, Further when they chofe Deacons, Acts 6. which Was cer- 
 u tainly ^Church mee ting, they were yet no more then could meet in one 
 "place \for the Apoftles called the multitude * 3 and ver. 5 . they are called the 
 fC whole multitude, and ver ;<5. they as in one place chofe feven men, and 
 t( fet them before the Apoftles, who prayed, in Which duty the whole myj- 
 *\titude had an Inter eft to joyn, &c, 1 . That 
 
Diffenting Brethren, agalnfl the Inflate of the fhurch of J erufalen. 1 1 
 
 i. That this was a meeting for Church bufmefle, we deny not. 2. But Anfw. 1, 
 we do deny that the mentioning of the multitude and the whole mulct- 2. 
 tude proves that all and every one of them that beleeved in ferufalem 
 were at that meeting, for it may fignifie cither a great multitude, as 
 Luke 8. 37« the whole multitude of the Gadarens bef ought Ckrifi to de- 
 part from them, and AEls 25.14. Feftus faith. All the multitude had 
 dealt with him about Paul : not every individual! Gadaren or lew, but a 
 great number of them, or thegencralitie, which the Greeks life to ex- 
 pretfe by Tidvf*uj!h or it may fignifle as Lukj. *io. where it its faid the 
 whole multitude of the people were Without, praying, that is, pr<efentium, 
 of them that wer« prefent,and not of all that were in lerufalem: fo here 
 the faying p leafed the whole multitude, implies not that the whole multi- 
 tude of all the Beleevers were prefent, but that fo many as were pre - 
 fent the faying pleafed, and our Brethren themfelves grant that by mul- 
 titude fometimes is underftood not All but felell perfons, as A8s.i5.i2. 
 Then all the multitude kept flence, which even themfelves will not ex. 
 pound of A '11 the (fhurch^wx. only of fuch as were men of age & difcrc- 
 tion, excluding women & children, who if excluded from the multitude 
 there, why not here ? efpecially confidering that this meeting was for 
 the choofing of Church Officers : wherein we fuppofe<?//r Brethren \\\\\ 
 not allow women and children their faff rages. And indeed if we consi- 
 der the five thoufand, dwp. 4.4 and befides the great additions and 
 multiplications, chap.5.14. Beleevers were the more added to the Lord, 
 multitudes both of men and women, and chap 6\i. again it's faid the 
 
 number of Difciples was multiplied, we cannot in reafon conceive that f~ 
 
 they all could meet in one place to be one Affembly, but muft be di- 
 ftributed into'feverall divifions,as the 400000 men of Ifrael were Judg. 
 20. elfe how could the Levite have told his fad Story to them all toge- 
 ther and at once: the like we may conceive of that Congregation, 
 JS^ehem^.% where eight Levites fpake to them all, which unlefle it had 
 been done to them divided into feverall companies, would have con- 
 founded both the people and themfelves.. 
 
 " And whereas Our Brethren urge their choofing of Officers, and pre- 
 C£ fenting them before the Apoftles, to prove their beinv affembled in one 
 "place. Let them but conlider how the City of London chook their 
 Common-Councell, and prefent them to the Court of Aldermen. So 
 that our anfwer to their fift reafon is this, 'its not proved, nay, it's not 
 probable that all the Beleevers there met. 2. Not in one Com- 
 pany. 3. Or were both proved, yet we fay, more may meet for 
 choife of Officers then can meet to receive the Sacrament. 
 
 " After all thisyhdis i^.they are faid to meet h^v^A^h , and naming R ea r< 
 <c the place, VrhereftM it imports one affembly, and after Acls 21 . 2 2. The 
 <: multitude mufl needs come together, &c. 
 
 D 3 We 
 
2 2 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 Anfw. i. We anfwer,it*s to be proved that that oy.odv^bv relates to the whole 
 body of the Church. We fay to the Synod of the zApoftles and Elder •/, 
 as we fhall (Lew hereafter. And fecondly, h^v^hv alone will never 
 prove their meeting in one place, though we deny not, but here they 
 were met in one. For that other Text All 2 r . The multitude muft needs 
 come together, &c. how doth that prove there were at that time no 
 more in thcChurch offerufalem, then might meet in one place f we 
 may fay of London,thc multitude will come together upon fuch and fuch 
 an occafion, doth this import no more in London then may meet in one 
 place ? befides the meeting there fpoken of was like to be rather a con- 
 courfe of a mif- informed multitude, then of a Congregation for wor- 
 ship j but however, we are glad our Brethren underftand this multitude 
 to be of the Qhnrch oijerufalemjnc are afraid they will forget it anon. 
 And for Conclufion, we humbly defire it may be obferved,that all our 
 Brethren have endeavoured to prove, is,that the Beleevers in ferufalem 
 were no more then could meet together in one glace at fome times, for 
 fomeac^asforchoofingofOjf^r/, So their nrft inftance, and their 
 fifch;for making of Decrees^So the fixth/out of both which Aflemblies, 
 women and children, a better half of the Company, are excluded) for 
 hearing, So the fecond and third ; but not a word brought to prove 
 that they all met in one place to receive the Sacrament , as to that, they 
 were feverall Congregations. So that fhould we grant all thefe their in- 
 ftances,what would follow,butthis?That theBeleevers 2Xlerufalemvi\\o 
 received the Sacrament in feverall places and aflemblies, and fo were 
 feverall Congregations, did yet meet in one place,and one Aflfembly to 
 choofe Officers^ Alls 1. 6. and to performe other A&s of Government, 
 Acl.t$. and therefore it is evident that although they w etc fever all Con- 
 gregations) yet they were under on Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 Exrt/JM. " IV e come novo to their exceptions againft our proof es : Thefirfi whereof 
 le is to the tnftance of five thoufand 3 Ads 4. againft Which they object, firft, 
 " that it cannot be evinced, that thefe five thoufand were anew number 
 u added to the three thouf*nd,c. 2. Beza and Calvin thinhjhofe three thou- 
 <c J and are included here. Secondly, nay it is not certain that the five thou- 
 u fand here Were Beleevers : the Greek will as well carry it to exprejfe the 
 tl number of hearers. Thirdly ', dv^^v When put alone ( as here J includes 
 c: females as well as male s .fourthly jf to be underftoodofprefent Converts 
 "and of males only, it Would be a greater miracle then ever was be- 
 
 Augufi.in u fore or fine e,&c. 
 
 if in. 1 1 . We reply to the firft, though Cdvin and Beza think the three thou- - 
 
 i*iM«.^-fand formerly converted to be included here, yet divers both Ancient 
 
 ceffemnt 
 
 lOTporiUomini, i.e. numero fiklivm tritmiltiit hminum, item alio f&fto qucdam mifscu'o acccjj'erum 
 
 aiit quinquemillia. So is the Text underftood by Hicrome, Cbryfcftomc, OecwmcniusljfA, Lorinm, 
 
 Salmjon 3 and of ours by Aiitiwi and Fckrgut, BttUirtgir makes it doubtfuil. 
 
 and 
 
Diflfenting Brethren, againfl the Infiance of the Church of Jerufaiem. 
 
 aad Moderne Interpreters are of another mind. And we have not only 
 teftimony but reafon to induce us to be of the fame opinion ; not to in- 
 fill upon that which fome obferve, that as the three thoufand <yfEls 2. 
 41. did not comprehend the one hundred and twenty mentioned Acls 
 1. So it holds proportion that the three thoufand mentioned there, are 
 not comprehended here, but this we affirme that the latter part of this 
 4 ver. of *Afts 4. is exegeticall of the former, now the former part 
 mull: needs be meant of thofe that were won to the Faith at that Ser- 
 mon, and therefore the latter pait mull: be understood of them alfo; 
 befides, this Sermon was not ex intention e to the Church, but upon oc- 
 calionofthe multitude flocking together to behold the Miracle, to 
 whom Peter and John preached in theTemple y whilft the Church, or a 
 great part of it, might, it is likely, be attending in private upon the 
 Miniftry of the other Apoftles 3 of whom no mention is made in this 
 paffage but of Peter and John only. 
 
 To the fecond we fay, that the true Syntax oftheGra^ carries the 
 number to Beleevers 3 and not to Hearers • wottS* A, many of them that 
 heard the Word Be/eeved ; and if you aske how many, the Holy Ghoft 
 tels ye the number of thofe many Bdeevers was about five thoufand. 
 Secondly, the Spirit of God doth notufe to compute the number of 
 bare hearers. Thirdly 3 we know no Interpreters that fo expound the 
 place. 
 
 ic As for the reafon they feeme to alleadge, why it fkouldbe meant of the 
 <f number of hearers, viz,* becaufe that fnch a multitude fhould heare the 
 u Apoftles \*w the thing that fretted the Pharifees . VVeanfwer. I. Than 
 the aggrieved perfons mentioned v. 1. and 2. were the Sadducesznd not 
 the Pharifees. Secondly, 'Twas not fo much the multitude of Hearers, 
 as the Do&rin taught that fo vexed them, as is cxpreft ver. 2. Becaufe 
 rhey preached through fefus the RefurreFtion which the S adduces deni- 
 ed ; and thirdly, fhould we grant that the Multitude was the thing 
 that fretted them, certainly it would vex them more that five thou- 
 fand beleeved that Doftrin, then that five thoufand heard it. 
 
 To the third, though we contend not much that by dv^av here, Males 
 only fhould be meant, yet it may feeme probable, iffirft we confider 
 that the Cuftomc of the leaves was to number only the Males. Second- 
 ly, if we compare Ioh.6.10. with Mat. 14.21. AVf-<, fet alone mlohn 
 it is expounded to be befides women and children in Matt h. But third- 
 ly, take women & children and all in, yet adde thofe other new Multi- 
 tudes mentioned,^. 5. i4./f#.6.i. ^#.6.7. & we yet affirm they were 
 more then could m eet togethe r in one place to receive the Sacrament. 
 
 To the fourth, viz* that this (if thus underftood) would be a greater 
 miracle then any before or fince. \ Ye anfwer. 1 . That the like may be 
 
 faid 
 
* 4 The tAnftoer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafens of the 
 
 faid of the three thoufand converted, chap 2. that it was fuch a thing as 
 was never bef©re nor fincejf fas they think J there were not 5^000 con- 
 verted here, {hall we queftion the truth of that therefore ? Secondly, it 
 was the day of Chrifts power, in which his willing people from the 
 vvombe of that morning ('twas foretold) Lhouid be multiplied as the 
 De\fr upon the earth, Pfal. 110.3. 
 
 Eccep. 2 . < < Thefecond Exception is, That it may be fuppofed that thofe that were 
 rt converted at Jerufalem remained not conftant members of that C hurch. 
 1 ' Forfirfl the g oco chap. 2, were not dwellers at Jerufalem, but ftr angers 
 u out of all thofe countries mentioned in that chapter who came up to Pen- 
 £i tecoft. Secondly, and therefore Were (asfome interptetit) Sojourners^ 
 Cc Jerufalem, not dweller s, as Eliah in I Kings^7. 20. fojourned with the 
 " widow of Sareptha, M;-}' n$ tiy» % i\o!*.a , faith the Septuagint> the very 
 <c word here ufed. Thirdly, they are faid to be dwellers of Mefopotamia, 
 ct Cappadocia, &c. ver.p. and dwellers of Jerufalem and thofe Countries 
 tc too, they could not be. And fourthly , that Which firengthens this, is that, 
 *\ vct.^.They arefaidto be K*7w*«9« i* kp<ra,M){A 3 but ver.p. K*7o/a«j/7w tH* 
 lc Mzac™™fMav. Therefore fifthly, the 14,* ver. calls them men Iewes^zW 
 " dwellers at Jerufalem, as two forts, and ver. 22 men of Ifrael, the ftile 
 u given the ten Tribes, and ver. 5 .devout men who ufed to come up at thofo 
 "folemne Fcafts, and after a time to return to their families again. 
 
 Anfw. To all which our reply is this.- firftwefind it not elfewhere faid in 
 Scripture, that thofe who came up to the Feafts at Jerufalem were 
 YLctniY.vvlis b» U^fTa.KiiiJL, and though Kajot^ fometime pofTIbly may be 
 put for TntpctKu, and fo may fignifie to fojourn, yet by our Brethrens 
 own confeffion, it may fignifie to dwell. Eliahs fojourning with 
 the widdow was e*q» a yeare, fo in the margent the word is 
 rendred, and kludges 17. ic and Iudges 1 1. the laft verf and 1 Sam. 
 7.1 6. and let our Brethren grant thefe but fo long abode at Jerufalem, 
 it might be long enough to make them members of that Church. And 
 why it fhould fignifie to fojourne at lerufalem,ver. 5. and to dwell in 
 Mefopotamia, ver. 9. we fee not: for their Critkifme of, ^l f&'*jjnp 
 wrii not prove it, feeing that Act. 16.4, themfelves will needs under- 
 hand by, Tav*fri<s$v\izuv tuv oj/ lif ^«a»V, not the Elders that were pre- 
 fent at lerufalem, but the Elders fixed in, and Officers of the Church of 
 lerufalem. 
 
 To that of si els 2. 14. ( Af en leWes and dwellers at lerufalem) We 
 anfwer,the words need not imply two fores, at leaft in our Brethrens 
 fence, namely ot (omclewes living in the Country, and others dwelling 
 at lerufalem, but all may be of Jerufalem notwithftanding that ex- 
 preiTIon, thus; AienleWes may be underftood of thofe of the lewifi 
 nation; All ye that dwell at lerufalem of the Profeljtes, who being 
 
 converted 
 
. Diflenting Brethren, againft the Jnftance of the Church of Jerufalem. 2 $ 
 converted to the Iewifi Religion, had for Religions fake there taken up 
 their dwelling : fo for that of the n.v. Men of Ifrae I ithe ftile,fay they, 
 given to the ten Tribes> We anfwer, that phrafe is not proper to the ten 
 Tribes, but applied to the lewes, nay to the dwellers of Ierufalem, as 
 AEls 5.12 and ^/.5&35.where6 r ^w^/;>/fpeaking to the Councellof 
 Ierttfalem, (kith, Yea Men of IfraeL And for the appellation of devout 
 Men,ver. 5. that makes nothing againft us, but what is there added, ttft. 
 that thefe devout men were dwelling at Ierufalem is much for us. 
 
 2 But granting fecondly, That many of thofe of whom this chap. t 
 (peaks had been formerly dwellers in Mefopotamia and (fappadocia,&c* 
 what hinders but that they might now be dwellers at Ierufalem? The 
 occallon of their comming up thither at this time, being not only the 
 Feaft ofPentecoft ( which was a Fcaft but of one day) but alfo the great 
 expectation, that the people of the Iewes then had, of the appearance 
 ofthe A/V/7/^in his Kingdom fas we may colled: from Luke 10. 11. 
 where it's faid, They thought the Kingdom of God fhould immediately 
 appear) fo that now they might choofe to take up their dwellings at 
 lerufdem, and not return as they had been wont at the end of their 
 ufuall Feafts. 
 
 But nature taught them ("faith our Brethren) to provide for their Obje.w 
 wives and children, and not defert them. v 
 
 And how know we but they might bring up their wives and children Anfr* % 
 with them, which fome did in thofe ordinary Feafts,and therefore might 
 be more likely upon this extraordinary occa(ion?2.0r why might they 
 not fetch up their families to them? which is more probable then that 
 they would leave the Apoftles fellowfhip to go back to their families, 
 efpecially confidering that their hearts were inflamed with fuch an a- 
 bundant love totheGofpel, and Church of Chrift, as that they fold 
 their poflefllons, and parted them to all men, as every man had need, 
 chap.2.vtr.qy and ^^.4.34,35. thereby outing themfelvesof their 
 former poffeffions, and providing for their own Subfiftence at lerufa- 
 lem> and the fupport of others that had need, who upon the fame 
 ground continued there with them : nor is it very probable that 
 men thus fpirited, fhould mind returning to their own poiTefllons, 
 in cafe they had not fold all. Thirdly, but however we have light 
 enough from Scripture to prove ( and that according to our 
 Brcthrens principles and aflfertions ) that they were all members 
 of the Church of lerufdem* Thus. They which are added to the 
 Church, continue in Church Communion, put their clhtes into the 
 Churches common Treafury, choofe Officers for the Church, are Mem- 
 bers of the fame Church : but thefe multitude of Beleevers were added 
 to the Church, Alls 2. iaft ; &c. Therefore all that whole multitude 
 
 E e were 
 
26 The Anfwer of the Ajfembly of Divines r to the Reafcns of the 
 
 were members of that Church ; yea our Brethren themfelves take 
 that fellowfliip of theirs, Ails 2.42. for a patterne of ordinary 
 Church Communion. And fhould we grant this Church to be ebbtng 
 and flowing, as our Brethren fpeak, in point ofrefidence of Members, 
 yet thofe Members that were non refident, were for all that members 
 of that Church .* Are not fome members of our Brethrens Congregati- 
 ons fo . ? yea have they not their dwellings fometimes at greater diftancc 
 from the ufuall place of their Church-meeting, then the utmoft borders 
 .Jndea were from Hiemfalem, and members ftill. ? and yet according to 
 cur Brethrens zftenion, the number of members, whether refident or 
 not, muft not be more then that they might (did they all refide) meete 
 together in one place. 
 
 ObjctT, " But fome ofthefe were of J udea, the Count rey about, .and that ofthefe 
 u might be Churches ereHed in their proper dwellings is rationally fuppofe- 
 €i Me : for Acts 8. 1 . it is f aid, Paul perfecuted Difciples in other places 
 Si be fides Hiemfalem, as Acls 16. at Damafcus, and upon the ceafing of the 
 "perfecution itsfaid,thc Churches hadreft throughout all ?udea,Att.9 31. 
 
 Anfw Ouranfwertothis, (hall be no other then what our Brethren make 
 " their fourth exception, viz,. That this being the firft Church, and where- 
 of all th« Apoftleswere the Officers, the be lee vers who dwelt there 
 ("we adde and who dwelt nearej would certainly abide together as one 
 Church, without parting or dividing, till they came to the utmoft pro- 
 portion that the conftitutioaof a Church was capable of, to a maximum 
 quod fie : And therefore it is not fo rationably fuppofeable, that thofe 
 that lived fo neare f-erufalem, would fo foone erect Churches in their 
 proper dwellings ; nor will Pauls perfecuting the Saints in other pla- 
 ces befides ? erufalem y prove Churches in Judea ; for the very text cited, 
 Ails 8.1. expreflfetlv that thofe of the Church of ?erufalem,were Mat- 
 tered abroadthroughout zWJudea and Samaria* fo that ftill they whom 
 T ^///perfecuted unto ftrange Cities, were Members of the Church of 
 Jerufalem ; and this Paul himfelfc tells us, Ails 26. yet we deny not, 
 but that they who were thus fcartered abroad, preaching the word,^#/ 
 8.4. Churches were erected in Judea t Galile and Samaria, of whom it is 
 fatd, Ails o. 3 1 . that the perfection ceafing, they were edified and mul- 
 tiplied. 
 
 Excep. "Their third Exception if, That they in thofe Conntries had great 
 " Ajfembliesy confifting of many thoufand hearers at once, that could 
 "and did hear ; So Ch/tjh Luke 1 2. 1 . preached to Myriads, many thou- 
 " fands : So Acts 1 3.4,5. almofi the whole city came, to hear e the Word 
 tl of God by Paul ; at Charenton many thoufands hear e in one place •, as is 
 <f well knowne, and fo in many places in England ; . Mofes fometimes 
 *' Jpake in the ears of all the people, fo Ezra chap. 1 o. Q, iQ.and it is 
 
 known* 
 
Dufenting Brethren, againfi the Infiance of the Church o/Jerufalem. 2 7 
 
 Cc knoWn by experience, that In hot Countries, as Men may fee fttrther by 
 tc reafon of the pureneffe of the ayre, fo they may hear At a greater di fiance 
 fi then in cold. 
 
 We anfwer,firft,that we reade Lukj 1 *.of Alyriads,( or as our Englifh 
 tranflation renders it) an innumerable multitude gathered together, fo 
 that they trod one upon another,but not.firft that they all heard,nor fe- 
 condly that Chrift preached to them all, the Text is expreflfe, fefus be- 
 gan to fay to his Difciples ; and though upon occafion of a qucftion made 
 by one of the company, ver. 13. he fpeakes fomething appliable to 
 the people, ver. 14. yet he retnrnes to preach to his Difciples againe, 
 verf. 22. As for that in the 54 verfe, its qucftion whether that be part 
 of the fame Sermon. To that AUsi^. 4.5. The Vohole City came together 
 to heare, &c. We anfwer, That City was Antioch of Tijidia, and how 
 do they prove that to be fo populous a City I Or fecondiy, That all 
 they that came together heard the word, it is faid indeed, they came 
 together to heare the word, but many more might come together in- 
 tentionally to heare, then actually did or could heare, as in many af- 
 femblies in this City. Thirdly, the Text makes equall mention of Paul 
 and Barnabas, as both (peaking to the people, and why then might 
 they not be in diftincl affemblies or divifions } 
 
 As to that of Charenton, where they fay, It is well kno^ne many 
 thotifands heare : We anfwer, firft, That the number of the Members 
 of that Church doth not (probably) arife to the number of them in 
 lerufalem, when at higheft before the difperfion. Secondly, That 
 their meeting pJace, (as it is well kno^ne) hath fuch accommodation 
 of feats and double Galleries, as they had not either in the Temple or 
 Solomons Torch. Thirdly, Befides that large meeting place thus ac- 
 commodated, they have fas we are informed,) on Sacrament dayes, 
 two other places where they then preach and adminifter, and yet but 
 one Church. The like anfwer will ferve in part for England ; There do 
 not meete fo many ( that can heare ) as were of the Church of Jemfa- 
 lem. Secondly, They have better accommodation then they had: and 
 Thirdly, More may heare at once then can at once receive the Sacra- 
 ment: and therefore in great Cengregations, they are necefluated to 
 receive fome at one time, and fome at another. 
 
 For that of Mofes, its true, we reade he fpake in the eares of Dcu: 5.1 
 the people, but doe our Brethren in good earned beleeve, that 
 Mofes had fuch a ftrong voice as could reach to all Ifrael at once ? 
 who the laft time before this that they were numbred , were 
 fixe hundred thoufand, one thoufand feven hundred and thirty, 
 Numbers 26, 51. befides twenty three thoufand Levites , and 
 they males only, verfe 62. that phrafe therefore of fpeaking 
 
 Ec2 in 
 
2 8 The Anftoer of the Ajfembly of Divine f, to the Reafons of the - 
 
 in all their eares, muft neceflarily be fome other wayes underftood ; as 
 firft either in their prefence, to them being prefent, as Deodne renders 
 it> Gen, 20.8. and GV72.44.18. In loro prefenza ; Or fecondly Mediately, 
 ne to fome, and they to others, as ispropable, Exod.n. 1. where Mofes 
 is commanded to fpeake in the eares of the people, that every man and 
 woman borrow Jewels,^, who were not fin all likelihood) Tuffer'd to 
 leave their taskes to meet all together to hear that Proclamation : Or 
 thirdly, Turmatim &fucceffive, they were fpoken to infeverail com- 
 panies, Cfriofes to one, and fome others ;oyned with him to others j as 
 Dent. 32. 44. it is faid, And Mofes (pake in the ears of the people, he and 
 Hofhea thefonofNun : Or fourthly,By all the people, is meant all the 
 heads and Rulers of them, as Dent . 31.30. Mofes is faid to fpeak in the 
 ears of all the Congregation ; yet verfe 2 8. the Elders of the Tribes 
 only were gathered togecher for him to fpeak to : the like anfwer may 
 be given to that inttance of Ezra. 
 
 To that experiment, which our Brethren mention of hearing at a 
 
 farther diftance in pure ayre and in hot Countries then in cold, we op- 
 
 pofe the judgement of that great Matter of Experiments in this kind 3 
 
 Mat h'ft l ^ c ^ or< ^ of Verulam, who in his Centuries exprefly faith, The thinner 
 
 cent'x.n.' or dryer ayre, carrieth not the found fo well as the more denfe, ejre. 
 
 145. cent. The queftion is not, how many may meet together to heare, but how 
 
 3. n.iir, many may meet together to partake in all Ordinances of Church fellow- 
 
 2,1 ?# fhip, efpecially in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper : And in this we 
 
 appeale to our Brethren, whether they think the Myriads, Lukeiz.i, 
 
 fo thronged that they trod one upon another, could in that throng 
 
 have received the Sacrament? and fofor thofe other vaft multitudes, 
 
 in whofe hearing (as they fay ) and in their fenfe, Cfrfofes, Ezra and 
 
 Paul fpake ? or whether more thoufands in one affembly may receive 
 
 the Sacrament in a hot Countrey a then in a cold ? and whether the 
 
 heat of the Climate and purenefife of the ayre they fpeak of, will helpe 
 
 more to meet in one roomc, as well as to heare, as they conceive, at a 
 
 more remote diftance ? 
 
 - • v " The fourth Exception is afirong Argument fir us ; That this being 
 
 E*&t& <c t y^ r fl church, and whereof all the Apo files were Officers, thofe there- 
 
 (C fore Who deceit there (we adde upon the fame ground, who were con- 
 
 " verted there, and joyned in Church-fellowfhip with them,) Would 
 
 < c certainly abide together as one (fhurch^ till they came to theutmoftpropor- 
 
 c< tion, that the conftitution of a (fhurch is capeable of, a Maximum quod 
 
 " tic, for the more united frength and glory of Religion andChriftian com- 
 
 u muhion in holding forth the Name ofCjjrift in one body. 
 
 We grant this, and therefore fay ,• That when the number of Belee- 
 
 & vers was fo increafed, that they could not hold vifibie communion toge- 
 
 ^* ther 
 
Diflfenting Brcthr cn> againft the Inftaxce of the Church of Jerufalem. a 9 
 
 therin one affembly in all ads, they were inforced to divide themfeives 
 into diftind Congregations for ads of worfhip; yet that they might 
 hold communion as far as it waspoffible, for ads of governmenr,they 
 continued one Church, one body ; and fuppofing more Congregations 
 there then one ('which we conceive abundantly proved J judge whether 
 it make more for the united ftrength and glory of Religion and drift i- 
 an Communion in holding forth the Name of Chrift in one body, that 
 each of thefe Congregations fhouldbefo compleat a Church as to be 
 Independent from all the reft, or that many of thofe Congregations 
 fhould be united in one government, and fo tranfad their affaires, com- 
 muni conflio as one Church. 
 
 " Nor Would their fift Exception much prejudice us ft;ould rre grant the r X crtt *, 
 <( Whole. They had, fay they, till Pauls persecution, the great eft liberty ^and 
 "freedome even to the utmofi ; they had favour With all the people^ and the 
 fl Rulers durft not p unify Peter and John for fear of the people, &c. 
 
 Bate fomething of the greateft liberty to the utmoft, when Jeter and 
 John immediately after the Miracles, and while they were preaching, 
 were haled to prifon before the peoples faces, v^?/ 4,1,3. and all the 
 Apoftles were laid hold of, put in the common Goale, threatnedand 
 beaten, Alls 5. 1 7, 1 8, 40. If we had fuch meafures, we fliould not ac- 
 count it the greateft liberty to the utmoft. The peoples favouring and 
 magnifying them, only fhewes they were not at that time adive in the 
 perfecution, but all the Sanedrim were. For their not punifhing of them 
 by rcalbn of the people, it was only that they durft not put them to 
 death upon that occafion, the Miracle being fo frefh and notorious; 
 But fecondly, Should we grant what our Brethren fay, they had liberty 
 to the utmoft, wc might from it more probably colled the increafes of 
 the C hurch to have been fo many and great, that they could not but ex- 
 ceed the bounds of one (ingle Congregation. 
 
 "They tell us, it was no new thing amongthefewes, for Sells to have 
 t( great multitudes to chave to them, and for them to baptife openly, as 
 "John Baptift and Chrift did. 
 
 Surely it is not for the honour of Chrift and his Apoftles, to have the 
 Chrift ian Church thus ranckt with Seels : and to what purpofe is this ? 
 Our Brethren will not fay, there were no more of the >ed of the Fhari- 
 fees then could meet in one place and make one Congregation, or that 
 John and Chrift baptized no more then could make one fingle Congre- 
 gation ; and if the liberty granted to other Seels made them fo nume- 
 rous, why may we not thinke that the number of Beleevers was farrc 
 greater then any of thofe Seds, the Apoftles confirming their dodrine 
 by fo many Miracles? 
 
 Ees The 
 
3 O The tAnftoer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 THe Brethren having in the Affembly affirmecl,that though it fhould 
 be granted|that the number of Beleevers in Jemfalem before the 
 difperfion was fo great, that they could not meet together in one place; 
 yet the perfecution fo wafted and fcattered chem, as that there were no 
 more left then might meet in one (Congregation. This ingaged the 
 Aflembly m a difpute about it, and after many dayes difpute it was re- 
 folved upon the queftion ; 
 
 That the difperfion mentioned A els 8. doth not prove fuch afcattering % 
 as that there might not remain more Congregations then one in that 
 Church : and for confirmation hereof were br ought, Ads 9.3 1. Ads 
 12.24. A(Ss2f.20. 
 
 <c "^T^^ again fi this Propofition our Brethren argue from the great- 
 t( xN nejfe of the Perfecution that caufed the difperfion, that it Was 
 u great for intenfion^r caching to imprifonment and death. Chap. 22.4. 
 " And for extent, it reached to all forts both Preachers and Chriftians. 
 "Ads 8.1. it is faid indefinitly to be agafnfi the (fhurch, and Verfe 3. 
 c< its called an entring into every Houfe, and haling Men and Women to 
 "prifon, and Chap. 20. Paul faith he imprifoned many of the Saints, not 
 c< Preachers only ; and that this is an obfervMe difference between this 
 <( perfecution, and that mentioned. Ads 1 2. that there its faid Herod 
 ct vexed certain of the Church ; but here that Vzulmade havock^ of the 
 te Church, and that they were all fcattered except the Apoftles. 
 
 To whieh we anfwer, The perfecution was indeed great and general 1 
 
 againft all the Saints promifcuoufly, but therefore we conceive would 
 
 make more Congregations in Ierufalem then there were before, though 
 
 it made them fmaller.They could not now meet in the 7Vw/?/f,daily,nor 
 
 poflibly at their wonted meeting houfes : but yet certainly even then 
 
 they had their meetings and Congregations- No terrors could make 
 
 them forfake the alTembling of themfelves together. In that other />*r- 
 
 fecution,iAcls 12. we find the Church aflfembled in feverall placesThey 
 
 were praying in the houfe of CMary, ver. 1 2 . there was one ; to which 
 
 Petar comes and tells them the manner of his delivery, and bids them 
 
 go and tell it to lames and to to the Brethren, there was another : fo it 
 
 was in that perfecution, and fo it might bef nay was likely to bej in this. 
 
 Object. " No fay our Brethren,/<?r the Text faith exprefiy they were all fcattered 
 
 " except the Apoftles. 
 
 To which we anfwer, they AH mufi be underftood either of all the Be- 
 leevers , or all theTeachers and Church Officers in the Church 0/ Ierufa- 
 lem, except Beleevers ; but it cannot be underftood of all the Beleevers, 
 that they all were fcattered, and therefore it muft be underftood of 
 Teachers, and that for two Reafons. Firft, 
 
Diffenting Brethren, againfi the Inflance of the fhurch of Jerufalem. 3 1 
 
 Firft,becaufe the Particle rri* ufed with the genitive cafe in the NeVt Ioh.8.10. 
 Tefiament, is alwaics exceptive to the utmoft ; and therefore ( ac- Aft. 15.18 
 cording to our Bretlircns fenfe)would imply that there was not one Be- j^ "•**" 
 leeverkh in Ieruftlembebdes the A poftles, which cannot be. For the ji." ' 
 Text faith that c Paul broke into houfes, and haling Men and Women, 
 committed themto prifo^ver.^. and this he did in Jerufalem, Atl.26. 
 10. Therefore all the Be le ever s were not fcattercd abroad through the 
 Regions ofJucUa,Galilee, and Samaria, fome of them were in prifon at 
 Jerufalem ; and to what purpofe can we imagine did the Apoflles ('who 
 in all their motions and ftaies were dfreded by the Spirit of Godjtarry 
 at Jerufalem, unleffe it were to comfort and fupport the Church there, 
 in the rage of this perfecution which had fcattered their other Officers 
 and Teachers from them ? 
 
 Secondly, it appears that they were the Teachers who were thus all 
 fcattered except the Apoflles, for it is there faid, They that were fcatte- ?&A> 
 red, went every where preaching the tVord, ver.4. - 
 
 * To this our Brethren reply. That U not only called Teaching which is 
 <c by Veay 0/ Sermon to a multitude ; for ver. 2$. of this Chapt. 'tis faid 
 "that Philip taught the Eunuch in a private conference, and Aquila and 
 <c ;Prifcilla taught Apolos. 
 
 But we anfwer, theText fpeaks not of teaching, but o£preaching } they 
 Went every where tu*»**i £6^0/7^ a6> ov ^preaching the Word:Teacb- 
 iffgmaybe sAttut charitatis, but Preaching is Alius officii^ how can 
 they preach except they be fent ? Ro m. 1 0. 
 
 c| But they are not called kuetyytM sulfas having an an office- , hut tv yyiKi- Objett, 
 fC ^unvoi^as referring to an atl, and it was ordinary in thofe times for men 
 cc that Vtere not by office Minifters, occafionally to teach the Word in private 
 " converfe and other^ife, and thefe went out by perfecution n$t by 
 cc mifTion. 
 
 That in thofe times Men not in office did teach by private converfe Anfw. 
 we deny not, but we fpeak not here of teaching but of preaching, and if 
 iv&yyiht&otA'vci Th \iyoi refer to the acl, yet to the acl af men in office, Luke %,u 
 we defire our} Brethren to produce one text of Scripture, where Lake 9 .6. 
 tVA^ih>(o^voi rov y'aycf is ufed of any that are not Preachers by office ; ^ z0,I# 
 we can bring many where tis ufed of thofe that are, even by the Pen, ^"j' J *| 
 w^ofthis Hiflory ; fo that we conclude that thefe \uAyy s ht^mi rlv Aftiio.ji 
 KQyo-> had their Commiffion to preach before, though this perfecution 
 occafioned their miffion into Iudea and other places to preach there. 
 
 ** But can we thinks fay they) the Teachers were fcattered, and the ordi- Object. 
 " nary Beleeyerswerenot ; except wefuppofe the people more couragtous 
 11 to flay by it, then their Teachers ? 
 
 We dare not fay that thofe that are fcattered in a time of perfecution Anfw. 
 
 are 
 
3^ The Anfrverofthe AJfembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 are leffe couragious then thofe that (lay and fuffer. In Queen Maries 
 
 dayes many Preaehers fled beyond fea ; whether it were that God had 
 
 prefent imploiment for them there, or did it to referve them for future 
 
 fervice in their return home, we do not fay ; but we dare not fay that 
 
 they were leffe couragious then thofe that (laid by it, and died for it. In 
 
 the late times of Prelaticall rage and persecution many were fcattered 
 
 into forrein parts, whilft others that did abide by it had triall of 
 
 cruell mockings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprifonments, (hall we 
 
 fay, that thofe were leflfe couragious then thefe ? 
 
 But (liould we grant that this diiperfion was not only of the Teachers, 
 
 2 « but of the multitude of Beleevers, we yet might anfwer, Secondly, that 
 
 though this p erf ecuti on was great, yet it was but fhort ; and it cannot 
 
 be imagined, but they who were fcattered by thtperfecution, would 
 
 upon the ceafing of it return again to lerufalem, and that upon the 
 
 grounds laid down by our Brethren in their fourth exception. 
 
 5, Should we grant they were fo fcattered that they never returned to 
 
 lerufalem again, Yet this doth not weaken our Propofition or the main 
 
 proof of it ; becaufe we muft rather look to the firft frame of that 
 
 Church, then to their condition under perfecution, which was but acci- 
 
 dentall ; fo that our Brethren either miftake themfelves, or wrong us, 
 
 when they fay that we build an It may be upon an It might be. 
 
 For we proved our it may be by the State of the Church of lerufalem 
 before the difperpon y and only to take off an Objection made by them, 
 we (ay it might be that after the diiperfion there were more Beleevers 
 in lerufalem then could meet in one place. And to prove this we bring 
 Alls 9.3 1. where its faid the perfection ceafing,the Churches were mul- 
 tiplied, or according to the Originall i TA»f9tW7o» were filled up, and 
 Atts 1 2.24. the word of God grew and multiplied : and Atts 21. 20. 
 where we read of many thoufands or Myriads of Iewes which belee- 
 ved.. To which our Brethren except as followeth. 
 
 <c Firft to that Acls 9. 3 1 .they fay, that ithMvovlo doth not fignifie or- 
 
 <( dinar ily a great number made up, but an increafe in meafure, not in 
 
 u number ;fo Mat. 24. 1 2. 1 Pet. 1.2. Grace be multiplied, &c. Secondly, 
 
 cc They are the Churches of Judcz, Galilee, and Samaria, that are there 
 
 c< fpoken of; and What is that to prove more in the Church of lerufalem 
 
 <c then could meet in one ? 
 
 A&.6.1. Whereto we reply firft,that the word ir*Mv*> doth properly fignifie to 
 
 Aft 6 7. increafe in number, and not in meafure, and accordingly is tranflated 
 
 A&7.J7. to be multiplied, n*Mo; the Noune from whence its derived, in the 
 
 whole New Teftamcnt is tranflated multitude ,and this Verbe that com- 
 
 meth of it throughout the whole book of the ^#.c,when applied to the 
 
 Church, is only foufedand accordingly tranflated. Nor can it being 
 
 applied 
 
Diflenting Brethren, againft the Inftance of the Church o/Jerufalem. 3 j 
 
 applied to perfons be otherwife understood what ever it may olfinnes 
 undgraces in the Texts by them produced, yet even in them the word 
 is capable of this conftruclion as might eafily be fhowne, were it need- 
 full or expedient. 
 
 Secondly^ though they be the Churches offulea, Cjalilee and Samaria 
 that are mentioned, vet the Church offerufalem therein muft needs be 
 contained and included. Firft, if Jerufalem were in Judea; fecondly, it 
 being expreiTed,oAn I iAm« all, or whole fudea, of which ferufalem was 
 a part; and this third!y,not in contra- diftinclion to Jerufalem^s in fome 
 other places, as Mar. 1. 5. Matth, 4. 25. AEls 26. ic. but to Samaria. 
 and Galilee, in which conftruclion Jerufalem fnot being named) is in- 
 cluded, as Mark^ 3. 7. AEls 10. 37. fhould we fay the Churches of all 
 England, and Scotland, and Ireland, arc in a Covenant ? would not any 
 common underftanding take the Churches of London to be included 
 here ? Nay, fourthly, were fudea (ex. alone byitfelf, yet it may and 
 doth include Jerufalem, which our Brethren cannot upon good ground 
 deny. In Lukei. 5. Lake $.1. Alls 28.21. AUs 11. 1, 29 1 Thef.2.14. 
 and which themfelves in ^7/1 5.1. do upon another occafion and lefife 
 reafon aflfert, where they will have Iudea notonly to include Ierufalem y 
 but will needs have it put for Ierufalem. Fifthly, if our Brethren fay that 
 the Church of Jerufalem was not included in thefc Churches of Iudea, 
 that had reft, and were edified and multiplied, they muft fhew that ic 
 then was troubled and leffened : but (ixthly, if other Churches of Iudea 
 were fo increafed and multiplied, we may conclude the Church of Ie- 
 rufalem, who had a greater proportion of mcancs, even the Miniftry of 
 the whole (folledge of the Apoftles, was mulciplied much more ; fo that 
 all the Beleevers there could not for all Acts of Worfhip meet toge- 
 ther in one Congregation. 
 To Aft. 1 2. i^.our Brethren except nothing.But to A El. 2 1,20. they fay, 
 " Firft, that it Was the Feafi of Pentecoft When Panl came to Jerusalem 
 <c ( as they Would prove by thujourna/l) and therefore no Wonder if he found 
 <c thoufands of the beleeving I ewes there, that were come up from all quar- 
 <l ters ; and verfeXj. feme of them are exfrefly faid to be Ie we s of Alia, 
 Cf not of Judea. Secondly, the worduv^i U being put alone without any word 
 "of tiumber,fignifieth only a greater multit»de,asy opht v »V *,&c. and being 
 tl put indefinitely, m all one ,as to fay theufands or many. To which we anfwer. 
 
 To the firft, that we contend not much whether Paul came to Ierufa- Anfw. 
 lem by Pentecoft or no, as not making much either againft us or for us. 
 Some that lay he was at Ierufalem at Pentecoft, think he came thither 
 eight or ten daies before : but fo timely before the Feaft thole Myriads 
 were not likely come up, it being the time of their W'heat-harveft, which 
 needlefly they would not abfent themfelves from, & which fome conceive 
 
 F f was 
 
34 The Anftoer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 was the reafon why this Feaft oiPentecoft was but of one day, whereas 
 
 ,. , the two other Armiverfary Feafts continued feven dayes. 
 
 Ptoiomy Buc we f l1 PP°fe our Brethren know its controverted, whether Paul 
 
 ma\es %%. were at fertifalem at this Feaft or no ? and denied by fome ; and if we 
 
 miles fiem alfofhould deny it, it will be hard for them to demonftrate ir, till they 
 
 Troas/owc can manifeft how long after the dayes of unleavened bread Pauls j'our- 
 
 nf 7 € e dt dcal nc Y began, chap. 20. 6. how long he was going on foot to A ffos, verf. 
 
 Miletus I 3- and -from thence to Mitylena, verf. 14 how long he tarried at 
 
 was from Trogyllium, verf. 15. how long at Miletus, before he lent for the El* 
 
 Ephcfus ders at Ephefus, ( fome fay of AJia,)ver. 17. how long it was before 
 
 accordhgto t h e y could come, ver. 18. how long he continued there before he de- 
 
 4°. mill P arte d> ver - 38. how long in palling thence to CW, chap. 21. 1. and 
 
 Merc* f° me Rhodes to Patara in the fame verfe, and how long he ftayed there, 
 
 ma\es it and then how long from his fetting forth from thence, till leaving Cy- 
 
 abwt 50. prus he failed to Syria, and landed at Tyre, ver. 2,3. how long in pafling 
 
 iruk^' ^ rom c ^ ence t0 Ptolomaisyer.j. how many thole many dayes were that 
 
 (Lcimpiiu- he ftayed at Philips houfe, ver. 10. and how long he was going thence' 
 
 tion oftbefe to ferufalem, and the very day he arrived there ; none of which are in 
 
 dayes, but the Story particularly expreflfed, and then adding the many dayes be- 
 
 hts but- fides which are fet down, Chap. 20. 6,7,15. Chap. 21. 1,4,7,8. (hew 
 
 S t ^ iat a ^ ^ e ^ amount not t0 above 42 dayes, for Paul had no more to 
 
 finilh his courfe in for Philippi to ferufalem, however the Brethren to 
 
 make it probable that he was there at Penteccfi, lengthen the time, and 
 
 fhorten the way, from thefe 42 dayes they make eight weekes, and 
 
 make it about forty miles from Tyre to ferufalem, whereas meafuring 
 
 in a direcl line, it was 90 ; but that way which Paul went, coafting by 
 
 Ptolomais and C&farea, it was very neare 120. 
 
 But (econdly, fhould we grant Our Brethren that he was there at 
 Tentecofl, we muft yet put them to another proofe of all the fewes a- 
 mong the Gentiles, being bound or wonted to come to this Feaft (it 
 efpecially being but of one day J from all quarters, of which we (hall 
 fpeake more hereafter. 
 
 Thirdly, fay all did, yet we can by no meanes yeeld that the feWes of 
 irffia, mentioned ver. 27, 28. were of this great multitude of beleeving 
 fewes, mentioned ver. 20. Seeing the Text isplaine, that they were 
 Perfecutors rather then Beleevers. 
 
 Fourthly, nay none of the beleeving fewes that were among the gen- 
 tiles, muft be included in thefe Myriads, for they are clearely diftingui- 
 ihed from them, the words are plaine, that the Myriads of beleeving 
 ^wwere informed that Paul taught all the fewes among the Gentiles, 
 &c. They then are informed that Paul had taught others. The Jewess 
 mong the Gentiles were they whom Paul had fo taught, and how could 
 
 they 
 
Diffenting Brethren, againft the Jnftance of the Church of Jerufalem.' 3 5; 
 
 they be in the number of them that were informed, had they need to be 
 informed by others, what Paul had taught themfelves > 
 
 Fifthly, they therefore mull: either be the beleeving fewes of Jernfa- 
 lemonly; and then we have more then we need, or at moil: they muft 
 be the beleeving J ewes in fudea only, and if fo, thence we argue, if there 
 wereTOtfWxufUc/?*, fomaay ten thoufands of beleevers in Judea, there 
 muft be fome ten thoufands, at leaft, one ten thoufand in Jerufulem for 
 her part, that will make more then one Congregation, which might 
 meet for all Ordinances in one place ; if fo many, where lefte meanes, 
 then a greater number proportionably muft be in Jerufalem, where the 
 Apoftles were preaching daily in the Temple, and from Houfe to Houfe % 
 and that for two and twenty yeares together, and therefore it cannon 
 but be very ftrange, that in all that time of the Gofpels Spring in fo po- 
 pulous a City, <zAll of them ftiould convert no more to the Faith then 
 might make up but one Congregation. 
 
 Sixthly ,how do Our Brethren in the fixth reafon, whereby they would 
 prove that the number of Beleevers in Jerufalem were no more then 
 might meet in one place, make ufe of the very next ver. 22. to that pur- 
 pofe, where it is faid, how is it therefore ? The multitude muft needs come 
 together : Sure the multitude there are no other then the Myriads in this 
 ver. 2 1 . and we conceive Our Brethren then took that multitude to be 
 of the Church of ferufakm, whatever they do now. 
 
 "But if it be faid that nothing can be argued from the wordpvfUfis which 
 ei as fj.vfm being put Without addition of another word of number, fignifeth 
 " only indefinitely very many. We anfwer, firft, Our Brethren in their 
 third exception out of Luke 1 2. 1. tranflate this word uv?i*fs? MyrU 
 ads.znd there ftretch it to the utmoft extent,and thereby prove that one 
 mans voice may be heardby Myriads at ohce,which no man can beleeve; 
 but here they would fhrink the flgnification of it, to be a leflfe number, 
 when we would improve its proper fenfe and latitude, to fliew the ex- 
 ceeding great numbers of Beleevers in ferufalem y or in all }udea (for 
 either will ferve our turnej which they cannot deny, but might reach 
 to fo many. 
 
 Secondly, they found in their Book the Adjedive p-jpw put indefi- 
 nitely, as pripwrjtffct and fome other fuch like/which might have been 
 tranfcribed.but there they found not an inftance of theSu'oitantive utpe* 
 foufed, elfe it would have been added: which we could have defired 
 might have been, or any wherein it fignifieth fewer then ten thoufand, 
 fureitdothnotinfuchinftaricesaswemeet with Ab'ts 19.19. Rev. 5.1 1. *?>V* 
 
 * Thirdly, they je erne to intimate that uvy*<, Without the addition Vfi** ['Mf r '<?*s 
 u nother Word of number might fignifie fewer then ten thoufand as if fuch ' r ' . 
 a word added hcightned ltsfigmrication, whereas we rinde in Scripture [« •ffiU 
 
 Ff* Chtt ver. 
 
1 6 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Meafons of the 
 
 that it (lints it rather to his precife fignification of i ooco and no more, as 
 JEi.19.19. but when it is alone by it felf its left,free to reach to a greater 
 numberieffe number, as in thofe Myriads of Saints, fade 12. Si Angels, 
 Heb. 12. 22. 
 
 To theinanfwer to the fecond proof of the flrft head from the many Affiles 
 and other Trenchers in the Church ofJerufalem,&c.Our Brethren fay, 
 
 Firft, for the Apoftles. 
 
 u Fir fly they tookall opportunities to fill their hands with w or ke,P reaching 
 
 <c daily in the Temple, and from Houfe to Houfe, Alls $.22,& chap. 2 26. 
 
 "Paul alfo in Ephefus taught publikely in the Congregation and from houfe 
 
 " houfe, Atts 20. 20. 
 
 C{ Secondly, when any in Judea, or elfeVchere, were converted, the <>sf- 
 po flies went abroad, Chap. 8. 
 
 " Thirdly, How were the twelve imployed, When for forty dayes together, 
 " they met together in an upper roome, & had but one hundred and twenty 
 for a Flock ? 
 
 We reply to the fir fl Anfwer. 
 Refp ii Firft, becaufe the Apoftles tooke all opportunities to fill their hands 
 pimunu withworke, therefore they diftributed their many thoufands into feve- 
 w\\, Congregations, that they might all be at work at once in an orderly 
 way, otherwife though they might preach occaftonally, yet they could 
 have had no fetled way, and opportunity of imploying themfelves in 
 the work of the Miniftry. 
 
 Secondly, their preaching daily in the Temple, and from houfe to 
 houfe, confirmes this ; they preached in the Temple to the promifcuous 
 multitude, whiieft they had their proper Church meetings in more pri- 
 vate houfes. 
 
 Thirdly, this is yet further confirmed by what our Brethren fay of 
 
 Paul, who taught publikely, and from houfe to houfe: forifP^/could 
 
 doe both thefe workes at Ephefus himfelf alone ; why might not Peter % 
 
 James and John, doe as much at Jerufalem ? efpecially if but one Con^ 
 
 gregation; fothat by this Argument the reft of the Apoftles might 
 
 have been fpared, and yet that one Congregation Efficiently inftrucTed. 
 
 M 2o To their fecond, of the Apoftles going forth to erecl other Churches, 
 
 they can give but one inftance of it, AEls the 8. where the whole 
 
 twelve went not forth, but only two were fent. 
 
 Mx* T° tne tmn ^ we &y hf&, our Brethren miftake forty daies for ten, at 
 
 moft, for no more were there from Chrifts Affention, (upon which they 
 
 went up into that upper chamber, Alls 1.1344J to Pentecofl,AEls 2.1. 
 
 Secondly, as in thofe forty daies which they mentioned, the ^ApofHe 5 
 
 were imployed not in Preaching, but in Learning from fefus Chrift the 
 
 things 
 
Diflfenting Brethren, againft the Inftance of the (fhurch of Jerufalem. 3 7 
 
 things pertaining to the Kingdome of God, Ails 1.3. fo in thofc ten 
 daies which they meant, they were taken up,, efpecially in Prayer and 
 Supplication, Alls i.i4.waitng for the promife of the Spirit, further to 
 inable them to the work of the UWniftry, and of them fo fitted and 
 filled with the Spirit, we meant in our Argument. 
 
 For the many Teachers, they fay ; 
 
 <c There were then many gifted men that Vcere not Officers, V:hich yet 
 <c occafionally inftrutled others, as Aquilla did Apollos, thofe gifts werefo 
 " plentifully that in that one Church of Corinth, almoft every one of them 
 <c had themyiCot. I q.i6>andyet not Officers for elfe there would have been 
 u almoft- as many Teachers as Members, and thepowring out of the Holy 
 " Ghoft(more ordinary then) did not make every man a Teacher by Office^ 
 " for then all thofe in Samaria fhould have £^« Teachers, Ads 8. 
 
 « 1 That not any of them Were in Office, becaufe Vce find no mention of 
 " Elders in the Ordination of 'Deacons, Acls 6. infthichMlders (had there 
 " been nanj) h/id an inter eft, and Vvouldhave been named as well as the A- 
 «' poftles, as they are, Ads i^Vchen once there were Elders, but Deacons 
 Ci Vcere the fir ft fort of Officers that were chofen, and till their choice the 
 " Apoftles managed all. As for the firft part of their Anfwer ; 
 
 1. Firft, We grant in thofe times were many gifted men that were 
 not in Office, which might occafionally inftrud others, as Aquila did 
 Apollos. 
 
 2. Butfecondly, We did never fay, that Congregations were to be 
 multiplied according to the number of gifted men, or that there ftiould 
 be almoft as many Teachers as Qhurch member s y to which our Brethren 
 rather propend in the pradife of their Congregations. 
 
 5. Thirdly, But this inftruding occafionnally, was either in private, 
 and then its nothing to the purpofe, or in publick, and fo it cannot be 
 meant, for not only Aquila, but alfo Prifcilla his wife inftruded 
 Apollos, and our Brethren will not fay wemen may ( no not occafi- 
 onally ) in publick. 
 
 4. Fourthly, Our Brethren cannot conclude thatWs?*, 1 Cor. 14. 26. 
 fignifieth (imply, all,or almoft all,but all, or every one that were fo qua- 
 lified, as Luke 13.5. Doth not tows every one of you loofehis Ox or his 
 -dffie, &c. and I Cor.7.2. Let htagoi every one of you have his own tW/V, 
 &c. not meant of all in generall, but of every one that had an Ox, &c. 
 or had need of a wife, and fo in that place of the firinths. 
 
 Reaf.2. To the fecond part of this anfwer we reply ; 
 
 1. That it will not follow, becaufe Elders are not mentioned 
 All. 6. therefore then there were none ; We find no mention of Elders 
 in Ierufalem,i\\\ AEls 11. will our Brethren therefore fay, there were 
 none till then ? The truth is, we reade nothing at all in Scripture-, of 
 
 Ff 3 the 
 
8 The Anfwer of the AJfemblj of Divine s y to the Reafons of the 
 
 the time or occafion of ordaining Elders in that Church, and therefore 
 leiTe can be faid about it, 
 
 Secondly, Yet the current of Expofitors fay,that the feventy Difciples 
 were at lerujalem among thofe hundred and twenty Names, of whom 
 we reade, ABs i. who were Teachers by Office, and if fo, then all the 
 work of Adminiftration of all forts did not lie only upon the Apoftles 
 hands, as our Brethren affirm.- 
 
 Thirdly, We have already proved, that thofe who were fcattered 
 from Ierufalem, were Preachers by Office before the difperfion, and our 
 Brethren grant, that after the difperfion there were Elders there, fo 
 that both before and after the difperfion, there were many Teachers 
 and Officers there, which is an argument of many Congregations there. 
 
 To their Reafons againfl the third Proof of the firft head,from the 
 diverfity of Languages among the Beleevers. 
 
 VNto our third Proof of divers Congregations at lerufalem by the 
 diverfity of Languages there, Att.2.6* the firft Anfwer that our 
 " Brethren make is, That tis true indeed that there Were in the fecovid of 
 " Ads, out of all Nations , that heard the Apoftles fpeak^ in the fever all 
 lt Languages of the Countries they were born in % but yet thofe wereall ei- 
 lt ther lews or Profelytes 'Ev^ctfe* worjhippers, as ver. 5. who came up to 
 " worjhip, and fome parts of the Vtorftiip Vcere Audible* 
 
 1. We obferve that our Brethren tranflate \Kvk#$m worfhippers for 
 their own advantage, not having either the Propriety of the word, 
 the ufe of it in the Scripture, or the Concurrence of Interpreters to 
 bear them out in fuch a tranflation. The advantage they feek for, is, be- 
 caufe they would colour it the better that thefe Companies now af- 
 fembledat/m^/^#cameup toWorfhip; or as they explain it dfc- 
 where,that they came up to Pentecoft.But this follows not,becaufe they 
 were dwelling at lerufalemu thisFeaft of Pentecoft,that therefore they 
 came up to this Feait, or to worfhip only, as we touched before. 
 
 For Pipit, the IeWs that dwelt without the Land of Canaan were not 
 bound to appearance at the Feftivalls there. 
 
 Secondly, nor was it poflible that they (hould fo do,if they had been 
 commanded, unlefie they did nothing almoft all the year but go up to 
 lerufalem, and home again, their habitation being fome of them Co 
 many months Journy diitant. 
 
 Thirdly, what had the difperfed lews to do at the Feaftof Harveft 
 (forfoit is called Exod.2 3.1 6.) when their Harveft in very many of 
 thofe places where they dwelt was not yet begun ? 
 
 Fourthly, if their diftance from lernfalem made them to choofeto 
 
 come 
 
Diflfenting Brethren, againft the Inflance of the Church of Jerufalem. ^p 
 
 come up but to fome one of the Feafts, and omit the reft, why to Pen- 
 tecoft, which was the leaft Solemn of all the three, rather then to 
 the Paflfeover or Tabernacles, thefe two being Solemnities for a whole 
 week, Pentecoft but for a day. 
 
 Fiftly, we produce a more probable reafon before ("as we fuppofej r> 2 
 of this matchle(Te and unparalell'd concourrfe at this time, forfo we ' 
 doubt not to call it, viz,, that the IcWs had learned by the Scripture, 
 and efpecially out of the Prophefie of Daniel, that this was the time 
 when the Kingdom of Heaven (hould appear, as it is apparent both out 
 o£Luke> chap. 19.ver.11. and out of the lews own Authors, and there- 
 fore came in thofe multitudes to Ierufalem ,and there fetled to dwell, to 
 fee the fulfilling of thofe things that all the Nations fo much looked 
 after. 
 
 2. Although it were true, that all thefe difperfed ones came up to 
 worfhip,and though the worfhip in fome parts of it were Audible, yet 
 can it be no found arguing to infer thereupon, that therefore all that 
 came to worfhip underftood what was faid in it • efpecially feeing that 
 the worfhip at the Temple was not fo much to hear, as to offer. 
 
 " They proceed thus : And though born in other Countries (the Iewes 
 '! being difperfed) jet all were generally learned and underftood the Hebrew 
 '* tongue, the Language of their oWn Nation^ even as to this day thelcws 
 (t and their children do. 
 
 Firft, that the difperfed lews were fo generally learned, is by far, 
 fooncrfaid then proved; even they of Jerufalem were fcorned by trie 
 learned men there, as Jgnorant in the Law, -M.749. and Iofephus 
 feemeth to teftifie the clean contrary to what our Brethren aflfert. 
 
 We more wonder at their aflfertion concerning the lews difperfed 
 being fo learned, unleffe they can (hew us fome Univerfities, Syna- 
 gogues , Schooles,or fome means of railing learning, in Media.Parthia, 
 and other places, which we never yet have feen or heard of. 
 
 To what an unacquaintednelTe with the Law, and with that learning 
 we are now fpeaking of, the people were grown in the feventy years 
 captivity may be collected out of the book oiNehemiah: And how thefe 
 difperfed ones now in mention fhould come to be fo learned, when 
 their difperfion was fo vaftly^wide^and the continuance of it fo incom- 
 parably Jonger, we confelTeAve cannot apprehend, hiftories do not evi- 
 dence, and we fuppofe our Brethren will not be able to demonftrate. 
 
 Secondly, by theism? tongue we conceive our Brethren under- 
 hand not the Language properly fo called, for its fo clear both by wri- 
 tings of learned men, and by the Scripture it felf, that that was not the 
 vulger Language of the Nation at thofe times that we are fpeaking of, 
 that we cannot once fufped that they mean that tongue, but the mixed 
 
 Sjriackf 
 
4fi The tAnptier of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafens of the 
 
 —fj— Syriack^ of which we have fome f'mall parcels in the New Teftament,and 
 fome larger peeces in the leVvifh writers,which indeed is called HebreVr, 
 7^.19.13,17. and the Hebrew Dialecl, Atts 21.40. and^^ 22.2. not 
 becaufe it was the proper Hebrew tongue, but the proper tongue of the 
 Hebrews at this time, Atls 1. 1 9. 
 
 We are indifferent whether Language they mean, for we deny that 
 the lews born in other countries did generally underftand the one or 
 the other. 
 
 Firft, the Septuagint tranflation was the Bible they had then in com- 
 mon ufc, both in their Synagogues, and in their ftudies, as is apparent 
 both by the quotations of the Apoft/es, and ofPhi/o, and Iofephm, and 
 is hinted by Tertullian. 
 
 Secondly, the Prophets were trandated out of Hebrew into Caldce a 
 little before the coming of Chrift, and the Law a little after, to make 
 them the more intellegible. 
 
 Thirdly, even Philo himfelfone of the learnedeft of the Nation, and 
 one that was alive at this very time of which we are fpeaking, doth 
 fometimes bewray his unskilfulnefTe, if not his totall ignorance in the 
 pure HelreVe tor gu \ 
 
 And whence tnen came their skilfulnefle in the HebreVe tongue 
 fo common and generall as our Brethren conceive, if they meane this 
 Language > 
 
 Secondly, as for the Syriackj, which was indeed the Language of the 
 Nation at this time, we offer thefe things likewife. 
 """* ■ ■ Firft, that there was no part of ^cripture written in that Language. 
 
 Secondly, that there was but little expofition of Scripture, or indeed 
 none at all in that Language that did then go up and down among all 
 lews that were difperfed. 
 
 Thirdly, that it is queftionable,whethyr the Audible parts of worfhip 
 at the I emple were in this Language, or no ? 
 
 Fourthly, that though it were, yet will our Brethren hardly ever 
 finde a reafon or argument,that might perfwade all the Ie^s under hea- 
 ven therefore to ftudy, and get that Syritfk^ Language, becaufe it was 
 fpoken at lemfalem. 
 
 Fifthly, there is fo much difference of Language in the two Talmuds, 
 and in the two Targums : and other Authors that wereneer to this 
 time, as may fomewhat argue that all the Nation did not fo generally 
 underftand that one Language all alike, 
 
 Sixthly, Philo himfelf appears to be unskilfull in it, when he tranflates 
 a moll: common Syriackyroxd, only upon other mens report. 
 
 Seventhly, though it were granted our Brethren, that all the men a- 
 mong the difperfed lews understood the Syrmck, obtaining it by ftudy ; 
 
 yet 
 
Dhfenting Brethren, againfi the Inflanceof 'the Church of 'Jerufalem. 41 
 
 yet how will they make it good for women, of which there were fome 
 {tore of company there ? 
 
 Eighthly, efpecially, how will they make it good of Profelites ? for 
 that Romans, (fappadocians, Cretians, or any of thofe Nations of the 
 weftern difperfion,whofe Language had no affinity at all with the Syrian 
 orH ebrew tongue, if they converted to the Hebrews Religion, fhould 
 alfo be skiled in the Syrian tongue, requires a ftrongcr reafon to e- 
 vince, then we expect can be yet (hewed us. 
 
 How learned the lefts and their children are at this day our Brethren — 
 mcntion,but we fee no proof for it. It may be they have met with fome 
 that have attained to good skill in the Scriptures, and Hebrew 
 tongue,but this is not proof for the generall. 'lis true indeed, they have 
 their prayers & Service in their Synagogue^ in the Hebrew tongue > but 
 this no more proveth that they generally underftand Hebrew,then it ar- 
 gueth that the Papifts generally underftand Latine, becaufe they have 
 
 their Latine Service: And yet alio have we feen the lefts prayers in Spa- 
 
 nifh, & Italian tongues,though written indeed with the Hebrew letter. 
 " The Aflertion, That all the difperfed lews underftood the Hebrew 
 lc tongue our Brethren thinks evident'm Ads c.20.2 1.2 2. w her eViul com- 
 " ingttf with divers Grecians to the Feafl ofPentecofl, c20.ver.4- unto 
 cc which the lews out of all quarters came, and being at afolemn meeting in 
 " the Temple, chap.2i.ver.2 7. the lews out of Afia, grangers, fiirredup 
 ei all the people againfi him, and\X>hen c\\zip.22.ver.2. he made a fpeech to 
 cC them, and \X>hen they heard hefpake the Hebrew tongue, they keptfilence, . 
 e< and heard him patiently. v. 
 
 Whether Paul were at the Feaft of Pentecoft mentioned in this ftory, 
 we refer to what we have faid before, and that the IeVrs out of all quar- 
 ters came to that Feaft we deny ; If we fhould grant all that our Bre- 
 thren fpeak in this paffage,what doth it prove of their opinion? becaufe 
 that Tanl being accufed by the Je^fts oiAfia, to the lews of Ierufalem y 
 and aflfaulted by the Iewsof lerufalem, when he maketh a fpeech to them 
 to whom he was accufed, and by whom he was affaulted, in the Hebrew 
 tongue, they heard him patiently, becaufe he fpake in their own 
 tongue ; £r£<>, allthe difperfed lews of all Countries wberefoeverun*- 
 derftood that tongue : It is a confequence fo far fetched, and fo ftrange- 
 ly inferred, that we can rather wonder at fuch Logick, then find any 
 ftrength in fuch Argumentation. If we fhould put them to prove that 
 thefe A fun lefts that accufed Paul (to meddle with none other,' un- 
 derftood his Apologie, we fuppole they could give us but little iatisfa- 
 clion in it : Nay , may we not retort their inftance and argument againft 
 thcmfelves thus ? That if the lefts otlerufalem took Paul for a left as ic 
 is moft probable they did, they expected at firft that he could nor have 
 
 G g fpoken 
 
-4 2 The Anftoer of the Ajfembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 fpoken their Language, which when they heard him do, they gave him 
 the more attention. 
 
 A fecond inftance they produce, is the peoples undcrftanding Peters 
 Sermon, Aclschap.z. 
 
 " And further (fay they J thofe mentioned, A ds chap, i. did under (land 
 
 c all of them Peters Sermon : And though others (pake unto them be fides 
 
 * Peter in their o^n Language the Vvonderfull things of God, yet that was 
 
 ' 'but a preparative figne to them : Asfirfi epiftle to Corinthians., chap. 1 4. 
 
 <g ver. 2 2. making way for their converfion, ver. 1 1 ; 1 2 1 7, . but the meanes 
 
 " of their converjion was VetersSermon } afterwards, axd it Was he that 
 
 gave direilion to them aU What to do to be f. wed. And therefore it muft 
 
 £ bejpoken offome common Language they all underfeed. 
 
 tc And thofe gifts of Languages given to the Apoftles Vv ere not ofneceffityto 
 
 £ inftruEl thefe neW converts only> but to fit them when they (loouldgo abroad 
 
 u into all the world, and to be afign to the J ewes at prefent to convince them. 
 
 We defire a proofe, that Peter alone preached and converted thefe 
 three Thoufand. It is true indeed that mention is only made of Peters 
 Speech, yet doth not this in Lukes ftile,nor indeed re ipfa exclude the 
 preaching of the other Apoftles. For 
 
 Firft, obferve in Alls, chap. 3. ver. J 2. it is faid Peter anfwered the 
 people, and his fpeech is only recorded without any mention at all of 
 Johns, and yet chap. 4. ver. 1. it is faid Aa.}£;7a>v&vffi 9 declaring plainly 
 that John fpake as well as he ; fo againe, chap.q ver. 8. it is faid Peter 
 fpake to them, and his fpeech only recorded, and yet in wr. 13. it is 
 laid, they faw the boldneffe of Iohn as well as Peter. 
 
 Secondly obferve, that though Luke in this Book of the Alls of the 
 tApofles intended to declare the growth of the Gofpel, and of the 
 Church, by the Miniftry of all the Apoftles and Difciples that had their 
 (hare in it, yet doth he fix more efpeciallyupon the ftorie of thofe that 
 were refpe&ively Minifters of the circumcifion and uncircumcifion by a 
 more peculiar designation, as Peter and John, more efpecially Pe ter ; 
 Paul and Barnabas, more efpecially Paul. 
 
 Thirdly, when he particularizeth fo much concerning Peter, and fo 
 little concerning the reft of the twelve, he doth not thereby intimate a- 
 ny whit leffe zeal or activity for the propagation of the Gofpel in them, 
 then in htm, but he choofeth rather to infill upon, and follow the ftorie 
 of Peter, partly (it may be j becaufe his great fall in the deniall of his 
 Walter required the greater tcftimony of his recoverie, and partly or 
 chiefly becaufe he was more fingularly defigned for aMinifter of the 
 Cucumcihon, therefore is he the man rnoft fpoken of while the ftorie 
 foUowcththe Church of the Circumcilion. 
 Fourthly, obferve that in tAfrs, chap.x, ver. 14. it is faid Peter ftood 
 
 forth 
 
Diffenting Brethre n, againfl the Jnflance of the Church of Jerufalem. 43 
 forth with the eleven : Now if the eleven were filent in this action, and 
 Auditours only as well as others, why are they mentioned > 
 
 Againe it is faid, vgr.2.*]. They Were pricks din their hearts, and r aid to 
 Teter, and to the reft- of the Apoflles, What p) all we do ? why fhould they 
 aske counfellof the reft of the Apoflles zsweW as Peter, if they had not 
 preached to them as well as he? and likewife in ver. 42. it is faid they 
 continued in the dodrinc of the Apoflles, At*s6k<w in the plurall. 
 
 Fiftly, Peter hkth to the charge of thefe to whom he fpeaketh, the 
 death of Chrift, now there were in that number, Atlschap. 2. divers 
 Prolclites, ver. 10. who had no hand at all in his death. 
 
 Sixtlv, the pointing in verf.qi. is confide rable where it is faid, Thofe 
 that received P eters words were baptised, and then as fpeaking of another 
 ftorie he faith, There were addedthe fame day three thoufandfoules- 
 
 All thefe things confidered, we have goodcaufe to doubt whether Pe- 
 ter alone preached at this time, and whether he alone was the conver- 7*- »<*■ 
 ter of thefe three thoufand, and whether he alone gave them direction 
 what to do. 
 
 Our Brethren conclude this paffage thus,7 'ho fe gifts of 'languages were 
 not of a neceffity to inflruVi thofe new Converts only, but to fit them when 
 they flonldgo abroad into all the world, and to be a figne to the J ewes at 
 prefent to convince them. 
 
 Whereas they fay thofe gifts of Languages givea to the Apoflles were 
 not of neceflicy to inftrud thofe new converts only, we fay fo likewife ; 
 but our meaning is, that thofe gifts were of neceflicy to inftrucl thofe 
 new converts, but not to inftrucl them only, but to fit the Apoflles a- 
 gainft they fhould go abroad into all the world : And if our Brethren 
 mean not fo, let them leave out the word only, and we fhall knovv then 
 what to fay to them : but here we cannot tell what to fay to them, be- 
 caufe we cannot clearly tell what they mean. 
 
 Tis* true indeed that tongues were for a (ign,and it is paft gain-faying, 
 firft Epifde to Corinthians chap.14.ver.22. But that they were given 
 for a figne as for the proper end, we do utterly deny it : For we knovv 
 that the gift of healing and power of caftmg out devills were for a fign, 
 but we fuppofe our Brethren will not fay that that was the proper end 
 why they were given : but tor the beneht of the people in healing and 
 difpofleiling. And finec the nature of the gift doth import a nccefficy of 
 it in the parties to whom it was applied, as healing and difpoilefling 
 argued (ickneffe and pofleflfednefle : fo (incc the very nature of the gift 
 of tongues ddth imply inftru&ion, we cannot but apprehend a neceflity 
 of it in thofe perfons to whom it was ufed : for it fcemcth monftrousto 
 us that the folemne promife of the Father given in fo glorious a manner, 
 and fo wondrous a thing in ic feire, fhould be more for a figne to chem 
 
 G g 2 that 
 
44- The Anfwer of the A (femblf of Divines > to the Reafons of the 
 
 that beleevednot, then for any benefit for thofe that did.- And that 
 that gift which had been fo highly Prophefted of before, and fo highly 
 Magnified now, and fo great a gift of the fpirit in it felfe, fhould be but 
 for this pur pofe, tofpeak ftrange Languages to them that could have 
 understood all of them one Language if it had been fpoken ; what a 
 needlefle fuperfluity of the gifts of the fpirit would our Brethren have 
 here, who will have fuch a thing as this only for a figne to thzleftes 
 while the Affiles were among them ? We have ever held that the gift 
 of tongues was for the calling in of the people to the knowledge and 
 profefsionof God and Religion, as the -confufion of tongues had been 
 their cafting out, and we have ever thought the gift it felfe to be of an 
 inftructive nature, and why it fhould not be fo to the Ieftes here we fee 
 no caufe. 
 
 The Apoftle indeed faith in the place cited, Tongues are for a figne, 
 but he implies alfo in the verfe preceding, that they were given for 
 this end, that the people might heare ; With men of other tongues and 
 other lif swill I (peaks unto this people, and yet for all this will they not 
 heare. Inftruclion was the proper end of Languages, as it is of preach- 
 ing, yea though the wicked receive it not ; and the Languages now gi- 
 ven had no end at all, if the people had no need of them. 
 
 The Apoftles indeed were fitted with this gift againft they fhould go 
 into all the world ; but let our Brethren confider thefe things. 
 
 Firft, how long it was before any of the gentiles were gone and 
 preached unto by any of the Apoftles : let them looke either into the 
 £cclefiaftica/HAi&ories 3 or ferioufly examine the Text, and theyfhall 
 findc that it was divers yeares before they preached to any but the lefts, 
 and then what fhould they have done with fo many tongues for thefe 
 divers yeares being to preach only to lefts that understood all of them 
 one Language ? If we fhould put our Brethren to it, to prove that the 
 Apoftles were gone abroad into all the world before the Councell at 
 Jerufalem, which was at the lead: feventcen yeares, or before the Appre- 
 hension oiPaul at Ierufalem, ABs 21.30. which was at leaft two and 
 twenty yeares after this gift, they would have much ado to prove it : 
 and why fhould they think that they fhould have this gift which was 
 thought a great and glorious one for fo long a time (or grant the time 
 to have been fhorter) and never put it to any but a kinde of needlefle 
 ufe,notfor any benefit of the people but that they might as well have 
 been without f 
 
 Secondly, fureit is, that lames lived and died at Ierufalem, and for 
 ought that can be found, never departed from thence while he lived : 
 now certainly he had the gift of tongues as well as the other Apoftles : 
 and to what purpofc had he it if he were continually to preach 
 
 to 
 
Diffenttng Brethren, again/} the Inftance of the (fhurch of Jerufalem. 4 5 
 
 to thofe that eould have as well understood him in the mother tongue ? 
 I, but lay they, it was to be a fign 10 the Iewes at prefent to convince 
 them : To convince them, how? if by the things fpoken, why thofe 
 might have convinced them if they had been fpoken in the Syrian tongue 
 only, which our Brethren fay all the people underftood : if by the Mi- 
 racle that thofe Galileans fhould fpeak fo many tongues, why fome of 
 the people took this for fo little a Miracle that they faid they were full 
 of new wine : now therefore when the Jpoftleshzd in their hands the 
 power of healiRg, caftingout devil's, killing by a word, and railing the 
 dead,and fuch like iigns as fpake convidtion by the very exercife of them, 
 we cannot but hold itftrange to conceivethat fpeaking of divers tongues 
 (hould be thought to be added as a bare fign, and for no other ufe, then 
 what thofe other gifts would have done abundantly without it. 
 
 Our Brethren to our fecond Quotations of Jcls, chap. 6. do make 
 this anfwer. 
 
 <c Secondly, for the Grecian fVidoVces, Acts chap. 6. the Hellenifts that 
 u lived among the Jews might well Itefuppofed to under ft and Hebrew. 
 
 Not tofpend time upon this Exprejfion (the Hellenifts that lived a- 
 mong the Iewes) which to divers Learned men would appeare Barba- 
 rifme, the Hellenifts being conceived by them to be Iewes themfekes 
 that lived among the CJreefa, and not Greeks that lived among the lews, 
 as our Brethren feem to us to conceive, how well they might be fuppo- 
 fed to underftand Hebrew by our Brethren we know not ; as for our 
 felves, we know not any fuch ground (that considered that hath been 
 fpoken before,) as to fuppofe for the generality of the Hellenifts any 
 fuch thing. 
 
 " They conclude thus ; And that thefe had not fever all Congregations 
 11 from the reft appear es bj this, that the whole multitude together met and 
 ci chofe the Deacons ; it was a joj/nt acl : And if of differing Languages 
 il wherein the one under ft ood not the other ^occ aft oning fuch a diftinHion of 
 c< Congregations \ju the proofe woulaholdforth^ hoV? could they all have 
 " agreed in one meeting on the fame man ? 
 
 W e anfwer ; here are two things taken for granted by our Brethren, 
 which are yet to prove ; Firft, that all the whole multitude of Belec- 
 vcrs in Iemfalem met to choofe the Deacons : And fecondly, that they 
 agreed in one meeting on the fame man. 
 
 We might here anfwer what we have done before, that the whole 
 multitude in Scripture ftile doth not alwayes fignifie all and lingular 
 perfons of fuch a company, but fometimes many of that company, and 
 fometimes only fuch as were prefent at the occafion mentioned : Yet if 
 we (houid take the whole multitude in the Text, in the fenfe that our 
 Brethren do, for all the thoufandsof Beleevers, none excepted, yet is 
 
 Gg 3 the 
 
46 The 4 n fa er of the Affemblj of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 the AiTertionfar from being proved ftill; for the Text indeed faith, 
 The twelve called all the multitude when they propounded the mat- 
 ter of the choife of "Deacons ; but it cannot be found, that all the 
 multitude met for their choofing, unlefTe they chofe them at that 
 very inftant, which is very queftionable, and fo is it whether they a- 
 greed in one meeting on the fame man : for were it granted, that 
 the people agreed in one tongue, yet certainly were they of feverall 
 Nations ; and how fo many Nations, fo farre diftant for habitation, 
 fhould info fhortatime as a Feftivall feafon, come fo acquainted one 
 with another and all with thefe Seven, as to agree in one meeting 
 on one man, is fo difficult to imagine, that we cannot yet be 
 convinced of it : but miift rather conceive, that upon the dsfpoftles 
 motioning the matter to the whole multitude ( take it if you will 
 in the largeft comprehenfion ) that they departed, and conndered 
 and confulted of the bufmeiTe, every Nation whom it concerned, a- 
 mong themfelves, or the moft Neighbouring-Nations one with 
 another, and chofe their men ; and all having thus chofen, prefent 
 them joyntly to their Ordination. Andfuch choifes as thefe of Of- 
 ficers in feverall Companies, yet all thofe that are chofen, brought 
 at laft into one body, hath been and is fo common, that itneedeth 
 no exemplifying. 
 
 11 But in the wrapping up of all, they ufe our weapon againft 
 <f our felves, and fay, That the Argument as well helds againft the 
 cc Presbyteriall Ajfociation of thofe Congregations into one Church , 
 lc People and Elders, unto Which, and in the Communion and Exercife 
 il whereof^ fuch (forresfondencies andintercourjes are needfull, as they re- 
 €< quire one common Language. 
 
 Nay, it holds nothing neare fo well againft the Presbvtcriall Aflb- 
 ciation into one Churchy unleile ;it were true, that the Elders of 
 the congregation, and the common Members were alike learned. 
 And it is no confequence at all, # that becaufe the people could 
 not all of them underftand one Sermon, nor could all ;oyne in the 
 Sacrament, becaufe they could not underftand one anothers fpeech, 
 that therefore the Elders could not underftand one another to joyne 
 in Government. Nor that a people that underftand not one com- 
 mon language, may not joyne in one body under one Presbyteriall 
 Government, as well as they may joyne in one Corporation, and in 
 one civill Government. 
 
 The 
 
Ditfenting Brethren, againft the Inflame of the Church of Jerufalem. 47 
 
 The fecond branch of this Argument, That all thefe Con- 
 gregations were under one Presby ten all-Government. 
 
 PROOFS. 
 1 1 Proof I . T) Fcaufe they were one Church. 
 
 JD To which our Brethren anfwer, <c Though it be one, yet 
 <c they not beina more then could meet in one, the Argument concludes not 
 Rep. 1. So then its granted to be a concluding Argument, if there 
 were more inthat one Church then could meet in one Congregation 
 for all afts of worfhip, which whether we have not diffidently proved, 
 we freely leave to thofe whofhall impartially weigh our former Ar- 
 guments to determine. 
 
 2. Suppofe the number of Beleevers there had been no greater then 
 might poflibly have met in one, how can our Brethren prove that they 
 did not, for better convenience of Adminiftrations, or fome other 
 ends, meet in diftincl and feverall AtTemblies ? Some of the new ga- 
 thered Churches in London are not fo numerous, but that three or foure 
 of them might very well meet in one AlTembly, yea poflibly they have 
 met, Two Churches at a Sacrament, Three or four Churches at a Faft or 
 at a Leclure, though they are no more then might meet in one place. 
 2. Troof. Bccaufe the Elders of that Church are mentioned. 
 Againft which our Brethren except, ^i.That there is no mention of any 
 <f Elder of that Churchy till after the difperfion, A&s 8. andfo the weight 
 c * of the Argument depends upon the proof of many Congregations after the 
 " difperfion, which the Reverend Ajfembly doth not positively affirm : 
 " This ts thefum of what is argumentative. 1 What follows, tends only to 
 "prove, that we difpute in circulo, and againft Presbyterian Principles, 
 We fay, 
 1. As before, ( Their repeating of Exceptions neceflltating us to re- 
 peat Anfwers) That our not reading of Elders before the difperfion, 
 doth not prove that there were none before it j The order of Exiftencc 
 is not alwayes to be gathered from the order of the Hiftory. We finde 
 Elders in Jerufalem firft mentioned, Alls 11. and after, Alls\%. but 
 when they were firft: conftituted, wc fmdc not particularly expreffed ; 
 only we may rationally conceive that the Apoftles in their care for the 
 Churches good, did ordain Elders in that Church very early ; for they 
 knew their Commiffion was not limited to Jerufalem, but extended to 
 all Nations, Matth.28.1 8. and though Chriftat his departure gave them 
 a charge to tarry at Jerufalem, Afts 1.4. yet it was buz for a time, 
 till they received the Holy Ghoft, which was fhortly after, Atls 2. after 
 which time thef knew not how foon any or all of them might have been 
 
 called 
 
4 8 The sAnftoer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafins of the 
 
 called thence to Preach the Gofpel to other Nations; and therefore 
 we cannot thinke they would have leflfe care of fetling Elders there, 
 then Paul upon a like occafion had in the Churches of Lyftra, Iconium 
 and Antiochy Acls 1 4. 
 
 2. Let not our Brethren therefore fay, The Weight of our Argument 
 lies upon the many Congregations after the difperfion, till they caa prove 
 that the Apoftles neglected or deferred to ordain Elders untill then* 
 
 3. Yet did the weight of the Argument lie where our Brethren 
 would haveitj we doubt not but we have fo fully proved many Con- 
 gregations there after the difperfion, as it would fully carry rhe caufc. 
 
 4. Though the Affembly did not at firft fo poiTItively affirm it, it was 
 not becaufe they wanted proof or evidence of the thing, but becaufe 
 they did not judge it neceitary : What was fpoken to the /tate of that 
 Church after the difperfion fas before we have faid) was rather to re- 
 move an Objection, then to make it a further proof of our Propofition 
 
 In the reft of this Paragraph our Brethren are fomewhat obfeure and 
 perplexed. "They fpeakj>f the Presbytery the Propofition intends. 
 
 If they know any other kinde of Presbytery over more Congrega- 
 tions then ont, befides that which the Propofition intends, and which 
 they conceive lawfull, they (hall do well to hold it forth, and to di- 
 ftinguilh of Presbyteries, which they deny, and which they grant. 
 
 As for that Circle which our Brethren would drive our Argument in- 
 to, we appeal to all Logick, whether to reafon thus, There were many 
 Congregations in Jerusalem, and many Elders ; and thefe Congrega- 
 tions were all one Church, and thefe Elders all of them Elders of that 
 one Church ; therefore there were many Congregations under one 
 Presbytery, be to difpute in circulo: If there be any other Circle in 
 what we have fent up to the Honorable Houfes, or in any thing that 
 paffed the Vote of the Affembly, let them fliew it. 
 
 As for that they would faften upon our Anfwer to their firft Argu- 
 ment, For the further clearing of our felves,we refer them thither,where 
 they Pnall finde, that Elders have a double relation, one to thefingle 
 Congregation where they are fixed, another to the feverall Congrega- 
 tions whereto it is united. Their relation tothofe thus united, tieth 
 them not to all duties of Elders to all thofe united Congregations (as 
 ©ur Brethren Cup^ok in their Argument) nor all thofe Congregations 
 to ail duties unto them, but only to thofe mutuall duties for which they 
 were united, as is more at large declared in that Anfwer. Which of 
 thefe Relations is primary, is no whit materiall to be infifted upon to 
 our purpofe. 
 
 To 
 
Difl'enting Brethren, againft the Inftanceofthe Church 0/Jerufalem. 4^ 
 
 To their Reafons againft the third Proof of the fecond 
 B.'anch, That the Apojlles did the ordinary acts of Presby- 
 ters ^ as Presbyters > in the Church ef Jcrafalem 5 &c. 
 
 OUr Brethren labour much to invalidate this Proof, which were 
 they able to do, neither fhould their caufe gaine, nor ours lofe 
 much thereby, becaufe (as fome of our Brethren have acknowledged^ if 
 we prove many Congregations, yet fo as they make one Church for 
 Government, it fufficcth: And our Brethren never went about to 
 prove, that in cafe there were many Congregations in lerufalem they 
 had feveralland Independent Presbyteries, yet we doubt not, but with 
 Gods affiftance to make good this proof againft all the Reafons our 
 Brethren bring againft it, which arc as followeth. 
 
 tf I . Firft, they grant the A el of CMinifteriall poVcer to bt the fame m 
 ct Apoftles and Elders : but in the extent ofthatp9wtr (which fay they 
 cl is the point in queftion) the Apoflles pofter over many Congregations 
 "cannot be a pattern for Elders, becaufe the Apoflles had potoer over all 
 <l Churches, and upon that was founded their poWer over many Qongre- 
 u gat ions* 
 
 • c And our Brethren arc further pleafed to fay, That Epifcopacy may 
 cc asftrongly argue from Titus his being left alone to Ordain in Crete, that 
 rt one man a Bifiop may Ordain alone over many Congregagations, yea, and 
 <l more fir ongly, in regard that the Office of an Evangel if is notfo immeAi- 
 <c atelyfrom Chrift as this of an Apoftle, and fo is nearer afucceffion ; or 
 c< that one c Presfoter alone may govern many Congregations, becaufe one 
 <c Apofile might, as that becaufe the Apoftles did govern thofe many Con* 
 <f gre gat ions joy ntly, therefore many Presbyters, over fever all Congrega- 
 " tions may. 
 
 1 . We accept whatour Brethren grant, That the Aft of MiniftcriaH 
 Power is the fame in Apoflles and Elders, the only difference they feeme 
 to infinuate is in the extent .-and from thence we infer, That in all affairs 
 tranfaftedby the Apoftles properly concerning the Church of ferufa- 
 lem, they did act as Elders, becaufe in fuch a&s there was no extent of 
 their power to many, much lefle to all Churches. 
 
 2. Whereas they tell us, li That the Apoftles poVcer over many Con- 
 <c gregations was founded upon their poWer over all Churches, andfo cannot 
 fi be a pattern for thephver of Elders over many : We anfwer, 
 
 The Apoftles power over many Congregations as one Church,to go- 
 vern them all as one Church joy ntly , and in common, was not founded 
 upon their power over all Churches, but upon the union of thofe Con- 
 gregations into one Church, which ufiion layeth a foundation for the 
 
 H h power 
 
5 o The Anftoer of the Ajfembly of Divines > to the Reafons of the 
 
 power of Elders governing many Congregations, and the Apoftles 
 practice in governing many Congregations joyntly as one Church, is 
 the pattern and president of that Government, even as our Brethren 
 would make the Apoftles joynt governing one Congregation, to be the 
 pattern of many Minifters governing one Congregation. 
 
 3. Our Brethren therefore deal not fo fairly, while they fay Epifco- 
 pacy may draw aftronger Argument for it felfefrom Apoftolicall pra- 
 ctice then Presbyterie, fure what the Apoftles acted fingly is not fo 
 practicable as what they did joyntly ; we cannot but wonder what 
 fhould move our Brethren to ftudy occafions fas in thefe Reafonings 
 they feeme fundry times to do) to plead the caufe of Epifcopacy 
 (which they and' we have covenanted to endeavour to the utmoft 
 to extirpate,) at leaft to prefer the Bifhops plea for their Ufurpation, 
 before that which the Reformed Churches bring for their Government, 
 which they and we have covenanted to defend againft the common 
 Enemy. 
 
 <c 2. Secondly, (fay our Brethren) each of thefe Apoftles, as he had by 
 ** vert ue of his tfApoftolicall Commiffion the power of them all- y fo he had 
 u a relation of Aiiniflery unto all thofe fuppofed Congregations, and every 
 * c member thereof for the performance of all forts of duties, as preachings 
 u admonijhing, &c. But in the Presbyteriall government over many Con- 
 * gregations that have members and officers fixed, the fever all Elders are 
 ** denyed to have the relation of Elders to each Congregation, but make up 
 cc only an Elder jhip in common, and therefore the Apoftolicall frame is 
 * l not herein our pattern* 
 
 We conceive our Brethren here anfwer themfclves, while they fay, 
 that, That relation of Miniftery which the apoftles had to each of thefe 
 Congregations, they had by vertue of Apoftolicall Commiffion, for then it 
 prejudiceth us nothing, if ordinary Elders who have no fuch commiffion, 
 have no fuch relation* and the Presbyteriall Government anfwers the 
 pattern well enough, though it carry not with it thofe relations which 
 the Apoftles had by vertue of Apoftolicall commiffion , which we 
 deare more fully thus ; 
 
 1. The Apoftles intended here to act fo, as to be patterns to others 
 in fuch things as were Acts of Ordinary Church Government, and to 
 be performed by ordinary Church Officers, which our Brethren them- 
 felves acknowledge. 
 
 2. There was fome kind of divifion of the charge for the better and 
 more orderly, and edifying performance of the duties of preaching, 
 watching, and other adminiftrations, as the very nature and neceffity of 
 the thing makes evident. 
 
 3. Yet by reafon of this divifion, they acting as ordinary Elders, were 
 
 not 
 
Diffenting Brethren, againfi the Jnflance of the Church of Jerufalem." 
 not bound equally to performc all duties to all their Congregations, 
 and every member of them. 
 
 4 Notwithstanding, as they were Apoftles they had power to preach, 
 and admonifh, and pcrforme all forts of duties to each of thefe Con- 
 gregations, as they had in all the Churches in the world. 
 
 In the next place our Brethren proceed to give a fummaryofthe Rea- 
 fons which moved the Affembly to conclude, That the Apoftles did the 
 ordinary ads of Presbyters, as Presbyters, hi the Church of Jerufalem. 
 
 But herein they deale not fairly with us; For 1. fome things urged 
 in the Affembly, of no leffe weight then any by them repeated, are o- 
 mitted: And 2. thofe things which in the Affembly were twifted to- 
 gether, as one concluding Argument, are by them unt willed, and taken 
 m peeces, and fo made the weaker, and leffe convincing, 
 
 The fumme of our Argument, as it is exhibited by them, is as follow- 
 ed, viz. I. That thofe ads of Government, performed by them in 
 that Qhurchy were for the fubftance of them ordinary acts, fuch as 
 Presbyters performe, and therefore anfwcrably they themfelves arc in 
 them to be confidered as Presbyters, &c. 
 
 To which firft peece our Brethren anfwer nothing ; indeed they 
 had granted the Antecedent before, and they thought not fit here to 
 deny the confequence. But 2. that which they firft take hold of is, That 
 the Apoftles were called Elders, iPet. 5.1. if ohm. and therefore 
 might and did act as Riders, in ordinary ads of Church-Gevernment, 
 for a pattern to us in like adminiftrations. 
 
 To which they anfwer, "That the Apoftles are called Elders virtually ^not 
 " formally, & only becaufe Apoftle/hip contained all Offices in it,fo that they 
 "were Elders, hut upon the ground that they were Apoftles, a?id therefore 
 " John in that very EpiftleVchere he ftiles himfelfe an Elder, writes Ca- 
 il nonic all Scripture as an Apo file % Vchich as a fur mall Elder he could not 
 <c have done ; andfurely thofe officers which £hrift diftinguijheth, Ephef^. 
 tc the fame perfonts not formally both thefe, virtually he may. 
 
 That the Apoftlefhip did containe in it virtually and eminently all 
 Church- Offices, we grant ; and fo, that the Apoftles were Elders vir- 
 tually, and poflibly that terme, if fully explicated, would hold out as 
 much as we defire. 
 
 cc But, fay they, they Were not Elders formally. 
 
 If they mean, they were not Elders really, we deny it ; if they mean, 
 they were not Elders only, we grant it ; they were fo Elders, as they 
 were ftillApcftles, and fo Apoftles, as they were yet Elders; their El- 
 derfhip did not exclude their Apoftlefhip, nor their Apoftlefhip fwal- 
 low up their Elderfhip. But if bf formally they mean, they were not 
 made Elders before or after they were made Apoftles, but that being 
 
 Hh 2 Apoftles, 
 
 5* 
 
5* 
 
 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Retfons of the 
 
 Apoftles, they might and did ad as Elders ("which they difprovenotj 
 that is fuffitieht for our Argument. 
 
 Their reafon frcrn the diftindion of Offices concludes nothing, for 
 Offices very diftind, may be formally in one and the fame perfon, as, of 
 King, Prieft and Prophet in one Chrift ; Melchifedeck^was formally a 
 King and Prkft, and ( David formally a King and Prophet. 
 
 Our Brethren in the further prosecution of this Reafon of theirs fay, 
 "That >?/l Which the Ape ft Hesdidin the Church of Jerufalem, they are faid 
 •* to all as Apoftles : Their Preaching is called the Apoftles Doelrine, the 
 Cc money Was brought and laid at the Apoftles feet, the Deacons Were brought 
 " and Jet before the Apoftles, and they laid their hands on them, yea in that 
 ct att of Ordination they muft needs all as Apoftles ; for they do not only 
 Cf ordaine the Afen y but erell the Q§ice } which none but Apoftles could im- 
 <f mediately and at fir ft have done,fo as the fame perfons, in the fame atl 9 
 Ci muft all partly as Apoftles, and partly as Elders \ and by -what infallible 
 <c Rule {hall we diftingmjh it ? 
 
 WeAnfwer, The Scriptures related to, (hew that the particulars 
 mentioned were acted by men, Qui er ant Apoftoli, who were A- 
 poftles, but not ^ua erant Apoftoli exclufivc> as they were Apo- 
 ftles exclusively ; fo as they might not ad them under another no- 
 tion : Sure our Brethren upon further thoughts will not affirme it • for 
 if the Apoftles did preach take the truft of the goods of the Church, 
 ordain Officers fflua Apoftoli excluftve, will it not follow from hence, 
 that none may do any of thefe things but Apoftfes ? which we are fure 
 our Brethren will never fay. 
 
 As for that Ordination, AEls 6. we doubt not to fay, that in it they 
 did ad partly as Apoftles, partly as Eiders, in conftituting an Office in 
 the Church which W3S not before, they did acl: their Apoftolicall autho- 
 rity, bait ifl ordaining into that Office men whom the Church had cho- 
 fen, they did acl as Presbyters ; and we doubt not, but that our Brethren 
 in this will concur with us : For if they will not fay that the Apoftles 
 did herein ad partly as Apoftles, and partly as Elders, they muft fay 
 they aded cither only as Elders, or only as Apoftles 5 if only as Elders, 
 thence it will follow that all Elders have power, not onely to ordaine 
 men, but to ered new Offices in the Church ; if only as Apoftles, then 
 hence is no warrant for any Elders, fo much as to ordaine men unto an 
 Office. And certainly it is not fo hard for our Brethren to diftinguifh 
 between thefe two ; for looke by what infallible rule they make fome 
 things in the pradice of the Apoftles to be,not only a patterne for Imi- 
 tation, bat even a proof of an Inftitution -and yet decline other things 
 pradifed by the fame Apoftles, as things not only by Inftitution not. 
 commanded to us, but not permitted to be ^intimated by us ; by the. 
 
 ' .UutuL f ame 
 
 Ltrn 
 
Diffenting Brethren, again ft the Inft^ce of the fourth if Jerfcfalem. 5 3 
 
 fame Rule may they infallibly difttnguifti between what theyaded as 
 Apoftles, and what as \ ldcrs, 
 
 3. The next particular our Brethren infiC:^on, is that Branch of the Ar- 
 gument, where it is faid, The Afefiles atled jointly, and in collegio, over 
 thof'e many Congregations ; To which they anfvver three things: 
 
 u I. That they h^d all fingly the fame power, Which they exercifed 
 "joyntly, and they exercifed that power together, becaufe it fell out that 
 u they "were together ; and it was ft that none Jhould be excluded ; but 
 u that they Jhould exercife itjoyntly to give a pattern for Elder [hip is 
 tC not eafy to prove: Their authority of fwrifdiclion did not arife from, 
 " nor depend upon the union of all in a body , as in an Elderfcip and Par- 
 " liament it doth : One Apoftle might have done that, Which all here did ; 
 (l Tea may it not be faid, that becaufe two Apoftles ordained Elders A£ls 
 <( 14. as joy ned in the fame aft, and fo ailed not as Apoftles , but Elders, 
 <4 that therefore two Elders affociated may do the like? 
 
 We deny not, but the Apoftles ading as Apoftles, had power to 
 adfingly, what they did joyntly, and yet we fay not only as our Bre- 
 thren, that the Apoftles being together, it was fit they fhould ad to- 
 gether, that none might be excluded ; but further, that they were 
 bound to ad togcther,becaufe as each of them alone had the powerjb 
 they all had the power; and therefore it was neceffary t^ey fhould ad 
 together,both for their own mutuall fupport,as alfo that their ads might 
 have the more authority in the Church, in reference whereto f in part) 
 they of tAntioch may be conceived to have fent to the whole Colledge 
 of Apoftles and Elders at ferufalem, when yet Paul 'and Barnabas, 
 who were with them, by their decifive Sentences, might have ended 
 the Contr over fie. * 
 
 "But however its not eafte to prove that they exercifed their poWer 
 " joyntly, to give a pattern to Presbytery. 
 
 Surely as eafie, as it is to prove, that their taking in the confent of the 
 people, tAtts 6. m the choife of Deacons, was to give a pattern for the 
 fuffrage of people in the choife of Officers. 
 
 We have proved already, that there were many Congregati- 
 ons in Jerufalem ; that thefe Congregations were one Church ; that 
 the Apoftles who were Officers governed this Church ; and that they 
 governed joyntly our Brethren grant ; Is not here a pattern for feve- 
 rall Congregations in a City, or vicinity, to unite into one Church - y 
 and for the Officers of thofe Congregations to governe that Church 
 joynxly in a Colledgc of Presbytery ? 
 
 i( But their power of Government did not refult from their being 
 tc joyned together, as the power of a Presbytery doth ; as the Parliamentary 
 <: popper whtch is not the refult of Parliament men, but as ajfemblcd m 
 l J Parliament. Hh 3 We. 
 
5 4 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 We anfwer, Parlimentary Power in aUu primo, arifeth from their be- 
 ing chofen Knights and Burgeffes, but in aEiu exercito, it depends upon 
 their being atfembled in Parliament, according to the constitutions of 
 the Kingdom in that cafe ; fo here the authoritative power of the A- 
 poftlesin^/^pW^didarifefrom their office, but that power which 
 their office giveth them, muft be exercifed according to the conftitution 
 of Chrift ; now it was the conftitution and ordinance of Chrift, that 
 theApoftles when they were together,and when they could,they ihould 
 exercife their power,not llngly but joyntly,as a Church or Elderfhip, to 
 be a pattern to others,as appears,/*^. 18.17,18,1 o.& therefore the ex- 
 ercife of this power did in fome fort depend upon their acting jointly. 
 • " But then mo Elders affociated may govern, for Paul and Barnabas did 
 '• Ordain, who ailed not at Apofties but as Elders, for they aEiedjoyntly. 
 
 What ever our Judgements be of this, certainly our Brethren will ne- 
 ver deny but two Elders may govern, who fay that two Elders may 
 make a fufficient Presbytery. 
 
 2. The fecond thing they object againft the Apofties acling as El- 
 ders when together, is, iC Bicaufe it is hard to fuppofe that Vvhen they 
 u Vrere all together they Jhould atlVoith an inferiour power to Vchat they put 
 "forth alone ; if Peter had been alone in a neVv planted Church, there he 
 a muft have aUed as an Apoftle, becaufe alone, and jhallaU the Apofties 
 Cc Vehen joy ned together in one a£l y be conceived to fall lotyer in their poorer 
 * c in the for mall exercife of it ? 
 
 We anfwer, that we do not fuppofe the Apofties to fall lower in 
 their power when they acted as Elders * when our Brethren fay,at Jeru- 
 falem they acted as Elders of a particular Congregation 5 let them de- 
 liver themfelves then from the fame inconvenience, and they will re- 
 lieve us : if they did not fall lower in their power by acling as Elders 
 in a particular Congregation, why fliould they by acling as tlders in a 
 joynt Presbytery ? we have faid that their Elderfhip did not exclude 
 their Apoftlefhip, and now adde, nor did their acling as Elders deprive 
 them of Apoftolick power, nor of that Apoftolick fpirit which guided 
 them even in thofe things wherein they acted as Elders. 
 
 3. And this may take off the edge of their third Objection, which is, 
 ct If they ailed as Elders in a Co Hedge, then they might mifcarry as Elders 
 "do, andfo come under the danger of excommunication, and what po^er 
 <l rras there on earth to excommunicate an Apoftle . ? 
 
 We deny the confequence upon the former ground, and therefore 
 need not anfwer their demand, what power there was on earth, &c, to 
 which yet if they defire fatisf action we refer them to M r . Parkers Tra~ 
 Bate de Pclitia Eccleftaftica lib. 3. cap* 1 2. 
 
 4. The third peece of our Argument which our Brethren fall upen, 
 
 is 
 
DiiTenting Brethren, againft the Inftance of the Church of Jerufalem. 5 5 
 
 is The Apoftles joy ning with others in their proceedings, as in the choice of 
 Deacons, Ads 6.which alfo they ufed to do in other Churches. 
 This fay our Brethren both not prove they aded as Elders. 
 4C I. Becafife they joyned others with themf elves in aCls wherein yet they 
 "atledas Apoftles, as Wauljtfj/WSylvanus and Timotheus with him, not 
 <£ meerly in his falutation, but in his Epiftle to the Thefi*. fo alfo Ads 1 5 . 
 « ( the Apoftles, Elders, yea, and Brethren joyned in a letter to the 
 " Churches ; But thefe as Apoftles, and therefore fo called in diftinBion 
 " from the Elders, and the reft;fo in ordaining Timothy, the Presbytery 
 < c laid on hands, yet they as a Presbytery, Paul as an Apo file, for the Pref- 
 <: bytery had no power to ordain an Evangelift. 
 
 Weanfwer, whereever the Apoftles joyned others with them in 
 ads that are to be imitated by other Church officers, fueh a joyning of 
 others with themfelves fhewes, that therein they aded as Elders ; and 
 therefore that inftance of Sylvamu and Timotheus is nothing to the 
 purpofe, it was a work of quite another nature then thofe of which we 
 are now difputing. 
 
 Their next inftance of Ac~lfi$. may feem to come neerer, to which 
 we (hall give a full Anfwer in its proper place, only for the prefent fas 
 before to a like Scripture, fo here,) we fay, The Text (heweth the 
 Letter was writtten by men qui erant Apoftoli, who were Apoftles, but 
 not (imply and exclufively, qua Apojhli, as Apoftles. 
 
 And for the Ordination of Timothy, our Brethren muft prove, that 
 thofe two Texts that fpeak of Pauls laying on of hands, and of the 
 laying on of the hands of the Presbytcry,fpeak of one Ordination, and 
 one joyntadoflmpoiitionofhands, and that Timothy was ordained 
 an Evangelift, before they can make any thing of it to their purpofe. 
 u Tet, fecondly (fay our Brethren) the Apoftles Jtohere ever they came, 
 u left the Elders and people to the exercife of that right which belonged to 
 * ( them, although they joyned With them. 
 
 We are herein fully of our Brethrens minde ; only we defire it may 
 from hence be obferved, That it doth not belong to the people, to or- 
 dain cither Deacons or Elders, whatever it may do to choofe ; for the 
 Apoftles, who, where ever they came, left to the people what right be- 
 longed to them, did no where leave them to ordain. But in the next 
 words our Brethren and we pofiibly may differ. 
 
 u Their <*Apofto lie (^authority ("fay they) did not lie in doing all alone, 
 u for then they feldom or never afiedas Apoftles in the Church. 
 
 We fay their Apoftolick authority did lie,partly in dsing all alone;zn& 
 furely our Brethren will not fay,that any ordinary Church Officer might 
 do all alone : how often, or how fcldome they aded their Apoftolick 
 power, we determine not. [[ Their inftance of Pauls not excommunica- 
 ting 
 
5 5 The lAnftier of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafms of the 
 
 u ting the incefiacus (forinthian alone, we acknowledge ; Yet certainly 
 Paul by his poftolick power, might have excommunicated him alone, 
 as well as he did Hymeneus and Alexander. But what doth this make 
 for them, or againftus? 'Paul alone excommunicated not (fay they J 
 tc that Corinthian, and jet as an Apofile, Vcrote to have it dove. What 
 then ? Had they faid, Paul excommunicated not the Corinthian alone, 
 butjoyned with the Church in excommunicating him, and yet excom- 
 municated him as an Apoftle, this had come home to the point. 
 
 We fay with them, that what the Apoftles did by Apoftolicall pow- 
 er ( properly fo called,) flhould not be drawne into Example: But we 
 deny that which they affirme, that their Apoftolicall pcfte er lay in exerci- 
 Jing furifdiBion over fever all Churches : No, it lay in this, that they had 
 power to exercife Jurifdiclion over all ; which power no Presbytery 
 hath, nor can challenge. And for the Proof now before us, and Scrip- 
 tures by occafion thereof now under debate, they fpeake not of the 
 power which the Apoftles exercifed over many Churches (and fo by 
 our Brethrens ownAiTertion fpeake not of Apoftolicall power) but 
 over one Church confifting of many Congregations ; nor doth 
 the Presbytery by warrant of this preiident lay claime to a Govern- 
 ment over many Churches (as our Brethren infinuatej but over one 
 Church. 
 
 " But this (fay our Brethren for a conclufion) "toillnot help it, that they 
 iC exercifed their Cjovernment in thofe Congregations, confidered as one 
 u Church ; for if they could not as Elders, then the correlate to it, namely 
 €r Churchy could not be confidered as Presbyteriall. 
 
 Whether the Apoftles in their actsof Government could be confi- 
 dered as Elders, we leave to the wifdome of the Honourable Houfes 
 to judge by what hath been fpoken. i. They are called Elders. 2. They 
 were in our Brethrens owne confefsion, virtually fo, we fay really and 
 indeed. 3. They acted in Qollegio in a joy nt body, our Brethren fay it 
 was fit they ftjould fo do ; nor was this any degradation of the Apoftles, 
 or diminution of their power, acting joyntly as Elders, yet they acted 
 as Apoftles. 4 They took in the confent of the Church with them, in 
 things wherein the Church had a right of confenting ; we might 
 further adde, 5 . They acted that power committed to them, Mattk. 1 6. 
 and Mattk 18. And 6. if they acted not as Elders, we can draw 
 nothing of theirs into imitation ; which laft were infifted upon in the 
 AfTembly, but becaufe not replyed to by our Brethren we do but touch 
 upon : but from all thefe particulars we warrantably conclude, That 
 they acted as Elders in the Church of ferufalem; and argue with our 
 Brethren, from the relate to the correlate . Therefore the Church of 
 ferufalem was & Presbyteriall Church. 
 
 To 
 
DifTenting Brethren, tgainft the Jnflance of the tkmk <?/Jerufulem. $7 
 
 To their Reafons againft the fourth and laft Proof of the 
 fecond Branch-, vti(. Elders meeting together for atfs of 
 Government, proved by Alts 11. ult. Atts 15. 4,6522. 
 Atts 21.17,18. 
 
 OUr Brethren might well have fpared all that they have faid againft 
 this claufe in the Ptopofition,£/^rj meeting together for alls ofCjo- 
 vemment, fince they themfelves do aiTert,as much aswe do, that the Bi- 
 dets of the Church of Jerufalem did meet together for ads of Govern- 
 ment j only they fuppofe that that Church was no more Congregations 
 then one ; So thus they differ not from us concerning the truth of the 
 attribute,but concerning the fenfeof the fubjed of this Propofition,The 
 Elders of the Church of Jerufalem did meet together for ads of Go- 
 vernment ; but fince they are pleafed to make exceptions, let us exa- 
 mine them, 
 
 Firft, the Argument from Alls 11. ult. our Brethren conceive to be 
 this, " There were Elders in Judea that received almes, therefore the El- 
 " ders of] erufalem did meet together for alls of Government : Which is a 
 marvellous miftake, for our proofe was laid thus : Acls 1 1 . ult. and 
 Alls 21. 17, 18. and theverfes following, fhall be brought to prove 
 that claufe in the former Proportion, Elders meeting together for alls 
 of Government : So that we did not argue from AUs 1 1. nit. fingly, but 
 joyned with Alls 21. 
 
 Next, had we argued from that place alone, our Brethren havesxeep- 
 ted nothing which can weaken fuch a proof. For 
 
 Whereas they fay, That both the perfons and the all are miflaken, The 
 u perfons, becaufe the Elders of Jerufalem are not mentioned, but the El- 
 u ders of Iudea, as by comparing ver. 29, and 30. it appear es : The ally 
 i: becaufe receiving ofalmes is no all of Government. We anfvver, the per- 
 fons and the ad both are miftaken by themfelves, not by us : For firft, 
 the Llders of Judea, are not at all mentioned, but only the diftrelTed 
 Brethren of Judea. And fecond ly, if the Elders of Judea had been men- 
 tioned, this had been comprehenfive of the blders of Jerufalem. Third- 
 ly, the meflfengers of Churches abroad, and particularly of Antiock, 
 were ever direded to the Apoftles and Elders of Jerufalem, when they 
 did at all fend into Judea ; and as Barnabas was fent from Jerufalem to 
 Antioch, Acts 11.21 and the Prophets came from Jerufalem to Anti- 
 och, ver. 27. fo it is the fenfe of Interpreters upon Acts 1 1 .30. that Paul 
 and Barnabas were fent from thence to Jerujalem ; and it is the more 
 likely, bv comparing Rom. 15.31. yea, Fourthly, 
 
 Ii 
 
'TY.t Ahfwer of the Affcml/j of Divines, to the Reafcns of the 
 
 As tor the aft, wefuppofe our Brethren will not deny but there was 
 much more in it then the receiving of almes, namely the ordering and 
 appointing how it iliould be beft improved and difpofed of ; which be- 
 ing an act of Government, and it being denied by none that the Elder? 
 did meet together for this aft 5 It muft: follow, that Acls 1 1. nit. doth 
 not a little ftrengthen that claufc in the Proportion, Elders meetmw to- 
 aether for alls of Government. 
 
 The next place added for proofe of the fame claufe, is Acls 21. 1 7, 1 8. 
 and the verfes following ; to which our Brethren reply thus 5 c > The 
 Ci occafion of the meeting \\>as Pauls entertainment, a duty of love and ret 
 C: Jpetl* Secondly , that the alls which pajfed were none of -them PresbyterU 
 u all, only the) gave advice to Paul/or preventing afcandall, 
 
 To this we fay, Fifft, it is more then our Brethren can prove, that the 
 occafion of this meeting was only to receive Paul fox. the Text admitteth 
 ( if not favoureth ) another fenfe, w. 18. Paul dentin Wuhtu unto 
 James and all the Elders were pre fent 5 and how do our Brethren know 
 that they were affembled upon no other occafion ? efpecially it being 
 faid that Paul went in to fames, it may be not knowing till he came, 
 that all the Elders were prefent. Secondly, if there were no more but 
 the mention of Elder s meeting together, it doth abundantly prove all 
 which we intended to prove from this place, thus, 1 hat Scripture which 
 proves a Presbytery in ferufalem, or an aflbciation of the Elders in that 
 Church, proves, that the Elders of the Church of ferufalem did meet 
 together for acls of Government: But Atls 21. proves a Presbytery 
 in ferufalem, or an affociation of the Elders of that Church; therefore 
 it proves that the Elders did meet together for ads of Government : 
 The Proportion cur Brethren will not deny, becaufe a Presbytery can- 
 not do their duty, but muft needs negkd the work committed to them, 
 if they do not meet together for ads of Government : Neither can 
 they deny the Affiimption, that Acls 21. proves a meeting of Elders in 
 ferufalem, or a Presbytery in ferufalem, as Tojfanus calls it ; yea them- 
 ielvcs take their warrant from that place, for the Presbyteries meeting 
 apart from the Multitude, to confalt and prepare matters. And I hird- 
 ly, what themfelves fay in this place, doth not make againftus, but for 
 us,; for if the Elders of ferufalem did meet together for a Salutation, 
 did not they much more meet together for ads of Government ? So 
 that, fourthly, it is not neceflary here to debate whether any Authori- 
 tative ad of Government done by thefe Elders, then and there met to- 
 gether, be mentioned, Acls 21. 17,18. &c. It is enough for us, that 
 this place proves, That the Elders of ferufalem did fometimes meet to- 
 gether for ads of Government. Laftly, neither do thefe who have moft 
 authority, being met together, alwayes and in every thing peremptorily 
 
 enjoyn 
 
PiiTene i ng Brethren, again]} the Inflanct of the (fhurch •:/" J erufalem. 5 ; 
 
 en;"oyn and ordain what they would have done, but oft times confulc 
 and ad vile only, howbeit the advife of Elders is not lax, but binding 
 and reftricTive, verf 23. De therefore that which we fay unto thee. 
 
 In the next place, our Brethren alledge Reafons againft the prod-u- 
 cingof A.'ts 1 5. for the meeting of the Elder? of f erufalem for Prcs- 
 byteriall acls of Government ; wherein they fight with a fhadow ; for 
 we frd not Presbyteriall acls of Government, but acts of Government. 
 u But, fay our Brethren, if it wese a meeting of Elders for alls of Govern - 
 " went, then it v.\ts a Presbyteriall meeting for alls of Government. This 
 Confequence they could not be ignorant that we deny ; yet they have 
 not laid one word for proofe of it only they go about to prove, ' That 
 cl th*s meeting, Acls 1 > . wot not a Presbyteriall meeting, and that Synods 
 '■ call meetings differ much from Presbyteriall meetings. Which maketh 
 nothing againft: us, for we have conftantly affertcd it to be a Synodicall 
 meeting; And if it be asked, To what end then do weadde Actsi^. 
 as a Branch of the proofe of the Propofition for Presbyteriall Govern- 
 ment ? We anfwer, 1 . It was added to prove that claufe in the Propo- 
 fition, Elders meeting for atls of 'Government ; the meeting together 
 Presbyterially being proved by other Mediums ; as for inftance, thus, 
 All the feverall Congregations in f erufalem wxvc one Church, AEls 8. 
 1. andi).^. And how can many Congregations beorie Politicall Mi- 
 niiteriall Church, except only bceaufe they are united, and affociatcd 
 under one Presbyteriall Government? Andfecondly, If we had proved 
 from ^Ails 1 5. a Presbyteriall meeting for acts of Government, the 
 Proofe had been asftrong and valid as this, Here is a Brigade, there- 
 fore here is a Regiment ; here is an Vniverfty, therefore here is a Cel 
 ledge. A meeting for Synodicall acls of Government, is no weake proof 
 of a meeting for Presbyteriall acts of Government, unleffe we will fup- 
 pofe that they who were carefull to afliTt other Churches, did neglect 
 their own Churches committed to their pecuPar charge, and take no 
 care of governing them ; yea Ads 17. 2, 4. doth moft certainly prove 
 a Presbyteriall Government in 7^///^/fw,thus,\\ here the A potties and 
 Elders did governe, and many Congregations were by them governed, 
 vctfo, that all thefe Congregations were one Church, there we may 
 certainly conclude there was a Presbyteriall Government; Bu:in^f- 
 rufalem the Apoftles and Elders did governe, and many Congregations 
 were by them governed, yetfo, that all thofe Congregations were one 
 Church : Therefore we may certainly conclude that there was in fern- 
 fakm a Presbyteriall Government ; all this is certain from AEls 1 5. ex- 
 cept, that there were many Congregations in ferujalcm, for which we 
 refer to the former proofe. 
 
 " But, fecondly, our Brethren deny their meeting, Acls 15. to have 
 
 I i 2 been 
 
6° The Anftter of the Ajfembly of * Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 <c beenfuch an ordinary for mall Synod, or the aEls thereof to have been aEls 
 "of Government, as they proceeded from thofe Elders ; the jurifdiElion of 
 " Synods reaching no further then to fitch Churches as have fe?it Commit- 
 " fioners thereunto ; and to make good what they intend, they bringfeverall « 
 *■ Reafons, Which they have reduced to four heads or Clajfes. 
 
 It is to be obferved, that our Brethren do not (imply deny that this 
 was a Synod, or that the Decrees of it had authority ; but that it was 
 not fitch a Synod, nor the decrees of it oifuch aurhority ; neither do 
 they clearly exprelfe what they mean to conclude from thefe fomC/ajfej 
 of Reafons. For as to that Debate, Whether it be a formall Synod, or 
 not, our Brethren might have fpared it, as not being hujus loci, but be- 
 longing to the Votes concerning Synods, not then Tent up to your Ho- 
 nours. But however, we fhall examine their Reafons, as they have 
 propounded them. 
 
 •' Firfl, fay they, We read but only of two Churches, between whom 
 (< the matter was tranfaEled, they of Antioch fent to them of Jerufalem, 
 "and that Eleclively, becaufe they Were the Mother-Church, from whom 
 " the Word of God came, and from Whom thofe men that troubled them had 
 s ' gone forth, andhad pretended to teachwhat they had received from them: 
 <c Neither is their mention mjtde of any Elders fent thither, either from 
 u the Churches of Jphcenice, and c amaria, ver. 3. or from the Churches of 
 #s judea : yea it is not fo much as f aid that the Elders that were fent from 
 €i Antioch> Were of the Elders of that Church. 
 
 We anfwer 2 If a Synod of two Churches, it proves a Synod of more 
 Churches, even of as many as fhall combine, and atTociate Synodically ; 
 yea our Brethren themfelves acknowledge (fosne of them,) [" Ep. before 
 the Keyes, &c. ] AEls 15, to be a warrant for the meeting of Elders out 
 of many or all Churches,and that it is an Ordinance of thrift. Secondly, 
 if the Church of jerufalem were fent to SleElively, by way of Reference 
 or Arbitration, as our Brethren ufe to call it, then -the Church of AntU 
 0fZ?only fhould have been tyed by that Decree, they only having 
 made the Reference ; Befides, thofe who were fent from the Church of 
 Antioch, ought not to have been members of that meeting fas it is cer- 
 taine they were, ver. 12. and 22. ) for they who ele&ively refer the 
 judging of a controverfie to others, do not themfelves (it as Judges of 
 it. thirdly, not to ftand upon the probability either of the C hurchesof 
 Syria y ind Cilicia, their fending of CommiiTIoners to Jerufalem to make 
 known the condition of their Churches to the Apoftles and blders, and 
 to reprefent thofe < hurches in that Aflfembly, v\hofe Decrees did there- 
 fore bind them more peculiarly then other Churches ; or of the Churches 
 of Phoenice and Samaria, their fending of fome along with Paul and 
 Barnabasj.0 teftitie their confent in a cafe of fo great and publique con- 
 cernment, 
 
Diflfenting Brethren, againft the Inftance of the Church of Jerafalem. €\ 
 
 cernment, which we may rather think, then that they would fail in 
 fuch a point of duty, and in the improvement of fo precious an oppor- 
 tunity i nor yet to ftand upon the utter Improbability of the fending 
 from Antioch Deacons, or fome other of £he people, rather then Elders; 
 We cannot pafle by that Reafon given by our Brethren, for fending to 
 Ierufalem only, becaufe/row them did thofe men go forth that troubled tk-c 
 Churches : which is a nuftake j for, it is not faid, they came out from Ie- 
 rufalem, but plainly, that they came out from Iudea, ver.i. and this 
 ftrengthens us, and weakens them 3 Thofe Elders from whom the falfe 
 Teachers did go forth, were members of the Synod, ver. 24. but the 
 Elders from whom the falfe Teachers did go forth, were the Elders of 
 Iudea, ver. i. thererefore the Elders of Iudea were members of the 
 Synod. 
 
 We know that they who come from Ierufalem come from Iudca,but 
 our Brethren take it for granted, that they who came from Iudea came 
 from Ierufalem ; the words alfo admit another expofition, that this go- 
 ing forth was not locally, but doclrinally , as we fhall fhew afterwards. 
 
 2. But fecondly, to prove that thefe Letters and Decrees were writ- 
 ten and lent only from the Elders of Ierufalem , they alledge divers 
 things, as chap. 1 6. 4. Cw They are called the Decrees of the Apoflles and 
 <c Elders i* Ierufalem, it being the ufuall ftile of the neW Tefiament 
 " by Way of diftinllion to fay, the Church in fuch a place, the Elders 
 " in fuch a place. This they fay, but they have not produced one 
 inftance, where the Elders in fuch a place, is put for the Elders- of 
 fuch a place ; we rather fuppofe that if the Holy Ghoft had meant,^#.r 
 16.4. to fpeak of the Elders of Ierufalem only, he would have faid, the 
 Elders of the Church of or in Ierufalem 1 as Rev 2.3. The AngrR of the 
 Church in Ephefvs, the zAngell of the Ghurch in Sardis, &c. and we 
 cannot but put our Brethren in minde, tl at themfelves would not ac- 
 knowledge thofe who were &-** Ms< iv U^^rly, zAtls 2. 5. dwelling 
 in Ierufaltm, to be members of that C hurch ; yet here they will needs 
 underftan-d by r^v T^i^^vri^vv rav ovIi?&ja< hx, the Eiders of that Church 
 only ; whereas we need not fur ply fo much as ra > *Am*t\w but only 
 svvj-x- ;: <7*"'- not dwelling at Ierufalem, but met together at Ierufalem, 
 or as it is in our bibles, Which were at Ierufalem. 
 
 Secondly, they obed ver4.fl Paul and Barnabas are faid to be recei- 
 tl vedofthe Churchy and Apoflles, and Elders, n^nely of ierufalem. 
 
 True ;but that is not to the point, the Synod not being then met ; 
 yea it makes againit themfelves ; for if Paul and Bamabj.s were fent 
 only to the Elders oi Icru/a/em, there needed no greater meeting then 
 that mentioned ver.q. whereas theie wasanothcr meeting in that Chap, 
 rrr.6,12,23 ,25, which was much more foil and comprehensive. 
 
 Ii 3 Thirdly, 
 
6 2 The nAnpfcer ef the Affembly of Divides, to the Reafms of the 
 
 Thirdly, " the ftandtng Elders of I erufalem, fay they, affumed to them- 
 tC f elves to have written thofe Decrees, A^s 2 1 . 2 5 . 
 
 So may the Miniftcrs of London, who arc now of this Affembly, 
 when they are declaring by way of Difcourfe, what the Affembly hath 
 concluded, fay, we have concluded; fo may the Officers of one Regi- 
 ment, relating what the Army hath done, fay We have done fuch a things 
 nothing more ordinary then fuch Synedochicall fpeeches, the part for 
 the whole ; and that we muft needs underftand a Synecdoche in that 
 place is plain, forotherwife, if the (landing Elders of lerufalem had 
 meant, that they alone had written and concluded thofe Decrees, then 
 they had excluded not only the Elders of other Churches, but VauldXio 
 aKd the reft of the Apoftles, from whom thefe Decrees did proceed, as 
 well as from the Elders of I erufalem. 
 
 Fourthly, they objector. 2 2. the Apoftles and Elders with the whole 
 Church, and ver.iz,. the Apoftles^ Elders and Brethren. 
 
 We will not here Debate what is meant by the whole Church and 
 Brethren, which our Brethren know is controverted ; but how do they 
 prove, that by the whole Church and Brethren, are meant only thofe 
 of the Church of lerufalem, and not the whole multitude of thofe who 
 were come from feverall Churches . ? And if by the whole Church we 
 fhail underftand the Church of I erufalem only, that proves not, that by 
 the Elders there aifembled we muft underftand the Elders of I erufalem 
 only; however by the whole Church cannot be meant the whole coot as 
 fidelium, who were many more then could meet in one place, fpecially 
 in a private houfe, fuch as the Centurlfts think this affemby did meet in ; 
 but (foetus Sjnodkus, that is the Apoftles, Elders, and orhers aifembled 
 from feverall Churches, fuch as Titus, in the judgement of fome, and 
 howere, ludas and Silas, who were not fixed to an Office or Member- 
 ship in the Church ofJemfa/em, but were afliftants to the Apoftes in fe- 
 verall places, and did theOifice of Evangelifts ; which is plain of Si- 
 las, Alls 15.40* Alls lO.ip.^lls 17.4,14,15. <*AEls 1 8 5. and of 
 ludas, Atts 15.22. 32. fo that Judas and Silas being Members of that 
 meeting, Alls 15.22. it followeth that it was a meeting not only of the 
 Apoftles, and Elders of the Church of lerufalem, nay nor of the Com- 
 miflioners of Antioch joyned with them, but of others alio diftind from 
 both thefe. 
 
 /^Fifthly, they argue againe from ver.24. certain that rre.Kt out frcm 
 u us % andto W'homW'e gave no fuch comman dement, cfrc. 
 
 We iliall not need to help our felves in anlwcr, 1. By tdlir.g them, 
 that thofe words =£ y\^v,froin us, in which all the ft; cngth of their Ob- 
 jection lycth, are not in fundry copies which Camera ownech \_PLwt. A, 
 Mor.t. co Hat. cum Tilen, ] and maketh no kiic ufe of leaving them out, 
 
 in 
 
Diitenting Brethren, againft the Inflame of the Church <?/Jerufalem. *i 
 in an Anfvver, then our Brethren do of taking them in, in an Argument, 
 and the taking of them in, or leaving them out, doth not alter the fence 
 of the place. Nor, 2. By faying that the Churches themfelves, which 
 were troubled, wrote not that Epiftle, but their officers. But reading 
 the Text & our Brethren do, 7. that which we lay weight upon for a 
 fatisfactoryAnfwer,isthis, That thofe fa lfe Teachers which went out 
 from fudea, verf. 1. might be faid to have gone out from alltheApo- 
 ftles, Elders, and others, from feverall Churches affembled ai ferufih 
 /em, and that two wayes, 1. by a Synechdoche of the whole, put for an 
 eminent parr, which is no derogation at all to the Synod j fure there is 
 a better warrant for this Synechdoche, then to expound that which is 
 faid of fudea y verf. I. to be meant of ferufalem only, as our Brethren 
 before did, efpecially confidering that Paul and Barnabas were Mem- 
 bers of this Aifembly ; yet we fuppofe our Brethren will not fay, that 
 thofe Teachers went out from Paul and Barnabas, 2 . 1 hofe falfe Tea- 
 chers might be faid to have gone forth from all Doctrinally, or by defe- 
 ction from the Tru-:h,though locally they went out from fudea only.Di- 
 vers note upon this place, \Camerarius y Lorinus, Gorranusf\ that it may 
 be expounded by 1 John 2 19. They went out from us , but Were not of 
 us ; which is meant, not of a Locall ; but Doftrinall going forth, as Beza 
 there obferves. 
 
 ,£ Sixtly, they fay, if the Elders of all thofe (fhurches had been pre- 
 "fent, there had been lejfe need to have fen t chofen men to carry the Letters, 
 C{ Which the Elders of thofe Churches returning might have done : And if 
 c they were fent as Afeffengers from the Synod, why nQt to all the Churches 
 ^ as Well as to Antioch ? yea although Paul and Barnabas delivered the 
 iC Decrees to all the Cities ; yet this was done only accidentally (as it pjould 
 c< feeme) and not principally intended; nor fent in a Mandatory -way from 
 « the Synod. 
 
 t . It is ordinary for Synods to fend Synodlcall Fpiftlcs and Decrees 
 to particular Churches, not bv the CommilTionf rs who came from thofe 
 Churches, but by chofen men, partly to exprefle their great refpect to 
 the < hurch, and partly to take off all Odium from the Commiflnners of 
 thofe Churches, and for making the gencrall confent of the Churches 
 the better known ; which was in this cafe neceffary, becaufe the autho- 
 rity of Paul and Barnabas h.id been queftioned at Antioch, and their 
 Doctrine excepted againft, as not cunfonant wich the judgement of 
 the Apoftles at JerufiLm. 
 
 Secondly, they fent not to all the r hurches, but to Antioch, becaufe 
 the other Churches were not (o divided and dilturbed, as Antiocb} they 
 apply the plaifLr where the wound was moil: dangerous. 
 Thirdly, Neither need we difputc how thofe Decrees were delivered 
 
 to 
 
64 The Anfwer of the Af[e?nbly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 to all the Churches of the Gentiles, whether intentionally or acciden- 
 tally, as our Brethren canjeclare ; the reafon why they were not fent in 
 the way of Synodicall Decree and Epiftle to all the Churches, but only 
 to the Churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, is (as fomc conceive,) be- 
 caufe no other Churches of the Gentiles had Commiffioners in that Sy- 
 nod ; fo that no other could be formally bound by their Decrees, other 
 Churches of the Gentiles being bound partly vi materia, partly by the 
 authority of Paul and "Barnabas delivering thofe Decrees unto them, 
 
 3. In the third place our Brethren fay, ' If there Were any further 
 <c authority in thofe Decrees ; it was from the Apoftles, mho hadpoVver over 
 u all (fhurches; and although the Elders did confent and approve the De- 
 " crees,yet all the authority put forth over thofe Qhurches Was Apoftdical ; 
 f< neither can any Affembly of men, wanting Apoftolical pre fence and in- 
 u ftruElion,fayinfuchafence,asthey did, it feemed good to the Holy 
 Ci Ghoft, and to us. 
 
 It is evident, that the Apoftles in this bufineffe did not aclas Apoftles 
 with a tranfeendent and infallible authority; but as Elders, in fuch a 
 way as maketh that meeting a pattern for ordinary Synods • ^or, 
 
 I. Paul and Barnabas were fent from Antioch to goto ferufalem, 
 verf. 2. now one of the Reafonsufed by 'Divines againft Teters Supre- 
 macy^ taken from Acts 8.14. where the Apoftles which were at Ieru- 
 /**/«», C that is,the Colledge of Apoftles ) fent Peter and I ohn to Samaria; 
 now he that is fent, is not greater then he that fends him ; and therforc 
 in this, Taul and "Barnabas did fubjed themfelves to the Determination 
 of the Church of <±Antioch, which they could not have done, had they 
 a&ed as Apoftles, and not as Membcrsffor that time)of the Presbytery 
 of Antioch. 
 
 2. In that inftance of the Synod ; fas Cartwright faith rightly againft 
 the Rhemifts)thc Apoftles were not acted by an Apoftolicoll and infalli- 
 ble Spirit, as when they were writing Scripture ; but they did ftate the 
 Queftion, and debate it from Scripture in the ordinary way, whereas 
 we never read, that they admitted much, or any difputation, what they 
 fhould write, or what they fhould judge of the matter, when they were 
 writing Scripture, as here they did, verfj. and having by fearching the 
 Scriptures, found what Was the good and acceptable will of god, thereupon 
 they fay (as Doctor whitaker faith any Aflembly upon like aflfurance 
 of Scripture warrant [_Controverf. g. queft. 5.] may fay) It feemed 
 good to the Holy Cjhofi, and to us. 
 
 3 Before the decifive fuffrage of that meeting, there were delibera- 
 tive fuffrages and difcourfes, Hrft, by Peter, then by Paul and Barnabas, 
 and after by lames ; and accordingly it is to be obferved, that though 
 
 "Peter 
 
Diflfenting Brethren, againfl the Jnftance of the Church of fa ufa.tem. 65 
 
 Peter doth cleare the point of Unification by faith, and not by vvorkes 
 of the Law, yet he fpeakes not to the remedy of the fcandall of the 
 weake lews, which was well fupplied by lames, who offered away for 
 preventing and removing that fcandall. 
 
 4. The t-ldeis all along do acl as authoritatively as the Apoftles j for 
 as the Elders were fent to, ver. 2. and accordingly affembled, as well as 
 the Apoftles, ver. 6. fo they did decree and • \ rite the Epiftle as well as 
 the ^poftLs, i>*r. 22,23. and ABs 164. they are called the Decrees of 
 the Apoftles and Elders, and ABs 21.25. the Elders fay vpe have written 
 and concluded : from which places Proteftant Writers prove againft 
 Papifts, that Presbyters as well as Bifhops have the power of decifive 
 voyemg in Synods, but our "Brethren in this particular defert all the 
 Protcftant 'Divines, and joyne with the Popish opinion, which is that 
 the Apoftles only had a decifive fuff. age in that meeting. 
 
 We come to the laft head of their exceptions, " They fay, there is no 
 tc atl offuch authority or Goveryiment yut forth in that meeting, Acts I J. 
 <{ which our Proportion intendeth. For firft> here is not fummoning nor 
 €C c en faring of thofe difiurbers of the Church Again the Subjetl matter 
 "fent, and the Judgement paft about it. is only a Dogmaticall decifion of 
 ei that ^ueftion, Whether the Ceremoniall La^Q fljould be obferved : but 
 H the Proposition intends ^urifdiEhion, Vrhich is, when Dollrines are delive- 
 € 'red, Sub poena, under the penalty of Excommunication if not received, 
 l( one CMinifter alone hath a Dogmatic all authority to exhort, rebuke, &c. 
 cc but alls of IurifdiBion are not his alone. 
 
 Firft, the Dogmaticall power of the Apoftles and Elders met toge- 
 ther Presbyterially or Synodically, is another thing then the Dogmati- 
 call power of a fingle Teacher, and our Brethren themfelves will ac- 
 knowledge that the Dogmaticall power of the Presbytery of a fingle 
 Congregation is a Church-Power, and that which agreeth not to a 
 (ingle Teacher. 
 
 Secondly, And they will alio acknowledge that the Dogmaticall de- 
 cifion of a controverfie of Faith by a Synod, is to be received by 
 the Churches wkh reverence and obligation , as an Ordinance of 
 Chrift. 
 
 Thirdly, There were then three great evills, which were the occafion 
 of that meeting together of the Apoftles and Elders. 1. Herciie taught, 
 averting the neceiTity of obfervtng the Ceremoniall Law , and that 
 beleevers could not be faved without it. 2. The fcandall of the weake 
 Iewes, and their alienation of minde from the CJentiles, who did neglect 
 thofe ( eremonics. g. The Schifme or ***** raifed by thofe who troubled 
 the Diiliples; and accordingly there was a threefold power or authority 
 put forth in this meeting. 1 . The Dogmatkk power confuting the He- 
 
 X k refic, 
 
66 The Anfwer of the Afembly of 'Divines , to the Reafons of the 
 
 refie, and vindicating the Ttuth. 2. The DiataVik\ power, making a 
 practical! Canon for avoiding the fcandall, and abftaining from fuch 
 things as gave occafion of it. 3. The Critic^ power, ver. 24. branding 
 thofe Teachers with the black mark of Lyars, Subverters of Souls, and 
 troublers of the Qhurch : Now we appeale to our Brethren, whether 
 thefe be not fuch acls, as if they were put forth by a parochiall Presby- 
 terie upon any of the members of their own Church 3 would be by them- 
 felves acknowledged to be ads of Ecclefiafticall Government , and 
 authority. 
 
 Fourthly,Neither was it neceffary to make any mention of Excommu- 
 nication,it being a cleare cafe in it felf ('which we fuppofe owe Brethren 
 will not deny J that thofe Hereticks or Schifmaticks, who could be by 
 no other meanes reduced, were not to be fuffered, but to be call: out of 
 the Churches, Revel. 2.2. 14.20. 
 
 Secondly, ^Whereas thofe Decrees are called -^Ao^u^H t» tityti&va. the 
 li Decrees that were ordained, \cls 16.4. our Brethren fay, though My um. 
 <c is ufedfor an Imperiall Decree ; yet but rarely, and more commonly for 
 <c Doctrine and Opinion, andfo it is here ufed in oppofition, to the falfe Doa- 
 16 maes, or Heterodox Thefes of the falfe Teachers, as Col. 2.2c. 
 
 This is the only place which our Brethren cite for that fenfe of the 
 word, but doth it not make againft themfelvcs? for foy/tdligede in that 
 place is expounded by the Syriack, Are ye judged ; in our Engliflh tran- 
 slation, Are yefubjeEl to Ordinances : Erafmus and Bullinger read, De- 
 cretu tenemeni : Gualther^ Ritibus oneramim : thofe Ordinances were 
 the Ceremoniall Lawes impofed, Touch not, Taft not, Handle not, verf. 
 21. therefore Interpreters make that place paralell to Matth. 15.9. In 
 vain they do Wor /hip me, teaching for Dotlrine the. (fommandements of 
 men, and we cannot but take notice, that wherefoever My^x is found in 
 the New Teftament, it is put for Decrees or Lawes, as Luke 2.1. Acls 
 17.7. it is put tot the Decrees ofCafar, and Ephef. 2.15. Collof. 2. 14. for 
 the Ceremoniall LaWes ofCfrfofes : and fo frequently by the Scptuagint 
 in the Old Teftament, either for Decrees, as Dan. 2.15. and 3. 10. 2p. 
 and 4.3. and 6.9 and 12. 15.26. or for Lawes, as c Dan. 6.8 
 
 iC As for the other Word ^.a luivx, they fay, it noteth no more but that 
 ft thefe DoEirinall Thefes were the joynt declared Iudgement of thofe who 
 " Were met together ; therefore When James^r ives his Iudgement, he ufeth 
 u the word •<?* «. 
 
 But they might remember the authority which is given Vni, is one 
 thing, and the authority which is given Vnitati, is another thing : If 
 they had given us a place w r here the word is ufed of a whole Aflfembly ; 
 and yet noted no Authority n<>r j urildiclion, that had been fomewhat 
 topu-rpofe: lames might uie the word, tofignifie the Judgement of 
 
 Difcretion> 
 
DifTenting Brethren, again]} the Infiance of the (fhurch of Jerufalem. 67 
 
 Difcretion, and the whole Affembly might Life it, to fignifie the Judge- 
 ment of Authority ; in fuch a lignihcation the compound is 11 fed in the 
 Old Teftament, as Efth.i. 1. *j & r&jikft iva.v\nv> and what was decreed 
 againfther; fo alfo^>^'^* and <r vy^ is i< is put for a Decree, as Dan. 
 4.14.21. fo that each word, Mypdl* and y&mpiv* holds forch autho- 
 rity, much more both of them put together. 
 
 They fay, " Thofe Words, To lay upon you no greater burthen, if any, 
 " mu(t prove this IurifdiElion. 
 
 It is a proofe indeed, but not the only proofe. 
 
 " But, fay they, thefe words may be taken pa ffively^ that no other bur- 
 Sl then be laid onyou^ as Lodovic. de Dieu hathobferved. 
 
 As this is contrary to the generall fenfe of Interpreters, fo our Bre- 
 thren have not given fo much as one inftance in all the New Teftament, 
 where failfa&p isufed in a pailive fence, & they know that ordinarily it 
 figniheth Authoritative Judgement, when ufed of an AfTemblics Judge- 
 ment, as Iohn 18.3 1. Attsi^.6. And if we fhould take it pafllvely in 
 this place, it doth not at all helpe their caufe ; for when the Text fliall 
 be thus tranflated, Itfeemedgoodto the Holy Qhofl and us. that no greater 
 burthen be laid upon you, then thefe necejfary things : Hence it muft fol- 
 low, that thefe things are laid upon them as Burdens, and as neceflfary, 
 and this was done by the Synod. 
 
 c - Next, fay they, if the word betaken attively,yet the laying on of a 
 " burthen here intended, is but by Way ofDettrine, and declaring the ccm~ 
 " mand of (fhrift , as verf. 10. and Match. 23.4. not by vertue of an Ec-. 
 c k clefiaflicall authority . 
 
 They cannot prove that the f harifees laying on of Burthens, Matth, 
 23.4. was but a Dodnnall declaring, it rather appeares it was an Au- 
 thoritative commanding, Matth. 1 > .9. from which place our ^rotcftant 
 Writers difpute againft Papifts, concerning the binding power and au- 
 thority of Ecclefiafticall Canons; nor yet can they prove, that the 
 laying on of a yoke Ads 15. 10. rriuft be underftood only Dodrmally, 
 and not rather Authoritatively ; or that thofe who contended in the 
 Synod, forthenecelTkyof obferving the Cercmoniall Law, to whom 
 Peter direds that part of his fpeech, did not endeavour, in their debates, 
 to carry the Iudgement ot all the Elders that way, to lay on fuch a yoke, 
 by their Decree, upon the neck of the Difdples; how ever that laying 
 on ofthe Burthen, and preferring fome things at that tkr.e neceffary 
 for the avoiding of fcandall, z^r/ 28 ist.ken as well by Protcftant as 
 Popifh Writers, who have difputed for the Binding authority of Eccle- 
 fialticall Canons, for a foundation thereof, with this difference, Thar 
 Papifts wi.l have their binding power to arife from "the will and au 
 rity of the Church : and thefe Proteftants hold that they bind only per 
 
 K k 2 e • propter 
 
6 8 The An/Wer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 & propter verbum 'Dei, only Co farre forth as they are founded upon, 
 and warranted by the Word of God, as here the Decree of the .< pottles 
 and Elders bindeth ; and is thereiore called theLyingon of a burthen \ 
 yet fo, that they lay on no other burthen, but what was the will of 
 Chad, and what the Law of Love for removing fcandaiis, did at that 
 time make neceflfary to be impofed. 
 
 That which our Brethren adde, that the Apo files and Elders did not- 
 proceed to cenfure ihefefalfe Teachers, hath been anfvvered before ; they 
 didcenfure them in fome degree, even^ annnota infiimi.t\ and twas 
 time enough to proceed to Excommunication, when they fibould be 
 found incorrigibly pertinacious. 
 
 WHereasin theclofe of theproofeof the Proportion, for many 
 Congregations to be under one Presbyteriall Govern- 
 ment, it is aflerted, That whether thefe Congregations be fixed or 
 not fixed, its all one ; as to the truth of the Proposition, our Bre- 
 thren offer this reafon againfl: it. 
 
 Ci Every Congregation having Elders fixed unto it, is a Churchy for the 
 "relation of Church and Elders is mut nail, Acls 1 4. And fixed Elders. 
 ct have a fpeciall relation to that Church whereof the] are Elders, fo as they 
 €c are not related to other Congregations ; but if Congregations have no 
 "fixed Officers, they are not (fhurches according to the principles of Pref- 
 " byteriall Cjovernment ; noW it makes a great difference, fay they, as to 
 " the truth of the Propofition, Whether many (fhurches may be under the 
 rt government of one 3 or whether many Congregations, Which are not 
 u Churches, may be under the government of one : and that no pattern can 
 lt be JheWed for many Churches being under the power of one, nay 
 "Where any one (fhurch was under the power of another. 
 
 We anfwer, 1. That a Congregation having fixed Elders, is a Church, 
 and hath power of government in fucb things as concerne it felfe only. 
 if they be ablej We acknowledge. 2. That Congregations having Offi- 
 cers, though not fixed, are not Churches, we never afTerted. 3. We are 
 not folicitous of names, if we may agree of the thing. 4. Nor did we 
 ever hold, that divers Churches may be under the power of one Church; 
 which is aPrelaticall not a Presbyteriall principle : it is far from our 
 thoughts to put any one Church, though the fmalleft, under the power 
 and government of another C hurch, though the greateft ; the power 
 of a Presbytery overparticular Churches being not extrinfecall, but in- 
 trinfecall to them, and the Presbyteriall or Clafficall Church, not ano- 
 ther (as the Cathedrall was,) but that whole whereof the particular 
 Churches are the conftkuent parts. 5. And whereas our Brethren fay, 
 that Elders fixed to a Congregation, have a fpeciall relation to that 
 
 Congregation 
 
Diffenting Brethren, againfl the Inflance of the Church 0/JerufalcrH. *9 
 
 Congregation, fo as they are not related to other Congregations, if 
 by/© **, they meane Comparative more then to others, or in a more fpe- 
 ciall and peculiar manner and rneafure then to others we grant it : but 
 if by fo as, they meane Exclave, fo related to that Congregation, as 
 they have or can have no relation to any other, we have abundantly 
 fhewed before how falfe that is. 
 
 u As for their difcourfe of fitppofing the Elders to be fixed in Jerftfa- 
 w lem, thut then the zsfpcftles mnfl be thefe fixed Elders, which Vroa-ld be 
 y they J * vreat debafxg of the z/fpefi/cs, to rn.-ke them but as fo ma- 
 5 (Jl fiKifters. 
 Wc anfwer, 1. It follows not that if they bad fixed Elders, that the 
 Apoftles muft be fixed Elder?, there were many other Elders befides the 
 Apoftles at Jerufaletu ; our Brethren grant that there were other El- 
 ders after the difperfion. and furely when they had them, the Church 
 had need of them : and they thinke the Church was not then fo 
 numerous as it was before the difperfion. Secondly, Suppofe the Apo- 
 ftles had been pleafed to divide themfelves to the feverall Congregati- 
 ons, what debating of them were there in this more then in our Brethren* 
 own way ? which opinion will feeme to debafe them more, They who 
 would argue, that ten or twelve Apoftles divided themfelves to do the 
 ordinary worke of Elders in eight, ten or twelve parifhes? or they who 
 would thus fixe ten or twelve of them to be as the ordinary Minifters 
 of one parifh only ? 
 
 A3 to all the teft of their difcourfe upon this point, of the feverall In- 
 conveniences which (in their Judgement,) will follow, upon the prepa- 
 ring only of worke in the lefifer Presbyteries for the greater, and the 
 like, which tends only to difparage the Presbyteriall government ; Our 
 Brethren touch not us, nor other reformed Churches, To far as we know ; 
 We have not yet in our Aifembly fet forth what all the things are which 
 belong to the parochiall Presbytery, and what to the Clafficall, much 
 lelTe have weprefented any thing concerning them to this Honourable 
 Houfe ; when we take thefe things into debate, we fhall willingly heare 
 and weigh our Brethrens Advice and Judgement : And if we offer up 
 any thing in them, as our Humble Advice to the Honourable Houfes, 
 which in their judgement (hall not prove agreeable to the Word of 
 God, it will theabe time enough for out Brethren to give their Ar- 
 guments againft it. 
 
 IN the laftReafonof our Brethren, weobferve, That in the dating 
 of the Qucftion, they limit the Propofition only to fuch Congrega- 
 tions as have fixed Officers, of which , contracting the fenfe of the 
 Propofition, we have fpoken before. 
 
 K k 3 But 
 
The tsfnffrer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 Put to follow them in their own fteps, We do next obferve, that they 
 diitinguilh between the Presbyterie of a Congregation, and the Con- 
 gregation, taking them in peeces, which they ought to have considered 
 dsunurn Complex tun, and this to make the fairer way to their Medium 
 of power over power, which (before they come to their argument ) 
 they would render the more odious, by comparing it to the Epifcopall 
 Aftertion, that one Presbyter may be over another. Which Companion, 
 We conceive neither true nor pertinent. 
 
 1 . Not True ; for the BilLops afcribed their fuperioritie to an higher 
 degree, or order, Jure divino, diftincl from that of a Presbyter: 
 making them fe Ives fucceflors to the Apoftles, and Presbyters to the 70. 
 Difciples, and accordingly they had a new Ordination, or folemn 
 Confecration by impofttions of hands. 
 
 2. Not pertinent; for i.Tn a Presbyterie, All things are done Qommu- 
 ni Confilio, Whereas the Bifhops did all by a perfonall Jurifdi&ion, and 
 fo his power was exclusive of the power of all other Presbyters. 2. In 
 a Presbyterie, All who judge, are liable to be themfelves judged in the 
 fame Presbyterie : Whereas the BiLhops did judge only, but were not 
 judged by their Brethren. 3. The Bifhops power was altogether Ex- 
 trinficall to thofe Congregations which were under it : But the Presby- 
 terie is an Aggregate made up out of th«ir mutuall AiTociations in- 
 to One. 
 
 To that of PoWers fpecifcally diftinEl from each other : We acknow- 
 ledge the Power of the Claties to be more then Numerically diftinct 
 from that of particular Congregations: yet fuch a Power as is the \g- 
 gregation or Coalefcencie of thefe feverall particular powers into one ; 
 and fo is not altogether another for Kinde, but only more extenfive. 
 
 Thefe things being obferved upon the forme of dating the C^ueftion; 
 We proceed to Examine the Reafon produced. 
 
 They lay the ground of their Argument thus, ci where the Scripture 
 u holds forth diftintl forts in any kinde, there will be found either diftinEl 
 fC and proper names and Titles, or at leaf: feme Adjuntt of difference adAed 
 ci to that Which is Commoner Generall, aAsi Cor.r 2. Where Apoftles, 
 Ci Prophet s,Teachers, have not only particular N times and Title s y but 
 ' fpeciall notes of 'diftinblion : Fir ft Ap flk^fccondly Prophets; and Gen. 
 (i 1 . Where no diftinttion in names isoiven, The Sun Moon, and Stars, are 
 " all called Lights - y yet there are Termes of difference added, Greater and 
 " Lefler. 
 
 To which We fay, That it is True, fomething there mud be either in 
 the Text, or Context, or Collated with other places, which may give 
 diftinclion to things diftincl:. But then we Anfwcr, That we looked for 
 fuch Inftances as might not only give marks of diftindion of things 
 
 diftindl 
 
Diffenttng Brethren, awinft the In fiance of the Church o/Jerufalem. 71 
 
 diftincl, But might give Notes of diftincl fuperioritie of one thing or 
 perfon over another, which the fcope of the Text, 1 Cor. 1 2. doth tend 
 nothing towards. For though the Apoftles were fupcrior to All,yet our 
 Brethren will finde it not fo eafie to demonftrate the fuperioritie of 
 Pr*phets., Teachers, &c. to thofc mentioned after them. And for that 
 ©ther Inftance of the Luminaries, CVw.i. They are not fo great, as that 
 we can fee by them any llcafon of the confequence, that if Luminaries 
 be fo diftinguifhed, then Presbyteries muft be fo too. 
 
 Secondly, it is not proved that all things that are diftincl:, agreea- 
 ble unto, or warrantable by the Scripture, ihould have diftincl Names, 
 Titles, Adjuncts of difference therein fet down. Parity of Reafon from 
 Scripture grounds is fufficient to give diftin&ion. For we do not aflferc 
 fuch a formall and expreffe mention of the Subordination of Presbyte- 
 ries and Synods as our Brethren require, becaufe they do not Competere 
 to a Church as it is a Church,but only to the well being of it, in fuch or 
 fuch times, places and conditions; for fometimes particular Congre- 
 tionsmay want a competent number of Officers, "and of men fit for 
 Government, and fo cannot have a particular Presbyterie : And fome- 
 times, as in times of perfecution, feverall Churches may be fo difperfed, 
 or may otherwife live at fuch diftance from one another, as that they 
 may be difabled to Affociate into a Clafficall Presbyterie. 
 
 this ground being laid by our Brethren>lhcy thus inforce it, " There 
 <{ is no diftinclion of 'Presbyteries by any Name or Title ; For in the New 
 u Tefiament the word ve&0vli?w is but in three places, whereof there is but 
 (c one which holds out the Cjovrrnment in hand, and in that place we have 
 u the naked word only , Without the addition of any fuch cxprtffwn, Greater, 
 <c Leflfer,Superior, Inferior, or any kind ofadjuncl that can poffiblyput a 
 a thought into us of more Presbyteries then one. 
 
 To this we anfwer, 1 .How can it be proved,that by Presbyterie in that 
 one place is meant the Presbyterie of a particular Congregation ? And 
 if that cannot be proved, how then can the Presbyterie of a particular 
 Congregation be proved ?■ 
 
 2. We do not by that word in that one place ufed, go about to prove 
 diftincl forts of Presbyteries, but we fay diftincl Presbyteries may be 
 called by that generall name, as every diftincl fpecies of'esfmmal, may 
 be called Animal. 
 
 3. As the ViQtA.<&r-<rfcvl<fiov llgnifying a Court amongft the lews, 
 was in Scripture Language the fame with ^?^-a>: f c/ in Confeffu, or in 
 Synedrio^s is moft manifeftj v o the fame word in the Chrifti-an Church, 
 is no other then Presbyteriin conjeffu, and then wc have it above once in 
 the New Ttftament, as to the Government in hand. 
 
 4. The feverall Judicatories amongft the lefts, which were as much 
 
 and 
 
7 * The Anfaer of the Ajfemblj of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 and more diftinguifhed then our Presbyteries, had one and the fame 
 name, as Gnedah, Cabal, Zekenim, Sbopbtim, promifcuoutly given to 
 them all, as the learned have obferved [Bertram dePolit. Iudak\c6>9 ~] 
 and the like may be affirmed of ■7j\&^,a>yv. i e^wiajand other like. So Sy- 
 nedrlum is a common name unto different Courts iubordinate to each 
 other. A nd it is further obferved by the Learned, that the lews had the 
 Seldeit, great Sanedrim, and two others beftdes that in Iernfalcm, and every 
 great City twenty three Elders, and every of thefe Courts is called 
 Hagnedah. 
 
 5 . Our Brethren know, that the thing was in the Church before the 
 Apoftle made mention of it by this name; for he did not in this place 
 inftitute a Presbytery : And if he had not here called it ib ,and the word . 
 could no where have been found, yet the thing it felfwas and would 
 have been m being,as our two diftind Sacraments are,though that name 
 be not there found. 
 
 6. Our Brethren do acknowledge, !Tto the Elders ef 'divers Congre- 
 gations met together to determine, or Dogmatically declare , matters of faith 
 are the Ordinance of Chrifi > And yet our Brethren do not any where 
 read God hath fet in his Church, Firft, Presbyteries, then Synods. 
 We fee no Reafon, why a Court of Iudicatorie, might not as well be 
 without a Scripture name, as an Ordinance of Chrift is by their own 
 confeflion. 
 
 And therefore we conclude this Nominall medium with our Brethren 
 thus ; That as in Scotland and France, and in the Epifcopall Republike, 
 there are particular diftind names for the diftind forts or kinds of Ad- 
 miniftration in their Ordinances for Government ; So fhall we alfo ufe 
 diftind names for them, as well as they; Only we conceive, the Epifco- 
 pall Republike need not have been named with Scotland and the 
 French^ but that they were pleafed to ferve us with variety. 
 
 Our Brethren fay, (: That as the Scriptures hold forth nothing in any 
 cc name or title to difiinguifi, No more can We therein di [cover any forts of 
 Ci Government different in nature ; for do you reaie ( fay they J any where, 
 c< God hath fet in his Church, Firfl Presbyteries, fecondly Clares, then 
 et Confifiories, &c? 
 
 To this weanfwer, i. That this is but Recurring to difprove diffe- 
 rence in nature, becaufe there is no d fferencc in name, and fo is all one 
 Medium with the former. 
 
 2. They feem to allude to that place, I Cor. 12 hrb,iApo files, fe- 
 condiy,/V<?/?^tt, which is not meant of fuperioritie in Government,nor 
 is the C hurch fpoken of there, any other then the Church Generall, and 
 not in one Kingdom or Nation. 
 
 3. It is no. necelLiy, that every Aggregation of Presbyters for Go- 
 
 vernment 
 
DilTenting Brethren, againfl the Infiance of the Church o/Jerufaiem. jr 
 
 vernment of the Church fhould have diftind names fee down in Scrip- 
 ture • What name in Scripture have thofe Presbyters that meet dogma- 
 tically to determine ( afesand Points of Faith Ija they have po\X>er .and 
 are the Ordinances cfChrifl, fay they. Scripture fets not things down as 
 Arts do, by Artificiall definitions or difiributions ; there are no Logtcall 
 orSyftematicall methods, Jtfayesnot Faith is dogmaticall and jutlify 
 ing, The Church Generall and particular, jfce. and yet the things them- 
 felves have a bein? in Scripture. 
 
 Now to the particulars of this Medium^ It is firft faid, They have the 
 fame materials,and therefore are not in that refped different. This mili- 
 tates as well againfl: Courts Civill, where the members are the fame, as 
 againft Ecclefiafticall ; And we Anfwer them by their own words, 
 
 Although this fuperior Presbyteriebe made up of Presbyters but as 
 Commiflioners from the congregational or parochial Presbyteries, yet 
 that hinders not at all, but that they may be Offices diftind. And to the 
 Illuftration they give there, we adde, That the Officers of feverall Re- 
 giments, fitting in a Counfell of Warre ; The Heads of Colledges fitting 
 in Confiftory;the Aldermen of Wards fitting in Councel,are materially 
 the fame ^ yet the Courts thus made up, are not the fame in power with 
 that which thefe perfons have in their particular places of Command. 
 
 2 We further anfwer, that the matter of a particular Presbyterie Is, 
 Presbyteries of one Congregation alone,refpedively, to that alone .- 
 Bitt the matter of a Clajfwall Presbyterie, are flhe trie Presbyters of feve- 
 rall Congregations refpedively unto feverall Congregations ; Even as 
 the materiallof a Nationall Synod is notfimple Commiflioners, but 
 Commiflioners fent from all the Churches of a Nation. 
 
 3 . W here it is faid, That Presbyteration alone doth fnffciently qualifie 
 a gifted ferfon to be the matter of any Presbyterie: VVe anfwer, That this 
 is not true, without diftinguifhing of materia Remota, which makes a 
 man only capable of fuch a Relation ; and materia Proxima, whereby a 
 man is actually in fuch, or fuch a relation ; for unto this, befides Presby- 
 tcratiox, there is required a fpeciall Call refpedively to thofe Presbyte- 
 ries, wherein a man adeth as a Presbyter. 
 
 4 Whereas they fay,"7 hat a greater number cf Presbyters in the one Pref 
 * byterie alters not the State in refpeel of the matter, We gran: it it 
 
 makes as much againfl: diftind 6 of Civil Judicatures as ofHcc call, 
 
 2. For the Formale> the uniting of theie perfons into a (V is or 
 
 C^r^f, They fay, That this id the fame ', becaufc a Ps.j; r joyned to a parti- 
 cular Congregation is Eo nomine, a member of the Cliffs to which t! at 
 Congregation belongs. To this we anfwer, 1 hat union of perfons into a 
 Conjejfus, is but Forma Generica to all Presbytciies or Courts, made up 
 by aggregation of more members, and fo it gives no fpeciall difference 
 between Presbyterie and Presbyterie. \ Ve cannot but wonder at fuch 
 
 I i a 
 
The Jnfaer of the Ajfembly of Divines^ to the Beafons of the 
 
 a confequence, That if divers Courts do agree in this genericall form of 
 Union and Coalition,therefore they are not diftincl in form ; for there 
 isafpeciallformorreafonoftheir Union, which diverfines them; for 
 the Paftor is united unto other ruling Officers in a fingle Congregation 
 refpeclively to that Congregation alone : And he is united to other 
 Paitorsand Officers of divers Congregations by AfTociation refpeclive- 
 ly to all thefe Congregations; which refpecls are formerly diftind from 
 one another. 
 
 And for that the Brethren fay, The Presbyters of a Parochial! Presby- 
 Perle 9 are as neerly united or more, as in the choife and call of the fame Con- 
 gregation,andinthe workjf the Mini/try. That rather argues the union 
 to be diftincl, and the Presbyteries con fequently to be diitincl:, As the 
 Mafter of a Colledge hath a neerer Relation to it in thccallof the 
 Colledge, work of Governing, admitting Schollers, difpofing of Re- 
 venues, &c. And yet being met in a Confejfus of heads, for common 
 Government over the whole Univerfity, doth concur to the making up 
 of a diftincl Court from that in the Colledge : So is it here. The fpeciall 
 Reafon of Vnion of the fame perfon with both making the diftindlion. 
 
 And whereas it is faid. That a Presbyter by having Paftor all charge in 
 fuch divifion, is Eo nomine member of fuch a (flaffis ; granting it to be 
 fo, that would nothing hinder the Claflical I Presbyterie to bediftinft 
 from a Parochiallmo more then a Mafter of a Colledge . eing Eo nomine, 
 a member of the Confiftory doch prove, that the Government of the 
 Colledge and of the Univerfity are not diftincfr; or that every particu- 
 lar Judge of the Kings Bench, common Plea:-, and Exchequer, being Eo 
 nomine of power to argue and judge cafes< as it were in Collegia, in the 
 Chequer Chamber, would prove that the lodgement in the Chequer 
 Chamber, and that in any of the other Courts were not diftinitor 
 different. 
 
 So then, to the ultimate form and conflitutron of a politicall body, 
 there is more requifite then the common uniting of the Members there- 
 of,/.* (fonfeffum ; for though the perfons iliould be the fame, and the 
 manner of union the fame, yet if thole perfons fo united have in one ca- 
 pacity fome ends and objects, and in another others, diverfityof thefe 
 will diverfifie their meetings, even as different ends and objeds do 
 make the fame perfon being united to the fame Congregation to be a 
 Pa&or in one fence for works of Mimftry ; and a Ruler in another for 
 works of Government : and a Member in a third, for Communion in 
 worfhip, and yet tv'iniftry, Iurifdiction, and )^emoerfhip in the fame 
 perfon are things fpecifically dilhncl, though he have both the one and 
 the other by vertue of his union unto that particular Congregation. 
 And that fuch diverlity is l'urficie:- :,£o make a formall difference in mat- 
 ters politicall, wherein fpecificall diverfity may arife from fuch Rcafons 
 
 as 
 
DifTenting Brethren, againfl the Inftance of the fhurch of Jertifalcm. 75 
 
 as in naturall things do not vary the fpecies,our Brethren have informed 
 us in this paper of theirs. 
 
 Now Clafficall Presbyteries have different object namely things of 
 common concernment, and different Ends , as will appeare in the 
 Anfwer to the next Branch ; And this is therefore fuificieni formally to 
 difference them from other Presbyteries. 
 
 3. Nor> fay the Brethren, do wefinde any thing in Scriptures making 
 " them as from different Imploy?nents and FmSions to differ. 
 
 1. We arfirmc, and fo it is in the Proportion, * c The one is fuperiour , 
 €< the other inferiour: But ho\\> canyon fay , the Scriptures Live made this dif- 
 "ference,fthen there is not a Wordjpoken th.it way in any place? I he lence of 
 their Argument lies thus, If we do not find any thing in Scripture, how 
 can you fay it. ? To which we anfwer,^ can fay it,though they do not find 
 it ; As they can fay, That particular (Congregations are independent on 
 any Church- Power fuperior to themfhough W'e do not find that there is a 
 word fpoken this way in any place of Scripture. And as to the Inftances 
 alledged out of fome Ptesbyteriall writers themfelves, whereby they 
 feeme utterly to take away fuch difference of fuperiour and inferiour 
 Presbyteries ; becaufe in one place you fhall read, The ClaJJis can do 
 nothing, Renitente Ecclejia.but itisnul and invalid, Affertion of Difci- 
 pline : And in another, the Congregation^ though but Minima Ecclefiola, 
 may Reform, that is, fufpend, excommunicate, &c. Renitentibus Corre- 
 jpendentiis, Voetius in his Thefes y & dejperata caufa papatus ; and that 
 according to thefe expreflions, it is hard to be faid, which of thefe 
 Presbyteries hath the greater or fuperior power. 
 
 We Anfwer, 1. 1 hat the Renitencie of fuch as are of the .Quorum, 
 and have power of a Negative voice to the reft in any Confcffus y doth 
 indeed Null and make voide the Acl of the reft : But the Renitencie of 
 them that are not necelTarily concurrent to palle an Acl: of power, is 
 no derogation to the power it felfe, but may give occafion to the go- 
 vernours in prudence to forbeare the execution of fuch Ad or Sentence : 
 As the Councell of Warre fhould in wifdome fufpend the execution of 
 any Order which may endanger mutiny in the Army : But fuch Reni- 
 tencie of people to their governours doihnotNjlI che power; for 
 then they may at pleafure by Renitencie to whatfoever theydiflike, 
 Null the power that is over them. And upon this ground, we uihrme 
 that the meafureor degree of power is not to b: ciltmated byllenitency, 
 orNon-Renitencieofthem that are fubje&to it ; F01 the Renitencie <of 
 fubjecl'sto a power over them, is either Renitencie oi contradicl.on to 
 that power, or of Appeale from it to an higher, and neither fore Nulls 
 the power; fo that the Cafe alledged by our Brethren is jultly thus: The 
 Court of wacfhould not in vvifdom e ercife an ct of power unto which 
 the Officers and Souldiers of a Regiment areRcnitent: But the Prfi- 
 
 L 1 2 cer. 
 
7# The AnJ^er of the Ajfemhly of Divines, to the Reafons of the 
 
 cersand Regiment may reforme themfelves, though the Councell of 
 Warre be Renitent : Therefore it is hard to fey, whether the Councefl 
 of Warre or that Regiment have the greater power. Whatever they 
 ftiall An fwer to this Inftance, will Anfwer theirs. 
 
 2. The Authors which they Cite are cleare, The Aflfertion doth af- 
 fert, That the C 'lajfis fijould not proceed unto Excommunication, Renitent e 
 Ecclefta ; But doth not fay that fuch Renitencie anuls the power : and 
 gives the reafon, becaufe fueh Excommunication would want its due 
 effect, becaufe the Renitent Congregation would not caft out a perfon 
 out o{ their Communion, which the C lajfis had difcerned to be caft out. 
 And as for Voetius, he doth plainly affert power in a CUJfis to receive 
 Appealesfroma particular Congregation, and to judge of them. The 
 words which our Brethren point us unco, Thef.$. 8.9. are thefe, Cef- 
 fantibus, aut male rem agentibus Correjpondentiis Clafficis ant Synodicis y 
 in cafu necejfitatis (qua ordinariam legem fepe nonfert) Licet Ecc lefts 
 poteftatemfuamrefumere, & retle ufurpare y fnoncum corresfondentia 
 cum aliis completa y faltem incomplete nunquam enim caufk Dei defer enda 
 eft. Imo quidni etiam nni EcclefioU v el minima lie eat fu& fuorumj ? faluti 
 confulere y & omnibus cc-rrefpondentiis renitentibus earn prtferre ? Cum 
 hicteneatilludi charitas & Reformatio incipit a feipfo if there be any 
 thing here, which may make it hard to be faid, which of thefe Presbyte- 
 ries have the greater or fuperior power, let themfhewit that can, and 
 will make the reverend Author contradictory to himfelfe, and to the 
 Title of his Booke, Dsunione Ecclefiarum y earumj^ Rcgimine in Clajfi- 
 bus & Sjng£jfi Susdy he giveth no more here to a Congregation, then 
 he doth elfewhere to a particular member in a particular Congregation, 
 Sell. 3. and yet it is ealie to atiirme. That a particular Congregation 
 hath more power then any Member of it. 
 
 " 2. Our Brethren proceed in their Argument thus, €< The worke of a 
 e< Tresbyterie is to ordaine y excommunicate, fufpend, admit members, ap- 
 ?c point times for Vrorfoip, and the like. The CLiJficall referve Ordination 
 4,1 and Excommunication to themf elves ; but the other are left to the Paro- 
 li chial c Presbyt?rie Thus feme Presbyterians divicx the worl^others poffibly 
 " o'hnri.'}. But hs>P can we affrrme any fuch defigncment from the Scrip- 
 * l tures. if you have not twafbrtf, either in name, or nature to be found there? 
 u And none of thefe Ails bt?t may be done by that one ; which doubt le ff e 
 14 they may : feeing Ordination (temeth to be (pecified in the Text, If 
 " the greaser, then doubt lejfe the le(j'er : The Pa flour in one place is fail to 
 e< exhort, in another to comfort, in another to v'ftte theftcke. This will not 
 " Warrant diftintl forts cf c P a flours, for there beings but one fort (boken of 
 *' in Scriptures y we ma ft interpret all thefe fever all Adminiftrations to 
 " belong unto that cne. 
 To this we anfiver 5 
 
 1. That 
 
Diffenting Brethren, tgainft the Inftance of the Church o/Jerufalcm. 77 
 
 i. That the Argument is CircuUr, for they prove there are not two 
 forts of Presbyteries, becaufe not different imployments belonging to 
 them : And now they prove, that there are not different imployments, 
 becaufe we have not two forts of Presbyteries in name and nature^ to be 
 found in Scripture, to whom thefe imployments fhould belong. 
 
 2. There is no fuch divifion of the worke of Presbyteries yet deter- 
 mined, nor in fome part yet debated in this Affembly. 
 
 3. Admitting that all thefe ads here mentioned, ought tobedofle 
 in a Parochiall Presbyterie, jguoad Jpeciem AEitu^ yet it followes not, 
 but that there may be a fuperiour Presbyterie; for if there be a Presby- 
 terie, which hath power to Order, Correct, or Direct this power of a 
 particular Presbyterie, Then, by the confeffion of our Brethren, there 
 u a difli-M Presbyterie. As flippofe an Jnferiour Court have power to 
 impofe Fines, Imprifon, put co death : The Court to which appeaie is 
 made, can do no more • and yet it is Superiour, becaufe it hath power 
 to Corred, Order, and Direcl thofe affcs of the Inferiour. 
 
 4. Our Brethren* Argument doth proceed upon an inefficient Enu- 
 meration of imployments, for that there are many imployments, pro- 
 per to another fort of Presby terie ; diftind from that which is Parochial, 
 we (hew by a more full Enumeration of particulars, as 1. In matters 
 of common concernment to more Churches then one. 2. In cafe o^ an 
 Incompetent Presbyterie Parochiall. 3. In cafe of Appellation and 
 prefumcd-male-adminiftration. 4. In cafe of divisions anfing in parti- 
 cular Churches and Presbyteries. 5. In cafe of difference^ betweene 
 Neighbour Churches. 6. In cafe ofSc&s and Herefies fpreading abroad, 
 and endangering the peace of the ( hurch, and Truth of God. 7. In 
 cafe of oLftinacy , when the Major part of a Congregation erring, refufe 
 to put the differences amongft them to Reference or Arbitration. 8. In 
 < afe cf Examination of a Miaifters Learning in Tongues, Arts, Theolo- 
 gie, and other things requifite to make him a fit Paftouror Teacher for 
 fucha particular Congregation, according to the Rules of Ordination 
 already efrabiifned. 9. In cafe the people, or any of them, rtjfefl or 
 flicght the admonition orcenfurcs of their Paftour and Officers. 10. Jn 
 caic the Paftour be like iom^Diotrephcs, tyrannicall and vexatious to 
 people, and they not alletoheipe themfelvcs, or do iubtrlly deli- 
 ver 3nd ipread amongft them erroneous Dotfrir, 11. When the Pref- 
 byterie and people are divided into equall, or almoft equall parts* 12. 
 When hard and difficult cafes are to be dicided. 13. When fome 
 powerfulladverfariesor perfecutors. are to be re lifted Spiritnali arma- 
 turk. 14. To prevent partiality or negkcl of cenfures towards fome 
 offenders, fuch as was in Corinth : towards the inceftuous penbn. 1$. 
 In cafe of the Excommunication or Depoftion of a Pallor. 
 
 LI 3 v In 
 
7 8 The zAnfteer of the Affembly of Divines, to the Reafens of the 
 
 In thefe cafes, faith Voetius, Non puto aliquem negaturum qmn S*lu~ 
 bris fit Ant or it as mult arum Ecclefiytrum, una ammo, mis Confdiis con-. 
 junciarum ; quidni nee eff aria. 
 
 5. When it is faid, That Ordination feemes to be done by a particular 
 Presbyterie, and therefore all other things may be done there too. 
 
 1. For the Antecedent, it is gratis diftum, and being granted, the 
 confequence is denied : Neither doth the degree of greater or letter 
 make any proofeofit; for to preach the word, and adminiftcr 
 Sacraments, are as great works, as to Excommunicate, yet it doth not 
 follow, becaufe a Miniiter may do thofe alone, therefore he may do 
 this alone too. 
 
 Andbefides, It is alfo gratis diclum, to fay that Ordination is the 
 greateft worke belonging to Presbyterie; efpecially for our "Brethren to 
 fay fo : who fometimes thinke it not all requifite, and when it is, make 
 it only a folemne admitting him into his place. 
 
 Surely our Brethren looke upon the delivering of a man unto Satan 
 as a worke of an higher nature. 
 
 As for that which our Brethren fay : " It was not found fo eajie in this 
 <f Ajfembly to finds t^o forts of Elders, Teaching and Ruling ; thouoh the 
 u Scripture in fome places Jpeakefo plaine of them, as if ofpurpofe to difiin- 
 cc guijh them. And therefore it mufi needs be more difficult to finde out 
 Ci tlfro forts of presbyteries. 
 We anfwer, 
 
 1. That it is no right way of Argumentation todifpute from the 
 difficulty of finding a thing to the denying of it. Many points in Divi- 
 nity are of difficult difcovery, and yet not to be denied. 
 
 2. As it feemes to have beene eafie and cleare in the apprehenfions of 
 our Brethren ; That there are feverall forts of Presbyters, though they 
 fay it was a difficulty to the AiTembly, fo they may be pleafed to allow 
 the fame clearenefle of apprehenfion to the Aflfembly in the point of 
 Presbyteries, though it feeme difficult to themfelves. 
 
 g. If the AfTembly found it hard to finde out that which is plaine iq<- 
 Scripture, Then the painesof the Aflembly in difcufling and fearching* 
 the .Scriptures, argues not Inevidence of the thing it ielfe, but their 
 care to finde a good Foundation of that advice they fhould give to the 
 Honourable Houfes, and their care to fatisfie if it were poilible their 
 diffenting Brethren. 
 
 4. The confequence which they inferre is denied, That it mufi be 
 more difficult to finde out two forts of Presbyteries ; For admitting there 
 were but one iort of Presbyters, yet it is eafie to compound of them 
 two forts of Presbyteries, as eafie as it is of Jufticesof the Peace, I cads 
 of Colledgcs, Aldermen, iiurgefles, to forme diftind meetings in regard 
 
 of 
 
Dhfenting Brethren, againft the Inftance of the Church o/Jerufalem. 79 
 
 of power, and the adminiftration thereof, which rs confefTed by the 
 Brethren in their inftances of BurgelTes of Cities and Townes Corpo- 
 rate, fent np unto, and fitting in Parliament. 
 
 And whereas they fay, That it is generally granted by Presbyterians 
 themj elves that for abo ve fifty y ear es after Chrift. and in the Apoftles times, 
 there was but one kinde of Presbyterie : We defire our Brethren to tell us, 
 what fort of Presbyterie that was, Parochiall or Clafficall, as we now 
 call them. If Parochial!, who arc thefe Presbyterians that fo grant ? Jf 
 Claflicall ("which they know thofe Presbyterians meane, who from un- 
 doubted antiquity averre. that the Church was governed, Communi 
 Conjilio Presbyter or um) then it helps them not at all, for if the Brethren 
 grant parochiall, and the Presbyterians grant clafficall, then there are 
 two diitincl: forts by grant on this part, and on that. However the Rules 
 and Reafons which the Presbyterians go upon, were as valid in thefe 
 former times as now. 
 
 To the Inference made from the wifdome of States to the wifdome 
 of Chrift, in ciearely bounding out the Judicatories of his Church, we 
 fhall net go one fy liable leffe in our attributions to Jefus Chrift then 
 our Brethren. But though unwilling to make fuch compurifon of things, 
 which are of no degree of companion, we anfwer to that which is Ar- 
 gumentative in this Rhetorique; If the light of nature have directed all 
 States to appoint fuperior Courts for relieving of men in cafe of Ap- 
 peales from the mifcarriages of inferior : we apprehend it no le(fe wif- 
 dome in Chrift, to appoint or warrant fuch authority in his Church, as 
 may relieve wrongs through miftakings or mifcarriages of inferior Pres- 
 byteries ; For otherwife the Ecclefiafticall Republick were in worfe 
 cafe then the Civil!, which confelTedly doth afford reliefe of wrongs a- 
 bout inferior Claimcs. 
 
 2. What is it that the Bretljren would alTurne ? Is it that Chrift hath 
 fet fuch bounds of Church Judicatures for reliefe of wronged perfons ? 
 Then they grant the Queftion. Or hath he fet no fuch ? Then, how do 
 
 they vindicate his wifdome f 
 
 And whereas it is faid, that Controverfies andcUftnngs about thefe high 
 and publike Inter efts, are no other in the iffue^ then the dividing of a King- 
 dtme \\"ithinitfelfe ("thereby haply intimating fome formidablenefle of 
 the Government to the Civil State :) That this Obfervation of theirs is 
 true, we have too fad experience, but that a Presbyterie over a Presby- 
 terie doth thus divide a Kingdome within it felfe, the experience of all 
 the Reformed Churches where this Government hath obtained, doth 
 platnely witnelTe the contrary. 
 
 3. We fhall not eafily grant what our Brethren infinuate, That mat- 
 ters ef Praiiife and Duty ) jhould rather have Obfcurity in the Rule, then 
 
 Authority 
 
&> The Anfwer of the Affemblj of Divines, &c 
 
 Anthoritj OTtdfttrifdittion • (ince the former being matters of Faith 
 VVorfhip and Obedience, do mere immediately relate unto Salva- 
 tion it feife ; the other, though it be fubfervicnt thereunto, yet in an 
 inferior and remoter degree. 
 
 Neither are we inforced out of one word, but onceufed, to raifeup 
 fo many Thrones fas they call them) or Formes of Government; For 
 the Forme of Government is butO^; and for the warrantablenefle 
 thereof, we have (hewed it out of other places of Scripture, not fo much 
 as mentioning this to prove our Proportion, which our Brethren fo 
 much infift upon. 
 
 And laftly, we cannot but wonder, That all the Churches of Chrifr 
 untill this prefent Age, ftiould never before have difcovered this frame' 
 of Government, by our Brethren contended for, as fo cleare and evi- 
 dent ; Efpecially confidering, that the Nature of man is very inclinable 
 to fearch out diligently, and eafily to afiert fuch wayes of Liberty* 
 whereby they may be Independent upon fuperiour Authority and Ju* 
 rifdiction over them. 
 
 Cornelius 'Barges \ Prolocutor pro tempore, 
 fohnWhite, AffefTor. 
 Henry Ifybroughe, Scnba. 
 aAdonirarn Byfeld^ Scnba* 
 
 FINIS 
 
St 
 
 Reasons againft, and Answers to 
 
 the Proopes from, the I s s t a n c e of the 
 Church of Evhefiu , Alledged by the Reve- 
 rend Affembly y to prove , 
 
 That The Scripture holds forth ^ That many Congregations may 
 be under one Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 THe Arg u me nt of the Reverend sAfcmbly from the Church 
 of Ephefus, is laid downe in thefe three Proportions : 
 m Fir ft , The multitude ofBeleevers did make more Congregations than 
 lc one in Ephefus. 
 
 cc Second \y y There were many Elders over thofe many Congregations P as 
 u over one flocl^. 
 
 " Thirdly, Thofe [ever all Congregations were one Churchy and under one 
 u Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 T'HePROo fes brought by the Reyerend Afembly to prove the 
 firft Propoftion, viz. That the multitude of Beleevers did make 
 more Congregations then one, in Sphefus y arc thefe : 
 
 cc A(fr. 20. 3 1. Where there is mention made of Pauls continuance at E- 
 " phefus preaching for thejpace of three years. 
 
 " A&.ip. 1 8,19,20. Cohere the fyeciaR effeti of the word is mentioned , 
 n viz. Many that beleevedcame and confeffed their deeds, many alfo of them 
 rt which nfed curious arts, brought their books together 9 and burned them be- 
 (t fore all men, and they counted the price of them, and thej found it to be fifty 
 <c thou] "and pieces of fiver, fo mightily grew the word of Go Ijtnd prevailed* 
 
 w Act. 1 9.1 o,i 7. where mention is made of fe ws and Gre e ks. 
 
 a 1 Cor. 1 6.8,9. where a reafon is given of Pauls ftay at Ephefus un- 
 Cf till Tentecof, viz. becaufe a great and effetluaU doore was opened. 
 
 a I Cor. 1 6. 1 9. where there is mention of a particular (fhurch in the 
 Ct houfe ofAquila and PrifciUa, who were then at E(hefus, as appear es A&. 
 18.19- 24.26. 
 
 Mm To 
 
gi Reafons againfi the In st anc e *f f ik £. AJfembly 
 
 To thefe Proof es, the A n 5 w e r is 5 
 
 Flrft, as for fuch of them which arc brought to prove the number of 
 Beleevers in Ephefus, the conference isdenyed, Becaufe that not- 
 withftanding what isfaid of the Apofiles being three years at Ephefus, 
 and a great and effeBuall doore was opened, and Jo mightily grew the 
 word of god, and prevailed, &c. it followes not that the Converts in 
 Ephefus were fo many as could not meet in one place. For 
 
 Firft , Suppofe it be granted there were two or three thoufand 
 (though there is no fufficient ground to fay there were neere fo many ) 
 yet they all might meet in one place ; and yet this were enough to fhew 
 that there was a large and effetluall doore opened to the Apoftle, and 
 a comfortable fruit of his/o long ftay and preaching there. 
 
 Secondly, becaufe this efficacy of the word preached by Taut, hath 
 reference not only to Ephefus, but alfo to all AJia, Atls 19. 26. not 
 Only in Eyhefus, but throughout AllAsia; this Paul hath perfw ti- 
 ded and turned away much people. And where he faith, aABs 20. 3 o. for 
 the [pace of three j ears he ceafed not to warne every one night and day with 
 tears : The words are not to be refirained to his being at Ephefus • but 
 to be underftood of his being in Afia, as appears by Verfe 1 8. Te know 
 from the fir ft day that I came Into As i a, after what manner J have 
 betn with you at all Seasons, fervingthe Lord with all humility of 
 minde, and with many teares. 
 
 Secondly, as for the price of the beokes of the converts. 
 
 The Anfwer is, That when there was no printing, a few mens books, 
 yea, a few books of fo curious and garnfull artf might well be worth 
 that mony. For, that fifty thoufand pieces oflilver, Calvin upon the 
 place, computes to be but nine thoufand pound Trench, which is fix hun- 
 dred feventy five pound (lerling, or there abouts, at eighteen pence the 
 frank. Beza reckons it Jeffe, vU % eight thoufand (even hundred pound 
 french : and our own Country-man Brerewood in his firft Chap, de 
 nummis , interpreting this very place ; accounts every dpyvuov at 
 7«d. oh. according to which rate, the fumme amounts to about 1406. 1. 
 fierling. Some one mans ftudy now of common books,though not Ma- 
 nufcriptS) as they were, is worth as much ; and how can this argue fuch 
 a multitude of beleevers, or feverall Congregations, as could not meet 
 in one place 3 we cannot fee. 
 
 Thirdly, asforthe Church in Aquilu houfe which is fuppofed by the 
 
 Revc- 
 
frvm the Church */Ephefus. 85 
 
 Reverend AlTembly to be a Congregation dirtincl: from the Ephefians, 
 and therefore more Congregations than one making that one Epkejine 
 Church, To much fpoken of in the New Teftament. 
 The Anfrver \s, 
 
 Firft, the Chvrch in his houfe is not necedariiy to be underftood of 
 a Congregation fuch as the propofition intends, but of a family (fhureh, 
 as moft of our Divines fay. 
 
 Secondly, fuppofe it were fuch : It doth not appear that the Church 
 in tsfquila's houfe was at Ephefus but in Afi*. We read that Aqnu 
 ia and TrifcilL travailed with Paul to Sphefus^nd were left there , not 
 that their (fhurch was there, for themfelves might travaile where their 
 Church travailed not with them. 
 
 Thirdly, grant they were fuch a Church, and at Ephefus, yet the anfi 
 jver is, they were Strangers that were driven from Rente by Claudius, 
 tsfcls 18.2. compared with Rom, i<5. 4. where alfo we read ©f a Church 
 tn their houfe, and therefore kept themfelves a diftind: (fhurch from the 
 €phefians y as the Englifi doe in the Netherlands, and the Dutch in Eng- 
 land ; who chufe rather to joyn with their own country people, whofe 
 dwellings are more remote,, than with thofe of another nation nearer 
 to them. And if the difference of their language may argue different 
 Congregations • and that they could not joyne in one (as is alledgedj 
 it will sfrgue as ftrongly, that? his Church, and the other Congregation 
 of Ephefus, could not be under one Pre/by teriaJl government : And or- 
 dinary Officers had not ordinarily the gift of feverall tongues, 1 Cor. 
 1 2. 8, 9. To one u given the word ofWifdome, to another, Knowledge, t9 
 (trnther, diverfe kinds of tongues. 
 
 Fourthly, as for fewes and Greekes being mentioned ; It makes no- 
 thing for the number,nor yet that for difference of language, there muft 
 needs be more Congregations than one ; for the fewes that lived among 
 the Gentiles understood their language, elfe they would make fo many 
 independent Congregations. 
 
 Mmi That 
 
84 Retfons againft the I m s t a n c e of the R . Ajfembly 
 
 That the multitude of beleivers were not 
 
 more then could meet in one place, 
 
 T He Contrary to this firft propofition, vU. that the multitude 
 of beleivers were not more then could meet in one place is proved thus. 
 
 It is apparent that the number of beleivers there when Paul came firft 
 to Epkefus was but about twelve, Acls 19. 7. aH the men were dent 
 twelve. And when the number was increafed, yet then the Church of 
 Sphefi* is called one flocks, in relation to thofe Elders which were at E~ 
 phefus, Acls 20. 28. which were willed by Paul to feed that flockby do- 
 ctrine as he had done, by which its evident they might and did meet in 
 one : for Elders are paflors onely for one congregation, 
 
 " // Was [aid that the feeding of this flocks H to be underftood partitive, 
 c< viz,, fime, one Congregation,fome another, andfo amongsl them theftock^ 
 " Was fed. 
 
 But if it be underftood partitive with reference to their feeding, itmuft 
 be alfo with reference to their overfeeing, becaufeit is fo expreft in the 
 text .Take heed to jour f elves ,& to the whole flockjver which the holy Ghofi 
 bath made you overfeers, to feed the Church of God : for no reafoncanbe 
 given why thefe words jv ed the jW^ftiould be utaderftood partitive, and 
 not thefe other words take heed to the flockjver which the holy Ghofi hath 
 made you over feers : and if their overfeeing an&rulingbp to be under-, 
 flood partitive, then how doth this place argue a Trefbyteriall Govern- 
 ment over many Congregations ? And if it be laid the many Congregati- 
 ons were not fixt ones, then that distinction of feeding partitive failed! 
 to the ground. 
 
 * Whereas it 19 replied that the famephrafe asufcd> 1 Pet. 5.1. feed 
 " the flocl^of Cjod amongsljou, taking the over fight thereof \ muft be under- 
 ,c derftood partitive, becaufe thofe beleivers and Elders to whom the 
 fc Apoftle Peter writes, were fcattered through Pontius, GaJatiayCapade- 
 " cia>*Afia, and Bithinia 3 \\hkh could not meet in one Congregation. 
 It is Anfwered. 
 
 Firft, that in this place of Peter there are no fuch words, whereby the 
 relation of the whole flock is equilly carried to all thofe Elders, as there 
 are m that fpeech of the Apoftle to the Elders of Ephefus, Acts 20. 28. 
 take heed to the whole fock^ over which (whole flock) the holy Ghoffi hath 
 made you overfeers. 
 
 Secondly in this 1 Pet. 5.1.4. there are words which plainly point 
 at fuch a diftribution, namely lv v$v [among youf\ applied both to the 
 
 Elders 
 
from the Church o/Ephcfus. $y 
 
 Hlder -s, and to the flockj. The Elders lv tfiv among yon, I exhort to feed 
 the flock e* vfU¥ t that is, each Elders feed jour flocks rcfpeclively where ere 
 thev are amongyou in each country : therefore though it be underftood 
 partitive inPetcr,yet it follows not it fliould be fo underftood,y?tf. 20.28 
 c And if it be (aid further, that although ruling and teaching beap- 
 " plied to the fame flock.the Elders need not be in both alike underftood 
 " partitive to performe their office : becaufe Elders when they rule do 
 gt it in confeffu, and all joyn in every ad ; but when they teach they do 
 « it feverally,each by himfelf, therefore where ruling and teaching are 
 "applyed to Elders as over one flock, as they are Alls 20. they may 
 11 well be fuppofed to do the one partitive, the other not. 
 
 Themfwer is, it is true, where Elders rule, they do it in collegio whe- 
 ther over more or few, and when they teach they do it feverally, but dill 
 both r tding and teaching are to be within the fame compajfe, in refpeel of 
 them who are ruled and taught : for when Elders rule one Congregati- 
 on in collegio, yet each of thefe Elders overfee and rule the whole flock as 
 truely as he can be faid by teaching to feed that whole flock. 
 
 As for the fecond and third propofitions, ' that there were many El- 
 %t ders over that people as one flocks, and one Church, and that they didgo- 
 " vern th&nc flock* The former propofition not being proved,they make 
 nothing to the proof of that conclufon, That the Scripture holds forth 
 that mAny Congregations may be under one Prefbyteriall government. 
 
 Tho. Goodwin, William Bridge y 
 
 Siefubfcribitir: Philip Nye, William Greenhill, 
 
 *}er. Burroughes, William Carter. 
 Sidrach Sympfon. 
 
 Concordat cum Criginali, 
 
 tAdemramByfield, Scriba, 
 
 M m 3 The 
 
8<5 The Anfwrr of the AflTembly of Divines unto the Reafortt $f 
 
 
 The Anfwerof the <tA{fcmbly of Divines, 
 
 unto the Reafom of the DifTenting Brethren, againft 
 the Instance of the Church of £phe[us. ' 
 
 OUr Argument for many Congregations under one Presbyteriall 
 Government, from the Instance of the Church of Ephefa, 
 confided of 3 . Propofitions. 
 
 i . That the multitude of beleevers there, did make more Congrega- 
 tions then one. 
 
 2. There were many Elders over thofe many Congregations as over 
 one flock. 
 
 3: Thofe feverall Congregations were one Church under one Presby- 
 teriall Government : 
 
 Of which our Brethren infift only upon the fir ft, which was proved 
 from * 
 
 1. "Pauls continuance and preaching for the fpace of three years, 
 Afts 20. 31. 19, 20.* 
 
 2. The fpeciall erfed: of the word there, that many that beleeved 
 came and confeffed their deeds • many alfo of them wmch ufed curi- 
 ous tslrts brought their bookes together 3 and burned them before all 
 men, and they counted the price ofthem 9 and found it to be 50000 pie- 
 ces of ft her : fo mightily grew the word of God and prevailed, 
 Arts 19. 18. 
 
 3. The mention made off ewes and Greeks ,A&s 1 9. 10. 17. 
 
 4. The reafon of Pauls ftay there, becaufe a great and erfe&uall door 
 was opened. 1 £or. 16.8,9. 
 
 5. Mention made of a particular Church in the houfe of Aquila and 
 Prifcilla , 1 Cor. 16. 19. who were then at Ephefus^ Ads 18. 19, 
 24. 16. 
 
 All which laid together, do prove the Propofition. 
 
 For the right underftanding of which proof, we defire that may be 
 confidered which our Brethren do not mention, but in the debate was 
 often expreffed, and therefore in the vote carefully added, viz. That all 
 theft hid together do prove, Zee. arguments of neceflity being anfwerable 
 to the thing they prove : and fo though the feverall particulars of this 
 
 proof, 
 
the difienting Br. agdinjl the Inftance of the Ch: o/Ephefus. 87 
 
 proof fhould be fingly but probabilities, yet being joyned together 
 make a fufficient proof, as many concurring likelihoods in courts a- 
 tnount to a good evidence, and many leflerftars make up a Galaxia: 
 our argument therefore may hold, though their anfwer ("while they 
 take it afunc'erj fhould feem to make the feverall particulars of it lefle 
 demonftrative : But how doe they endeavour that ? 
 
 « Firft, in a faire way of anfwer, they joyn divers of them together, 
 " the Apoftle being three years itEphefnific his having there a great and 
 *' effectual door opened,& that expre/Tion./<? might ilj grew the werd&c. 
 lC to all which they anfwer, by denying the confequence, that therefore 
 " the converts in Ephefus were more then could meet in one place, and 
 c< that for two reafons. 
 
 * 1. For fuppofe it be granted there were two or three thoufand 
 6 (though there is no fufficient ground to fay there were neere fo 
 "many) yet they might all meet in one place,and!this were enough 
 " to fhew, that there was a large and effectuall door opened to the 
 w Apoftlc,and a comfortable fruit of his fo long ftay and preaching 
 ■ there. 
 In our anfwer to which afTertions,we dial confidcr what they fay to the 
 number of believers there,& then how they could all meet in one place. 
 Astothefirft, thofe words of theirs, There is no fufficient ground to 
 fay there w*re neere fo many as two or three thoufand in our ordinary ufc 
 ofthephrafe, net xeerfo many, import, that in our Brethrens judge- 
 ments, the number fell far flhort of three, nay of two thoufand, which in 
 the generall , gives us jufl: occafion in the fpirit of meekeneffe to de- 
 fire them to be wary how they ufe fuch arguments, or without clear 
 evidence pitch upon fuch Tenents as force them to make ufe of them, 
 which as before in the Church offerufalem, fo here again in the Church 
 ofEphefa, do iaborioufly indeavour to Itraiten the number ofbclee- 
 vers, that they might get them all into one roome, fo as not to exceed 
 the bounds of one Congregation, which not oneiy at flrft blufh, but we 
 fear if more needy looked into , weakens the power of the Gofpel in 
 thofe firft moft powerfull difpenfations of it, andleiTeneththegood- 
 neffe of God in that his plentiful! redemptiomby labouring to make the 
 number of converts as few as pofllbly may be. Which the Scriptures 
 and both Ancient and Modern Chriftian Writers are wont frequectly 
 and (mdioufly to fet out to the full, and amplifie to the greater glory 
 of Chrift and his Gofpel, which we beleevc our Brethren will be very 
 tender of. 
 
 But to the particular in hand, we conceive that we have fufficient 
 ground to thinke that there were more then three, or at leaft two thou- 
 
 fand 
 
88 The Anfiver of the Aflcmbly of Divines, unto the Reafons of 
 
 fand beleevers in fyhefiu in Pauls time, (and much rather afterward 
 when Chrift by fohn writes to them in the Revelation,when yet but one 
 Church chap. 2. 1.) and that, had we no more for it,thcn what the three 
 particulars by them repeated,may rationally perfwade. 
 
 The laft of which, viz, that expreflion/3 mightily grew the Vcordof 
 GW,&c. they fay nothing to, and therefore it (lands for us ftill in its 
 ftrength, for any thing that is faid againft it. 
 
 The fecond, viz. That large and effeftuall door opened to him : 
 being an extraordinary exprefTIon, muft needs hold forth fomething 
 more then ordinary ,and therefore may reafonably make that great door 
 wide enough, to let in more then three or two thoufand. 
 
 But the firft is that which our Brethren molt inftft on,w;.the Apoftles 
 longitay & preaching there,& here,though whilft we coniider the worth 
 of one foul, we cannot but confefte that the converfion of two or three 
 thoufand were (as they trucly fay) a comfortMc fruit of it ; yet we can- 
 not fay or think it anfwerable to that abundant blefling, which God in 
 thatfirft plentifull harveft vouchfafed to the endeavours ofthofehis 
 chief labourers, who in the ftiort courfc of their miniftry were to con- 
 vert the world, efpccially of Paul y who durft arfirme of himfelf, that 
 he laboured more abundantly then they all, 1 fir. 15.10. and this the 
 rather, 
 
 1. If we compare?^// miniftry with Teeters, which h# himfelf at 
 lead equalleth in the fucceflfe of it, Gal, 2. 8. He that wrought effectually U 
 Peter to the Apoftlejhip of the circumcijr&n, the fame Vvas mighty in me to- 
 wards the Gentiles. Now then if Peter alone preaching ( as our brethren* 
 in their former Reafons conceived) or fay with the reft of the Apoftles, 
 did in one day bring in about three thoufand foules, AUs 2. 41. and day 
 by day, many more ver, 47. fo that within fome few dayes, the number 
 was grown up to Eve thoufand, or rather (as we have (hewn in our 
 former anfwer) was increafed by the acceffton of five thoufand more, 
 it is very probable that ^auls preaching with his afliftants, (for he had 
 fome or other ordinarily with him, Atl, 1 5.40. & 16. 3.) fo many dayes 
 and monthes as made up three years • thould within thatfpace bring 
 in n:ar (if not more then,) three, or at lcaft two thoufand. 
 
 2. If we compare his ftay, andconftant painesat EpheCw, with the 
 whole courfe of his own miniftry, for if in three years abode, and in- 
 ceffant preaching and warning night and day, and that withteares, 
 Ails 20. 31. (the like expreffion we findenot elfewhere ) he conver- 
 ted not near two thoufand foules, (as our Brethren thhke there is no 
 ground to fay,) then by the rule of proportion, his harveft among the 
 Gentiles in all the reft of his miniftry and life , will be far ihort of what 
 
 we 
 
the diverting Br. againftthe Inftance of the Ch: 0/EphcCus. 8p 
 
 we conceive the Arts of the Apoftlcs, and his own Epiftles do hold out, 
 and Divines have generally conceived of it. 
 
 3. If we (hall confidcr the happy fuccefle of Pauls miniftry in the 0- 
 thcr particular places, as that he wrought upon a great part of a whole 
 City at one fermon, Ach 13. 42. 44. on a great multitude of fewes 
 and Greeks at another, Afts 14. 1 . at another on fome of one fort, and 
 on a great mu'titude of another,and of a third not a fcw,Atts 17.4. and 
 the like we have Atts 1 8. 8. frow whence it will not be groundleflfe to 
 conceive that he might convert near two or three thoufand in three 
 years conftant courfe of a fettled miniftry in Ephefus, 
 
 4. If we confider what Sphefw was. 
 
 Firft an exceeding great city : the Metropolis and greatefl: Mart 
 town of all csf/ia, within T<*w/«, as we read in Strdo y & which he faith 
 was every day increafing,whcn he wrote that,which was abou: *30 years g 
 before Pauls being thereAnd therefore by that time grown much grea- In \{ x **' 
 ter^the very Temple oiuiana y that was in it, having a quarter of a mile ^iane of 
 round about it for an Afylum or Sanctuary, which muft needs make the TyXcriui, 
 compafTe of the whole city very great. as appears 
 
 Secondly, as populous as great : by reafon of the great and generall from , ^ e 
 concourfe of people thither, partly becaufeof Diana, whom all AJia, ot ~ h ^ 
 and the world worftripped, Atts 19. 27. and partly for traffick, it be- book : ' 
 ing by reafon of the convenience of its fcituation, the greatefl: Mart and Caftu- 
 town (as was before faid out of Strabo) not only of Afia the lefle, but boncc °n- 
 alfoofthchalfof Afia thegrcater. £™ h *- 
 
 Thirdly, more Superfluous and Idolatrous, then it was either great y ear sbe- 
 or populous, ic being the place where by reafon of Idolatry, forcery and fore To- 
 other fins that ufually accompanied them : fas its faidof Pergarxos, ™*his 
 Revel, 2. 13.) Satan had his feat, D>*na her Temple, which they were <lcatht 
 fo brutiflily mad upon, AEls 19. 1 fir. 15.32. 
 
 All which put together addc a great advantage to the fucccfTe of 
 the Apoftlcs miniftry there, it being better fifhing in fo wide a fea, and 
 though by reafon of the third particular, he might there finde many ad- 
 verfaries, yet he makes account that made not his door there ope- 
 ned any whit narrower, or lclfe, but rather more effeduall, it being the 
 end of Chrifts comming todiflblvethe workc of the Devil, 1 John 3.8. 
 and fo ufually having proved his greater glory, there moft to advance his 
 Scepter, where Satan hath had his higheft throne, and the mad pro- 
 phane Ephefian Idolater and Sorcerer not harder to be wrought upon, 
 then the malicious fewifb Pharifee & Iufticiary,nor did it lefle redound to 
 the glory of God, to redeem the one from Idolatry,then the other from 
 Ceremonies :fo that if in \emfdem in few dayes fo many thoufands were 
 
 N n gained 
 
<po The Anfwtr of the AfTembly of Divines^ unto the Reafons of 
 
 gained, there may be fome ground, (though our Brethren thinke not) to 
 fay that in fo many years there might at leaft neer two thou&nd be con* 
 verted in Sphefits* 
 
 And {houfd we delight in drawing parallels, as our Brethren did fo 
 their former Reafons between Acls 2. and Alls 5. we might here do it 
 between what is faid of Jerufalem and Sphfew. Its faid offemfa/em that 
 the word was preached there daily in the Temple, and from houfe to 
 houfe, Alls 5. 4'. fo at Ephefi/s Paul taught publikely and from houfe to 
 houfe. Acls 20. 20. The Apoftles at ferufakm fpake the word with 
 boldnefle, Ails 4. 31. fo its faid did TWat Ephcfus, Acts 19. ?-. and 
 Apollos, aActs 18. 26. ztferufalem, many wonders and fignes were 
 done by the Apoftles, Acts 2.43. and ^^5. 12. in fo much that 
 ver. 1 5 . even the Qiadow of Peter feemeth to have cured the fick, and 
 at Sphefm God wrought fpecial miracles, .fW;^ « ™> v *^, no ordi- 
 nary ones by the hand ofPaHl,Act. 1 9.1 1 , 1 2 A that from his body were 
 brought handkerchiefes and aprons, which did great miracles, and as 
 fome thinke,greater then Peters fhadow did : and if upon the one, great 
 multitudes were brought in, as its faid there were, Acls 5. 14. why 
 then not upon the other ? 
 
 And as thefe wonders ftruck fear upon the Church oSJcrufalent, and 
 upon them that heard of them, Acls 5. 11. fo alfo at Ephefm $ 
 Acl. 19. 17. 
 
 The extraordinary efFecrfe of the word at ferufkkm, was expreflfed by 
 extraordinary adts of believers, as in felling their goods, &c. Ads 2. 
 45 . Acls 5. 34. fo at Ephefus in confeffing their deeds, and openly bur- 
 ning their books, <>Acls 19* 18, 19. 
 
 In the Church ofjerufalcm its faid the word of God incrcafed,^rt>6. 
 7. and grew, Acts 12. 24* fo at Ephefus, Acls 19. 20. 
 
 So that iffemfatem and Sphcfus in ail tnefe particulars were parallel, 
 andifinbignefsequall, why fnouid we judge that in the number of 
 converts they ftiould be fo unproportionable, that when in the Scripture 
 we read that in one of them there were in two dayes brought home 
 at leaft five thoufand, our Brethren fhould think that there is no ground 
 to fay that in three years time of Pauls conftant inceffant preaching and 
 weeping, there were neere three or two thoufand converted in the 
 other* 
 
 5* If laftly we take notice of the fair way and great advance that 
 was made for the happier progrelTe of Pauls fettled miniftry in Ephefa s 
 by the foregoing labours of AqmLi and Apottos y both able and faithfull, 
 and the latter fet out to be very powerfull, and diligent, and earneft in 
 theworke; and this for fome longer time, to the bringing inofdifci- 
 
 ples 
 
the dif[envng¥>r. againfl the Infhnce of the Ch: ^Ephclus. $>i 
 
 pies of note with forraigne Churches, Acts 1 8. r 9. aJfaem, who whe- 
 ther they were but about the number of twelve, (as our Brethren after- 
 ward fay ) we (hall confidcr when we come to that place, and hope we 
 (hall make it appear to be otherwife ; mean while, comparing this fifth 
 particular with all the former, and taking in thofe firft fruits of Ephefm 
 before Vav.U fettled miniftry there, with the rich and plentifull harveft 
 of his three} ears after labours, we conceive (under favour) contrary 
 to whit our Brethren peremptorily aflerr, that there were ncertwo 
 or three thoufand believers in the Ci urch ot'Sphefiu. 
 
 2. "But they fuppofing there were no more, adde that fo many as 
 <{ two or three thoufand might all meet in one place. 
 
 We anfwer, but if there were more (as from what hath been faid 
 may be gathered) then we have more caule to fay they might not : no 
 not though they were but two or thae thoufa d. 
 
 Partly in regard of Ephefus, it being an heathenifh City, mad upon 
 their l\o\ Diana y and herworfhip, and therefore not likely either to 
 afllgne, or allow them a publike meeting place for the ordinary and 
 conihnt exercife of a contrary Religion. 
 
 And partly in regard of fome fpeciall duties of Church communion, 
 particularly of receiving theSacrament:efpecially if fitting at a table,(as 
 the manner then feemes to have been) which no roome in a private houfe 
 would have been large enough for. And if it be faid, that they met in the 
 fchooleof7>*w7wj, Acts 19. 9. which was a more publike place, and 
 might be capacious enough for fuch a number, in fuch a fervice : We an- 
 fwer, we cannot fay how large it was, nor can they prove that it was fo 
 large : but this we can fay, that we read not of the Difciples receiving 
 the~Sacrament, but only of Pauls difputing there ; that fchoole being of 
 that ufe then and there to Paul, which the Temple at Jerufalem was be- 
 fore to the other Apoftles, vi*k not the place of their felecl: Church 
 meeting for fuch ordinances, of which the Difciples wereonely parta- 
 kers, but where rhavirg indeed feparated from the^w, and left their 
 Synagogue)he difputed or reafoned (hhcy'^iv©-) with others as well as 
 Chriftians, sActs \9*9% io« 
 
 "2. Their fecond reafon of denying the confequence, isbecaufetMs 
 4C efficacy of the word preached by Paul, hath reference not ondy 
 ' c to EphtfnS) but alfo to all Afia> as they gather from the words of 
 C: Demetrius, zAtts 19. 26. and when Paul Ads 20. 5 1. faith r or 
 " the [pace of three years y he ceafedrnt to warne every one both <Uy and, 
 " night rrith tears:tht words are not to be reftrained to his being at 
 f< Ephefus, but to be underftood of his being in tAfia, as appears 
 * by verfi 8.ye know from the firft day that 1 came into A fa &c« 
 
 N n 2 1. We 
 
91 The Anftver of the Aflembly of Divines, unto the Reafons of 
 
 i. We readily grant that the efficacy of Pauls miniftry was not con- 
 fined to £phefus> but reached to all Afta 9 which we take tap, not upon 
 Demetrius his truft, Acts 19. 26. but from the holy Ghofts own words, 
 Acts 19. 10. Ephefits being the place of greateft refort from all quarters 
 both for traffique and the worfhip ofDlma : and fo the filling of Afia 
 with converts, was not fo much by "Pauls going abroad out of Ephefus, 
 as by thofe multitudes flocking thither, and hearing him at Ephefits; 
 whence we may infer two things to cur purpofe from this i Stance of 
 Ephefits, as we did in our anfwers to their former reafons, from that of 
 Jerufalem. 
 
 1. That many comming from all quarters, and being converted by 
 hearing 'TWin Sphefits, its very likely that diverfe of them might 
 change their habitations, and come and fit down at Ephe/us by the 
 Apoftles conftant miniftry there,and fo adde to the increafe of that 
 Church. 
 
 2. That if his doclrine filled all Afia 9 t\\cn much more proportionably 
 it filled Ephefits, where it was conftantly by the Apoftle himfelf 
 preached,and from whence it fpred into other parts abroad. 
 
 2. Whereas they fay this efficacy of the word, hath reference not on- 
 ly to Ephefits, but alfo to all esf/ta : we anfwer, that this efficacy, name- 
 ly that which we proved out of Acts 19. 1 8, 19, 20. in thofe many con- 
 verts confefling their deeds, and burning their bookes, fo mightily grew 
 the word, &c. doth fo plainly and -clearly relate to Ephefits where the 
 thing was done, that it needeth no other proof then the very looking 
 on the Text. 
 
 3. For that fpeech of Demetrius, Acts 19. 26. as we did not cite it, fo 
 need we not much to heed it, he would be fure out of his malice to take 
 in, and fnatch at all he could, ad invidiam & edium exaggerandttm : 
 and what though the efficacy of Pauls doctrine reached all Afia, as De- 
 metrius fpeech (which they alledge) afferts : doth that hinder it to have 
 a more fpeciall efficacy in Ephefits, which our proof plainly manifefts ? 
 they being two diftinfr things, and their allegation not crofTing,but con- 
 firming ours : if the efficacy of Pauls miniftry was fo great in all Afia, 
 as they truly affirme, then was it much greater in Ephefits as we inferred 
 upon the grounds before mentioned. 
 
 4. For that of Acts 20. 3 1. by us alleadged for Pauls three years a- 
 boade and preaching at Ephefit< y \\hkh they fay,muft not be reftrained to 
 £pbef»f y b\x intended to Afia, which they prove ftomverfii 8. we fay, 
 
 1. Tnat in Acts 19. 8, 9, 1 o. there feemes to be expreflfc mention of 
 his aboad at Ephefits for two years, and three moneths, which is a great 
 pirt of the three years, nor is it unlikely but the buiineiTe in that chapter 
 
 further 
 
the diffcming Br. dgainft the Inftance oftheCh: ^/Ephefus. p j 
 further related, might help well to make up the reft, or fhould we take 
 in (as fome do) that paflage of his through the upper coafts, *Atts ip.i. 
 before his fiift comming to £phe, w,within the ccmpafs of thofe 3 years, 
 and grant alfo that whilft he remained vtEpbefa ht looked fometimes a- 
 broad,(though thacwe read not of)yet no conftant aboad,r.or any longer 
 ftay of his do we find any where clie for that time, which fhould it fall 
 fhort of fome weekcs,or two or three montths of three ) ears,} et Retttn- 
 datio mmeri is no ftranger in Scriptui c accounts, & its futficient for the 
 purpofe which we brought it for:nameIy,to fliew that his fo long aboad 
 at Ephefns, and his conftant inftant preaching there with tears, might in 
 all likelihood convert more then could for all ads of woriliip be but 
 one Congregation, to meet in one place. 
 
 2. For that which is urged fiomverf. iS. from them ft day that I 
 came into AJia, &c. we fay, true indeed the prccife firfl: day that he 
 came into Afia,ht might not come to Ephefm> as Acts 1 9. 1. yet 
 
 Firft,that phrafe*Vo ^urm iptfrt from the firft day, by an HeLrmfme> 
 may be very well taken in fome latitude, and put for the beginning of 
 his acceffe into thofe parts, as if he had faid, from my firft comming in- 
 to Afiajn a manner , I have beene with you all the while. 
 
 Secondly, this makes more for our purpofe, that he tels the Slders of 
 JEphefiiSythtt he had been fo conftant ly with them,that in a manner from 
 the firft day of his commiug into Ajia, he had not been abfent from 
 them, fo that the more that our Brethren ftand to the precife flrft day 
 of bis comming into asffia, the more they gratifie us, thereby allowing, 
 him the more time for his being at Ephefm , which we plead for. 
 
 Thirdly, but in cafe it be objected that this folio weth not, becaufe 
 our Brethren here exprefly arBrme that the Apoftles meaning is ofAJi*, 
 and not onely of Ephe/us y and fo his fpcech is directed to the Elders of 
 all AJia, and not of Ephefus onely : we confeiTe that in our anfwers to 
 their former reafons, we laid that fome fo thought, but did never thinke 
 that our Brethren would 3 which becaufe here they do, they will give us 
 leave to remind them, that in their former anfwers they were of a con- 
 trary judgement, that they were the Elders of the Church of Ephefus- 
 only, and that which was included in ihe bounds of one only Congre- 
 gation. But if now they ht the Eiders not only of Sphefus, butalfo of 
 AJi a ythdx he fpeaks top erf. \ 8. and in verfi-j.wt have them expreiTed,by 
 •srfsfrjSi/TifB* f tKKknritu, Eiders of the Church in the lingular number, then 
 upon this fuppofition we have heie found an Afian Nationall Church, 
 and a further proof of the propofltion we are upon,thatvcry many par- 
 ticular Congregations may be under one Presfyteriati Government. 
 
 But having thus far in their Anfwer more fairly put three of our Ar- 
 
 Nnj gumcnt* 
 
94 The Anfvorr of the Aflembly of Divines unto the Reafom of 
 
 guments together, in what follows, they otherwife then we intended, 
 
 take the reftTafunder, and here (ingle out that, out of Acts iq. 18,1*, 20* 
 
 and pitch only upon the price of the bookes : co which they anfvver, 
 
 "That according to (falvins account, the 50000 pieces offilvera- 
 
 c mount but to 9000.L French) which is about 670. 1, fterling at 
 
 "18. d. the Franke according to the Bezea , but to 8700. 1. 
 
 c< French, and according to Brerewood (who efti mates every &fyv$up 
 
 cc at7»d.ob.)but to i4o6.1.which fomc one mans ftudy now of com- 
 
 "mon bookes, and not manufcripts (as they were,) is worth, 
 
 cc & therefore then, when there was no Printings few mens books, 
 
 <c yea, a few books of fo curious and gainfull Arts, might well be 
 
 u worth that money, and then how doth this argue fuch a multi- 
 
 Cf tude of beleevers as could not meet in one Congregation t 
 
 To which we reply, and complain herein of a double wrong, that not 
 
 only this whole proof from Acts ip.i8,ip,2o.that it may be the eafilier 
 
 broken is pluck'c as a (ingle arrow out of the (heafe, whereas we had 
 
 bound it up with the reft it had more ftrength, but alfo that whereas 
 
 there were four things in it argumentative to our purpofe, all which wc 
 
 looked at, our 'Brethren pitch onely upon this third of them, which 
 
 we lead of all regarded. 
 
 1. Thefiiftwas, that many of feverall forts of perfons are there ex- 
 preffed, many that beleeved came and confefed 9 verf 18. and againe, 
 many of them that ufed curious Arts, brought their bookes, tec* verf 19. 
 which words feeme to cfcftribute the beleevers there into three ranks .• 
 1. Such as had ufed curious Arts,and there were faun furficient ftore of 
 them. 2. Other beleevers that came and confeflfed their deeds, and 
 there were tom©/ many more of them : and 3. They imply that there 
 were other Eifciples that did beleeve, but did not then come, for 'tis 
 faidthat^aMwr-Ts^^^oT^, many of them that beleeved came, which 
 argues they were other beleevers, that did not, which might be a grea. 
 ter number. 4 
 
 But all three forts put together, might make a number fo great as 
 may be considerable to our prefent purpofe. 
 
 2. The fecoftd thing we looked at in that place,was their bringing of 
 their books and burning them before all men, which as Mr. fartyoright 
 obferves they durft not have done, had they not been, if not the major 
 part, yet fuch a furrkient number, which might even in that populous 
 City have carried out that action, which cou d not but by the oppo- 
 flte party be deeply diftaftcd. In Queen Muries time a fmall number 
 of Protectants durft not have burnt their Mafs-books in Cheapjtde ; it 
 was when Lnthers Doctrine began generally to be received, that he 
 burnt the Popes Decretals in Wittenberg* 3 .The 
 
the differing Br. agdhjl the Inftancc of the Ch: of Ephcfus. $ 5 
 
 3. The third thing wis the price of the books burnt, amounting to 
 50000 pieces of filver, which becaufe we found in the Text , we fit 
 down in our proof, but did very litde infift upon in our debate, and yet 
 this only our Brethren pitch upon in their anfwer,as hoping to overthrow 
 our argument in wounding of it.in what they conceive to be the weakeft 
 part of it. But we have feen the ftrcngth of what they fay againft it. In 
 our reply whereto , we fhall not need to trouble the Honourable 
 Houfes nor our felves, either in calling our Brethren to account for 
 calling up 0000. 1. French to about 670. 1. flerling, at 1 8."d. the Frank, 
 which if it be 2.5. the Frank, (zs fome fay) will amount to oocJ. fterling, 
 or againe for carting up 5000 pieces of 7.d.ob.the piece to about 1406.I. 
 ivhich comes to 1 562.!.io.s.or in examining Covins or Bezaes or Brerc- 
 vpoods account, though the laft of the three in the fame place cited ac- 
 knowledged a kuflex Argenteum Hebr: OWat. 27. 1 5. and that he ac- 
 knowledgeth,2.s.6.d. Gr&cnm, which he rates at 7. d. ok and though he 
 pitcheth upon the latter, as meant in this place, yet we want a cogent 
 argument to evince it ; for though the thing were done in Epbefa, 
 where they would reckon it according to their coyne : yet what hin- 
 ders, but that while Luke relates it, he might exprefle it according to 
 the coyne of his owne Country, as an Engliftj man writing of what was 
 fold in the Low-countries for fo many rtivers, or dollars, according 
 to our Englifb coyne, may fay it was fold for fo many (proportionably) 
 pence or ihil lings ? And if fo here and the Urgent ettm Hebr turn be 
 meant, and that were of the value before mentioned, thefe 50000 111- 
 verings will amount to 6250. 1. fterling, which would help well'tofur- 
 nifh many of our fludies : and fure there are not now, when the 
 world is fo full of bookes , many particular men, who have 
 in their greateil: overgrown Libraries, bookes of that value, being all of 
 the fame art or faculty as thefe were, efpecially of fuch a kind of ftudy 
 as this was, which indeed was curious, and it may be gainfuil as our 
 Brethren fay : but fuch as either few ftudied, and fo they had few chap- 
 men for their bookes, and fo their price was lefle, or if many did as the 
 Text implies ( the e$4g»* yeJw* T * being then famous ) then there was 
 more ftore of them, and fo they were not fuch rarities as our Manu- 
 fcripts now are, which raifeth their price amongft us. But as we will not 
 fay, how much fuch ftuffe,as they were,was well worth, as our Brethren* 
 words are, focan neither they nor we tell what was the rate of their 
 written bookes then, that the bookes were not few, (as our ^Brethren 
 feem to thinke they might be) the Text implies, but that the men were 
 many (which is the thing that we moil: (tand upon J it plainly exprefleth, 
 and this price of the books help's to prove both^inleiTe our Brethren can 
 
 (hew 
 
?5 The Anfmr of the Aflembly of Divines^ unto the Reafons of 
 
 ihew that the bookes were great volumes, and that of many and 
 feverall Arguments aud Authors : For fhould they be but fmall books, 
 there muft be many of them that (hould arife to fuch afumme. They 
 would be very many Primers or Grammars that would amount to 
 6250. 1. or till it be but to their 1406. I. and (hould they not be many, 
 but moft 'what the fame Authors and Arguments (as generally all Stu- 
 dents in a fcience, have the fame principall and fundamentall books of 
 it) then many books would argue many owners, and fo many books 
 that fhould amount to fuch a fumme, would prove very many practiti- 
 oners, whom if you confider either as learned, many of which are not 
 called 1 Cor. 1. or as deeply ingagcd in Satans depths a.id myfteries,and 
 fo lefle hope of their learning to know Jefus Chrift,ycu mult needs con- 
 clude, that if fo many of them, then very many more of other forts & 
 ranks, in that populous City were converted unto Chrift, that might 
 fill more then one Congregation, and this particular, how ever our 
 Brethren feemeto undervalue, yet the holy Ghoft pleafeth to fct an 
 efpeciall marke on it, in his Epiphonematical acclamation, which there- 
 upon he makes, ver. 20. 
 
 4. Which is the 4»branch of this proofe that we infifted on, fo migh* 
 tilj grew the word of God and prevailed, which plainly fhcwcth , that the 
 holy Ghoft fumraed not up the value of thofe ungodly books onely, to 
 (hew the dearneffe of them , but the multitude alfo of thofe that had 
 burnt them. Forhadhefaid onely that the Word of God prevailed 
 •%ftr» it might have related to the great power it had to make thofc 
 men willingly to put themfelves to fo great a lofle, and fo the fewer the 
 men had been, their lode had been the greater, and the Word had pre- 
 vailed with them the more : but there is added alfo the wZan, the 
 vrordofGodincreafed, which Calvin faith, relates to the number of the 
 men that had done that thing, and which in thofe two other AEl. 6. 7. 
 and AB. 12. 24. (where alone this kind of fpeech is ufed) exprcflfeth the 
 great increafe of multitudes of believers, as we (hewed inouranfwers 
 to our Brethers former Reafons. 
 
 To our inftance of a particular Church in Aquilai houfe, our Brethren 
 Anfwer, 
 
 u 1 . That is not neceflary to be meant of a Congregation,fuch as the 
 " proportion intends, but of a Family Church, as moft of our Di- 
 *• vines fay. 
 
 1. For the judgement of Divines,though divers think as our Brethren 
 fay ; yet many are of another minde : Bnllinger and Srafmns on Rom.6. 
 1 5. read it, the Congregation in their houfe. Lyra fo expounds it, on 
 which place Gualther thus, Ecclefiam habnerunt dQmefikam^ue.domtim 
 
 {mm 
 
the differing Br. againjl the Inftance of the Ch: o/Ephefus. Sp 
 
 fuam Ecclefa Confecrarmt ut in ea haberentnr facri ccctm : And Oecumc- So Oecumc- 
 w«*,though he alleadge both interpretations,and fo doth Deodateyct he n ' m cx ~ 
 fets this in the firft place,and for i £V.itf.ip.the interlineary glofs hath f^^ 5 ^ 
 Congregatiwe fratrum. And though "Beza would have it understood of V #^_ ° 
 a Family, yet both he and Deodate note on this place,that in one and the phot. Col, 
 fame City there were moreAflemblies or Congregations of the faithful 4. l 1» 
 then one. 7 J et. CMartjr on Rom,\6, and 1 Cor. 16. faith, the words may 
 fuflfer a double exposition, either of a Congregation, or of their own fa- 
 mily ; but he faith the former is more probable : And fo doth M. Mede, 
 which I underftand not to be fpoken of their families, but of the con- 
 gregation of the Saints there wont to aflemble for the performance of 
 divine duties $ <rvvz$%/s&Lu y&r olaov dv^S i*,>a.t)<ri*r» 
 
 2. For reafons which may perfwade us to continue ftill in this our 
 judgement, we have thefe. 
 
 1. We find the fame w o~d before, fo ufed in the fame vcrfe, the Apo- 
 ftleinthe beginning of it had faid, the Churches of Afia filiate j oh , and 
 after addes the Church in Aquila, and Trifcillas houfe, as one of that 
 number, and of note, for forwardnetfe and love to the Saints, and if 
 theftoryof^frr 1 8. be well confidered, their opinion will be proba- 
 ble, who make it the firft Church that Vvat in Ephefus. 
 
 2+ We flnde not elfewhere in Scripture, the name of a Church given 
 to a Family: But on the contrary in that very Chapter, where the A- 
 poftle meaneth the perfons of any ones Family,he ufeth another phrafe, 
 as TQMMyverf. 1 5. not i.KKMaidw , and Rom, 16. 10. 1 1.7*\? ex.-^ and 
 7&j <pjv ojjtoTs, verfe 14. and the like. 
 
 3. The Church in their houfe is diftinguifhed from themfelves, fo 
 that it muft then be meant of their Children or Servants, or fome 
 Grangers' that lodged in their houfe, but thefe to be fo faluted, and as a 
 Church, feemes no way probable. 
 
 4. This of having a Church in their houfe, is only fpoken of three. 
 Of NjmphasjCol, 4. 1 5 . of Philemon, T hi/em. 1. 2. and of AcjuiU and 
 Prijcil/a, Rom, 1 6. 4,5. 1 Cor* 16. 1 p. But (hall we think, that in thofe 
 prolix Catalogues offalutations, none had Chriftian Families but thefe 
 three that are thus remembred ? No I We read befides, of them of the 
 houfhold of Ariftobulm i Rom.i6*\Q. and Narcijfus y ver* 1 1. and of them 
 that were withA/yncretHSyPhlegon^HermaSyPatrtba* £cHermes,v.i4. and 
 of the houfhold of Onefiphorus y 2 T/w. 4. 19. and yet no mention of 
 Churches in their houfes, which expreffion therefore, mult not hold out 
 a godly Family, which was common to many, but fome fpeciall thing 
 peculiar to them, to whom it is applved. And what fhoulJ this be, but 
 what we now plead for? Namely, a Congregationall Church ufed to 
 
 Oo mccc 
 
^o The Anfxver of the Aflcmbly of Divines^ unto the Reafons of 
 
 meet in asfcjHilas and PrifclHas houfe. 
 
 5 . Which agreeth well with their qualin*cations,the man being a Prea- 
 cher,and both Pauls helpers in CW\%Rom. 1 6.g.& inftruclers of A folios, 
 Att.1%.16. in the fore-rank of Beleevers , and therefore in their hottfe 
 rather then anothers might be the meeting of the Difciples. 
 
 6. The phrafe alfo &7 C W is the fame with that 4&, 2. 46. which 
 (peakes of a Congregationall meeting, and that word is in all the foure 
 places. 
 
 7. This expofition alfo agreeth with other places, where we finde 
 Church meetings in private houfes, becaufe of the perfccution ofthofe 
 times, Aft. 1 2.1 2. 20. 8. 19. 9. 28. 23. but we paffe over this,and come 
 to their fecond Anfwer,it is, 
 
 2 "Suppofe it were a Congregation, yet it doth not appear that 
 " the Church in Aqullas houfe was at Ephefus, but in <>Afia : we reade, 
 " that <tAquiU and Prifrilla travelled with Paul to Ephcfm, and were 
 * left therejtiot that their Church was there,for themfe Ives might travel, 
 * l where their Church travelled not with them. 
 
 i» We hope our Brethren doe not intend to deny Ephefw to be in 
 AJia, (as their words feeme to imply) when they fay that it appears 
 not, that the Church in Aqutlat houfe was at Ephefiu ,but in AJia ; nay, 
 if in Ephefus ,then in AJia, but if they mean in fome other place in AJia, 
 we fay, 
 
 2,, It no where in Scripture appeares, that Aquila feated himfelfe in 
 any other place of zAfia, but in Epkefus ; or that the Church in his 
 houfe, was any where in AJia, if not in Ephefm. 
 
 3. We may net fuppofe that they, and their Church parted without 
 
 great Caufes ; now we read not of any fuch particular caufe, why they 
 
 fhould part, or that defatio they did ; at Rome we finde them*ogether, 
 
 Rem. 16. 45. and at Corinth, as it may feeme from their acquaintance 
 
 with the Church o£Cormtb,zs appears from the falutation,! Cor. 1 6*19. 
 
 which place doth more clearely prove that they were together at Epbt- 
 
 fus alfo, for thence it appeares they were at that place, from whence the 
 
 Apoftle wrote that Epiftle, which though the fpurious Poft-fcript faith 
 
 was from Pbillppi,ytt both the Syriack and ArabickTranflatours,0ft-#- 
 
 mtnim, and generally, both Proteftant and Popifh Writers agree, that 
 
 dm* The' lt was fr° m Epbefi**> an d prove it from 1 Cor. 16. 5. 8. with zAB. to. 
 
 nmdike 2i>22. andbydiverfe other arguments there, then both <v^#//<*and 
 
 Cudmrtb,. his houfhould, and the Church in his houfe were, and Paul with them 
 
 anX Barcni- as fojouming, if we give credence to the addition that we meet with 
 
 pidc ere a m Anbrofe, apnd cjuos hoJpiter 9 and which Bc*a faith, he found in fome 
 
 ^ ; c ' ancient Latine Copies* 
 
 But 
 
the diffenting Br. againjt the Infhnce of the Ch: t>/Ephefus. 91 
 
 But our Brethren as it ieemeth, not much trufting to thefe two 
 firft allegations, paffcon toth-tt, which they fay, is the Anfwer : and 
 what is that ? 
 
 * 3. Grant they were a Church, and at Ephefus ; yet the Anfiver is, 
 ''they wereftrangers that were driven from Rome by Claudius, 
 " Abl.i S.i.with Rom.\6. ;,4 & therefore kept themfelves a diftind: 
 u Church from the EpheCans, as the Dutch in England, who chufe 
 
 * rather to joyne with their owne Country people, whofe dvvcl- 
 
 * lings are more remote, then with thofe of another Nation nearer 
 
 * to them. And if the difference of their language may argue diffe- 
 rent Congregations, and that they could not joyne in one, 
 " (as is alleadged) it will argue as ftrongly, that this Church and 
 ,c the other Congregation at Ephefus could not be under one Prcf- 
 M byteriall Government : and ordinary officers had not ordinarily 
 " the gift of feverall tongues, 1 fir. 1 2. 8, 9. to one is given.&c. 
 
 But Th e Anfwer perhaps may prove none : for 
 
 1. Not to infift on that (which yet we cannot but take notice of) viz. 
 That by what they here fay they make account that *Aquila and Pri- 
 fiilla^nd the Church in their houfe,being firft at Rome^om.i6^ y 5. and 
 expelled thence be the edicl: of Claudius, came to £phefus y ix\& were then 
 that Church mentioned, 1 Cor. 16*19. which is a foule miftake in Cro- 
 nologie,that firft Epift. to the Corinthiansjhovigh fet after in our Bibles, 
 being written before that to the Romans, and fo that Church of theirs 
 then at Ephefus, when mentioned 1 Cor* itf. was before that being of 
 it at Rome, mentioned Rom.iti* 
 
 2. There is no likelihood that AquiU and PrifcilU, though Gran- 
 gers , would yet eftrange and withdraw themfelves to a peculiar 
 Church diflfevered from the Presbyterie by the Apoftles there fetled t 
 their Chriftian wifedome, charity,and zeale for the promoting of Gods 
 glory, and their owne and others good, would not fuffer them to with- 
 draw themfelves from that communion of Saints, and rob themfelves 
 offuch ablefled advantage and opportunity, efpecially the partition 
 Wall between ??W and Gentile being known now to be broken down, 
 which the Apoftle fpeakes fo rully to in hkEpiltle to thefe Ephefans. And 
 therefore for lome reafons,they might be a diftincT Congregation,w! i h 
 our argument afferts : yet for thcie rcafons they w< u!d not be fuch 
 adiftind Church, as to fever themfelves from fc ulcfuil an alTociation 
 in a joynt Government. 
 
 3. There was not the like levering themfelves from the Church in 
 Ephefus, as is and hath been from the Trench and Dutch Churches, kee- 
 pi g themfelves diftmtt from the Englifi, namely, difference of Church- 
 
 O 2 govern- 
 
91 The Anfeer of the Aflembly of Divines un$o the Reafons of 
 government, which was the fpeciall caufe of their earneft renitency, 
 when the Bifliops ftrong hand would have violently bowed them 
 to it. 
 
 4. The difference of language, we {hewed might be an argument for 
 feverall Congregations in the inftance of the Church of Jerufalem, be- 
 caufe the fewes language was not in fuch common life, and yet not fo 
 even there, but that they might well be under one Prejbjreriaii Govern- 
 ment, as appears from our Anfvver to our Brethrens fiiit Reafons, where 
 this part of their argument is anfwered, to which we refer. 
 
 But it was not alleadged by us here in this inftance of the Church of 
 Ephefa, the Greek tongue being then of more common ufe, and the 
 fewes that lived among the Gentiles u iderftanding their language, as our 
 Brethren themfelves tell us in their next and lail Anfwer , which is 
 this, 
 
 " As for fewes and Greeks being menti oned, it makes nothing to the 
 " number, nor yet that for difference of language there muft needs 
 81 be more Congregations then one: For the fewes that lived a- 
 u moEg the gentiles, underftood their language, elfe they would 
 €t make fo many Independent Congregations. 
 
 I . As to that firft claufe,whercin they fay, the mentioning offers and 
 Creeks makes nothing to the number: we fay, yesfure, we doubt not 
 but our Brethren will grant us it maketh fomethinr, if they confider 
 
 1. That in both the verfes cited, ABs 19. 1 o, 17. there is an £A l l] 
 mentioned, All J ewes and Greeks, and we hope that all is fomething 
 to the number. 
 
 2. That there is an addition of one A l l to the other,of Greeks t»> f e ws 
 mdLviv IaAaj/? Ti *5 f/ EM«<77,the bare adding of Greeks to Jews fpeakesan 
 addition of number, & when the holy Gholt joynes them with a n &}, 
 he tels us.he would have us take notice of it,that he intends an addition 
 of Greeks to ^eVeesto increafe the number, and when there is an addi- 
 tion of an A l l of the one, to an A l l of the other ; (which was very 
 great in fo large & populous a city)fuch a great increafe,as(at leaft joyned 
 with other proofs) may make fomething for our purpofe, even to make 
 up more then one fingle Congregation. Paul for certain intended to ex- 
 preffe fome inlargement of the number of them to whom he was a deb- 
 tor, when he faid he was debtor ''e^jkt/ ti ^) B*f £*'#/< , vofots n >&l 
 avtoWoif) in the fame phrafe ifow. 1. 14* and of that All ofbeleevers> 
 when he faid theGofpel was the power ofGod to falvation,^.^! -rtj *»- 
 sivQVTi, iMiu Ti i&l "EtfJjjJt, ni the lame word verf. i<5. it would be ta- 
 ken to make much for the increafe of the number, if when we had faid 
 iW Engtifb men fhould take the Covenant 3 we fliould adde, all EngUJh 
 
 mcD 
 
the dijfenting Br. againft the Tnftancc of the Ch: o/Ephcfus. 93 
 
 men and Scotch men alfo, and this was all that we meant, by producing 
 the mention of all both JeW'es and Greeks* 
 
 2. For as for that which in the feco^d claufc our Brethren adde, as 
 though we here meant, t kit for dfference oj 7 the language o c 'J ewes and 
 Greeks there mufi nee Is be more Congregation's then one> we again fay, it 
 was alledgcd by us to that purpofe before, m the Inftance of the Church 
 of Jerusalem, but not in this of the Church of Ephefut for thereafon 
 aforelaid, and therefore this part of their anhver, is to a fuppofition of 
 their own, but to no argument of ours now in hand. 
 
 3. A r»d therefore that Reafon which they adde , Tor the Jews that 
 lived among the Gentiles underftood their language : confutes nothing 
 that we faid, but ferves to anfwer to what they themfelves objected a 
 little before in their third anfwer, and to clear this truth, that though, 
 AqmU and PrifciSa were Grangers, and of a different language, and fo 
 might be in a diftincl: Congregation, yet this difference of their lan- 
 guage from that of Ephefas, feeing they underftood it, could be no 
 hindcrance, but that they with the reft of the E pheftan bekevers, might 
 well be under one and the fame Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 4 Though for that which they adde in the clofe, that unlejfe they uru 
 der flood their language, they would have made fo many Independent Qongre- 
 gations y we might juftly deny the confequence : for though upon that 
 ground of different language they might well make feveral diftincl Con- 
 gregations,yet it followeth not, that therefore they (hould be Indepen- 
 dent ones,but notwithftanding it might be under one common Ecclefia- 
 ftical government as fuppofe the Welch fhould not generally underftand 
 our Sngtifi, yet they might.be (as they are) under the fame civil govern- 
 ment with us: all of Aquila and VrifcilUs Church might not under- 
 ftand the Epheftan language, and fo it might be neceflary they fhould be 
 preached to in a diftincl: Congregation, by fuch of their owne whofe 
 language all might underftand, whereas fo many only as might joyne 
 with the reft of the common Presbytery in point of common Govern- 
 ment, had need to have underftood the Sphefan language : nay two men 
 may be fit to joyne in a common Government, though they do neither 
 of them underftand one anothers native fpeech y if they did both under- 
 ftand a third lancua^e. 
 
 Our Brethren having thus indeavoured toAnfwer our argument from 
 this Iaftance of the Church of Ephefus , for the proposition that there 
 were more beleevers there, then did make one Congregacion : in the 
 next place, they bring their arguments againft it. 
 t " The firft whereof is this : They fay it is apparent that the number of 
 
 O03 "be- 
 
P4 The Anfvotr of the Aflembly of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 
 <f beleevers there, when Paul came firft to Ephefus, was but about 
 * 1 2. Atls i p. 7. All the men Were about twelve, 
 
 1 . Its an apparent mi fake of our Brethren to fay, that it was Tauls firft 
 comming to SphefusjN&en he met with thofe 1 2 men mentioned^:?. 1 p. 
 7. if they had but minded the foregoing Chapter, Acts 18. ip, 20, 21. 
 they might have found him there, and departed thence, before this 
 his after comming and return thither,mentioned in this ip. Chap. 
 
 2. It is apparent that all men there particularly fpoken of, were not 
 above 12. but it is nothing leflfe then apparent that there were then no 
 more Difciples at Ephefus, but the contrary rather is apparent. 
 
 1. From what we read verf 1. that Taul found there n^ ixaSnldf, 
 not^*9»T*f, Difciples indefinitely, or the Difciples that were 
 there, as we have that phrafe s Acts 21.4. but nvA ulcl^ta^ certain 
 Difciples by way of diftinclion from the reft (for nvh & v&vnt are 
 not termini convertib'iles) as either being the firft that upon his com- 
 ming thither he met with, or that after he had this fpeciall 
 intercourfe with the fiory whereof is there related, fome cer- 
 taine fpeciall Difciples that were of that judgement and way , 
 which would argue rather that there were fome of another , 
 at leaft doth not argue there were not any befides, no 
 more then if it fhould be faid that one in Queen CMaries 
 daies comming to Frankeford found ma,<> fome that ftood for 
 the book of Common Prayer, it would be thence concluded that 
 
 all there were of that judgement. 
 
 2. From that great fpace of time, which came between Pauls firft be- 
 ing at Ephefus, Chap. 1 8. and this finding of thofe 1 2 at his fecond 
 comming in the ip Chap, and the meanes of converfion and falva- 
 tion, which they in joyed in that interim. In that time Taul goes 
 from Sphefus to Cefarea,znd fo from one place to another in order, 
 (lengthening theDifciples,/^M S.i2,2?.and after through the up- 
 per coafts,/to.i p. 1. which journics &his ftaies in fome of tie places 
 mentioned, would take up fome longer time, & in that time, Aqui- 
 
 A&. 18. I* an< * Prijdlla were at Ephefus and there not idle, as appears from 
 
 18,19. ' what they did to Apollo< % who aifo came thither in that time, that 
 
 eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, w.o bci g infti ucted 
 in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in the Spiur, taught dili- 
 gently the things of the Lord, and this as may fecme to the Difci- 
 ples in the ir Church meetings verf. 2~. and being aided after as a 
 diilincl thing verf if. that he began t$ freak^bolMj i i the Syiagogue t 
 now what a poor harveft would it have been onely to have gleaned 
 up but 12 raw ignorant Difciples by the paiues of fuch faithful I 
 
 and 
 
the diverting Bi\ agdinft the Inftance of the Ch: <?/Ephefu$. $5 
 
 and earned labourers folong continued inthefe growing times, 
 wherein the word had another kinde of fuccefle then now it hath 
 ufually. And yet even in our dayes, meaner men or women then 
 Apollo, Aquila, 'and Prifcilla, if they beftir themfelves as they did, 
 in a lefle time can tell how to gaine more then above twelve fol- 
 lowers. 
 3. Anfwerably in the third place this appcares from the fuccefle that 
 Aqnilas and Apollos labours had in that interim, for ^Acts 1 8. 27. 
 we read that there were Brethren fo confiderable, that when ApoL 
 loswas difpofedtogoe to Achaia, they were able to commend 
 him to the Difciples there, exhorting them to receive him, Act.18. 
 27. with authority : fo few and ignorant Difciples, were not likely 
 to rife up with the Corinthians in zAchaia, who vverefo enriched 
 with all utterance and knowledge, 1 Cor. 1.5. 
 
 4, Thefe 1 2. were raw and ignorant, Act. 19.2. and onely inflnifted 
 in fehns Baptifme,v.^. as Apollos was, when he firfl came to Ephefus. 
 Act. 1 8. 25. But Aquila and Prifcilla better inftrutted n\m 9 ver.z6. 
 and fo certainly would they have done thefe twelve alfo, if they 
 had been of their Congregation ; fo that they could not be all the 
 Difciples that were there, there was zAquila and his Church be- 
 fide, of which fome conceive thofe Brethren, Act. 18. 27. were, 
 But Calvin is confident they were not thefe twelve. 
 
 5. He alfo conceives, they might bcfpeciall'men, and fuchasZV^ 
 conceives were made Oirlcers there, which way that paiTage, «*tt 6. 
 of Pauls impofing of hands on them, and their, thereupon fpeaking 
 with tongues and Prophefying feemeth fomething to prop.nd. 
 Now if fo,it wil be no found reafoning of ourBrethren,that becaufe 
 there were about twelve, whom the Apoftle ordained for Oirlcers, 
 that therefore there fhould be no more Difciples. 
 
 3. But grant there had been but about twelve then, yet becaufe then, 
 am handful! of corne on the top of the mountaine was fo mightily to in- 
 creafc, as after, to (hake like Lebanon, Pfat.j2.\6. there might foone be 
 more, then to take up one onely Congregation, before Johns writing 
 his Re?elation, which was fo many yceres after,and yet then Ephefus but 
 one Church, Rev.2.1. Nay in Pauls time, after his own three ycers mi- 
 niftry there, as was before {hewed, together with the alliitance of di- 
 vers others his fellow-labourers there in this work , (which was the Af- 
 fcmblies fecond proofe, but our Brethren touch it not) as Lnki, who 
 was with Paul in all thefe his travailes, Acl, i<5. 16, 17. compared with 
 tAtt. 20.5,6. Softhenes, for he is joyned with him in the front of the 
 firft Epiftlc to the Corinths 9 1 CV.j.i. which was written from Ephefus, 
 
 as 
 
$6 The Anfrver of the Aflcmbly of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 
 aswefhewed before, Aquila y /4#. 18.19. and 1 (for. 16.19. Timotheus 
 and Erafttts, whom he fent not from Ephefus till towards his owne de- 
 parture thence^tf. 19.22. to whom he might adde gams & Arifiarcus, 
 esfci. 19*19* and 20.4. if they were Preachers, as is probable they were : 
 all which muft have more then one Congregation to be imployed in. 
 " And when the number was increafed, yet then the Church of Sphe- 
 "fus is called one flock, in relation to thofe Elders which were at 
 " Ephefus, AB.io.1%. which were willed by Paul to feed that flock 
 " by doctrine as he had done , by which it is evident they might 
 " and did meet in one : for Elders are Paftors onely to one Con- 
 cc gregation. 
 
 1. It was but even now that thefe both Elders and Flock were made 
 by our Brethren to be of all Afa\ y and not onely of Ephefus, when it 
 would help them to deny the confequence of our argument, but here to 
 make out their owne argument, they muft not be of all A fa, (for then 
 wefhouldhope there would be more Congregations then one,) but 
 muft be confined to Ephefus onely ; fo they were in their former Rea- 
 sons, but extended to all Afia in the former part of this Anfwer , and 
 now in the third place contracted againe to Ephefus. This, if an inad- 
 vertency, may cafily be pardoned, but fuch a liberty to contract and ex- 
 tend at pleafure for prefent advantage (if we may call it an advantage j 
 muft not be granted. 
 
 2. There is no furficient reafon why our Brethren fhould reftrain that 
 feeding, which the Apoftle there gives, in charge to feeding by Doctrine 
 onely, which yet they doe, when they fay, that they were Willed by Paul, 
 to feed that flock , by Doftrine as he haddone.Vor I .its wel known,that as in 
 Homer sfo in Scripture language,^//^ and wpaiviv hold forth feeding 
 by ruling, as well as teaching, CMat. 2. 6. 2. Paul fed them by ruling 
 as well as teaching, and fo muft they, if they muft doe as he had done. 
 3. Some expreflions both in osftl. 20. and Rev, 2. concern e Go- 
 vernment as well as Doctrine : And if our Brethren cannot deny, but 
 both belonged to thofe Elders, which the Apoftle there fpake to ; what 
 reafon is there, that when he exhorted them to their duty, hefliould 
 be thought to exhort them to one part of it, and fay nothing to the o- 
 ther, efpecially when the word and expreffion he ufeth,doe in their true 
 fignification reach both ? 
 
 3. But the true reafon why our Brethren do here fingle out teaching, 
 and leave out ruling ; is, becaufe that would beft fit their prefent argu- 
 ment, which in brief is this. At Ephefus, its evident there was then but 
 one Congregation, becaufe but one flock. All. 20. 28. and that in re- 
 ference to feeding Elders or Paftors, and Paftors arc onely of one Con- 
 gregation, 
 
ikedtjfming fa*g*wfttbe Infcmce of the Ch: of&phzCas. 105 
 
 grr gation, to which we reply and fay : that 
 
 1. Oar "Brethren here , and eUewhere in this paper, ufe too confi- 
 dent expteflions: Here, its evident '; a little before, it* apparent • 
 and a little after^ no reafon can be given \ and againe, plainly point at, dec. 
 which we humbly convinced nor fo, nor fo. And ii: this they here fay, 
 that all Beleevers in Ephefus , might ani did meet in one, be not made 
 more evident then that fas they before faid ) it was apparent that there 
 were but about 1 2.Believers when /W/came firft to Ephefus } Atl, 19.7, 
 in which they hold out that to be his firlt comming, we hope we (hall 
 not be convicted by fuch evidences. 
 
 2. Should we fay, that by an enaUage numeri flock is put for flocks, 
 as there is nothing in that place ( we conceive) that croileth it, fo many 
 inltances thereof, in other Scriptures may julMe it. 
 
 3. But take it (as it is) in the lingular number, flock, yet why may 
 it not be taken colletlive for fuch a flock, as contained in it, diverie par- 
 ticular flocks, as we read exprefly, Gen. 33.13. fad faith of his, The 
 fioches are with me, and if men fijoidd ovtr-drive them one dij, all the 
 floch^ would dye: Here is a full parallel to Lukes ^ct/lilf ^0^1^ «*> 
 wprnv, all the flock in the lingular, is faid to have feverall particular 
 flocks, as parts of it. And fo drifts little floc^ and one fda\ tuyyw 
 vroipvioT, Luke 1 2.3 2. ani that;"'* W^c™ John 10.16. though both in the 
 Angular number, and fo exprefling one flock and fold in generall, 
 namely the Church Catholick ; yet comprehendeth many particular 
 flocks and Churches contained in it, and under it, as we have in our for- 
 mer anfwers {hewn, there were many particular Congregations., 
 in ftrufalem, and yet it but one Church, and governed by one common 
 Presbytery. 
 
 4. Whereas upon occafionof the word feed, the word Paflor is ur- 
 ged , Elders being Paftors to one onelj Congregation ; we anfwer, that 
 the word Paflor is not in the Text, but onely the word/iW, and chat, 
 we have already fhewn, reacheth to governing as well as teaching, and 
 therefore that although ufe hath obtained, that the word Paflor is 
 commonly taken for the Minifter of one Congregation, ("the BtiTiop 
 having in jurioufly appropriated that title tohimfelfe, and to his finale 
 infpeaion over many Congregations) yet according to thatfignifkati- 
 on of the word(as it relates to Government) there is no inconveniency, 
 that many Elders affociated for Governmental ay be eaterms, called P*~ 
 Jiors of the many Congregations that are under their joynt infpe&ion. 
 
 But whereas it was faid in the AJfembly, that that feeding of the 
 flock(cfpecially as it related to teaching)was to be underftood partitive, 
 viz. fome one Congregation, fome another, and fo amongft them the 
 flock was fed. Pp Our. 
 
xo6 The Jnfaer of the Affembly of Divines y unto the Rerfons of 
 
 Om^Brethrenohlodi , 
 
 " That if it be underftood partitive with reference to their feeding, 
 
 "itmuftbealfo with reference to their overfeeing , becaufe it 
 
 " is fo expreft in the Text, Take heed t o your fe Ives, and to the whole 
 
 <( flock?, over which the holy Ghofi hath made yon overfeers to feed the 
 
 c< F lock j>f God : For no reafon can be given why thefe words, feed 
 
 <c the flocks fhould be understood partitive, and not thefe other 
 
 " words, Take heed to the floe ke, over which the holy Ghofi hath made 
 
 "you overfeers ; and if their overfeeing and ruling be to be under- 
 
 <( flood partitive , then how doth this place argue a Presbyteri- 
 
 " all Government over many Congregations? And ifitbefaid 
 
 u the many Congregations were not fixt ; then that diftinction 
 
 " of feeding parti ive falleth to the ground. 
 
 i. We doe not fay, thatthofe many Congregations were notfixt, 
 
 but rather hold that they were, as not conceiving how Tauls long refi- 
 
 den^e there fhould not form them into fuch a more orderly fettlement, 
 
 that fo they might feed their feverall flocks partitive, as in the Affembly 
 
 was faid they did. 
 
 2» Whereas our Brethren doe here feeme to make thefe two 
 words, Zhff)6<&isi and wiptriveiv, tofignifle the two diftincl parts .of a 
 Paftors duty ; the firft his ruling,and the latter by feeding and teaching ; 
 its to be conceived rather , that all thefe three words in the Text, 
 hmzwnxs, <8&cri''XHv and wipdjwv have all of them reference both to 
 their ruling and teaching, for in both, they ought Zh<rMntv 9 <3®oiyHv-, 
 and croipoivHv, to overfee^ake heed, and feed. 
 
 3. Suppofe then, that **utu>Mty or feeding, doth containe theexer- 
 cife of all their duty, as they are cwVaoxo^or overfeers: yet its not necefc 
 fary, that the feeding in the feverall branches or offices of it, fhould in 
 the fame manner be executed. As fuppofe (for example) the King 
 fliould charge the Juftiees of the Peace in a whole County,being conve- 
 ned, that they carefully governe and doe jufticc, to the People com- 
 mitted to their charge ; their power and office being fuch, as its known 
 to be, muft needs be conceived, that for that part of it, in taking exa- 
 minations, binding over to the SefTions, and the like ; he meaneth they 
 fhould doe it divifim, within their feverall precincts: But for that ci- 
 ther part of executing of juftice on perfons To bound over, indicated and 
 arraigned, they fhould doc it Conjmftim, in Concejfu, at the Seflions or 
 Aflizes, and fo the like here. 
 
 4. But fuppofe, (according to our Brethrens fenfe) this over-fight 
 and feeding, fhould expreffe the two diftincl: parts of their office, the 
 one their ruling, the other their teaching • yet fuch manner of joyning 
 
 them 
 
the deeming Br. againftthe Infflncc of the Ch: o/Ephefus. 
 
 them together as we finde in the Text, doth not imply that they 
 fhould both be exercifed the fame manner and way, it being ufuall in 
 Scripture, to fpeak of things put together indifferently and alike, which 
 yet are to be confidefed differently according to their diverfe capacities 
 and fo though thefe two be thus /oyned together , yet the one may be' 
 divifim^nd the other conjuntlim : As fuppofe in a like manner of fpeech, 
 it (hould be fatd to the Minifters of one Congregation , being many , 
 Take heed to the flocks , over which God bath made you overfeers , that you 
 preach the Word to them ; and take that word Overfeers, as our Brethren 
 doe, for their ruling power, that (they will fay) rauft be exercifed con- 
 jtMclim, and yet this preaching they will not deny , but muft be done 
 divifm and partitive. 
 
 5 . Whence it appeareth, that in cafe overfeeing be taken for ruling, 
 and feeding for teaching, this maybe afufficient reafon, why thefe 
 words feed the flock fhould be underftood partitive, and not that other 
 word overfeeing ; the one being fas by us both is granted) to be per- 
 formed conjuntlim, and the other divifm, though our Brethren too con- 
 fidently fay no reafon can be given of it , which yet it feemeth tliey af- 
 terwards fufpected might. And therefore in the latter end of their pa- 
 per, they fuggeft this very reafon to themfelves, to which they there 
 frame this Anfwer, which we doe here infert as comming in raoft fitly 
 
 in this place. Their Anfwer is this : 
 " That although Elders of a Congregation,though they doe it in fit- 
 "legio, and when they teach they doe \t fever ally, yet both ruling 
 <c and teaching are to be within the fame com pa ffe, in refpect of 
 « them who are to be ruled and taught, &c. for when Elders rule 
 cc one Congregation in Collegio, yet each of thofe Elders overfees 
 "and rules the whole flock, as truly as he can be faid by teaching 
 u to feed that whole flock. 
 And fo they make account it will make nothing for a Presbyteriall 
 joynt ruling of them in a Claflls, whom they doe not teach in a Congre- 
 gation : To which our Anfwer is, that to this we have already anfwe- 
 red in our Anfwers to their former Rcafons, now with the Honourable 
 Houfes, in which we deale with that commenfuration of ruling and 
 teaching, which they there pleaded for ; to which (that We may not 
 atlum agere) we refer them, and therefore fay nothing more here to 
 that Paragraph, and enely adde to this in hand. 
 
 6. That whereas towards the clofe of it, they aske , Hew doth thU 
 place (of the Alls) argue a Presbyteriall Government over many Con- 
 gregations, if this overfeeing and ruling be to be underftood partitive .' 
 We anfwer,that Presbyteriall Government (lands as well with partitive 
 
 Pp 2 go. 
 
 107 
 
iq8 
 
 The Anfrver of the Aflemtfy of Divines, unto tbcReafons if 
 
 governing, as partitive teaching, though not confined to it, for it grants 
 the Elders a particular intereft in their feverali Congregations,by vertue 
 of which they there govern partitive, viz. as to the Elders of other 
 Congregations who have not there that particular intereft and power: 
 though that hindreth not, but that they may govern both them and 
 the other Congregation conjmclim with thofe other Eiders in an Aflb- 
 ciation, which is our Presbyteriall Government. 
 
 That of their Paper which remaines, is their Anfvver to what was faid 
 in the Affembly, viz. that that feeding Atls 20. 28. might be underftood 
 partitive, becaufe the fame phrafe ufed 1 Pet. 5.1. (feed the flock. of 
 God among y 'ou, taking the over fight thereof ) muft be underftood partiti- 
 ve, becaufe thofe Elders and beleevers to whom the Apoftle Peter 
 wrote, were fcattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, zAfia, and 
 Bythinia, which could not ail meet in one Congregation, to which they 
 give this anfwer, 
 
 <f 1 . That in this place of Peter there are no fuch words,whereby the 
 " relation of the whole flock is equally carried to all thofeE/ders,&s 
 *' there are in that fpeech of the Apoftle to the Elders of Ephefu*, 
 fC Acts 20. 28. Take heed to the Whole flockjver which (whole flock) 
 ce the holy Ghofi hath made yon overfeers. 
 u 2. In this 1 Pet^.i, 2. there are words which plainly point at fuch 
 *• a diftnbution,namely h vyuv amongyou, applied both to the El- 
 <f ders and the flock. The Elders ^ u[**v amongHyon I exhort ;feed 
 " the flocks h vjjav^ that is, each Elders/^ the floe k^re (pea ivcly, 
 " where ere they are among you in each Country. 
 " Therefore though it be underftood partitive in Peter ytt it follows 
 " not it fhould be fo underftood, <±Acts 20. 38. 
 To which firft in generall we anfwer. 
 1. That when it was faid in the Aftembly that that fading the flock. 
 Acts 20. 28. might be underftood partitive, it was faid in.rcference to 
 their feeding by teaching, andfpecially their ordinary flxt teaching in 
 thofe feverali flu congregations, and fo it wis partitive : but by fo fay- 
 ing we never meant that it was Amply and only partitive, as feeding con- 
 tained all their office and duty in ruling as well as teaching, for fo it 
 might be, and was conjunctim, as of the Elders of a Congregation in 
 their Conliftory, fo of aflfociated Elders in a Claflkall Presbytery. We 
 dare not goe in this fenfe againft the conjunctim in the Acts, nor the/ur- 
 tititive in Peter, which we averred, and therefore our Brethren need not 
 have taken fo much paines to prove ; But we are for both in both places, 
 that as in both places they did feed by teaching fevcrally, in their fe- 
 verali Congregations, fo they fed by ruling jointly in their united re- 
 
 fpe&ive 
 
the Renting Br. dgainfi the Inflfence of the Ch: 0/Eph cfus. ic<? 
 fpe&ive Aflbciations, fo far as that JW<s-o£« in Peter would admit. 
 So that thefe two places, which our Brethren fet at fuch an ods, may 
 for all this very well agree. 
 
 2. And efpecially if we looke into the exprefllons of both places, 
 they feeme to looke very like Parallels, and fo Interpreters make them, 
 
 y&tio cTHcrxcrTK? <voiixatr<ti> in Acts to ^oiixdiVik Qm9x.vaZv\u in Peter, and 
 
 there a wipvtov in both places to be over fee n and fed , and for gods 
 Church in the one place, there is gods heritage in the other , though 
 wc rr.uft not difTemble, that the word is rmk tuife* , in the plural num- 
 ber, which fome expound of particular Congregations, which hath a 
 {hew of a better proof for the understanding of this of Peter partitive 
 (which as even now we faid, we deny not, but alleadge it for) then our 
 £r e t hr ens critidfae of iv vpiv, as we (hall fee when we come to it by 
 and by. How ever, the places are fo Parallel,that from a muft be in the 
 one,we may rationally infer at leaft a majbe in the other. But our Bre- 
 thren hy no, in regard of the difference which they obferve between 
 thofe two places. 
 
 1 . For firlr, they fay that in the place of Peter, there are no fuch words, 
 whereby the relation of the Whole floe kj* equally carry ed to all thofe Elders ', 
 as there are in the place of A&s, Take heed to the whole flosk^ over which 
 Q whole flock] the holy Ghofi hath made yon overfeers. 
 
 We anfwer, 1. What ever the fenfe is, or the thing \vas,yet confider 
 whether the words in the place of the <*ASls , which our "Brethreu 
 iflfift upon, do neceflarily hold forth the relation of the whole ^w^, 
 and that equally carried to all thefe Elders as our Brethren affirme, for 
 the word is not **f T «* ww'ia, which anfwers to our Brethrens 
 Tranflation of it, the whole flock ; which, to lay more weight on ir, they 
 repeat the fecondtime, and put in a Parenthcfis, the more to be taken 
 notice of, but its wvlt t£ <&on*.viu } and that word , milh we doubt 
 not 5 but they know, doth not alwayes neceflarily infer a collective fenfe, 
 that it muft needs be read A l l the floe kj&s our Tranflators render it,or 
 the whole flocks, as our Brethren would. But that its taken oft-times di- 
 ftributively, ^s^as*.* vojgv Keuv£ffa.viJicLheulctv .A/.2/.4.23.9, 35. ScsreLfctv 
 ni**&* Acts 5. 42. 1 Thef. 5. 18. and fo if it be read to every fleck, 
 over which the holy Ghoft hath made you overfeers, its taken parti- 
 tive, and fo all of them fpoken together to feed their fevera 11 flocks in 
 their feverail divifions. And i\ here's then that collective whole that our 
 Brethren make account muft neceflarily be hence inferred ? Sisppofe this 
 ihould have been the meaning of Pari, to havefaid, I charge you all 
 that y oh take heed to every flocks, which feverally God hath given you 
 the overfight of : wc ask whether that very fenfe might not have been 
 
 Pp 3 ex- 
 
1 1 o The Anfaer of the AfTembfy of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 exprefled in thefe very words nr&wxym <vawv ra noiixvlu, Z* a to wnupd 
 
 iyov u(jl&{ %%zlo a7n<rKoim{. .. 
 
 Orifitbefaid, it fliould then have been ^^77 wiipivy, without the 
 Article t$> which makes it co/leclive t and not diflributive. 
 . We fay, its not fo neceflfarily nor alwayes, efpecialiy when this wft 
 is anfwered by the Relative'™ S following: the Article, is without this 
 obfervation fomctimes left out, when the fenfe is collective, as 1 Tet.i, 
 24. Nay in one claufe left out, and in another taken in, in the lame fen- 
 tence, and when fpoken in the fame fenfe &&&? *•?*«&*> v&i ™<L** <&«*■«, 
 ThiL 1. j. 
 
 For the equall carrying of the relation of the whole flocks to all thofe El- 
 ders which they mention, its nothing for them nor againft us. For we 
 fay that the Elders in a Chfiis have an equall relation to the whole floc^ 
 in their Aflbciation, as the Elders in a Confiftory have to all the flocks 
 in their Congregation, and befide fuch a fpeech as that in Atls to feed 
 theflocke y may be made to fuch as in any meafure or degree have an in- 
 tereft in the feeding of their floc^ to wit, in their feverall capacities, yea 
 though they fliould not be equal!. 
 
 2. Confider whether that be true,which they fay that there is no fuch 
 word in that place of Peter, whereby the relation of the Whole flockjs 
 equally carried to all thofe Elders which be fpoken to, and here we fay, 
 
 1. If there be no wordin Peter that exprefleth that «*&rn which was in 
 the zAtlsy yet it is neceflarily to be uaderftood when he faith wipA- 
 vin to lv vyuf <zroi{jLvtov> he meanes *&&v t3 h C^Tv ^oi^vtovy feed the 
 fiock^of God among you, i. e . all ("or the whole) flockj>f God among you, 
 unleife he would give leave that fomc part of the flock fliould be left 
 unfed.Nay therefore 
 
 2. Thefe words to h C^tv <a&wiiw do hold out and exprefle the whole 
 fioc^ for fome of the flock, or part of the flock, is not in propriety 
 of fpeech,but by a Trope, the flock. 
 
 2. But they fay positively that in Peter there are words Which plain- 
 ly pint out fuch a diflributive ', viz, that w vfi» applied both to Elders and 
 fiockj andfo he exhorts each Elders to feed theflockjejpettively, where they, 
 are among them in each Country. 
 
 1. Then by their own interpretation, if it be underftood partitive, 
 yet not partitive of feverall Congregations, and what then have they 
 gained ? But partitive of each Country, as they fpeak, and that will 
 hold out Clafllcall, Synodicall, Provincial! or Nationali partitions , 
 and fo we may rather gain fomething by that bargaine. 
 
 2. That pointing out fuch a distribution by that double ^ iyfv, is not 
 fo plainc either to us, or in ic k\it t as our Brethren would make it. 
 
 1, If 
 
the diffent ing Br. *g#»fi the Inftancc of the Ch: r/Ephefus. i x i 
 
 i. If we compare it with that place of the Atls in which they fay there 
 is no filch thing, & therfore, not plainly pointed out ^nd yet lee indifferent 
 readers judge whether wG *fuCrrtyn & C^v in Peter do more plainly 
 point out a diftribution, then v$wCvti&h $ * *** ** * * Atls 20. 17. efpe- 
 cially as our Brethren interpret that for one Congregationall Church. 
 Or whether to nroiunoy h yuTv the flockjfGod amongst you, be more di- 
 ftributive, or rather not all one, as to this pnrpofc, with td **t*vi$ fcr ^ 
 yyjU to Tvsu/xctTc Hyov i$(lo bmfKwvi over which the holy Ghoft made you 
 everfeerspnd this the rather, 
 
 2. Ifweconfiderthatphrafe «# v^fv fingly by it felfe , in which we 
 can find no ground of our Brethrens Criticifme that it flhould fo plainly 
 point out fuch a diftribution as they plead for, for it plainly points out 
 what it plainly flgnifies, and that is, in yon or amongyou y and let all judge 
 whether fuch an expreflion then,may not be ufed. 
 
 1. Where there is no fuch diftribution as our Brethren mean, namely, 
 into feverall Congregations. For it may be faid of one individuall Con- 
 gregation. As fuppofe in larmouth, where but one Congregation , and 
 there divers Elders, a Minifter from fome other parts may properly 
 write. I exhort the Elders h vutv to feed that flockjf God, h JfSV. 
 
 2. Where there are fuch diftributions, but as collectively knit toge- 
 ther in a jbynt affociation and Government : as in cafe one fhould have 
 faid to the Sanhe drim at Jerufalc m } **yi*in\* rt hviuvTolnmr, it had 
 been a moft proper and fenfible fpeech, for they did ^oi(xa.iv{v to h oivlors 
 veipvtov, all the feverall divifions in prufalem, yea of all ffrael appea- 
 ling to them : and yet its well known they never governed partitive 
 but conjttnclim as an higheft National! Synod or Aftembly. 
 
 And thus far in Anfwer to what our Brethren have faid againft the 
 firft Proportion of our argument, for many Congregations under one 
 Presbyteriall Government , viz. that the multitude of beleevers 
 there, did make more Congregations then one. Our Brethren adde in 
 theclofeofall. 
 
 ^Asfor the fcr.ond and third, that there were many Elders ever that peo- 
 ple 06 onefiockfy and one Churchjtndthat they did govern this one floe \ t 
 the former proportion not being proved, they make nothing to the proof 
 of that conclptjion^&c* 
 To which we fay onely two things. 
 
 1. That if the former Propofition (of more beleevers ttEphefus 
 then could meet in one Congregation) had not been proved, yet this 
 fecond of many more Elders being there then could have been imploy- 
 f d in one Congregation, might of it felf have made fomething to the 
 
 proof 
 
112 
 
 Tht Anfoer of the Aflembly ofDivwes, &c. 
 
 proof of the conclufion, of many Congregations under one Presbyteri- 
 a)i Government. 
 
 For thofe many Elders might have argued fevetail Congregations, 
 which they might have been divided into, for convenience of habitati- 
 on, and for preventing of many and great inconveniences in that Ido- 
 latrous and hcatheni{h City , and thofe times of Perfecution, which 
 might poflibly, nay probably have come to pafle, if they had all met ia 
 one place, though they had been no more, then might have poflibly met 
 altogether in one Congregation. 
 
 2. But what if that proportion hath been proved, and our Bre- 
 thren* obje&ions againft it anfwered, as (we hope they are) then it fo 
 joyned with the other two following proportions might make enough 
 for the proof of the mainc conclufion ; That many Congregations may te 
 under one Prefbyteriall Government. 
 
 Concordat cum Original. 
 
 sAdoniram Bjfield t Scriba. 
 
 ARGU- 
 
ARGVMENTS 
 
 or THE 
 
 DISSENTING BRETHREN 
 
 AGAINST THE * 
 
 SV<B 0%V I J^AT I ££ 
 
 O F 
 
 Standing SYNO DS, 
 
 f PROVINCIALL, 
 
 National l, 
 o ecumenic al, 
 
 AS 
 
 fV RID I CAL L, EcdcGafticali C V R T S. 
 
 LONDON. 
 
 Printed for Humphrey Hurmrd. 1648. 
 
Propofitions of the aAjfernbly, concer- 
 ning Synods. 
 
 j. *Tp/k Scrifture doth hold ottt another fort tf Affembljes^ 
 -I for the Government of the Church, befides Claficall 
 and CongregMionall^which wefallSynodicall, Aft. 15. 
 
 2. Synodic all Ajfemblies may lawfully be of jeveratl forts : as 
 Provinciall, National!, WOecumenicall. 
 
 3. // is law full and agreeable to the word of God. that there he a 
 Subordination of Congregationall, Clafficall, Provinciall, 
 and Nationall Ajfemblies : that fo af peaks may be made^> 
 from the inferiour to tbefuperiour^ refvecTively . Proved from 
 Mat. 18. which holding forth the Subordination of m offend- 
 ing Brother, to a particular Church , it doth alfo^ by a parity 
 if nafon hold forth the Subordination of a Congregation 
 to fuperiour Affemblies. 
 
 And it is agreeable to the light of nature , that he who is 
 wronged, and deprived of his right by one power, (hould 
 have recourfe to another power, which may reftore unto 
 him his right againe , and refcind the fentence , by which 
 he was wronged : elfe there would be no powerfull remedy 
 provided to remove wrong, and to preferve right. 
 
 To the latter Proposition about the Subordinations of Sy- 
 nods, the diffenting Brethren entred their diflent, af- 
 ter the debate, and their Riasoks in writing, as 
 followeth. 
 
IIJ 
 
 Jr %^g V **M E 3^ T S 
 
 O F T HE 
 
 Dissenting Bre t* ren, 
 
 K^igainft the Subordination of Synods ,ejrc 
 
 Lthough we judge Synods to be of great ufe,forthe 
 finding out, and declaring of Truth in difficult cafes, 
 and encouragement to walk in the Truth ; For the 
 healing offences • and to give advice unto the Magi- 
 ftrate, in matters of Religion : And although we give 
 great honour and confeientious refpe&, unto their 
 determinations. Yet feeing the Proportion holds 
 forth, Not oneljr an Occafionall, but zflanding ufe of them ; and 
 that in Subordination of one unto another, as ^nridical^Eccieflaflu 
 call Courts ; and this in all cafes : we humbly prefent chefc Rea- 
 sons againftit. 
 
 Firfl Argument. 
 
 ALLfuch fubordinations of Courts, having greater and lefTer de- 
 grees of power, to which in their order, Caufes are to be brought, 
 muft have the greatefl and mofl exprejfe warrant and defignment for 
 them in the word. Whence it is argued thus. 
 
 Thofe Courts that muft have the moft expreffe Warrant and 
 Defignment for them in the word^ and have not; their 
 power is to befujpeffed, and not erected in the Church of God. 
 
 But thefe ought to havefo : \^4nd have not. 
 Therefore, &c* 
 
 Ijhe firfl Part of the Minor is thus proved. 
 
 There ought to be the greatefl and mofl expreffe warrant, and that 
 for two things belonging to them. Firfl fox their Subordination & 
 Num ier. Secondly, for their Boun d s and limits of Powe r And 
 becaufc this principle U made ufe of, both in the point in hand, and other 
 
u6 Keafons of the diffenting Brethren agawft 
 
 of like nature,i'«L.to argue, a pa<-i rat ione fiom Li k e and parallel Rea- 
 son, the argument to eftablifh this Proportion, (lull proceed accor- 
 dingly ,Trom the ftrength of like reafon in other cafes & ir.fi ances : That 
 Tbe r e Ought To Be A Warrant And Di s ignment 
 For Them In The Word* 
 
 I . From like reafon in the cafe of fubordination of Officers in the Churchy 
 one over another : there was a fpeciall institution, and it is required, or 
 we ownc them nofc and that for intenfive power, and cxienfive power : 
 and therefore for tn? Coordination of fuch Courts alfo. The Rule of Pro- 
 portion holds :For a Government of and by fiverall fubor donations, whe- 
 ther of one Church officer or per fen over another,and of him over others, 
 or of a many in the like degree of fubordination , are but fever all forms 
 of Cjovernmenty of which there is the like reafon in common • As of Subordi- 
 nations in a Uvionar chic all way, wherein ftih 1 but fome one perfon is fu- 
 ptriour to another downwards ; or in an zAriflocraticaR way through- 
 out, in this they come all to one, that if there be to be, an infiitution or 
 warrant for the one, there is to be for the other ; whether God or men be, 
 to be the Infiitutors of them.Now in the government of the Church,/^ 
 the fub ordination o/Off i c e RS,there was an exprefe Infiitution } ot men 
 ought not to have afJumed it. i Cor. 1 2. 28. God hath fit in his (fhurch> 
 fir ft Apofiles, fecondarily Prophets and Svanoetifts ( who were of a paral- 
 lel order ) thirdly Teachers : and the difference of power in Apofihs 
 and Evangelifis is by fubordination : But Chrifi hath not fit the likefub- 
 or din at ion of Cou R T S . 
 
 1 It is proved from what the Presbyteriall principles themfilves rejetl. 
 An institution is required by them in the cafe of fubordination of Bifhops^ 
 Archbifjops , Types , in their arguing againft thern and their power. 
 Yea and by theEpifcopall Writers themfelves, who when it is objeded, 
 that if there may be a Bifiop, and an Archbifiop over him, why not a 
 Patriarch over Archbiiliops , and a Tope over all? They deny this, 
 and reject a Patriarch or Pope (although with renouncing of infallibi- 
 lity) as not warranted by the word. They fay an higher and more uni- 
 vcrfall fubordination, alters the cafe. And the ufuall exception againft 
 this fubordination of Church governors is, that in Scripture we read 
 neither of the name of an Archbifhop, nor the thing; and therefore not 
 of % fubordination of them. The like may be faid ofthefe, where read we 
 0$ (f ounce Is Trovinciall, T^ationall, names or things ? Yea, and in this 
 way of arguing (in this refpect) the dfiadvantage is on this fide rather : 
 for we xtcfiure that once, there was in the Church, yk& a fubordination in 
 Church officers, Evangelifis over Pallors, ApofiJes over Evangelifts (on- 
 ly they were extraordinary, and fo no patterns) but of finch a fubordi- 
 nation 
 
the Subordination of funding Synods, as Juridcdl Courts. j 1 7 
 
 tiation of Councek in an ^AriflocraticaU \\>ay, there is nothing to be 
 found. 
 
 3. It is argued from like and jufl redfin in other focicties, and bo Ties 
 politick. In all Kingdomcs and Common-wealths well ordered and con- 
 flicted, there is and ought to be a fet and expreffe order by the La we?, 
 both of the number and bounds of Courts of Judicatory , from whom and 
 to whom Appeals are made, and in what cafes &c. And that this fub- 
 ordination fhould be fet forth and fixed by the Liw, is as neceiTary, as 
 the Law es or rules by which men in a Kingdom e are*to be governed. 
 The wifdome of the Law doth judge it not enough to appoint/^™// 
 forts of Officers, as to fay (f ounce Mors, Sergeants, fudges-, but defigneth alfo 
 
 and appoints/rum^ (fourts with their power and bounds ; The defign- 
 ment of which, efpecially offtanding Courts, (being made upofthefe) 
 is a matter of much more moment then the other.Yea and (till the grea- 
 ter and higher fuch Courts and ssfffemblies are, having amplitude 
 of power over others, the more cxprefe evidence and warrant for their 
 power there u, and ought to be : as for Parliamentary power, and the prw 
 vi ledges thereofr 
 
 And this is evident, as from the examples of all Kingdomcs, fo from 
 what the Scripture fpeakes of the confiitution of them ; each part of 
 the fubordination of fuch power in all Government, both is, and alfo 
 was called a Creation of men, in things humane, whether it be in a <JMo- 
 narchicall or Arijlocraticall way, 1 Pet, 2.13. Submit your febves to every 
 humane creation, avfyamv* kIUh 9 and he fpeakes there evidently of (and 
 therefore thus ftileth) the Coordination of powers in a Common- 
 wealth, whether Officers or Courts ; for it follows , whether unto the 
 King as Supreame,or unto Governours 3 as thofe that arefent by him,&c. and 
 fo here fubordination of power under him. Now parallel, fpirituall and 
 Ecclefiafiicall government, with this, z^s in the rearing an humane 
 fabri-ck and consignation of power, There mult, be an ordinance, or crea- 
 tion from mar., when God hath left the framing of it unto him fas in 
 this cafe he hath) So this fubordination, being in Divine power, there 
 muft be a Divine infiitution for it, bejides that of the diftinclion of the of- 
 /ffrjthemfelves. 
 
 4. It is argwed from like reafon with Chrifts inftitution, Mat. i& If in 
 a particular Church, Chiift hath preferred the feveraUfubordinations of 
 proceedings, and let forth the degrees, bounds and order of them ; then 
 much more it is* required in thefe; by hew much a larger extent of power 
 is committed to them. The firft rule in U%m8. it, If thy brother of- 
 fcjid thee, til! him thy felfe ; then 2. Take two or three, and if he hear not 
 them, then 3. Tell the Chunk If there were a thoufand brethren in a 
 
 Qj 3 Congre- 
 
TI 3 Reafons of the dimming Brethren *g*i*ft 
 
 Congregation, a man were not boun{ t nor were it orderly,'^ an ordinary 
 and fet way, to take, as the Church (hall pleafe, firft two or three, and 
 then ten, and then twenty, and (till the like proportion of a greater 
 number, ere he comes to the Church it felfe : but Chrift hath fet the $r- 
 <£r, and his wifedome faw it meet, thus to defigne and limit the procee- 
 dings in a particular Church : And it had been much more necejfary to 
 have appointed the like, about thefe general and greater tAjfemblies ; 
 becaufe every one of thefe Courts (intended) have the power of a/2»- 
 tence and judgement , whereas thofe nv« or three proceed but in a way 
 of admonitions, in order to a fuperiour Court. Shall Chrift take care for 
 Congregations (which are efteemed the meaneft) and not for thefe e Of 
 which, if Chrift ihould not have fet the bounds of power and fubordina- 
 tion thereof, none would kno^o what belongs to them ; who is in fault, if of- 
 fences be not corrected ; nor would any know whom firft to appeale unto. 
 I will appeale unto the IS^atimall Aflembly firft, fates one t and am not 
 bound to the Qlafficall or ProvincUll ; Another would Tay, I will appeale 
 to a GeYierall Councell, which can beft judge, and will be fure to make an 
 end of it. Why fhould any be hindered for going Perfaltum, if Chrift 
 hath not fet forth, and obliged us to thefe Subordinations, in their or- 
 der ? 
 
 5. In the Church of the J ewes : The fubordinat ions that were, were fet 
 forth and determined by Inftitution or example ; how many Courts there 
 ftiould be, and where to reft : There were the Courts of the Cities, and 
 the Townes -, and then their Sanedrimjio which the cafe was to be carried, 
 if it were too hard for their particular Courts : and no other Courts^ be- 
 tween, appointed. Beuu 17. In the new Teftament we have for remo- 
 Ting fcandals, a Congregationallftanding Court and government for be 
 it a Claflicall (landing Presbytery over many Congregations as our Bre- 
 thren fay) and we have an exampk a!fo of going out from a particular 
 ftanding Church, (whether the one or the other) ele&ively, to another 
 Church or Churches, when divifions are therein ( which ^ABs 1 5. holds 
 forth) but ftill, for fuch ftanding fubordinations and Courts as thefe , out 
 of the Church, nothing at a/l. If there had been any T^ationall Sanedrim, 
 a fet and conftant Judicatory, then Chrift would have appointed it, 
 as he had done before ; But He Ha t n Not ; no example,no Inftitu- 
 tion hells it forth. Which is 
 
 The fecond part of the Minor Propofition. 
 Thus proved. 
 
 1. The new Teftament is f lent in it. And if it be faid , that all Na- 
 tions were not then convertcd,when the Apoftles wrote. It is anfwered 
 
 that 
 
the Subordination $ffi finding Synods^ juridical! Courts. j ip 
 that God in the old Teftament tooke care to ft* the order rfonhand, 
 when they had no fities, nor were fetled in the land. And accordingly 
 ifthe Apodles had not lived to fee that which might occafion inch an 
 institution or precept, yet they would fome way have left order, for 
 time to come. 
 
 But 2. though the Apoftles lived to fee, many famous particular 
 Churches erected in a Province, as well as in Cities; in a Nation, as in 
 Judea ; in Afa, in Creete, there were many Cities and Churches in 
 each : and although all the people in thefe Countries were not Chrifti- 
 ans,nor members of Churches, yet there was matter for the moulding 
 and calling them into thefe fubordinations, as well as now in France, 
 where not the third part are Proteflants, or in the LoVp-countrees,\\h£re: 
 not the tenth part of the inhabitants arc members of their Churches. 
 And fure if thefe fuperitruclions had been fo abfolutely necefTary in the 
 Government of the Churches, it had been as necefTary to have appoin- 
 ted them. They fet up and appointed all needfull remedies for ordering 
 the Churches after them, when they fhould be gone. And 'tis more fir atw e, 
 that in the cafe of the fpreading of errours, they fhould not write t$ 
 Churches as gathered into Synods, and as having the (landing power to 
 prevent and fupprefle them (if fuch ordinary (landing Aflemblies armed 
 with coercive power had b r een then, in that exiftence, as now) that, up- 
 on no occafion, this fhould be done, when yet they had occafior.s. Take 
 the feven Churches in AJia,Ephef:^,'ThyAtira x Smjrna,&c t with the red 
 of the Churches therein, a Provinc t, and though therein wefinde 
 many great diforders, and fome in Dotlrine (the more proper work of 
 thefe ftandtng Synods^ yet we fee that Chrift writes, onely, to each of 
 thofe Churches apart, and reproves each, for their diforder, in each i 
 whereas had they been me Church, in fuch a (landing ailbciation for go- 
 vernment, and had had ordinary Provincial^ and Nationall Anemblies 
 extant, as now, the reproof would have been efpecially directed 'there- 
 unto. As if errours and diforders were in the Clafficatl Churches (as 
 thofe all are pretended to be) of Scotland, the chief rebuke would now 
 more juftly fall upon the T^atienall trA ProvinckalLKfcmbMzs, as their 
 conftitution is. 
 
 Yea thirdly, the holy Ghoft would have at leaft vouchsafed to thefe^ 
 er fome other Churches (that were in like manner, in a Nation, or TV*- 
 viuce, z$GaUtia,2£Q.) in refpecl: of fuch a combination, the name of 
 aChurch, who mud ( according to the principles of this government) 
 have had fo much of the power of a Church, But no where are the Chur- 
 ches in a Province, called a Church, but (fhurches in the plural 1 : And if 
 the lefler Churches, then thefe ; yea rather r/^having ntofi of the power, 
 
 fhould 
 
x 20 Rtafons cfthe dijlextwg Brethren againfi 
 
 fliottld therefore,!™ ve had moft of the name ; Yea, and by how much the 
 Chtrch power thereof, fhould h.ive been moft Independent (as a Nation-is) 
 and fo come, moft eminently, within that rule, T til the Church (from 
 which words thefe pretend their power, and yet cannot {hew fo much 
 title thereto, as to have the name fourchglvzn them) Let a rationall ac- 
 count be given of this. 
 
 Second Argument. 
 
 If there befuch a Subordination of Synods in the Church of Chrift, then 
 there is no Independency but in an Oecumenicall Coun CELL. 
 
 Which firft, Would bring in nforraignc Eccleftafticall power over each 
 State and Kingdome. 
 
 And fecondly : Therefore of all other fhould have its deftgnation and 
 extftence, in the Word-, and is more needful], then the other two forts of 
 Synods mentioned : For if any fhould be extant, then that, which is 
 Re medium Efficacis simum. Tis faid, there is wanting Reme- 
 dium efficaxjf thek fubordinations be not ; but according to thefe prin- 
 ciples there is wanting that, which is the moft efficacious remedy, if a Ge- 
 neral Councell be not extant in the world. For if there be not a refting 
 in a Clailicali Presbytery, but Trovincuili aifo muft be, and appealed to ; 
 neither are they reckoned efficacious enough, but there muft be 2{ationai 
 alfo, ( upon this fuppofition, that the greater Affembly hath more of the 
 promife and afliftance of Chrift than the lefTer^ then of all other a 
 Generall Councell muft be fuppofed in a tranfeendent 
 manner, above all the reft 3 to have the promife of afliftance made to it ; 
 and fo to be the moft eminently efficacious, (if not the onelj remedy) oa 
 earth, ycdLzndonelytobereftedin, being that which onely is the ulti- 
 mate, Some of the Papifts they gave this to fuch a Generall (founcelfiat 
 it cannot erre, but according to thefe principles of Presbyteriall Divines, 
 though it might erre a yet it is fuppofeable to be tranfeendantly more 
 infallible then all the other under it ; & God more with it then with all 
 the reft t And therefore God in his word would have given efpecially or- 
 der for this, above all other. And the fame God that fuits his providen- 
 ces to his inftitHtions,wou\d not have failed,in what is the moft Jiveraignc 
 remedie of all other, that it might have been exiftent in all ages : as we 
 'fee his p? omife was to the JeVie .f, to keep their land, when the males thrice 
 a year, went up to the Generall affembly ztjerufalem. But 300. years 
 the Churches wanted them, and could not enjoy them ; and they were 
 judged therefore not necejjary to the government of the Church, which 
 yet (according to thefe principles) muft have been the moft nee ejfary of 
 all the rei\ Yea s 
 
 
the Subordination of ftanding Synods, *f juridical! Courts. 1 1 1 
 
 Yea, and further alfo, Thirdly, there mail be an injurious Independency 
 fet up in a HjtlonMl Symd: for when a man hath appealed from one 
 Court to another, and comes to this National!, that is the Ultimate ex- 
 iftent ; and upon the fentence thereof, comes next to be banijht out of a 
 Nation, to have his eft ate forfeited, to the mine of himfelf and po ft arity : 
 Then it is, that he mo ft of all needs the relief of an higher Remedy, more 
 efficacious than all thefe, he hath gone through, iffuchanone maybe* 
 Yet then he is left remedilefle, and he f according unto thefe Principles) 
 left more unfatisfied then ever ; becaufe thinks he, there is by Gods ap- 
 pointment, a C 0Hrt lnat natn moYe o f God ,&nd of Chrift in \tfhan all thefe, 
 to judge of the Truth and Right, and Loe It Is Not • and can never 
 be expected. 
 
 Let it be withall confidered, that When God appointed a Subordina- 
 tion of ftanding Courts ; he withall defigncd our, which fhould be the Su- 
 preame, and made it the Vltimute; and the Supreamacy, and Indepen- 
 dency of it, in 2 fet and ftanding way, was his inftitution, as much as the 
 Appointment of the Court it felfe : So that he was to be put to death, that 
 obeyed not the fentence of it, and all Appeales were thereby cut off. 
 Therefore if a js^tionall Church doth take upon it, to be an Independent 
 Church, upon the fentence thereof, to have the extreameft pumftjment 
 executed, ("but that of death) that in a 7{ation men are capable of ; it 
 had need, for the quieting of all mens Spirits that mud fubmit to it ; not 
 onely (hew a Warrant from God,for it to be an Ecclefiafticall Judicatory, 
 but alfo to be the Supreame (fowt y as the Sanedim was, that Appeals 
 fliouid be made to. 
 
 Third Argument. 
 
 To that end, let it be examined, what fet rules there is, ormaybefup- 
 pofedto be of thtfe fubordinat'tons, and their bounds ; and the "Ultimate Inde- 
 pendency in a N^ationall £hurch : which fhould be fetcht from fomi 
 ftanding conftderatio»s y vfhkh the word warrants ; God never having con* 
 JfitutedaChurchJout he gave the bounds thereof. All variation of Church 
 power is from God: The alteration of the government of his people 
 the Jewes,from/*w*7/ government (which had been under the Law of 
 HatHre) to T^ationa/ljn Mofes his time, was by exprerTe appointment : 
 And at himfelf made and conftituted it a Hationall Church,)<> there was 
 an Scclepaftkatt government framed by himfelf fuited thereunto. And 
 in the New Teftament there is a Rt ed to meafure the Temple. ReveU i i . I . 
 A rule to fet out the limits of Church- power, as well as under the old ; 
 and therefore the argument is framed thus* 
 
 R r T/mt 
 
122 Xeafons of the dijfeming Brethren again fl 
 
 That (fhurch-power which cannot Jhew a conftant Divine rule for its va- 
 riation, andfubordination, and Ultimate Independency^ is n$t ofGod l 
 andfo may not be. 
 But this variation of Church^power into- thefe fubor dilations \ cannot Jbew 
 
 any fttch ft eady and conftant rule for thefe things. Therefore. &c. 
 The C\ia)or is evident from what hath been faicL 
 The CMinor is made good by a removal! of all particulars , that, 
 may be fuppofed to be the Jquare of framing thefe Jubordinati- 
 ens, &c. 
 I. I. Not that rule, That the greater number or company of Qhurches 
 
 fijould rule the lejfe , and that the Whole [hould rule the part, . For 
 then, 
 
 i. There would be as many feverall fubor donations as there can be 
 fuppofed variations of greater numbers ; and that will arife to more 
 than thefe three onely ; Every new greater company would confti- 
 tute a new Synod. 
 
 2. Where is the promife of God, that he will be more with the 
 greatelt part of them that profeflfe Chriftianity, rather than with 
 a few, fo farre as to conQitute a new power and government ? 
 Yea, 
 
 3. The greater number of Churches profefling Religion, are more 
 corrupted j the purer Churches are fewer. It had been ill for 
 Philadelphia and the Angell and Elders thereof, if thofe feven 
 Churches in -sffia had been caft into fuch a fubordinate aifociatkm 
 for government,to be exercifed by the Angels and Elders of alJ the 
 other fix Churches, with the reft in Afta. And the like may be 
 faid of the purer Reformed Churches in Germany ; if the greater 
 number of thofe, that yet were true Churches, {"hould have ruled 
 the leifcr, then the Lutherans 2nd Calvinifts being bound to this 
 government, the Lutherans being alfo true Churches, and the more 
 in number, would by virtue of ibh Law, have foon corrupted the 
 purer. ^And what reafon can be pretented> (according to this 
 rule 3 and the principles of this government) to leave any true Chur- 
 ches out of an ajjociation ? 
 
 4. Suppofe there fhould be as many Elder?, and Churches more 
 purely reformed, in one province, or {hire then in the reft of a 
 whole Nation befides, (as inftance might be given, in fome of the 
 reformed Churches , that there are ) why fhould not God be 
 thought to be as much with them, as with the Natienall Ajfembiy < 
 And if ail are to give themfelves up to this law, how will the 
 greater which is the worfe, either corrupt the purer or opprejfe 
 them? 
 
 5.// 
 
the Subordination offtanding Soynods^ faridicaH Courts^ 1 2 j 
 5. //qua greater; then the decrees of greater, viz.. Generall 
 Councels, informer ages, fhould bind us more then T^ation all or 
 Trovinciatl now : for they fhould have had more of Church in 
 them, by this rule, and fo more ofChrift: And then all Generall 
 Councils, that fet up Popes and Bijhops , and all other fuperftitions, 
 are frill binding. 
 If it be faid, We chofe them not. Yet (till that is not the ground makes 
 their decrees lefle Divine or obliging to us, but it lieth in the au- 
 thority of Gods ordinance, that they were the greater and more 
 generall Councels. And" how ever ftill, if this be the rule, that the 
 greater number of Churches rule the lefle ; then take the meafure 
 ofthis : greatneffe and number of Churches from Time, ftretching 
 the line over all ages pafl, as well as from the more number of 
 Churches infuch orfach a place, or Nations in the prefent times; 
 and fo looke what generall Councels for mod ages of the world 
 did eftablifh, fhould by vertue of this Law , oblige the prefent 
 times, and have more force upon us, then the ttniv erf alt Church 
 in this prefent age ; much more then of any TJatlonall Ajfemblj, if 
 either be (imply confidered under a meer Ecclefiafticall obligation, 
 that is, qui.gr eater and more of Church. Time varieth not the cafe : 
 lo:but that all their acls,having been acls,of the Church univerfalfin 
 all ages fhouid,comparatively, ftand more in force. The acls of any 
 the lad: general Counccls,will ftand in force,untill a generall Coun- 
 cell of like extent repeale thofe ads ; as the Statutes of Parliament 
 of our Anceftors doe, if not repealed, by like and equall authority. 
 Secondly, it is not the notion or confideration of their being Churches H# 
 infuch orfuch a Nation or Province, that can be the rule of making this 
 obligation or fetting of thefe bounds Jt muft be confidered the Queftion 
 is of a meere Ecclefiaftique obligation by vertue of Church principles, fuch 
 as fhould have been zjufirule and meafure to the primitive Churches, (ere 
 Princes turned Chriftianjto have reared up the like fubordinations. Now 
 then the limits from hence muft either rife from being firft one Church in 
 a Kingdome under the fame civill Government;Or fecondly,^ Church 
 in a Ration ; that is,either from a Tfutiomll refpecT: or Political/. 
 
 Firft in generall from neither; For that inftance, A els 15. of the 
 Councell there, its rife or the bounds of its authority was founded upon 
 neither :For if cither Natwnall or Toliticall refpe&Sjfhould have obliged 
 them, they fhould havefent to Sjria, and Cilicia, and not to Jerufa* 
 lem, who were both under a differing Government civill, and of and* 
 ther T^ation. 
 
 But move particularly. 
 
 R r 2 Firft, 
 
j 24. Meafcns of the deeming Brethren againft 
 
 Firfl rot qua Churoh in one Kingdom?, for that is ptr accident to a 
 Church, that it growes up to a Kingdoms or that the whole Nation 
 is converted to ChrifHanity : And therefore a (tt rule for all times can- 
 not be fetcht from hence ; this could not be the certaine meafure of che 
 Independency of Church power in the A potties times. 
 
 Secondly, this makes the bounds of Ecclefiafticall Independency and 
 jurifdiction xncertaine , varying as the bounds of Kingdomes doe vary. 
 When the Eomane Empire, had all Kingdomes under it, all the Chur- 
 ches muft then, have been obliged to have had generallflanding Counsels 
 fuited to the extent of the Empire, to have been the next unto the Pro- 
 vincial^ fuch as the National! are now to the Provinciall « or elfe before 
 the Empire turned Chriftian, there was by this rule even as many inde- 
 pendencies as Churches* And then againe, when this Empire was broken 
 into ten Kingdomes, yea and many moe, there arofe inftead of the for- 
 mer, many new Independent boundaries of Church-power (of which 
 only the queftion is, and not of that power, which a Church doth come 
 to have, and (imply and alone holds of the Magiftrates, which will be 
 meerly Civill) And then as Kingdomes vary by conquefts, the like al- 
 teration the bounds of Church power mutt receive. Among the femes it 
 did not, for when the Church was broken into tfto Kingdomes by Gods 
 appointment ; yet the Church ftate, by Gods inftitution, varied not, 
 but was ftill one Church, All thefe things are therefore meer acciden- 
 tals to Church power, and how can they be the foundation of the 
 bounds of it? 
 
 HI* Laftly,if this Independency arifeth from the Magiftratesi Then,there is 
 
 no need of fuch fubordmat ions ^ which is proved by experience in Refor- 
 med Churches abroad ; who are well enough governed, without thefe 
 fubordinations. Geneva hath no Appeals,ytt is governed but by one flaf- 
 ficall Church : And why may not all other Churches be governed as 
 well without them, iftheMagiftrate overfees them, and keeps each 
 Co their duties > The Churches in the LoW-fiuntries want National! Sy» 
 xeds, and yet are peaceably governed : yea, fome for a long time are 
 without provincial/, and fay if they can, they will never have more ; and 
 yet are peaceably and quietly governed 1. It is as the Civill- Magi firate 
 TanH terminate the Independency, and himjtlfe over-look^ it. Or, 
 
 2ZIL Second ly,if thefe bounds be fetcht from National! rejptfi /.Then 1 . in 
 g^rmany, C> Ivinifis muft fubjecl to the greater number of Lutherans ; 
 and in this Kingdomc, all Mmi&trs mutt make up this aflbciatjon, and 
 the greater number will be the worfer, and maJigne and oppofe the 
 good. If becatife the Calvixifts profeife a further reformation, they arc 
 difobiiged from affiliating with the Lutherans, then thofe^inany Na- 
 tion 
 
the Subordination cfftAndwg Synods, */ $nridxall Courts. ^ * j 
 
 tion that profeffe a further reformation than other*, are free by the 
 fame Law alfo. Surely Uniformity of principles is a more intimate bond 
 ©f fuch aflbciation than any fuch outward extrinfvcall refpccts. 2. If 
 qua Nation, or principality, then Wales mult be Independent. 3. If 
 qua Nation , then if nation be taken for a people of the fame tongue 
 and kindred, then all the Chriftian -Jewcs in the primitive times, when 
 fiattered into a Nition, were bound to have made one Church diftincfl 
 from all the Churches they cohabited with: If Nation betaken for a 
 people dwelling in the fame 2{ationall bounds, then the fame Je^es being 
 dijberfed into feveral Countries and Nations,muft have made one Church 
 with the feverall Nations where they lived ; whereas Peter in his Epi- 
 ftles, and fames in his, and 7W to the Hehrewts % write unto the 
 fewes apart, as Churches in all Nations. 
 
 Fourth ^Argument. 
 
 Thdt government which neceffarily produceth reprefent at ions offjnrU 
 tuall power, out of other representations , V?ith a derived poster there* 
 from, there * no warrant for* 
 
 But thefefubordinatiors of Synods, Trovinciall, National I } Oecumenu 
 call, for the government of the Church, doefo. 
 
 The Map? (hall be fpoken to, after the Minor Proportion is both 
 cleared and proved, which is done by putting two things together. 
 
 Firfi, that if there be an authoritative Subordination of all Churches 
 in the "Provinces to a National/ AiTembly, and fo of many Nations to an 
 Oecumtnicall, binding unto fubjeclion ; that then all, in the Provinces 
 muft be interested in that Nationall, & *//in the Nation in that Oecume- 
 nical/ ; fo as it may be Said, that they are all involved and included, and 
 fo obliged ♦ as it is in Parliamentary power, wherein the Shires are in- 
 volved. 
 
 Secondly, that this interefr, in this Subordination cannot arife, but 
 either by immediate chi e or thofe Elders, which (hall reprefent each 
 Chuch and Congregation imeMately, (which is the cafe of our Parlia- 
 ment menchofen imediately by thofe they reprefent) or elfe, that the 
 Trovinciall Elders, fent by the Congregations, (hall choofe out of 
 themfelves, fome/tw,that fhall reprefent the provinces, and fo likewife 
 the Nationall ssfffemblles fhall choofe out fome few, which {hall repre- 
 icnt the Mfw/f Nation in a gencrall Councell. Now thehrft of thefeis 
 not, nor can be, in the choke of a National; AflembJy. Congregations 
 «ee: not, for any fuch] imediate choice, but the Elders of them, all 
 
 Rr 3 choofe 
 
126 Redfons of the dijfeming Brethren agAtnfi 
 
 choofe out of themfelves ; So as the obligation of all the Churches 
 to be fubje&to a National! Afifembly (arifing out of thofe other fubor- 
 dinations) is not, becaufethey are a greater number of Elders or Di- 
 vines, (for in a Provincial 1 Synod there may be aflembled as many as in 
 the Nationall) but it arifeth from hence, that feme out ©fall, doe re- 
 prefent the reft : And if chey did not meet and Vote, as reprefenters of ' 
 the whole , then when a Nationall sAfiembly fits in a great City, all other 
 neighbour Minifters might come and Vote with them, and out- Vote 
 them, who are the reprefenters of the whole. 
 <JMa)or+ 
 Now that fuch a representation hiving a derived Jpirituall tower from 
 ether reprefentationsjs not in matters Sp'irituz\,warrantablr. Befides,all ar- 
 guments againft delegated power in matters Spiritual,' all Minifters being 
 imediately Chrifti Vicarii : & that all fuch reprefentations grow weaker^ 
 as reflexions ufe to doe ; Elders reprefent the Churches ,in ClaJficalUnd 
 Provinciall Aflemblies, as being imediately chofcn by them, but the 
 Elders in Nationall AiTemblies, are the reprefentatkm ofSlders in Pro- 
 vinces, and foarea Jhadow of t h*t firftfljadow - y whereas yet, they have 
 the mofl of power i even all that can be fuppofed to belong to the whole 
 fubftance. Befides fuch confederations, it is argued thus. 
 
 i. Ifthefe/f^outofiV^^/, in a general! Councell fliould bind all 
 thofe Nations in matters fpirituall, and a few out of Provinces the Na- 
 tion, they muft be fuppofed to have the promife, and an affifiance anfwt- 
 rable. But where is either the promife, or can gifts in a few be fuppo- 
 fed to produce fuch an obligation ? Tis true, where two or three are ga- 
 thered together, His promife is to be in the midfi of them, and fo fuppofe 
 with more, when more are met ; But that his promife fhould be, to be 
 with a /h* out of a Nation, as with the whole Nation ; and thofe not 
 chofen imediately by the Nation, and but the Reprefenters of them, can- 
 not be expected. Tis granted, that each fo met, hath the gifts and affi- 
 fiance of an Elder, and fo the whole as of fo many Elders, met (as we in 
 this Jjfembly, met together, are to be lookt upon, and the judgements 
 thereof accordingly reverenced) but that as they are Elders reprefenta- 
 tive of hundreds of ether Elders, who themfelves are Reprefenters of Chur- 
 ches, that any fuch addition fliould arife to them, by virtue of this du^ 
 /7/^m/reprcfentation, over and above what is in their fingle gifts and 
 office, Let either a warrant be produced or a promife. Two things are 
 allowed them, but a third denyed them. Firft, it is granted, they may 
 have affiftance to judge as Elders, which is their office. Secondly, afli- 
 ftance to judge according tatheir per fonai 7 abilities, being thus called 
 to give their advice. But -thirdly, fuch a fuperadded afliftance as holds 
 
 fro/or' 
 
tht Subordination offtanding Synods^ juridical/ Courts. 127 
 proportion, to that fpirituall bulk,and body which they ireprefent is denied 
 them : for fuppofe, that alwayes it falls our, that the foft and ckoyceft 
 of a Nation are chofen; yet ftillnot to hold porportion to the whole 
 Nation, there mud be more than an ordinary promife for it • and 
 therefore had need be cxprciTe and evident. When the Jefuics fay, that 
 the Tove may erre, as Perform privata ; but not as Pontifex, when he is 
 inhischaire,reprefentingthc whole Church; Davenant confutes them ^ t >± u ^ cc 
 thus, Officium dat *s4uthoritatem judicandi, fed private per font conditio- & Normi 
 nes,cLint modtun & facultatem. That it is otherwife in Common-wealths, fidci Prep 
 is, becaufe they being humane creations, the reprefented can fet up a^po- 
 wcr, which fhall rcprefent them: But this power we fpeak of, is fuper- 
 naturall, and ratift be from God, and his infiitution. The Sanedrim of 
 Hierufalem, had zfpeciaU afliftance above all Courts t\k ; and there- 
 fore God appointed Caufes to be brought to it ; which fpcciall afli- 
 ftance is intimated, twice in the inftitution of it. Dent. 1 7. by this, That 
 they fhotild go up to the place Vrhich God fhall choofe, Ver.8. And do according 
 to the Sentence which they of that place ( which the Lord (hall choofeJyZ*?iZ 
 fijew thee. An emphafis is put upon that blefling,which by Gods choice 
 and election, did accompany that place, which God had chofen to /wr 
 his Name, and promifed to be in an eminent manner, prefent in ; and 
 to accept their Sacrifices there offered, (which was a reprefentative wor- 
 ship of that Nation J and not elfewherc. Now, as it was the refrefm*- 
 tive worjhip of the Nation, fo thefe Governours were the reprefentative 
 Governours of the Nation j and both fanftifled in that place, as the, gift 
 Was by the Altar, as that which God had chofen. If the like inftitution 
 were found with the intimation of fuch a blefling,from a peculiar choice 
 of Gods,of Nationall AiTemblies,all ought to fubjecT: to them,in matters 
 fpirituall. 
 
 2. If there be fuch reprefentations as thefe, in one or few perfons of 
 many Churches, they have each for that time, whilft in fuch an Ailembly, 
 csfrchiepifcopa/l and Epifcopa/l power ; and their cafe i9 parallel (parallel 
 then, as for that time and occafon, and as met in a Synod) with that of/0 
 many Bijhops met in * (f ounce 11 ^ whole Epifcopall power as then, and 
 therein met, lies in this, that they are fo many (fhurches reprefentative : 
 Efpecially this would fall our, if thefe Synods llicu-d frill confift of the 
 fame men, or if tome few fhould be alwayes chofen to them. And why 
 may there not be /landing perfons that are more skUfull in fuch affaires, 
 through exercife, as well zsftanding Affemblies themfelves ? And then as 
 touching matters of furifditlion, in fuch an Ailembly , they are for 
 the prefent, the lame with fo many Bifhops met in a Convocation* 
 
 3* If thefe reprefentations having the power of all the Churches in 
 
 the 
 
Ia g Keafons of the diflcnt'wg Brethren dgdlnjl 
 
 the Nation, were warrantable, they mull Be A Church. Now be- 
 fides,that they are no where fo calied:& if they were called fo,then they 
 ixcibody toChrifi; for fo every Church is; and where is Chrift faid 
 tahwezreprefentative Body, of hi* Body? They are a company of£/- 
 ders perfomilly gathered, but a reprefentative Church they are not, nor can 
 be ; and yet muft be, or they have not the power of all the Churches in 
 a Nation in them, norotherwife doe their ads oblige them to fub- 
 jedion. 
 
 Beafons againft the allegation of A&s 15. for the Subordination 
 of Synods, Provincial^ Nationally Oecumenical!. 
 
 BEfides, what hath been faid againft this example, alledged to prove 
 Presbyteriall Atls of Government, by the Elders of the Church of Hie- 
 rufalem, in the Rcafons formerly prefented ; proving firft, that this one 
 example cannot ferve to prove both the PresbyteriaU Government 
 and Synodicall ; but that if the Reverend Aflcmbly will lean to the one, 
 the other muft be quitted And fecondly,that thatAjfembly was not afor- 
 mall Synod, but onely a reference, by the particular Church of Autioch of 
 their differences among themfelves, unto this particular Church of Hie- 
 rufalem and no ether: It may be moreover obferved, that the example 
 of it, is here further extended, to prove all forts of Synods and Subor- 
 dinations thereof; both Provinemll, T^ationati, and O ecumenical 7 ; 
 and fo it muft finite all thefe fo great varieties, whereas it is not fit for 
 Any one of them* 
 
 But if it had been a Synod. Yeti. Neither Provincial, nor Nat : $- 
 ndliyfot Antioch confultsnot with the Churches of her owne T^ation, 
 but feeks to Hierufalem, a Church of, fudea of another Nation, and ano- 
 ther Province. Neither 2. Is it the initance of&ftanding Synod, (which 
 the word Subordination in the proposition, doth neceflarily inferre, or 
 elfe the links ofthofechaines will not hang together) but eletlive ; for 
 they fent out of election, and choice to them, and to them but about 
 this one fgueftion, at this time, without any obligation to referre all 
 other matters to them in an ordinary way. Nor 3. Was there a mul- 
 tiplication of Synods, but onely one 9 in whofe judgement thofeof An- 
 tioch retted. 4. Much lefle is it the inftance, of rearing up ofafubordi- 
 ncttion and consignation of Sy no. is, fuperiour and inferiour ; which is a 
 faither thing ; For though, when offences arc not healed, and one re- 
 ference to other Churches is not fufficient to cure them ; there fliould 
 
 be 
 
the SuUrdtmtm rf ft finding Synods, as Juridical! Courts. 1 2 9 
 
 ht a feeking to others, yet the example obhgeththeCharches that arc 
 . . i dtfterenc^, not to take arid cboofe the Churches of'that Protwce ; ei- 
 ; heras of that Province or asthegreater number, to whom both thofe 
 among whom the controverfie is,& thefe,to whom it was afore referred, 
 nvjlt'x fu>ordinately fubjeft. Much Idle doth it hold forth, that the 
 Churches of that Province, may judicially challenge a right ofamfority, 
 todeciaeit, and oblige them Subpoena to their determination; and 
 thenjthc Churches of that whole Nation challenge theHVe over all. 
 Butlhll it runs in this way onely ; thatthje win fall be judged meet eft 
 andahleft, and faithfuleft to determine and compofe it, by thofe who 
 are to refer it, (hall have the hearing of it. 
 
 The Argument of the Reverend Aflembly was drawne from ifkerea- 
 yor,and let there be found like reafon, and it is granted : And though 
 the inftance is not the pattern of a formall Syxod ; yet it holds forth 
 this rule of equity, that when offences arife among Churches, references 
 ought to be made, from out ofthemfelves to Churches abroad to heal 
 them. But the queftion is, to "tohat Churches thefe references are to be 
 made, and how? (Let the like reafon held forth in the eXdmple, be kept 
 unto, And decide it) Say wcftill, to thofe Churches, the Churches of ended 
 or divided /hall choofe as fitteft and ablefl to determine it. This is clear in 
 the example, Antioch was not bouud to refer it to the Church of Jeru- 
 salem, as greater, or as a neighbour Church, or of the fame Province, but 
 as beft able to judge of the differences. And this way ageees with the 
 Law of Nature, and. of arbitration, fo ufuall amongfl: men, which God 
 hath there, fet up as an ordinance, and patterne of proceeding in fuch 
 Cafes: But this Subordination of Sj nods, the Propofition intends, holds 
 fo differing a courfe from this, As firft, inftead of Eletlive Synods and 
 occafonall, it fets up ftanding zndfet, to be the Judge of the Churches 
 under them/ir ever, Secondly,not in one cafe (as Antioch to Jernfalem) 
 but in all cafes, whatever (hall fall out. Thirdly, not in a way of 'multi- 
 plication or diverffication, as need fhall be ; but o£ fubordination and fet- 
 ledfuperiority ; And the grounds of this to be, becaufe the great eflmufi 
 rule the lejfe : and that they are neighbour (fhurches in the fame Province 
 or Nation. And this, aAclsi t ). is fo farre from countenancing by 
 a Par ratio, that in all things it is unlike : and fo, there is a differing con- 
 fttturion and rule of thefe Synods thus fubordinate, and what the rea- 
 fon drawne from zAtts 1 5. will warrant. And therefore doth make a 
 differ ingformall reafon in the Government. 
 
 And Hum a n e Prudence added,wil not re&ifie it;when the rea- 
 fon of the inftitution is fo much varied from. For inftance. If the fi'ndj- 
 
 S f mextall 
 
1 30 Ketfcns of the dijfenthg Brethren dgainfi 
 
 mentaBLaw, for remedy of wrongs, and deciding controverfics in any 
 Kingdome, were by arbitration eletlhe, to take them to be their judges, 
 whom the parties in difference judge apteft, every way, for the prefenc 
 controverfie ; & that the Precedents & ruled cafes hold forth no more : 
 And if the government of another Kingdom were, that the greater fhoukl 
 rule and determine the canfes of the leflfe ; and according to the propor- 
 tion thereof, to have fubordinate (landing Courts ere&ed,. to which 
 (by appeal from one to the other) all caufes fhould be brought : Whe- 
 ther Wf re not thefe two, fitch differing frames of Government y fo as, that 
 he, that would mould the firft to the fecond, might not be challenged 
 to fet up a new Government, differing from the fundamentall Law of 
 that Kingdome : And whether the firft is not a liberty to be flood upon, 
 againft the fecond, if it were vouchfafed to any Kingdome, (and that is 
 the cafe here) is humbly fubmitted. 
 
 And the bounds of fuch Affemblies eleclive T need no fetor {landing 
 rule : becaufe they arife from emergent occafions, in cafes of controverfie 
 and offence ; and the extent of them, And fo the condition and nature 
 of the things themfelves,doe hold forth their own rife : like as the bounds 
 of particular Congregations to be of fuch, as live fo, as conveniently to 
 meet in one place, arifeth from the nature of the thing itfelfe^ and the 
 neceffary requifites thereunto. 
 
 JReafom agawjl the ^Argument \irawne from the Analogic of 
 
 Matthew 18. , 
 
 1. *TpHe flrength of the Argument runs, that becaufe there fhmldbc 
 JL this remedy, that therefore, there is fuch a remedy. 
 2*Tis granted,there is a remedy : which is a going forth to other Chur- 
 ches, which Alls 15. holds forth: But fax, excommunication (which is 
 the remedy held forth, Mat. 1 8.) of the offending (fhurch or Churches 
 fhould be the remedy, is not there held forth, as hath been (hewn. There 
 is remedy of Coordination, fuch as between two Nations, and as between 
 Pares, as Churches are, proceeding in a way foitable to their condition ; 
 but not this offubordinatien,thzt the greater number of Churches fhould 
 become (landing Courts, and have power to excommunicate the lefler ; 
 But that all Churches have a power to Declare the offence, and with- 
 draw the communion from thofe Churches. And in reafon, how is it pofc 
 Gbkfora 2(ationall Church to excommunicate all the Churches of a Pro- 
 vince f And how ineffeftuall would that be ? Or for a generafl Coun- 
 cefl to excommunicate a T^ation ?■ And if they cannot ufe this Remedy ; 
 to what end is this fubordination of Synods, having this Authority plea, 
 ded for It And 
 
the Subordination of funding Soynods,^ juridical/ Courts. 1 3 t 
 
 And whereas tis faid, that there mtt ft (ft the fame Remedy, that is in a 
 Congregation, for an offending brother ; or elfe where the difeafe isftrongeft % 
 the remedy is weakeft* It is anfwered, 
 
 Firft, that where the difeafe is ftrongeft, there,this, which is called the I, 
 ftrongeft remedy, cannot be applyed ; or with an apparent inefficaci- 
 oufnefle. For, when the Churches in a province er re, or a T^ationall 
 Church, here the difeafe is ftrongeft ; and yet it would be in vain, to in- 
 terdict them, communion among them/elves, or deliver them unto Satan* 
 Yea,when it comes to the higheft, namely, a 2(ationaH AJfembly^whcrc^ 
 in (If erring) the difeafe is greateft and ftrongeft; there isnotonely n$ 
 remedy, but the higheft and greateft power to doe hurt, upon all under 
 them : As when the generality of the Clergy were Arians* And if they 
 crre, the Errour is wor fe than ofa^werring.ora Bifhops: he is but 
 one, and may be depofed. And in the greater bodies or the Qergt % 
 the greater part are, and have been ftill the worftr y and more corrupt; 
 as is apparent in this Kingdome at prefent ; in which, by virtue of th« 
 Presbyteriall principles, all Minifters mud be taken in : and if you will 
 put them out, where will others be had in their roome ? Convert men 
 we cannot ; and if not converted, Minifters, of all others, are the worft 
 and greateft oppofitcs to Religion. And if a Nationall Aftemblybe 
 chofen by thefe, the greater number are like to be of the worft; and 
 fiich,as may alter all that you Now have done. 
 
 And if it be faid, that this will hold againfl great politique bodjes at 
 welt, Vvho may undoe the Common-wealth. The answer is, that the com- 
 mon and eejuatt intereft of all, and the common principles of preferving 
 the rights and liberties of a State, and fceking the common good, is 
 naiurall unto the generality of men ; But the truths of the Gofpell and 
 purity of Religion, and the power thereof, is contrary to the principles 
 of all naturall men : and in all ages, themoft of the Clergy have been 
 apteft to corrupt the one,& oppofe the other.And in thofe ages,when fuch 
 Councclls began to be Standing, and in raoft Credit, after the firft 300. 
 years, then was it, that the Myftery of Popery did worke moft power- 
 fully ; and thofe fuperftitions, and corrupt opinions grew up, which 
 made way for That man of fnne, and that Wy of Vopith Dottrine, that 
 hath over-fpread the world. 
 
 And, if there fhould be no danger of corrupting the Truth ; yet the 
 Churches, though reformed, comming all out of Popery, and not be- 
 ing fully enlightned in all things ; and the firft notion of any thing fur- 
 ther in matters of Theology, ufually falling into the hearts & fpirits but 
 of a few, we fhould have no further Truth taught, but oppreffcd, till an 
 whole Nation is enlightned in it* 
 
 S f 2 Second- 
 
1 3 2 Rtafins of the deeming Brethren again ft 
 
 II, Scondiy, the efficacy of all remedies, doth depend, Firft, upon 
 Chi ft* Heffing on them, w&ich depends upon his mftitution of them ; and 
 Par ratio > \or like reafon will never fe/ ftp an ordinance, unlejfe Chrifi hath 
 himj elf appointed it. And in the example, zAlls 1 5 . there is not this way 
 of proceeding held forth. Secondly, ic lies mfmt/ibl^nejje to the condi- 
 tion of tlvfe that are to be dealt wkh. How when many Churches deal 
 with an erring Church, the Churches in a Province, with many erring 
 Churches, or of a Nation with a Province, they muft be in reafon dealt 
 W\t\\,fHkably tpthe condition of 'Churches ,and of a multitude : And fureiy 
 a brotherly way of admonit'wi,hcQ. withdrawing communion, is morefuit- 
 tableu:Xo fucfi s As in the civill government, if & Province Rebels,?** 
 great* rnukitude of Subjects \ ftiould the State prefently hangup all in 
 that Province > Although unto particular perfons, rebelling, this is effi- 
 cacious to iupprefle Rebellion. Thirdly,Chnft hath fuited his remedies, 
 $q all time s y and unto all conditions ; andhowNationall and Provinciall 
 AtTembltes could be, during the firft 3oo.years,when yet Churches were 
 weii governed, is fubraitted. 
 
 An d I aft I v, i f the analogic of this 1 8 . 0/ Matthew be argued* Then 
 Firft, let the Analogie be kept. And then,when a Church hath offen- 
 ded other Churches, they >are not to bring them, to a fet Court of Ju- 
 dicature at firft : for Chrifts rule is otherwife, in dealing with an offen- 
 ding brother : fletlively to take two or three other Churches to admonifh 
 them, (which is more fuited to that way fore-mentioned, Acts. 15.) 
 As for the proceedings againft a Brother in a Congregation, there is 
 not a fet appointed number of two or three /landing perfons to be the ad* 
 monifhers of all perfons offending ere it comes to the Church; nor 
 have they power to excommunicate. And thus by this proportion, iaftead 
 of thefe fet and ftanding Provinciall Atlemblics, to whom caufes are 
 next brought ; and thefe armed with power of Excommunication • 
 there (hould onely be two or three, or more neighbour Churches to admo- 
 niftjkhe offending Church, and not * flooding Court to bring'it unto. 
 And then 
 
 Secondly, let it be fhewn where * ftanding Synod of 'Elders is called 
 Th e Chur c H;and how then can the Analogie hold,when it holds not 
 m the Name, Tell the Church ? The like reafon holds not, unleffe thefe 
 particular Congregations have the power of Excommunioation ; for 
 otherwife , if thefe greater Aflfemblies poVver be argued from the 
 Analogie 10 ft he lejfer, and the fame remedy Sxcommunication, and the 
 particular Congregations have not, that allowed them ; then by the princi- 
 ples of this Ana logic, it is no where to be found : but as the Congregation 
 
the Subordination cfftanding Synods, tu tfuridicall Qwt$* 133 
 
 nail Churches have power, oncly to admonifti and fufpend from Sacra- 
 ments, fo the greater ~s4§emblies fhould have no more alfo. And 
 though the Church umverfallis called a £htirch and One Body to Clwift ; 
 yet as materiaUj confidered, and not as a Politique body, in refpecl: to 
 government, which was never yet averted by This Assembly. 
 
 Tho, G&odmn, William Bridge, 
 
 Siefubfcribitur: Philip Nje, William Greenhill, 
 
 fer. Burroughs , William Carter* 
 Sidrach Sjmpfon. 
 
 Concordat cum Original 
 
 AdwiramBjfieldi Scriba. 
 
 11 " '' ■— — m 
 
 Sfj 
 
A N SW E R 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ASSEMBLY of DIVINES, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REASONS 
 
 OF'THE 
 
 DISSENTING BRETHREN, 
 
 AGAINSTTHE 
 
 Proportion concerning the Subordination 
 ot fongregationatt, Qafiicall, Trovinciall, 
 
 and Nathnall Aflcmblies, for the Govern- 
 ment of the Church, 
 
 L O 2^D 2^> 
 Printed for Humphrey Harvard. 1648. 
 
*37 
 
 The Answer of t\\z Ajfembly ofDivines, 
 unto the Reasons of the Diffenting ^Bre- 
 thren againft the Subordination 
 
 of Ecclefiajlicall Jffemblies of Government y vi\. 
 
 It is law full and agreeable to the word of God, that there be a Sub- 
 ordination of Congregationall , Claflicall , Provinciall 
 and Nationall ^Affemblies y for the Government of the 
 Church. 
 
 Efore wee make anfwer particularly to their Argu- 
 ments, we defire thefe few things may be premifed, to 
 give light to the whole bufinefle. 
 
 i. That this Queftion is of the fame nature with that 
 againft which our Brethren did give in their former 
 Rcafons, [jVhethcr many particular Congregations m$y be 
 under one Prejbyteriall Government^ efpeciallyas themfelves ftated the 
 queftion;For they there difpute onelyagainft joyning of fuch Congregati- 
 ons under one Presbytery, as have their Officers particularly fixed to 
 them ; (and fuch a Claflicall Presbytery is a kind of Synod;) but they 
 profefledly decline the difpute, in cafe thofe Officers do all in common 
 take care of thofe feverall Congregrations. 
 
 2. That the Pr&cognita before our Anfwer to thofe Reafons, have the 
 fame ufe here that thev had there. 
 
 3. That mod of thefe Arguments of our Brethren^ are the fame for 
 fubftancc, with fome of their former Arguments, and only put now in- 
 to another drelle. As will appear further in /canning of them. 
 
 4. Our Brethren here deny not Synods (which they fay frequently 
 are an holy ordinance of God) nor the feverall forts of 'Synods ; but only 
 the ftandmg ufe of them, (as the Prelates did againft the Non-confor- 
 mifts, See 'Parker de polit. Ecclef Lib. ? . c.25.) and their Subordination 
 one to another ; not the Subordination of Congregations to them. 
 
 T c 
 
 5. Though 
 
138 The Anfwcr of the Affembly of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 
 5. Though our Brethren here deny the ftanding ufe of Synods ; yet none 
 of their Arguments are framed againft that thdr ftanding ufe, but only 
 againft the Subordination of them. Only they except fometimes againft 
 their ftanding ufe,becaufe the caufes to be judged there are Occafionali : 
 ■. which can be no juft exception; For there may be ftanding £W/ courts 
 yet fuch controverfies are occafionali : And there may be not onely 
 Handing Phjfttians„ but Co/ledges of them, though difeafes be occa- 
 fionali ; And there may be not only ftanding Presbyteries in Congrega- 
 tions, but alfo fet times of their meeting, and yet their bufinefs be oc- 
 cafionali. 
 
 6. Our Brethren acknowledge (in their difputes and otherwifej fo 
 much concerning Synods and their ufefulneffe, as is fufficient to war- 
 rant not onely the lawfulnefle of their ufe 9 but alfo the ft aiding ufe of 
 them. As for inftance. 1. That they are an ordinance of God upon all 
 occafions of difficulty. 2. That all the Churches of a Province being of- 
 fended at a particular Congregation, may call thatfingle Congregation 
 to an account ; yea all the Churches in a Nation, may call one or more 
 Congregations to an account. 3. That they may examine and admo- 
 ni(h, andj in cafe of obftinacy, declare them to be fubverters of the 
 Faith. 4. That Synods are of ufe to give advife to the Magiftrate in 
 matters of Religion. 5. That they have authority to determine con- 
 cerning controversies of faith. 6. That their determinations are to be 
 received with great honour and confeientious refpect, and obligation 
 asfromChrift. 7. That if an offending Congregation refufe to fubmit 
 to their determinations, they may withdraw from them and deny 
 Church Communion and fellowship with them. 8. That this fentencc 
 of Non- communion may be ratified and backed with the authority of 
 the Magiftrate, to the end it may be the more effectual!. 9. That they 
 may Convent and call before them any perfon within their bounds, 
 whom the Ecclefiafticall bufineffe before them doth concerne ; and 
 may hear and determine fuch caufes 3nd differences as do orderly come 
 before them. (Befidcmany other things which have in theAflembly 
 been voted concerning Synods ; to which they have entered no difient.) 
 And furely fuch things asthefe, wherein there will be occafion of the 
 u(q of Synods by our Brethrens acknowledgement, are fo ordinary, and 
 likely to fall out fo often, as will afford occafion enough for fet, and 
 frequent meeting of Synods. 
 
 7. That whereas our Propofition and proofes, concerning the feve- 
 ral! forts of Synods and Church Affemblies, do only hold out an 
 Agreeablenefte to the word, and a Warrant ableneffe by the word, of 
 thefe feverall forts of Aflemblies and their Subordination: Our Brethrens 
 arguments do only indcavourto prove, that the Scripture doth not ex- 
 
 prefe 
 
the Dimming Br: agahjl the Subordination of Synods. i jp 
 
 frcffe or defigne them ; that is, that they have not an exprejfe inftitmion : 
 which is not our Aflertion, and to which we fpake Efficiently in our 
 Anfwers to their former Reafons now before the Honourable Houfcs. 
 For though we agree with our Brethren, that Synods are an ordinance 
 of God ; yet do not plead an exprefle Institution, that each Synod 
 mud ncceflirily be thus and thus bounded, according to the divifion 
 of Shires or Provinces, fo that there may not be more or fewer then 
 fuch a number, nor othcrwife bounded or divided, ( no more then 
 cither we, or our Brethren, can plead for the number and bounds of 
 particular Congregations ; ) Though yet we do atfirme that Synods 
 thus bounded are agreeable to, and warranted by the word of God. 
 
 8. That the arguments of our Brethren againft fuch Synods as we af- 
 fert, do in many things militate as ftrongly againft fuch Elective Synods 
 which themfeh es allow, as againft our Aflertion. As will appear in the 
 particulars. 
 
 The Awfwcr to their frjl Argument. 
 
 Thefe things being premifed, we come to their ftrft Argument, which 
 they forme thus ; Thofe (fotirts which mufi have the moft exprejfe war- 
 rant and defignment for them in the Wordy and hive not ; their power is t% 
 befujpetled, and not erelled in the Church of God, But thefe ought to have 
 fo y and have not. Therefor e> &c, 
 
 sAnf i. Our Brethren here lay out their ftrcngth in proving the 
 CMiwr, and fhew that thefe Aflemblies arc not Inftituted; but wave 
 that which is in queftion ; whether they be agreeable to an Inftitution, 
 or the word of God. For things which are not in every particular of 
 them Inftituted,may yet be agreeable to an Inftitution,and the Word of 
 God. But if they would havcf concluded againft the Proportion, they 
 muft have argued thus, Thofe zAffembhcs which (though for the gcnerall 
 they have an inftitution, and arc an ordinance of God, yet in particular^ 
 have not the great eft and moft exprejfe warrant and defignement for them in 
 the Word y and that both for their Subordination and N r umber ', and alfo/or 
 their Bounds, and limits of Power ,are not agreeable te y or warranted by the 
 word of God. But if they contend onely, that what hath not fuch ex prefs 
 defignment hath not in thofe particulars an exprefle Inftitution } and may 
 not therefore be erected as So inftituted> they contend about that which 
 is not now in queftion. 
 
 2. Their Argument if it have any ftrength at all againft our propofiti- 
 on, proves more then our Brethren pretend to ftrive for ; For they pro- 
 fcfte here to difpute againft the Subordination of them, and not againft 
 the being and exiftence of them ; which they grant to be lawfull and 
 ufefull. If out Brethren tun (hew fuch a particular expreffe defignement 
 
 T t a for 
 
, 4<d The Anfwer of the Jffembly of Divines, unto the R cafons $f 
 for the being of them, we fhall be glad to hear it : If they cannot, bnt 
 fay onely (as we doe)that they are agr cable to, Zc Warranted by the word; 
 then either their argument hurts not not us , or elfe it overthrow 
 
 what themfelves grant. 
 
 But we wifl examine the Reafens our Brethren bring to prove their 
 CMmor, Yet muft tell them withall, that their UWajor (of which they 
 offer no proof at all ) may admit of an exception. For though it were 
 granted, That fuch things as have expreffe defignment in the word, ought 
 in the practice of them to be conformed to that delignement fin their 
 bounds, limits, number, &c. if any fuch defignement be) yet we muft 
 not therefore infer, That, if there be any failure in any of thefe, the 
 thing were better not be at all, yea ought not at all to be ; which is the 
 fenfe of their Major Propofition. The Paffover had particular defigne- 
 ment for the time, place, perfons, &c. Yet Hez.ekiah thought fit to keep 
 a Paffover, though varying in fome particulars, from that defignement, 
 rather then not to keep a Paffover at alL Yet fay our Brethren in this 
 Argument, That Synods which themfelves eall an holy ordinance of God, 
 and grant that they have an expreffe Warrant and defignement for them 
 in the word, (orelfc, by this argument, they muft not, as here they do, 
 grant them laWfull, and of great ufe) may not yet be at allcrefted, un- 
 ieffe we can find out the Greateft andmoft Expreffe warrant and defigne- 
 ment for their Subordination, and Number, Ana for their Bounds, and limits 
 of power. In Civill (fourts, we are fure they may be agreeable to, and 
 warrantable by the Word of God, though they have no fuch exprefie 
 particular defignement in all thofe circumftances ; But, fay our Brethren, 
 in the Church of God, Courts may not be ereclcd unleffe there be fuch 
 defignements of thefe particulars, though the Courts themfelves be de- 
 figned. To thefirft part of the Minor. 
 
 To prove the firft part of their Minor (that Synods ought to have 
 fuch exprefie warrant and defignement in thefe particulars) they bring 
 five reafons, and in all of them profefie to argue a pari ratione. 
 
 But we aske th m, whether argumentuma pari ratione, be a fufficient 
 argument in the point in hand, and others of like n-ature : If it be, then they 
 mult not blame m for ufing fuch arguments, but grant our arguing (a pari 
 ratione )hom analogic, though in matters of inititution,to be a good way 
 of arguing Jf it be not-then they ought to have brought other arguments 
 themfelves : For it fs not enough to plead, that We ufe fuch arguments, 
 unlefs they fay too,that we doVptl in ufing them. For it argument urn ad ho- 
 jnine only,be a fufflcient argument againft our propofition ;then isRtfpon- 
 fio adhominem a fufficient Anfwer to their Argument,and we need fay no 
 more to thefe five arguments, then That it is a way sf 'arguing which 
 
 them- 
 
the Differing Br. dgainft the Subordination of Synods. 14 1 
 themfeives allow not. But we will confider of them particularly. 
 
 Their fi\ ft reafon k pari ratione is this ; That in the Government of the I. 
 OhnrchyFor the Sub ordination ^/OFFICERS there was an cxprefs institu- 
 tion^ Cor. I 2. 28. god hathfet in his (fhurch,frft Apoftles,fccondarily Pro- 
 phets, (and Svangelifls, Who were of a parallel order) thirdly Teachers : 
 (they fhould have added, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, 
 Governments, diver fit ies of tongues) But fay they, Chrift hath not fet the like 
 Subordination ef Court S . ^(They fhould have faid, Therefore there 
 Ou G HT To B E the like for the Subordination of Courts; for they are now 
 provingthe firft part of their Minor fVcax fuch ought to ^,not the fecond 
 part that fuch is not.,) 
 
 In anfwer to this we fay. 1. That they do not in this Argument un- 
 dertake to prove that Synods are not of fianding ufe y much leffc, that 
 they may not be eretled, but that they may not be Subordinate, 
 
 2. That, whatever Subordination there was,of an Officer of one kind 
 to an Officer of another kind, and whatever power and authority Apo- 
 files had over others, yet no fuch Subordination of Officers can be pro- 
 ved out of Thu plare. A Diverftty of Officers may be proved from 
 hence, and perhaps a difference in Dignity, {that greater is he that Prophe- 
 Jie'/hen he that Jpea^eth with Tongues) but not a Subordination of officers 
 for Government. And we do not beleeve that our Brethren will fay, 
 that Puling Elders (whom they grant to be included in Governments) 
 are fubordinate to thofe that work^Miracles, and Thofc to Teachers ; 
 Thofe to Trovhets, and Thofe againe to Apoftles \ and that Appeales 
 might be made from the Ruling Elder to him that works* CMiracles, 
 from him to the Teacher, &c. 
 
 3. How doth his Text prove a Subordination of Evange lifts to Apo- 
 ftles, and of Teachers to them? For the Evanaelift is not mentioned 
 in the Text: As for what they adde, (Who were of a parallel order) 
 1. This is but Gratis diclum } xhey doe not prove it ; if they allcdge that in 
 Eph.4.1 1. Evangelifts are reckoned Apoftles, after and before Paftors and 
 Teachers, and therefore mult be of the fame order wiiti Trophets ; we 
 anfwer, 2. That the Method there ufed doth no: prove a Subordination, 
 which is the point in queltion ; for if fo, then matt Evangelifts be fub- 
 trdinate to Prophet?, not coordinate and. of a parallel order : And they 
 might aswL-ll, for ought there appears, be of a parallel order with, ft* 
 fior and Teachers, as of a parallel order with Prophets. And 3. If it be 
 granted that they are of a parallel order with Prophets, yet that there 
 muft be therefore the fame Subordination of them. toApoltles, and of 
 Teachers to them, r, not an exprejfe Infittution, but onely an Argument; 
 
 Tt 3 i 
 
142 The Anfwer of the Affemlly of Divines unto the Rcafons of 
 
 a pari natione, Bccaufe there is the fame reafon for the Subordination of 
 Evangeiifts, that there is of Prophets. 4. We hence obferve that ouc 
 Brethren make ufe of an Argument onely, apart ratione, to prove a pofi. 
 tive Inftitution. For their Argument is to this purpofe • For the Subor- 
 dination of Prop hets there is an exprejfe Inftitution, & there is the like 
 reafon for the Subordination of Evangeiifts, Ergo, Evangt lifts are alfo 
 fubordinate.We might as wel argue,that for theSubordination ofofficers 
 there is an exprefle Inftitution, and there is the like reafon for Subordi- 
 nation of Courts ; Therefore Courts alfo are to be fubordinate. And 
 if they will not allow this to be a juft exception, £That for the Subordi- 
 nation of Prophets there was a Jpecia/l Inftitution, or eifeit might not 
 have been owned, But there is the fame reajon of the Subordination of 
 Evangeiifts, Therefore there muft be alfo an exprejfe Inftitution for that 
 too fand not onely an argument d pari ration?) or elfe it muft not be 
 owned,] They muft not then make ufe of this argument againft us, but 
 do themfelves deny the ftrength of it. 
 
 4. They might as wel argue,There was an exprefle Inftitution/o/* Subor- 
 dination in the (fhurch, or elfe it might not be owned ; and therefore (a 
 pari ratione) there muft be at exprejfe an Inftitution for taking it away, or 
 elfe it muft be owned (HI. Yea that, There was an exprefs Inftitution 
 forfetting Apoftles, Evangeiifts, Prophets, Miracles, Tongues,&c. in the 
 Church :and therefore (apart ratione) there muft be as exprefle an inftitu- 
 tion for removing them, or elfe they continue ftill. For there is the fame 
 Authority requifite to remove an inftitution, that there is to eftablifb it. 
 And when our Brethren have well considered thefe things,together with 
 the praclifes of their owne wayes,and fo ftated, interpreted, and limited 
 what they fay here, as that themfelves will be willing to ftand to it, and 
 their own principles and pracTifes not vanifh before it ; we doubt not 
 but to fliew better and clearer warrant for Synods, for their Subordi- 
 nation, and for their ftandmg ufe, ^though yet our Propofition fpcakes 
 nothing of the ft anting ufe of Synods) then they can do for many pra- 
 d:ifes of their owne, which yet they beleeve, not only to be Agreeabl ■ 
 to, and Warranted by the Word, but to have the nature of Inftitutions. 
 
 II. Their fecond reafon is this ; That Presbyterians require an Inftitution 
 
 in the cafe of the fubordination of Biftjops, Arch-Bifhops, Patriarchy and 
 Popes ; Bui as we read not in the Scripture of the name of an Arch-Bifhop, 
 nor of the things fo we re ad not in Scripture of C ounce lls 9 Provinc tall and 
 Nationall, names or things, Tea, and the difadvantage is rather on this fide ; 
 for \be are fur e^, that once there was in the Churchy fuch a fubordination of 
 Officers, Evangeiifts over Paftors 9 and zsfpoftles over Evangeiifts, but of 
 
 fuch 
 
the Differing Br: dgamfi the Subordination ©f Synods, 143 
 
 fueh afubordmatton ofCouncells in an Ariffacratkrfl way there is nothing U 
 btfound. 
 
 Anf. 1. Still we note ©urBrcthrens pleading for Epifcopacy 5 yea, 
 for Papacy, ('which both they and we have covenanted to extirpate) ra- 
 ther then the Government of the Reformed Churches, whicrnboth they 
 and wc have covenanted to maintainc, at leaft againft the common E- 
 nemy. 
 
 2. Of Prelacy amongft Mimfters, we finde nothing in Scripture, 
 but much againft it ; and therefore Presbyterians do not onely call for 
 a warrant or institution for the Subordination of Bifhops, Arch-Bi- 
 fhops, but for the being of them as our Brethren themfelves obferve : 
 Theuftull exception againft this fubordination offuch Church-Officers is, 
 that in Scripture, we read neither of the name ef an Arch-Bifiop, nor the 
 tiling • and therefore not of a Subordination to them. But of Synods, OUT 
 Brethren will not fay that we finde nothing in Scripture, either name of 
 thing \ For themfelves acknowledge them an holy Ordinance of God. 
 And for the Bounds of them, whether they may confift of the Minifters 
 of one Province, or more Provinces, or leffe then a Province ; is no 
 more a matter of Inftitution, then whether a particular Congregation 
 may confifl: of 40,50,01 100 Members ; and thofe inhabiting within one 
 mile, two miles, or three miles diftance; but is to be regulated by 
 generall rules of the Word,and particular circumftances of times,places, 
 and perfons. And for their Subordination, we have already fhewed fin 
 our former Anfwcr,and the proofes of our Propofitionsjfurricient war- 
 rant from the generall rules of the Word, the light of nature, and pari- 
 ty of reafon ; bcfide, what is ftrongly argued from the Precedent of the 
 Jewifh Church, in matters of Eccleftaftical concernment. But our Bre- 
 thren fliould have remembred, that they are but proving the ftrft part of 
 their Minor, (that Synods muft have fuch Inftitution^) & therefore rnoft 
 of this difcourfe is not to the purpofe in this place. 
 
 Their third inftance,^ pariratione 3 is this ; zsisin other Societies and IIL 
 Bodies politick .in the rearing of a contignation of power 3 t here mu(l be an Or- 
 dinance or Creation from man • not onely of the fever all kindes of Officers, 
 but of fever all Courts ; andafet andexpreffie Order , both of the number and 
 bounds of Courts of judicatory, from whom, and to whom Appeal? are to be 
 made y and in what cafes } &c, Which Courts the greater and higher the j be 9 
 the more exprejfe evidence and Warrant for their power there is and ought 
 to be^atfor Parliamentary pdWer & the priviledges thereof : So muft there 
 be proportionably a Divine Inftitution for the Contignation cjr Subordination 
 tf Spiritnall power 7 bejide that of the Diftinclion of Officers themfelves. 
 
 Anf. 
 
1 44 The Anfvver of the t^Affmbly of Divines y unto the Reafons of 
 
 sAnf. Not to Difputc the Principles of Policy here laid down ; Whe- 
 ther a State may not give power to the Ju 3 t i c e s of Pe a c e in fuch 
 or fuch a County, to prcferve the Teace there ; and fee that the known 
 Lawes of the Kingdome be obferved, without fetting down cxprefly, 
 how often, at what places, and in how many divtfions they ftiail meet for 
 thatpurpofe; and how many forts of Committees or Sub-committees 
 they fhall make of themfelves for the better effecting of it ? Or, whe- 
 ther they may not give Commiflion toaGENERALL to Command 
 an Army, for fuch and fuch purpofcs : ; without prefenbing cxprefly, into 
 how many (fompanies, Regiments, Brigades ficc. they fliall be divided ; 
 and in what Proportions and Subordinations ? Or, whether a Pa r l i a- 
 m e nt muft have more exprejfe evidence and warrant for all parrculars 
 of Power or Authority that they cxercife, or Priviledge that they chal- 
 lenge, then inferiour Judicatories need to have } We Anfwer f to their 
 Argument, a pari ratione, upon this fuppofition.) 
 
 i. That our Brethren oft except againft fuch arguing as this; 
 Thus it is in Civill States, therefore thus it ought to be in Church Go- 
 vernment. 
 
 2. That this Argument for fubftance , is the fame with that in 
 their former Difcourfe, of Tower over Tower ; which we then Anf- 
 vvered at large. 
 
 j, Wehereadde, That there ought not to be here required y#r£ 
 an exprejfe and pUine Defignment out of the Word, as in Givill and 
 Humane inftitutions for Civil! Courts and their Subordination: the 
 Scripture not being written Systematically, nor delivered in the manner 
 as Humane Lawes arc, but as a golden Mine to be diligently fearched in 
 all the vcines : and therein we may finde fufflcient for our warrant and 
 direction, together with the light of Nature and Reafon, to apply thefe 
 Rules to particular Cafes. Andbyfuch Rules our Brethren themfelves 
 will not refufe to goe in many particulars in the Government of their 
 Churches. 
 
 MI. Their fourth infiance is, If in a particular Church fhrift hath prefcribed 
 the fever all Subordinations of proceedings 9 with the Degrees, Bounds, and 
 Order of them. Mat. 1 8. fo that it were not orderly in a Set Way to make 
 any moftfteps or degrees of Admonition, be fide thoje which (fhrifthath de- 
 fivned: it had been much more neceffary to have appointed the like about 
 thefe or eater zAffemblies, which have the power of a Sentence or fudge* 
 went; and of which, if fa 1 ft hath not fet them forth their bounds and 
 order, None can tell what belongs to them, or which of them firfi to ap- 
 peal unto* 
 
 *Anfi\. 
 
the Dijfentitg Br: againfl the Subordination of Synods. 145 
 tAnf. 1 . Our Brethren here fay not, That Chrift hath fee a landing 
 fixe Order and Subordination of proceedings in a particular Church, 
 which is alwayes to be held unto • but onely, That in a Jet ordinary way we 
 arc to make no more; taciteiy yeilding (as fome of them did in the 
 Aflembly exprefly) that after one or more Admonitions by one, then by 
 two or three, there may fometimes (if there be hope of gaining him 
 thereby,) be an Admonition by eight or tennc> before they tell it the 
 £hurch. 
 
 2. Our Brethren fhould have (hewed what Method, Terms, Bounds, 
 or Subordinations of proceedings, Chrift had prefcribed to the Church 
 Vvhen offences are Pub LICK and openly Scandalous, as Weil as Wk* 
 Private and known but to a Jingle Brother : UnlefTe they would give 
 leave to argue, as here themfclves doe : pThat if Chrift have prefcribed 
 the feverall Subordinations of proceedings, and fet forth the Degrees, 
 Bounds, and Order of them, in cafe of <* Private offence, and how 
 the Church may come to take cognizance of it : then much more 
 fhould this have been done in cafe of*PuBLiCK offence zndfcandall,tf 
 he had intended the Church fhould at all proceed upon it; which if he 
 have not done, the Church (it feemes by this argument) may not take 
 notice of That at all :~] For if tney fay, That the Directions here given, 
 concerning a private cffence,m\\ pari ratione ferve for direction and war- 
 rant to proceed in a juft proportion {mutatis mutandis) in cafe of a pub* 
 lick^ fcandatl ; We may fay the like concerning Synods, That the Di- 
 rections here given concerning the manner of proceeding in a particular 
 Church, will afford a furHcient direction and warrant to proceed in a 
 like proportion, in a Synod, or Combination of Churches. 
 
 j. Our Brethren fhould have fhewed, That by Church, is there 
 meant a particular Congregation, and That onely : For if Telling ♦* Sy- 
 nod , or a Church of Churches (as Mr. Cotton calls it) may be faid to be 
 a Telling the Church ; and if thofe that rtfufe to hear a Symd, may be faid 
 to refuje to hear the Church ; and if the Prefence offtrift promifed to 
 two or three gathered together in his name % may be applyed to a Synodicall 
 meeting, as well as to a meeting in z particular Church; and if that 
 Ratification in heaven, of what the Apoftles (and thofe who fucceed 
 them in that power) doe bind or loofe on Earth, may as well be meant of 
 their power in Synods, as of their power in a particular Congregation • 
 (and that it may not be (6, our Brethren have not yetfhewed:J Why 
 may we not then beleeve, That the Bounds and fcimits, and Order of 
 proceedings iin a Synod (which themfclves grant to be Lawful!, and an 
 Ordinance of God) have as fufficient direction and warrant from this 
 place, as the proceedings in a particular Congregation ? Nor have our 
 
 V u Brethren 
 
x 4* T&i Anfwer of the Jffemblj of Divines umothe Reafora of 
 
 Brethren yet fhewed that the Sjmdicall proceedings, ABs, 1 5. were not 
 in purfuance of, and obedience to tbu Order of Chrift, In CMat. 1 g. 
 
 4. If our Brethren had fhewed,Thac it is meant (properly and imme- 
 diately) onely of* jingle Congregation ; and that the manner and de- 
 grees, and Subordinations of proceeding, both in cafes of private and 
 public^ fcandalls, had been fo diftintllj fet downe, as not to admit of any 
 variation, either in the number of Admonitions, or fiepj of proceeding by 
 way of gradation, before they come to the higheft degree in that parti- 
 cular Church ; or in the maimer of proceeding there 3 to be more or JcfTe 
 &>w or expeditious in proceeding,before they come to the laftfentence, 
 according as the nature of the Crime, or quality and difpofition of the 
 perfon might require: Yet there might be reafon why the fame parti- 
 culars foculd not btfo precifelj determined for tAjfociations or Combina- 
 tions of Churches in their Bounds and Limits; becaufe, though where 
 tfoj can be bad, they much conduce to the well-being of particular Chur- 
 ches * yet our Lord knew that it would not be alike cafe at all times, 
 and in all places to obtainc them, in the like extent or proportion ; in re- 
 gard fometimes of perfecution, or at leaftfor want of countenance from 
 the Magiftrate, fometimes by reafon of the paucity and difiance of Chur- 
 ches ; and fometimes for other difficulties and obftruclions thar. 
 may hinder : fo that where thej can be had, they have the Authority and 
 Bleffing of a Divine Inftitution^s6x^ an Ordinance of God • yet are not 
 fo precifelj determined, as that they muft be fo manj^ fo often, and fo ma- 
 ny Subordinations or gradations in them. Sometimes no mo-re Churches 
 perhaps may have that opportunity to Aflbciate, then may all joyne in 
 oneCiAssis ; fometimes no more Claffes then to make one Sy- 
 nod : and yet elfewhere, or at other times, there may be opportunity, 
 notoneiy of particular Churches combining in Claps, but ofClafles 
 in Synods, and many Synods in one, or more larger csf/fociationr. 
 
 5. The Order and Degrees of En ctive Synods, (which yet 
 our Brethren allow as an Ordinance of God) are no more fet downe, or 
 limited in Scripture, then the order or degrees of Standing Sjnods : 
 And the fame inconveniences which our Brethrenbo.it object, (and many 
 mote) will fall as heavy upon fuch Eleclive Sjnods. For, if when a dif- 
 ficulty falls out in a particular Congregation in our Brethrens way; 
 fome fhould plead to ha/e the aide ofoneffler (fhurchfomet of another • 
 fome of two or three, fume of all in the Vr ovine e or l^ation ; becaufe in 
 the multitude of Councilors there isfafetj : Or, if they would goc firft to 
 4ne, then joyne two or three others, then caH, in the reft if need be; or 
 firft goe perfdtum to them all ; what have our Brethren here to plead 
 but General! Rutes, Chrifiian prudence, Light of Nature ? Even the fame 
 With Vs. Their 
 
the Dictating Br: dgdi»ft the Subordination of Synods. 1 47 
 
 Their laft inftance tpori ration* , is from the Jewifti Church; In V. 
 the Chunk ofthefeWes, fay they, the Subordinations tiizt were, were fet 
 forth and determined bj Jxftuufso* or Example, how nutty Courts there 
 Jloxldbe, and -where to reft* 
 
 Anf. 1. We ihall not need here to difpute, whether ^/7che Courts iti 
 Jfi-aeUrc fet forth and determined in Scripture ; or wherher no Court 
 there, ekher was or might be fet up before they had either InflitHtion, or 
 Precedent example for it : But we fuppofe it will be hard for our Bre- 
 thren to prove it. 
 
 2. Suppofe them fo to be ; yet there is not a like reafon,that there muft 
 be now a I. ke particular det&miniiion ; becaufe all Chinches under the 
 New Teftament are not of a like extent, and alike capable of Mb ci- 
 ations. 
 
 $. The Jewish Subordinations, being no Temple Ordnances, nor 
 Tjficail or Ceremomall, doc in the moral/ equity of them concern Us, 
 as well as Them ; at leaft we may, with much more reafon urge an Ar- 
 gument, a pari ratio**, from Subordinations in the fewifi (fhurch to 
 prove a Subordination ftill; then our Brethren can argue from thence 
 againft it:For tbtzGreunds of that Subordination being from moraR equi- 
 ty ; and the Snds & Neceffity of it being the fame,A'ow as Then,(viz. Re- 
 volving difficult cafes, ordering matters of Common concernment, Refor- 
 ming Offences in Infer tour Societies, Receiving Appeals, Redrefllng of 
 Injuries and Neglect inmate admimftration,&cc,) the fame rcafon ftill 
 remaines, that for the fame Ends and Purpofe?, there ihould be Subor- 
 dinations mw in the Chriftim Church, that was then in the fewifi. 
 
 And thus we have anfwered their Reafon?, ( a pari ratione) for the 
 proof of the firft part of their Minor, Th^t Synods muft have the Grea- 
 test and mofi ExPRESSE Warrant and r D*fignment in the PVo> d t &c. 
 Its enough for us, if there be but aSuFFiciENT Warrant, we muft 
 not prescribe the Holy Ghoft, How Great, and how €*freft that 
 Warrant muft be. And when our Brethren (hall undertake to prove 
 the practices of their ownc way ; {Gathering Churches out of Churches ; 
 Ordination and Depo fit ion of Miniflers^by the people Alone : Their eletlive 
 Synods ; Their l^on-communicatmg of (fhurches in their way ; that oae 
 (ingle Church may denounce the fentence of 2{on-€ommtmon againft 
 other Churches, whether one or more ; yea, againft e^7/the Churches in 
 a Province or Kingdom* , whom That particular Church fuppofeth to 
 mifcarry ; with many other practices, which if need were, we might 
 inftance in-J we doubt not but they wiM^r* fome of thefc ex p regi- 
 ons ; and will defire us to except of fomewhat lefe then the Grfa- 
 
 VU2 TEST 
 
1 48 The Anfwcr oft be Jffembly of Divines, unto the Rcafons of 
 
 TEST and mofi Expresse Warrant and Defignment in the Word, both 
 for their SUBORDINATION WNumber, and for their Bou nds and 
 Limits of Power : And fome of them have told us, That the Rule 
 they goe by, in fearching after Inftitutions ; is not to reft fatisfied with 
 fuch Texts onely , as doe clearly fet them downe, or muft necejfarily be 
 fo interpreted : But if to their Confidences, they feeme by any circumftancc, 
 to incline or lean this Vcay, rather then the other ; and that this feeme s to be 
 the meaning of the holy Ghoft, rather then the other, (though the Text might 
 poffibly admit of another interpretation, yet) it is enough to their Confidences 
 to prove an Inflitution. 
 
 To the Second part of their Minor. 
 The Second part of their Minor they come next to prove, That thefie 
 Synods have not Such Expresse Warrant and 'Defignment ; (They 
 fhould have proved,That they have NoDeftgnment or Warrant At All; 
 or elfe they hurt not our Proportion, which faith onely, They are 
 zAgreeable to, and Warranted by the Word of God.) 
 
 For proof of it they fay, 1. The New Teftament ufilent in it. And 
 ifitbefaid that all Nations (we fuppofe they would have faid, whole 
 Nations') were not then converted : they Anfiwer, The Apoftles, though they 
 had not lived to fiee that Which might occafon finch an Inftitution ; yet Would 
 have left order for the time to come. 
 
 Anfi. i. The Scripture is no more Silent of thefie, then of Eletlive 
 Synods. 
 
 " 2. The Subordination of particular Churches to greater Affemblies, 
 is held out, AH. 1 5. And in Mat. 1 8. (as we have (hewed in our proofs 
 of this Propofition;) fuch particulars only excepted, which are common 
 with the Church to other Bodycs politick, and are determinable by 
 Natures Light : So that,herein.there wzsfiuflicient order take?/, not only 
 for the prefent, but for the time to come. 
 
 3. Our Brethren themfelves acknowledge, that there is, AH. 15. 
 agoing out from a particular Church) Sleclivelj to another Church, or 
 Churches, (fo that there is not a Totall Silence in this point) but they do 
 not tell us, To how many Churches they may goe out, nor, To which firft, 
 nor, How often they may goe out fucceflively, in cafe cheir Divifions or 
 Difficulties be not removed upon their firft going out. And our Bre- 
 thren tell us at other times, that a Church may not only goe out, but may 
 be called out, to give an account to a Church or Churches offended ; yea, to 
 All the Churches of a Province or lotion ( which how it can be done 
 without a Provincial! or l^tionall Synod, we cannot tell;) and this is 
 bo going out E l e c t i v e l y , for it is not at their choice, what Chur- 
 ches they flaallgive account to: But when out Brethren undertake to 
 
 prove 
 
the Viflenting Br. Againft the Subordination of Synods. 14P 
 ^r#v*'this, wc beleeve they will content thcnifelves with fome fuch 
 proofs as we have produced for our Proportion. 
 
 But 2. Say our Brethren, The A fifths lived to fee many forticmgt 
 Churches, in Provinces and T^ations • and though all the Inhabitants neve 
 not Members of (fhurches, yet there was Matter for moulding them into 
 thefe Subordinations, as novo in France, where not a third fart are Trote- 
 ftants, and in the Low-Countries, where not a tenth fart arc (fhurch- Mem- 
 bers ; fo that, if thefe fufer (Ir unions had beenfo abfolutely necejfary, it had 
 been as necejfary that the Afoftles Jhould have affointed them. 
 
 Anf Whether in France, not a third fart be Proteftar.ts, or in the 
 Low-Countries not a tenth fart Members of Churches, we ftand not now 
 to difpute. And whether it were N e c e s s a r y for the A poftles to 
 have Affointed fuch Subordinations, if they be at all Warrantable ; doth 
 not belong to this place, but to the nrft part of the Minor, where we 
 have fpoken to it: Onely this we adde here, That they fhould have 
 (hewed that they had a PoftiiUity, Liberty, and Offortumty of erecting 
 ftL.h Subordinations, as well Matter/o?-^ moulding of them. We 
 have not Clajficall,T'rovinciall, 2v^*'o;W/Aflemblies at prefent in Eng- 
 land ; not becaufe we think we ought not to have them, or that we 
 may not have them, but becaufe we have not had Offort unity to ere ft 
 them. 
 
 But that which our Brethren are now to prove, is, that the Apodles 
 Did Not appoint them : And how fhould that be proved, but by 
 this Reafon ? We read not of thefe Subordinations in the Nations of Judea, 
 Afia, Crete, in which Were famous f articular Churches ; therefore there 
 were no fuch Subordinations : And that Chrift writing to thefeven (fhur- 
 ches of Afia, writes to each Church a fart, and not to a Provinciall, or Na- 
 tional] Synod of them. 
 
 esfnf.i. They might as well argue, Becaufe we read not that the 
 Apoftles did Appoint in the (fhurches of 'Judea, «Afta, and Crete, for, 
 that thofe Churches did practice J the ordinances of publicke Singing of 
 Pflmes; Reading of the Word ; and BaftUing of Children ; the Exami- 
 nation and Try all of thofe that were to be admitted Members of Churches, 
 before their Admiffion * y Catechising ; Vifitation of the ftcke ; that the 
 Women did eate and drink at the Lords Table as well as the men, or the 
 like • Therefore there wer^ no fuch things in thofe Churches. If it be 
 faid, There was Warram tnd Appointment for thofe things, in 
 ether tlaces of Scrivture : So fay we of Synods and their Subordination. 
 The Scripture giverhnot n» nuances of one particular of Church 
 
 Government • wc have one ±V of Excommunication in the Church 
 
 Vu 1 of 
 
1 5 o The Anfivcr oftht Ajfrmblf *fDivi#u um the Reafons <?/ 
 
 of i on nth, and but that one of a Churches Ex communicating in the New 
 Teftament ; And we have one Inftance of a Synod ; and why &ould not 
 That be as fuflicient as the Other ? 
 
 •2. Neither do we read of any EleElive Synod fir Arbitration in thefe 
 Churches fuch as our Brethren yet hold for an Ordinance of God ; and 
 we are iure their Errours, Divifions, &c. needed the help of every 
 Ordinance, as our Brethren confeiTe. And ChriA writes no more to 
 the feven Churches of Afta, concerning/?*^ Ete&ive Synods, then of 
 thefe Subordinations ; and the Objection lies as ftrongly againft their 
 way, as ours. 
 
 3. But this we read fufficicntly, That the Church ofChriftjs, One 
 Body, and the Officers given to it, for the good of 'all the Body ; andwc 
 read of All the Churches ofGalatia written to,as me Body, zstme Lump, 
 and we read of the Communion of the Churches one with another iu many 
 particulars, as we fhewed at large in our former Anfwer ; which is fuf- 
 ficicnt for our Affertion. 
 
 And as to what they alledge of Chrifl meriting to the [even Churches 
 apart) and reproving Each of them for their tfton dif orders, which our Bre- 
 thren fuppofc he would not have done, if they had been inaftanding 
 Ajfociationfor Government. We Anfwer, 
 
 1 . If fo 5 yet we need not inquire far for a Reafon : They were fevtroK 
 Churches, and had their feverall Faults, and needed feverall Counfells % 
 and confequently/ik/#-4// Letters ; as in a Kingdome, where all are afTo 
 ciated ,• yet the feverall Provinces or Congregations, may need feverall 
 Reproofs or Advifcs ; fome being Cold, Luke-warme,Declining, others 
 Pure, Zealous, Growing, &c. 
 
 2. But if our 'Brethren confider better of it, they fiiall finde that aH 
 thefe feven .Letters fyea,t{ie whole Revelation) were written to AH 
 the feven Churches in common, as appeares, Revel. 1.4. yet fo that 
 each might take fpeciall notice of that which did moft peculiarly cone erne 
 them: As when a Miniftcr,in a Sermon to a mixed Congregation, tels 
 fome of one fault, fome of another ; reproves the Rich perhaps for 
 Pride 1 the Poor, for Envy ; the Magiftrate for negligence in hi* place; 
 the Matters, Servants, Parents, Children, each for their feverall faults ; 
 or perhaps Reproves fome, Commends others, &c. which doth not yet 
 hinder, but that all thefe make one Congregation. Or, to ufe their owne 
 Inftance, if a letter be directed to a 7{ationall or Provincial! Synod, it is 
 very proper to (hew therein, what in one Congregation or Claffis, is to 
 be commended ; what in another is to be Reproved; and not promifcu* 
 mtfly to reprove or commend all alike : And our Brethren may remem- 
 ber,that in fome Letters directed to this ArTembly,therc have been fomc- 
 
 tirp 
 
tit Diffenting Br: dgmnft the Subordination of Synods . i y r 
 
 time large Apaflrophe x sd\re(ktd particularly to tljemfelves, and not fpo- 
 kcn to the whole Affemhly, notwichftanding they are apart of it, and in 
 tfiandmg affectation therein with the reft : And fo it is evident that the 
 */;#/r Epijtle or Book of the Revelation is directed in common, to A 1 1 
 theft ftvcnCljurchejjpyntty, though yet there be fomcthing fpoken^r- 
 tkuUrly to etch, befide that which is fpoken in common to AIL 
 • 3. Oar Brethren do again herein as much difpute againft themfehrs ; 
 for we have no more mention oiEleB'rve Synods, then of Subordinate ; 
 Pergamw, zndThyatira, though troubled with Errours in Doelrine&c. 
 yet are not directed to fee kjtut to an SUBhe Synod to redreffe them ; 
 nor are the other Churches dirfted to call them to give an account ; nor is 
 any of the Churches either commended for fo doing, or bUmed for not 
 doing it. Yet both of thefe, according to our Hrethrens principles, ought 
 to have been done; and thisflence about it, will not (we beleeve) be 
 admitted by our Brethren as a fuffirient argument to overthrow either 
 the Lafofulnejfe, or the Inftitmion,of £lettive Synods. 
 
 To what in the lad place,our Brethren zdde 9 That they are never called 
 by the name Churc n,but Chur c h e s . We Anfwer,as before,whe- 
 thcr they be or no, it matters not ; we inquire for Things, not for 
 Names. Nor 2. Doth the name Chur c h e s prove that they were not 
 one Chur c h by Afifociation ; no more then that the F lo c k s , Gen. 
 30. 36. 3 8. were not #*? Floc k, as they are called Verfe 31,32. And 
 Peter fpeaking of many Churches, yet calls them The Y 10 c k, i Tet. 
 5. 2. And 3. The many Churches or Congregations in ferufalem, are yet 
 called one Church; and fo at Sphefus ; as we have fhewed already at 
 large; ( to fay nothing of the Church ofesfntioch, and the Church of 
 Ctrinth, which is likewife called Churches, 1 Cor. 14. 34. And the of- 
 ten mention of The Church injuch an ones houfe , which, whether it be 
 meant of a Chriftiau Family, or of a Congregation ordinarily meeting 
 there ; yet were they part of a greater fociety confiding of many ofthefe 9 
 which is alfo called a Chur c h :) And when Paul \s hid to perfecute 
 thefhurch of God, 1 (for. 15.9. Phil. 3.6. and Gal. 1. 13. yet were 
 the Chur c he s offudea either this Chur c h, or part of this Church 
 which Paul perfecuced, Verfe 21, 22. And indeed, whether a Family or 
 Congregation, or a Combination of them are called a Chur c h, they are 
 but Synecdochically fo called, as being all parts of that one Church, 
 which is the Body of Chrifl. And Stephanus obferves as much in his 
 Thefaurus, Tom. 2. p. 23. Hinc fit, ut 'utKKtiriau in numero mult'ttudinis 
 ftpe occurrat , qunm alioqui unam eandemque omnes efficiant Scdefam. 
 And as Chrift the Husband hath but one S pou s e , (though yet Synecdo- 
 chically,, 
 
152 The Anfwer of the x^iffembly of Divines ^ unto the Reafons of 
 
 cblcatyy every Beleever may be called the Jpoufe ofChrifl) and Ghrift 
 the Head, hath but one Bod y ; fo but one Chur c h, Which is the Body 
 ofChriftySphef.i. 22,23. And our Brethren themfelves in their ^po- 
 bgeticall 2{arration y page 6. fpeaking of Parochiall Congregations in 
 England, call them the true Churches and Bod y ef^hrifly not Bod 1 E s 
 ofChrift, though yet each of them, by the lame reafon that they arc cal- 
 led a Church, might have been called The Body ofChrlft ; yet all of them 
 together, arc indeed but apart of that Body. 
 
 The ^Anfwer to their Second Argument* 
 
 Their fecond Argument is formed thus ; If there befuch a Subordina- 
 tion of Synods, then there is no Independency ', but in an Oecumenical! Coun- 
 cell. Which we fuppofe they have therefore kt downe briefly ; bc- 
 caufe if fully fet downe, it would not found fo well : For thus it ftiould 
 be ; If there may be a Subordination of Congregational^ Qaffically Tro- 
 vincialland 2{ationall Afiemblies \ then there U no Independency but in an 
 Oecumenicall QouncelL 
 
 <ts4nf. Our Brethren know there is nothing of Oecumenicall Qouncells 
 in our Propofition, or of Subordination to them, or Dependence on 
 them. For though the AfTembly had affcrted in another Propofition, (to 
 which our Brethren cntrcd no DuTent) that there may be an Oecumeni- 
 call Synod when it can be had ; yet, what the Power thereof is,and,How 
 far other Affemblies, Depend on it ; they have not aflerted, but thought 
 fit rather to confider of fitch Aflemblies, as through the bleffing of God, 
 we may poflibly enjoy, and what power they have. But if our $rc- 
 thren will from our Proportion inferrc that, by a Conference of their 
 otvne, they fhould have added fome Proof of that Confequence ; or at 
 leaft an Explication, that we might fee wherein the ftrength of their 
 Confequence lyes : For fuch a Confequence as this, If there Ma y be a 
 Nationally there Mus T be an Oecumenicall Synod; and if there may be a 
 Subordination to That, there mufl be a Subordination to This, (which 
 fecmes to be the ftrength of their Argument) had need have fomc 
 proof. Our Brethren grant that there May Be a going out for advife 
 toother Churches ; to the Churches of a Province, to the Churches of 
 a Nation, if occafion and opportunity ferve ; yet doc not fay, that 
 there Mus t Be agoing out to all the Churches in the veer Id, whether there 
 can be fuch a meeting or no ; or that Gods ProviJince is notfutable to hit 
 Inftitxtions, if fuch a meeting cannot be had ; or that there mufl: be an 
 injurious confining to the Advice of the Churches in one Nation, if they 
 cannot have the Advice of fuch an Oecumenick, meeting - 9 which yet, if it 
 
 could 
 
the Diffenting Br: againft the Subordination of Synods. i j 3 
 
 could be had, were like to be remedium efficacijpmum, and a holy Ordi- 
 nance of Go J, as well as any of the refl. 
 
 Butfince our Brethren have chofen this difcourfe about O ecumenicity 
 Synods, and therein letpafle the proof of the Conference ;and onely 
 give fome Reafons to make the Confequent feeme improbable, we ihall 
 briefly follow them therein : And doe firft obferve how ill their three 
 Confirmations of it hang together ; in the firft they reafon againft us, 
 as holding aNationall Church not to be Independent ; in the third, as if 
 we held a National 1 Church to be Independent ; in the fecond they argue 
 againft the vfry being andexiftence of ^ecumenick^Sy \ ods, 
 
 Firjl, fay our Brethren, this would bring in a f arraign Ecclefiafticall 
 Tower over each State and Kingdome ; to wir, if their Confequence 
 be good, and that there be no Independency but in an Oeeumenick 
 Councell. 
 
 Anf. We fuppofe they would hy,over each Na t ion a l l C hur c h 
 or National/ ^jfembly, not over each State and Kingdome : The (fhurch 
 and fail (late are differing things * as the Kingdom of Chrift, and the 
 Kingdom of the world : To bring in fuch a Forraign Ecclefiafticall Po- 
 wer as fhould be over Civil States, is Popifli ; But the help of an Oecu- 
 menick Synod, when it may be had, is no Forraign Tower to the Church, 
 nor any Hurt to the Civil State* The Ordinances of Chrift are none of 
 them Forraigne to the Church, nor any of them Hurtful to the State. 
 
 Secondly y fay our Brethren, Such a Councell being the mo(l efficacious 
 and Vltimate Remedy, muft befnppofed to have fome Jpeciall Indignation 
 in the Word, andJpeciall r Promife made tok; and that Qfid, whofuites his 
 providences to hts Inftitutions, would have taken order that it Jlmili be ex- 
 iftentinallages - t whereas the Church wanted Oecumenich^ (found Us for 
 300 years, 
 
 tAnf. 1. If we fhould grant our Brethren, not onely what they fay, 
 That the Church wanted them for three hundred yeares; but, That 
 perhaps, there never yet was an intire com pleat Generall Counsel rightly 
 conftituted, and God onely knowes whether ever there fhall be one or 
 no : Yet this proves not, but that, if it can be had, it may lawfully be 
 made ufe of, and looked on as an Ordinance of God, with expectation 
 of Gods fpeciall Prefence, Afliftance, andBleffipg, as in other Ordi- 
 nances ; and that a Synod of feverall Nations may be made ufe of, in 
 (iich ameafure as may be obtained. For God, having given fufficienc 
 warrant for combinations and communion of Churches, for their mutuall 
 good, and not having limited it to fuch or fuch Bounds, beyond which 
 
 Xx they 
 
154 T^e Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 
 they may not exceed ;doth fufficiently warrant it in the great e(l Propor- 
 tions that may be obtained, even of the whole OecumenkkChurch. And 
 our Brethren muft admit this in their way ; for they having, as they 
 conceive, a warrant for going out to advife With other Churches, and not 
 being bounded, either ho& often they may fogoe forth, nor to how many 
 (fhurches ; they conceive it lawfull upon this warrant elecftively to ad- 
 vife with all the Churches in zTrovince, a Nation ; yea, the Chriftian 
 Preface to world: And they doe notthinke, that the defect of Opportunity thus to 
 M. Cottons advife, perhaps for fome hundreds of years, doth make fuch adviiin^ to 
 Keyes. | je unlawfully or not agreeable to Gods- inftitution, if it couli be had ; 
 though it may perhaps render it difficult, if not impoffble. For we may 
 not prefTe that Principle (of Gods Suiting his Providences to his Inftituti- 
 ons) fo far,as if God wc re bound in his Providence to afford at all times 
 an opportunity, for doing of whatfoever by his Inftitution might lawfully 
 be done. We know the <tArmin\ans have made an ill ufe of fuch a Prin- 
 ciple in the point of Univerfail Grace, quia Bens non deficit m necejfariis 
 adfalutem: And it were hard either for us, or for our Brethren to ad- 
 mit fuch a Principle in the matter in hand ; That nothing is agreeable to t 
 and \Wtrr anted by the Word of god, but what hath had, and fhall have an 
 exiftence in all Ages. Our Brethren ho\d Ruling Elders to be not only 
 Agreeable to, and Warranted by the Word of God, but of Divine In- 
 ftitution ; and yet w r e think they will not fay, They hwzvnexiftenct 
 at all times in all their Churches. And we fuppofe alio, they will hardly 
 prove that in all the reign of Antichrift ; every Ordinance of Chritt 
 bad fuch exiftence as they require here to be fhewed of Oecumenical! 
 Synods. 
 
 2. But if this principle were good ; then doe our Brethren apparent- 
 ly overthrow trie Confequence of their owne Argument ; For how 
 eafie is it to reply to that Argument, That though there be ; and ought to 
 be a fubordination ; of (fongregationall, Clafficall, Provinciall, and T^ati- 
 cnall Affemblies in this Kingdome, where the Providence of God,whkh 
 is fut able to his Inftitutions, hath afforded a PoflibiJity and Opportuni- 
 ty of them ; yet no neceflity of their dependence onyor fubordination to 
 an Oecumtnickjfouncel, which (by our Brethrens Argument) muft not be 
 accounted an Inftitution, becaufe,if fo^the providence of God would fo have 
 provided that it might be alwayes exiftent, 
 
 3. Yet withall, we muft remember, that our Brethren (what ever 
 they here argue,) doe not deny either the lawfulnefe of them , or the 
 nfefulnep of them, but onely their flandmg ufe, and ike fubordination to 
 them. Yet this Argument, if it prove any thing, proves thatr^ may 
 not be at all. 
 
 Thirdly, 
 
the Diverting Br: againft the Subordination of Synods. 155 
 
 Thirdly, fay our Brethren, There muft be an injur tow mdependtny fet 
 Up in a Natk :all Synod, be caufe When a wan hath appealed from other 
 (fourts to it, and upon the fentence thereof, comes to be Banifljed, and have 
 his Eft ate forfeited to the ruine ofhimfelf and his family ; then mofl of 'all ', 
 he needs Juch an cffetluall remedy at agenerall Counce/l, and loe it ts not : 
 <*sfnd if the NatjonsJl *s4ffiembly be Independent, and upon the fentence 
 thereof the extremeft punipjment, but that of Death, be to be inflicled, it had 
 veedfbew a Deftgnment and Warrant from Cjod, to be the Supream and 
 Ultimate Court. 
 
 Anf.i. Why did our Brethren except that of Death ? When as Natio- 
 nall Synods have as much power to inflict Death, as they have to in- 
 flict thefe punilhments which they reckon up ; Banifhment, Forfeiture 
 of goods, The extremeft Punipjment but that of Death. For they know 
 that we doe not aifert a power of inflicting either one or other of thefe, 
 to be in Ecclefiafticall Judicatory at all ; nor is it practiced in the Re- 
 firmed Churches : And why our Brethren fhould goe about to caft fuch 
 odious insinuations, without a caufe, both onus and them, we cannot 
 tell. If it be, Becaufe that, after the Church hath patted their cenfure, 
 the Magiflrate doth fometimes, when he feeth caufe, and according as 
 the offence deferveth, adde his fentence too, (yea, Death it fclf, if he fee 
 caufe, and the crime defcrve it:) This doth no way concerne theNati- 
 onall Aflembly (or inferiour Aflemblics) at all ; to which no more bc- 
 longcth under a Chriftian, then under an Heathen Magiltrate. Nor doth 
 it more concerne m, then it doth concerne their Way : For their Apelo- 
 geticall Narration, pajr. ip. informes us, that their Sentence of Non- 
 communion may be affifted and backed with the fentence of the Magi- 
 flrate, as well as Excommunication ; and may in that refpect, be made 
 as efficacious : And we know that the practice in the Churches of 
 jS(ew-England, is confonant to it, where the Civill CMagiFlrate doth 
 with as much, if not more rigour and feverity, back their Church- 
 cenfures, as in the Reformed Churches Governed by Presbyteries and 
 Synods. 
 
 2. The Sentence of the Nationall Ajfembly, how dreadful! and terrible 
 foever our Brethren pleafe here to rcprefent it, is no other then what 
 They fay belongs every particular Congregation : For Excommunication 
 is their higheft Cenfure, and this, fay our Brethren, every particular Con- 
 gregation n ay inflict. And if this be Independency, yea, an injurious Inde- 
 pendency, that when this is inflicted by a National Affembly,there may be 
 no Appeal from it ; Why doe our Brethren complaine, that that proud 
 and injolent title of I N D E p E N D E N c Y is affixed to them, as their claime, 
 Apologeticall Narration, pag. 23 . when as they claim that, which them- 
 
 Xx 2 felves 
 
i 5 6 The Anfwer of the Affemhly ef Divines, unto the R eafons ef 
 felvcs here call an Injurious Independency ? For it is a principle 
 of their way, That from thefentenceof Excommunication in a particular 
 congregation, there is no Appeale, nor is it reverfible by any power on earth, 
 but themfelves alone. And for the injurioufnefe of fuch independency, 
 we defire it may be confidered, whether mod injury is likely to be done, 
 andrcmaineunredreflfed, where in a Nation many thoufand Congrega- 
 tions, fhall each of them have an Independent power of cenfaring without 
 Appeal ; or where the party aggrieved may Appeal horn them to a Claf- 
 fis, from thence to a Trovinciall, and from thence to a National! Affem- 
 bly, though when he comes there, he can appeale no further ? Efpeciai- 
 Jy, when as men are oft imboldnedtofin, when they know that none can'yi* 
 dicially call them t$ account : And, on the other fide, the very remem- 
 brance or feare of an Appeale, whereby their actions may come to be 
 fcanned , is a great motive to make Judges proceed more righte- 
 oufly. ♦ * 
 
 3. But we doe not affert, That a Nationall Ajfembly is Independent • 
 but though we doe not think it fit to trouble an Oecumenicall Councel 
 with every particular difference or controverfie that may arife in a 
 Church, fas neither to trouble a Parliament with every particularity of 
 civill difference, which may be as well determined in inferiour Courts) 
 yet in grave and weighty matters, we doubt not but there may be great 
 life of a well conftituted Oecumenicall Ajfem' ly, (if it may be had) and 
 great help by it : and that a Nationall Ajfembly may be accountable to 
 ic, (at leaft as much as our Brethren hold a particular congi egation to be 
 accountable.) But if a perfon conceiving himfelfe to be injured in a Na- 
 tional! Ajfembly cannot obtaine redrefle, cither from another fucceeding 
 Kationall Affembly, or from zfuperiour AiTembly , he muft commit his 
 eaufe to God ; and fo muft he that may conceive himfelfe wronged by 
 a (flafficall or Provincial! Aflembly,if he cannot have the opportunity of 
 appealing farther : In like manner, as foe that thinks himfelfe civilly in- 
 jured by the ^Parliament,®* Supreame power in a State , and hath no 
 other way to obtaine rcdrefle. Yet is not this a reafon why we may not 
 have recourfe to fuch rvayes of remedy as God affords, becaufe there may 
 be a further remedy, which God at prefent affords not t or becaufe we 
 are deprived ofan appeale to an Oecumenic 11 Synod , which feldome, 
 or never, or not without great difficulty can be had; therefore not to 
 make ufe of Pi inciall or Nation all A(femblies, and Appealt s to t: em , 
 a remedy which may oft and eafily be had ; or (in a civill way) becaufe 
 a Pur lament, which is remedium effcaciffimum, is not alwayes fitting 
 therefore not to make life of the benefit of inferior Courts : And y t the 
 complaint may there poffibly be as grievous as our Brethren here put the 
 
 cafe 
 
the Viffenting Br. againft the Subordination of Synods. I J7 
 Ctfe; if a ^erfenjby an inferior Judge or Corporation condemned to die, 
 when he hath greatefi need of a relief, /hall thinkwith himfelf There is yet * 
 mere ejfcdcious remedy, (a Parliament) which- both by the Law of God And 
 man is mere able to relieve me, and Lo It I s Not. Yea, and in our H re- 
 threw owneway ; if a Church, after recourfc had, firft to one, or more 
 neighbour Churches, then to all in that Trovmce or Nation, fhall remaine 
 as unfatisfied -is before ; they may as well bcwaiie themfelves, that there 
 is yet a further courfe of having recourfe to an Elective Oe cum e- 
 CALL Synod, which they might, by ^Ijrifis In ft it ut ion have recourfe 
 *nto } andLoE It Is Not, it cannot be had. 
 
 The ^yinfwer to their Third Argument. 
 
 Their third Argument is thus framed : That (fhurch-fower \ which 
 cannot flew afet and cor. ft ant Divine Rule for its Variation^ and Subordina- 
 tion r -and "Ultimate Independency, ts not of God, andfo may not be ; But this 
 variation of (fhurch power into the fe Subordinations cannot fiew any fitch 
 fieady and con ft ant rule for thefe things, Ergo. 
 
 Anf Firft, To their Major. If by a/f/ andconfiant rule, they mean by 
 a particular & exprefe rule ; we deny it ; It is not neceflfary that there 
 be a particular expre (ferule for the local/ bounds or circumftantiall varia- 
 tionsin Government. If they mean, the generall rules of the Word, 
 applyed and made ufe of, with the help of druder.ee and Natures light ; 
 we grant it, and it helps not their caufe. 
 
 And as to the proof of their Major, That God did never conflitute a, 
 Church, but he gave the Bounds of it That the change from Family Govern- 
 ment to National/ Government, amongst the J ewes, was by Go is appoint- 
 merit, That in the 2^ew Teft^ment there is a Reed to meafure the Temple* 
 We fay, That God never did, either in the Conftitution or Alteration 
 ofjewilh Church- Government or any other, fet out by particular ex- 
 prejjeRxiks, all the Circumftantiall variations of it, fuch as our Brethren 
 require of us. And that ofmcafuring the Temple withaRted, proves 
 no fuch thing ; for whether that be meant of GodsSeperating the Invifi- 
 ble Saints from the Antichnftian Apo(bcy, and preferving them during 
 Antkhrilts reigne ; or of rejhring his Chuchagaine after that time (as 
 men ufc to meafure the ground they intend to build upon;) or compre- 
 hend an order for the Government of the vifible Politicali Church, as our 
 Brethren would have it, (which we need not Hand now to inquire int ;) 
 yet it no wayes holds out all lor all and Circnmftantlill variations ; which 
 God bath no where determined either in the Old or New-Teliaroent, 
 but left things of that nature under generall rules. 
 
 Xx 3 2.T0 
 
1 5 8 The Anfwer of tie Affembly of Divines unto the Reafons if 
 
 2. To their Minor we Anfwer, i. That it is as much againftr/?^ 
 way as ours ; All that they can fay for thefettmg out the bounds of Par- 
 ticular Congregations and Eletlive Synods,wi\\ not amount to an exprejfe 
 particular rule for all circumftantiall variations. All that which they 
 fay for the2?o#Wr c/^Parti cul ar Congre gat ion (in their 
 Reafons agair.ft our alledging, Act, 1 5, for proof of this proportion) is 
 no more but this, fitch as livefo, a>s conveniently to meet in one place, 
 (which yet perhaps wiil hardly agree with the bounds of fome of their 
 Congregations;) but whether they muft be threefiore, four/core, one hun- 
 dred, two hundred, or a hundred ninety and nine, or more or le(Te ; whe- 
 ther they '•fnuft all live within one mile, ftoo miles, three miles compafle, 
 or more or leffe, or may live twenty, thirty, fourty miles or more a funder, 
 fas is feeninfome Congregations now adayes;j whether athoufand 
 perfons fhouldbe divided into three or four, orfive,or more, or fewer 
 Congregations ; and whether this or that man muft joyne himfelfe to 
 this or that, or a third Congregation ; what is there in all thefe particu- 
 lars, and many more, that muft determine it, but General/ Rules of the 
 Word y and principles ofTrttdence, and the light of 7{ature, asmaybeft 
 ftand with convenience and edification f And for the Bounds of Ele- 
 ctive Synods, when a Church (lands in need of Ad vice or Arbi- 
 tration, there is nothing in the Word of God to determine particu- 
 larly, whether they muft go out to This or That,or a Third Church firft' • 
 or, whether to One, or More at once; Or, if not fatisfied upon the 
 firft Advife, whether they may goe out a Second, a Third, a Fourth 
 time; or how Often, or, to how Many Churches ; Or, if One Church 
 be offended with the practice of a great Many Churches, whether they 
 may, or muft call them Ail to Account one by one, or two, three, four, 
 or more at once, and how often they may, or muft fo doe ; Or, if Many 
 Churches be offended with the practices of One Church, whether each 
 of them fingly muft call that Church to an account,or two,three, four.or 
 more together-^ whether after account given to fome of thefe Churches, 
 they may a fecond, a third, a fourth time be called to give an account 
 to others : There is nothing in all thefe cafes, that can afford a parties 
 lar exprejfe fet (landing Rule to proceed by, but oncly as by the Gene- 
 rail Rules of Scripts e, the Light of Nature, and Principles of Prudence, 
 {hall appear moft to conduce to Edification,determiningControveriies, 
 removing Offences, preserving of Peace, &c the very fame Rulesby 
 which we muft go in determining the Bounds.Numbcr, Frequency gra- 
 dations of Synods. For, that Synods Ought to be, or at leaft Maybe, 
 (which is all our Propofltion afferts) we prove: Thtt/M Churches, 
 and fuch a Number Should afociate, as may moft Conveniently and Orderly 
 
the Diffenting¥>r: againjlthe Subordination of Synods. 7557 
 
 be united for the beft effe cling of thofe ends for Which Synods are appointed^ 
 h but the Gencrall Rule of Scripture : That they he ProvincUH,Natio- 
 nall,&c* is according to the different occaSions and conditions of times 
 and places • and are to be fet up, bounded, circumftantiated, as may be 
 mod for Edification, and according to the Prudent content and agree- 
 ment of the Churches, together with the help and powerof the Chri- 
 stian Magistrate when it may be had : And as in other Bodies Politick, 
 Navies, Armies, &c. their Subordinations are caft for the good of the 
 whole; So Should it be in the Church ofChriSr, which being the m&ft 
 perfcel RepuMkke, detk comprehend in it whit fever is excellent in all other See Rolin- 
 
 Eodies Piltticke. f om h]M ' 
 
 ofScparat. 
 
 Next we examine our Brcthrcns Confirmation of their Minor ; where- pa °' 
 in they go about to remove all things which they fuppofe to be the 
 Square of framing thefe Subordinations \ not qua greater number of 
 (fhurches, not qua in one Kinqdome, not qua in one T^ation. Wherein 
 they labour in vaine, while they take paines to remove thofe particulars 
 which were in the Debate difclaimed in the Aflembly, from bcingxhe 
 fquare of framing thefe Subordinations ; and in the meane time^iVe no 
 reafons to overthrow that which then was, and now is, plainly owned 
 as the Rule on which we proceed. Yet ilnce they pleafe to infift upon 
 thofe particulars, and that the particulars of themfelves, be of fome 
 weight (ceteris paribus) in order to a determination in point of Conve- 
 nience, Prudence, Edification, &c though not Sufficient, abfclutely to de- 
 termine what ever elfe may counterbalance them ; we Shall follow 
 them in it. 
 
 Firft they fay, Not qua greater number of (fhurches, For them* tie- e 
 mufl be m many feverall Subordinations, as there can befuppofed variati- 
 ons of Greater Numbers* 
 
 *Anf We fay not, qua greater number (imply (for then z National? 
 Synodofone Kingdeme, confifting of a greater number, Should binde a 
 Nationall Synod of another Kingdome conliSHng of a lejfer number) but, 
 as the: greater number of Churches So combined and ajfociated for fuch ends : 
 As in a Congregation, or Congregationall £lderfl»p our Brethren will not 
 fay, that the Greater number, qua Greater, doth bind the Lefler, but the 
 greater number of them So United, 
 
 2. And whereas they demand, where have we a Promife that God will 
 be more prejent with a Greater Part of them that Professe Christi- 
 anity,^ with a Few ? We aske, Where God hath promifed to be 
 m$re prejent with the greater part ^Congregation, then with a 
 
 Fewy 
 
160 The Anfwer of the %ytf[embl] of Divines, unto the Reafons of 
 
 Few, ftippofe two or three gathered together in his Name ? Or, where 
 have we a promife that God will be more prefent with an Elective 
 S Y nod of man) Churches, then with the Elder s of a Jingle Congregation ? 
 Or, where have we a promife, that upon zfecond reference God will be 
 more prefent 'then upon a firft reference ? Yet they tell us afterwards, 
 that when offences are not healed, and one reference to other Churches is not 
 f efficient to cure them, there fhould be afeekjng to others. We are not to 
 prefcribe God how much he fhall be prefent with his Servants in fuch or 
 fuch a way : But either we may exped;, that God, who promtfeth to be 
 prefent with every of his Servants, will be more prefent with more of them ; 
 Orclfe, that the Wifedome and Graces of Many of his Servants in his 
 way, will with the fame ajftftjvic ^better do the work, then the wifdome 
 and graces of a few, for God ordinarily works by meanes, (and if it 
 were not fo, we might as well refer matters ofgreateft confequence, 
 and difficulty to a Few as to many, to Weak, perfons, as to wife and di- 
 fcreet, upon ; this ground, Where have we a promife of Gods greater 
 prefencewith the one then the other }) Or, when God calls to a 
 greater Vtorke, we may exped; greater ajfi fiance : Or at leaft, we are to 
 doe our duty, in ordering of Meanes, fo as may be proportionate to their 
 ends ; and trufl: God to be more or lejfe prefent as he pleafeth ; and 
 may, upon Gods gener all promife s, expect a Bleffing upon the ufe of all 
 laVcfull Meanes ; eife why fhould we rather tncounter an Snemy, with a 
 whole Army, then with a (ingle Brigade or Regiment f 
 
 3. Whereas they adde, That the greater number of Churches prof ffmg 
 Religion, are more corrupt, and it had been ill for Philadelphia tobejoyned 
 in ajfeciation Vvith Laodicea, or the Calvinifts in Germany Vvkh the Lathe - 
 rans. We Anfwer ; If all Numbers of men that will call themfelvesa 
 Church, muft therefore be admitted into an ajfociation (how Corrupt or 
 Hereticall foever) we grant fuch an inconvenience might follow : And 
 fo (fay we) it would be in a Congregation, if all be promifcuoufly ad- 
 mitted to power in it;for the greater number of Perfons that pretend to 
 profefle Religion, are more corrupt : and yet can they alledge no better 
 reafon for excluding any true Christian from their Church- 
 Com mun ion, then we for leaving any true Chur c h out of K ssoci- 
 ation; yea,they profefle as much in their Apol. Tfyrration, pag.i 2.9. 
 That their Rule of judging in admitting of members is of that latitude, 
 as to take in any the meanefi, in whom there may befuppofedto be the lea ft 
 ofChrift ; and their Rule for calling out of fellowship (by Excommu- 
 nication) is for no ether kinde of fins, then may evidently be prefumed to be 
 perpetrated againft the parties knoton light ; as if in manners and converfa- 
 tion> fuch as ii committed againft the Light of Nature, or the common re* 
 
 ceived 
 
the Differing Br: againft the Subordination of Synods. 1 61 
 
 ceived pratlices of (fhriftianity , profejfed in all the Churches ofChrift ; gr 
 if in Ofinir/iSy then fitch as are likewije contrary to the Received Principles 
 efChrift 'ianity, ar.dthe power ofGodlivefe,prefejfed by the party himfelfi 
 and univerfally acknowledged in all the reft of the Churches ; and no other- 
 fins. And it our Brethren walking by this rule, can be yet in a furficienc 
 meafure be fecured, that the greater number' of Persons in fome of 
 their Congregations may not be the more corrupt, and prejudice thofe that 
 are more pure ; furely we may then hope, chat if our Synods be made up 
 of fuch Elders as are defcribed, 1 Tim. 3. and Tit. 1. ( to which a tender 
 refped is to be had) wt may in a good meafure avoid that danger* But 
 there isfarre more danger in our Brethrens way ; for if an Erroneous 
 hcreticall Congregation may (eletlively, as our Brethren fpt ak) choofe their 
 jtot fudges, wc have little reafon to beleeve, but that they will choofe 
 either tone at all, or fuch as they know before- hand, are likely to be of 
 their o\\'n Judgement. 
 
 4. Say our Brethren, fuppofe there be as many Elders and Churches 
 more purely reformed in one Province, as in the reft of the Nation be/ides ; 
 why Jhould not God be thought to be as much with them, as With the T^atio- 
 nail Ajfembly f 
 
 csfnfi So he may, (God may be as much prefent poffibly witho^ 
 Regiment^ as with the whole Army befide;) and if he be fo prefent with 
 them, as to enable them to doe their worke, they need not then bring it to 
 the 2{ationalUAffembly ; yet even then, the reft of the Nation may 
 have need of Them. There may poffibly be, as many Able Knowing 
 Chriftians in fome one Family, as in all the reft of a Congregation, yet this 
 hinders not their aflociating into one Church. 
 
 5 . Say they, If 'qua greater, then the Decrees ^Generall Coun- 
 C e l s informer Ages, {even thoje that fit up Bifhops and Popes) Jhould 
 
 lindens more then Provinc i all ^National Synod s now, 
 at leaft tiH repealed by another Generall CouncelL As Acls of Parliament 
 made by our Aunceftors, bind us till repealed. 
 
 Anfi\. The Atlembly hath not yet debated the Power of General! 
 Councells in making Law s much lefle of their binding after- Ages. 
 
 2. Nor doe we fay, that Councells feither one or other) doe binde 
 abfolutely, what ever their decrees be : But when they Erre, they are no 
 otherwise binding, then as Erring Elder jlnp. 
 
 5. Nor do the Decrees of thole Counceh binde Us, except vi materU, 
 who were not in Aflbciation with thofe Churches, nor were either actu- 
 ally or virtually confenting to them. 
 
 4. Nor do we grant thaty*d? Generall Councels had a like Legiftative 
 tower for theft Churches^ as the Parliament hath for the Kingdome. 
 
 Yy Next 
 
1( 52 The Anfwer of the Affentbly of Divines ^ unit the Rcafons of 
 
 Next/ay our Brethren, The Bounds and Limits of A ffemblies being Se- 
 ek fiaftic all, muft not have their rife from Nation/// or Political/ re [pells. 
 Antioch/£*f to Jerufalcra, not of the fame Province or Nation, rather the* 
 Syria, or Cilicia. 
 
 Anf\. We doe not bring ^f#j 15. for a pattern of a Synod, either 
 Provincial/ or National/, as Sue h ; but as an inftance of Churches affo- 
 ciatedin a Synod : And if not within the fame either Province or T^ution, 
 then doth it give warrant for Affociation of Churches, even beyond the 
 bounds of one Nation. 
 
 2. We doe not fay, qua Province, qua Ration, qua Kingdome ; bur, 
 as upon a due weighing of thefe^ind other particulars Jball appear m oft for the 
 good of the Church. 
 
 But we fay, 3. That the Churches in one Kingdome, (having more 
 communion with each other ,then with Churches of another Kingcteme) are 
 (ordinarily) fit t eft to ajfociate, and to be mod immediately helpfuil one 
 to another. 
 
 4. We fay, that the concurrent affiftance or oppoftion of the State and 
 LMagiftrate, may make Aflbciations, cither in the fame Nation, or 
 with other Nations , more or lefle expedient ; and variation in ex* 
 vediencj may caufe a variation in the Bomdings and Limits of Sy- 
 nods. 
 
 And for that queftion, why Antiochfent not to the Churches -of Syria 
 and Cilicia., rather then to Jerufalem , which was neither in the fame Pro- 
 vince nor Tuition f 
 
 We Anfwer y Whether it were, 1. Becaufe that <±Aram or Syria be- 
 ing Co Lrge and vaft, containing not only Ccelojyria, in which Antio:h 
 was, but alfo C?iiefopotamia, Phoenicia, and fome other regions; And 
 C dicta likewife (of which 7";?r/?# was the Metropolis) being very hrge 3 
 (and to which Antioch did not belong either as a Province or Nation, as 
 our Brethren fee me to fuppofe;,) thofe Churches could either not at all, 
 or not fo conveniently, or not fo fione be gathered into a Synod : Or, 
 2. Becaufe thofe Churches being troubled with the fame Errours (ask 
 appears they were) and ftood in need, as well as Antioch, of feeking the 
 advife and heipe of other Churches : Or, whether 3. Thofe Churches 
 being but ne w plant ed y were not yet formed into fuch Subord nations ; 
 Or, whether 4. Thofe Churches had already met in Synods, and the de- 
 bates and refuks at Antioch, were the debates and refults not of One 
 (fhunh,^t of a Synod of £lders from jever all of ~ thofe Churches , and yet 
 unabk to determine that controverfie ; (Tor 1. c9/^r^befideP^//and 
 Barnabas were fent to Jerufalem : And 2. other Churches were troubled 
 with thefe Err our s^ and their troubles reprcftntidto the Synod at ferufin- 
 
 km: 
 
the Difcnung Br: againft the Subordination of Synods. 15? 
 
 /em: And 3. the Returns made, and Letters directed to tkofe Other 
 (fhurches, to the Churches of Antioch, Syria and CilicL: And 4. ft/das 
 and SUm Sent toThem with thefe Letters; andyer, when the Letters 
 are delivered and read atAntioch, the Meffengers fit downe and make 
 thir abode There, as having performed their whole truft, without fur- 
 ther travelling about Syria, and plicia, though the Brethren of Syria 
 2nd C'.I.'cia, as well asthofe of Ant ioch, are told in thefe Letters, that 
 together With Paul and Barnabas, they hadfent Judas and Silas To Th e m, 
 WhofijoulJ. tell them the fame things, by mouth:) Or, whether 5. for fbme 
 other reafon ; We are not able pofttivdy to determine. Onely, in gene- 
 rail • we fay, The Reafon why they had Recourfe unto, or did Allbciatc 
 with the Church at ferufalem, (and perhaps thole of fudea too) for 
 making Decrees (in matter of common concernment) obligatory to all 
 thofe Churches of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia ; was, Becaufe this did ap- 
 pear the moft Expedient and Conducing for thofe ends, of Edifying thofe 
 Churches, (fompofing their Differences, and Removing their Srrors. And 
 the fame rule are We to obferve in our Ailbciation$r 
 
 And as to that, of the, Kingdome of Ifrael, breaking into Two King- 
 domes, While yet the Church- (late in their Subordinations altered not. We 
 Anfwer, 
 
 1. Whether it did, or did not, is not much materiall to ourpur- 
 pofe \ For we doe not fay, That the Bounds of a Kingdome, qua King- 
 dome, muftbe the Bounds of an Aflbciation (but that there may be Affo- 
 chtiom larger and leffer then of one Kingdome^) but, That this is one 
 particular, confiderable amongft others in point of Expediency and 
 Edification. 
 
 2. As' for thofe Services, which by Gods appointment, were to be 
 done onely atjerufaffm, the reafon is plame of their not altering, be- 
 caufe there was but one ferufalem, the onely plaee which God had chofen 
 to put his name there : But that nothing concerning the he all Round-, or 
 other Circum fiances belonging to their Government, admitted variation 
 upon that Change, is more then our Brethren can prove. 
 
 To what they next adde, that If this Independency ari r efom 
 the Alagijhates, then there is no ne ej of fuch fub ordination s , becaufe (in ex- 
 perience) Reformed Churches abroad are Well enough governed without thefe 
 Subordinations ; Geneva hath no Appeals, having but one flajfif; and why 
 may not other Chunhes be governed as well without them, if the Magi fir ate 
 overfee them, and keep each to their duties ; The Churches in the Low- 
 countries Want 2{*t ion all Synods ,\ and yet are peaceably Governed ;yea, 
 fome of them are without Provincial/, and fay, if they can, they Will never 
 have more. We Anfwer, Y y 2 1 If 
 
1 54 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 
 1. If the Churches in Geneva, and the Low-fiur.tnes be Well 
 Enou g h governed, then are Chunks under jPresbyterial Go- 
 vernment well enough Governed: Yea, then is there no need of 
 Elective S y no d s, for thofe Churches have none. 
 
 2. We plead not for Inde p endenc y, but for a Subordination 
 upon Ajfociation, when it may be haet. 
 
 ; . Our queftion is not about the Poorer of the CAfagijtrAtc, but about 
 an Scctejiafticl^o! liga: ion,by vertue of Church- principles Jhch as mi^ht Ixtve 
 agreed to the primitive Churches before the Afagiftrate was £hrijhan,zs 
 our Brethren thcmfelves have noted. 
 
 4. If geneva doe not altogether aflociate with thofe under another 
 Civiil Government, left perhaps, they might prejudice their civill liber- 
 ties ; or for fome other inconvenience which may over-balance it 5 yet 
 they doe affociate with the Reformed Churches of France, as much as they 
 can, and fend (fommiffioners to their Nationall Synods : And "Be^a hath 
 been P re f dent in fome of them. 
 
 j. If the Low-Countries Want Nationall Synods, why doe our 
 Brethren fay, they are well enough Governed without them ? If by 
 tra>;t, they doe not imply a Need of them, but, that they ha:e them m ; 
 then is it not true : Por in the Low-Countries thej have Nationall Ajfem- 
 b/:es, though of late there have bin fome interruptions in their meetings, 
 and they have not, as formerly, met every three year. And the feldome 
 meeting, cither of their Nationa'l orProvinciall Synods is their preju- 
 dice, not their game ; and an affliction of fpirit to their godly Paftors 
 and People. But whereas our Brethren adde, that fome ((fwehes) of 
 them, fay, If they can, they willneier have more: We know that the 
 Socmians and Armenians have complained of Synods, and laboured 
 with all their might, to hinder the convening of mem j but that Others, 
 at leaft, that other Chur c he s have fo laid ; we doe no more beleeve, 
 then we doc what hath been fiid by fome QthcvsJ~ hat feme of them haze 
 de fired the Epifcopatl Government ; nor are bound to anfwer for the one, 
 more then for the other. 
 
 6. But let it be granted, That fome Reformed Churches, (which 
 could not have them) have not had all thefe forts of Aflemblies ; it doth 
 not follow, that therefore, thofe Wjtffew have them, muft yet forbear. 
 Some Churches have not Ruling flders, fome Churches have no Eletlive 
 Synods ; yet our Brethen will not fay, that therefore No Churches may 
 have them. 
 
 In the laft place, fay our Brethren ; As not from Political!, fo neither 
 from Nationall rejpecls, are thefe bounds to be fetched ; For then 1. the Cal- 
 
 v'wifis 
 
the Diverting Br: againft the Subordination of Synods . 1 6$ 
 
 vinifis in Germany, mufi befubjecl to a greater number of Lutherans ; and 
 all Miniflers in England mufi affociate, of which the greater number will be 
 the worfe : Or, ifbecaufe the Calvinifls profejfe a further Reformatio*?, they 
 be difobliged from fuch an A 'foe tat ion, then Jo are tho r e, who in a Tuition 
 prtfeffe a farther Reformation : 9 And Uniformity of principles is a more 
 intimate bond of fitch AJfociation, then fuch extrinfecati refpecls. 1, If 
 quaNatioi or Principality, then Wales mufi be Independent. 3. If qua 
 Nation of the fame tongue or kindred, then mufi the fcattered JeWs have 
 made one Church diflincl , from thofe With whom they didcohabite. Or 
 4. If qua Nation or People, dwelling within the fame Nationall bounds^ 
 then mufi thofe Jews make up one Church with thofe Nations ; whereat Pe- 
 ter, James, and Paul to the Hebrews writes to them apart, as Qhunhes in 
 all Nations. 
 
 aAnf Thefe are but light exceptions. For 1. Though the Churches 
 in a Nation be bound to affociate, if they can; yet not qua one Nation, 
 (that refpeel: of Nation or principality, being extrinfecall to the Church, 
 and accident all) but qua fuch a -number, and in fuch bounds, as may be 
 mofl conveniently joynedfor the befi improvement of Synodicall Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 2. Nor doe we fay, All Miniflers mufi promifcuoufly be admitted a* 
 members in Synods, no more then that, AM pretended Chrifiians may be 
 admitted to aU Church-Communion in Congregations. 
 
 3 . Nor doe we deny, but Uniformity in Trinciptes ought, among 
 other things, to be duly weighed in reference to Aflociation ; (and our 
 ^Brethren might as well have {hewed their Reafons, why That may not 
 be a rule to be made ufe of in ArTociations, as thofe that they havefing- 
 Jed out;) And our Brethren know that the reafon why the befi Reformed 
 Churches in Germany (which our Brethren call Calvinifls) doe not Affo- 
 ciate with the Lutherans, (though they doe admit amicable conferences 
 and debates with them; is, liecaufe of the^r^r differences between them, 
 not only about (fhurch Government, but in weighty "Points of :c Doclrine* 
 
 4. Yet we do not fay , That a bare T-rofejfion of a Further Reforms 
 tien, will difobli^e from AJfociation ; nor doe we beleeve our Brethren 
 will fay it ; for, by the fame reafon, they muft fay, that iffome of 
 their own members poftjfe a further Reformation, they may, thereupon, di- 
 vide from them. 
 
 5. Thit of tVales, hurts not us ; for if they may conveniently Affoci- 
 jite , their being a diftintl principality, will not hinder it : If by reafon of 
 their Language, or the like, they cannot ; yet this hinders not, but that 
 they, who can, may Affociate : Their fuppofed Independency toucheth not 
 us a who hold no Independency. 
 
 Yy 3 6Thc 
 
t66 The Anfvyer of the ^ffctnbly of Divines^ unto the Rcafons pf 
 
 6. The dijperfedjewes (for any thing our Brethren canfhewtothe 
 contrary) might be ajfoc fated with thofe Churches amongst which they did 
 cohabite, (Chrifi; having taken away the difference between Jew and 
 Gentile:) And, for ought we know, when Paul wrote to all the Chur- 
 ches in GaUtia, as me tump, They might be comprehended with the reft : 
 Sure we are, that the Errours in the Churches ofGalatia about Circum- 
 cifton y and other fewijh rites, were too much affociated with the Errours 
 offervsy who lived among them: And if (b, then Peter writing to the 
 difperfed Jews in Galatia, &c. did not write to them, as a diftintl Church 
 tiot ajfociated. And we think our Brethren cannot well fay the contrary, 
 twlefFe they intend to grant, That in the Church ofEphefus (to fay no- 
 thing of other Churches) there were at leaft Two Congregations, one of 
 fefrs, another of Greeks ; for that there were in Ephefus > both Jews and 
 Greek*, we beleeve they will not deny. 
 
 The ^Anfwer to their Fourth ^Argument. 
 
 Their Fourth Argument lies thus, That Government which nee e gorily 
 produceth reprefentations of fpirituall power, out of other reprefentations y with 
 a derived ' po\*er there- from , there is no warrant for : But thefe Subor- 
 dinations of Synods, Provinciall, Rational/ ,0 ecumenic 'ally for the Govern- 
 ment of the Church, doe fo* For if aH Churches in the feverali Provinces 
 befubjecl to the Dfationall Affembly^and all y in fiver all Nations to An O ecu- 
 menically then muft they all be inter e^ed in that Nationall or Oecumenicall 
 Aftembly, and involved in it, as the Shires are involved in the Parliamenta- 
 ry power. Which inter eft muft arifc, either by an immediate choke (as Par- 
 liament men are chofen immediately by thofe they reprejent) which cannot be 
 here, for the Congregations of a Province do not meet for fuch choice oftfofi, 
 who {ball reprefent them in the Nationall asfficmbly : Or elfe thofe chofen 
 by the Congregations to reprefent them in the Provinciall osfjfembly, choofe 
 fome few of themf elves to rerrefent them in the Nationall ; and fome 
 of the Nationall Aficmbl) to reprefent them all in the Oecumenicall, 
 Whushmay notbey both becaufe there is no- warrant for any delegated po- 
 wer at all in fyirituall matters, all minifters bein^ immediately Chrifti 
 vicarti ; and becaufe .representations, as reflexions, grow ft bll weaker y the 
 higher they go , and are but a/hadoW of the fir ft fhadow : Yet the whole po- 
 wer that can befuppofed to belong to the whole fub fiance y is ascribed to them. 
 But if thefe fewy in a General I or N[ationall Councell binde all thofe Nati- 
 ons Mr Provinces under them. Then I. They muft befuppofed to have a 
 pram'fi and aft/ft ance anfw erable ; not only to- Judge as Eklers, winch h 
 their Office ; and according to their Perfonall Abilities being thw called to 
 
 give 
 
the Difl'enting Br. dgaivft the Subordination of Synods, 1^7 
 
 five their advife, (which tW'o are granted;) hut (uch a [up er added ajjl fiance 
 04 holds proportion to that fjtirituall bul^andbody which the) reprefent : And 
 J tuh is twice intimated to be with the Sanecwm, Dillt. 17. Thou Jhalt got 
 to the place wi bich God foall chafe ; and doe according to the Jentevce Which 
 thej fjallpjew. 2. They have each of them in [uch an ajfembly, a pov.tr pa- 
 rallel to that o f Iiifljops > and csfrch-bijlops, W'ho challenge in Connects to re- 
 present their Churches. 3 . They muft then be a (fburch,and a body to Chrift > 
 which they are not, 
 
 A*f<\* We cannot but obfervcthat our Brethren doe neither content 
 therniclvcs with the QuMon as Jlated by the Ajfembly, (who being to 
 advife concerning a Church Government for this Kingdom e> fpeak no-* 
 thing of a Subordination to OetnmeniclrJConnceU'f) nor yet are conftant 
 to their own fating it, but fometimes(as in their third Argument J difpute 
 againft the AiTembly,as denying fitch S'uberdinati»n f and call for proof of 
 an ultimate Independency in a T^ationall Synod; and forr.etimes (as in 
 this Argument) they difpute againft Subordination to Oeeumemck^ (four:- 
 eels, as if the Proportion had aflerted it. 
 
 2. We obfervcthat neither this, nor any of the former Arguments, 
 are framed againft the Subordination of Congregational I and (flafficAl 
 Affemtdies, to Synods, (which the Proportion ailirmes) but onely of Sy- 
 nods amonglt them r elves, provincial I to Nationally and both to Oecume- 
 nicall ; the latter of which the proportion meddles, not with. 
 
 3. For Anf\ver;we fay, that when feverall Churches fend choice 
 men to adl thus in a Claffis ; and feverall Claflcs fend choice men to 
 Trminciall Synods, and they to a NationalL Thefe Reprefentations 
 are not (as our Brethren fuppofe) fiadoWs offoadows, but as Gold ex- 
 tracted out of Gold, which the oftner it is refined, the poser it is ; or 
 as (fhymicall extratlions, whereof the iaft and highefl is the molt ftrong 
 and precious. 
 
 4. And Ume Reprefentations of this nature our brethren cannot deny, 
 both in their fingle Congregations, and in their Sletlive Synods. lor 
 
 1. In their Congregations, All have not authority to vote, as wog^n 
 and children ; yet beciufe the Ch it r c h is [ail to doe it, and.^tf ^vo- 
 men as well as others) are obliged, the Voters muft necejjarily Re- 
 present the Whole Church: And when any of thole, who 
 have power to vote, are lAbfcnt, (which cannot be avoided, by reafon 
 offickneHe, or the like, efpecially if pcrfons dwelling at 40 miles di- 
 ftance, or more, are yet (landing members of a Congregation) the 
 Present Voters muft Represent thofe Representers 
 alfo ; and if thofe Prefent Voters do not all agrce^hc Ad Apr part of thele 
 inuft Reprefent them All, 
 
 2. And 
 
io*8 The Anfwer of the Affemhly ofDivines unto the Rcafons of 
 
 i. And when thefe Reprefenters knd any of their Delegates to Ad 
 and Vote in an EleBlve Synod, thefe Delegates doe reprefent all the for- 
 mer Reprefcnters j and why may not ten Churches meet to delegate fome 
 from them All) and fend them to a Synod of an hundred Churches as 
 well as Ant inch fend from that one Church to Jerusalem ? 
 
 5. Nor doth this at all hinder it, That they are immediately Chrift't Vi- 
 carii : For though the power offttch an office be immediately from ChrifL 
 yet the defgning offttch a Verfon to that Office, and Imployino him, hie & 
 nunc, to preach the Word, or performe fuch an ad of Government, for 
 the good and edification of thofe that fend him, is not immediately 
 from Chrift. 
 
 6. But here we muft obferve likewife, that our Brethren difpute not a- 
 gainft the Subordination or power of thefe Synods, or the (landing ufe 
 of them, but againft the Being of them; and not of thefe onely. but of 
 their owne Eledive Synods ; for how can a Church or Churches goe 
 forth Eledively to one Elective Synod of all the Churches in a Province 
 a Nation ; yea, of all the world, (as our Brethren grant they may) with- 
 out representations, yea, reprcfentations of reprefentations ? For we 
 doe not beleeve their meaning to be thus • that if ten Churches fee caufe 
 to goe forth for light, to all the Churches of a Province or Nation, by 
 way of an Eledive Synod ;thcn all, and every member of thefe ten 
 Churches muft in perfon repair to a meeting of all the members of thofe 
 Churches in a Province 01 Nation in one body. 
 
 As to that Demand of our Brethren ; where is there a promife of fuch 
 An AJfi fiance as holds proportion with the Whole Nation f We Anfwer ; 
 The Fromife ofChriftis One and the Same to All the Officers ; from the 
 Apoftles to the Pallor and Teacher ; I will be with you alwayes, to the 
 end of the world .-And Where two or three are gathered together in my name, 
 there am I in the midft of them : Which he ufeth to make good in pro- 
 portion to the worke he fets them upon. He doth not give a dftincl 
 P0frfe to each Officer, (I will be prefent with an Apoftle in fuch a pro- 
 portion, with an Svang. I- ft infuch a proportion, and With a Paftorot 
 Slier in fuch a proportion;) much lefl'e doth he giveffieciall promijes to 
 each All belonging to the fame Office, (I will be thus far prefent with a 
 Paftor in teaching, thus far in vifiting the pike, thus far in admonijhing, 
 reproving, comforting, thus far in ruling hviown Congregation , and thus 
 far when called to governe or advife in reference to other Congrega- 
 tions: ) but That one Promife is fufficient ground for each Officer, in every 
 aft of his Office to exped a BlefTing proportionable to the Work he is 
 imployed in. Nor will our Brethren we beleeve, undertake to produce a 
 
 fteciall 
 
the Dimming Br: agawft the Subordination of Synods. i£p 
 
 fieciafl promife ; How far Chrift will be prcfent With an Elellive Symde, 
 more then he was with the Church or Churches that repair te them ; or 
 How much more he will be prefent with a Synod oiten Churches then 
 of two* 
 
 But if our Brethren think, that if a company of Minifters be fent to a 
 Synod, /« the name of *fe many Churches, or to reprefent thofe Churches, 
 or the Ministers in them ; they muft be then looked upon, as having All 
 the Light, Graces, Gifts, and (fonfciences of all thofe Churches, and mufl: 
 .have as large Affifiance from God, as if they had fo : We acknowledge 
 no fuch reprefent atton as this, either in, or out of Synods ; and therefore 
 need notfceke for a promife of fuch affflance. If a Minifies, as the 
 Mouth of the people, indite and utter a pnyer to God in their name,or on 
 their behalf-, though info doing, he may be faid to reprefent the people, 
 (as well, as when the Priefts offered up facrifices in the behalf, either of 
 the people, or of particular perlons;) he is not yet looked upon, as ha- 
 ving All the gifts and graces of that people, whofe mouth he is, and an 
 Afliftance anfwerable ; but is to imploy That Light andGrace, and Abi- 
 lity, that Chrift hath beftoWed on Him for their good ; (And fo, if he 
 pray to God in the behalf of an abfent Perfon, a Church, a Kingdome:) 
 And in the like manner muft he doe, when in a Synod (Provincial!, 
 National!, or OecumenicallJ he ads in the name, zndflr the good of fuch 
 Churches,by fpecial Delegation orAppointment of him to that purpofe. 
 
 Nor was it otherwife in the High Priefts offering facrifices,or making 
 Atonement for the whole People ; who was not therefore to be looked 
 upon, as having Gifts and Graces equal to thofe of the Whole People, (though 
 the Sacrifices there offered, and the Atonement made, were Accepted for 
 the Whole;) no more then if a King, orfingle Mmifier (hould make 
 Prayers to God, in the behalf of his Kingdome or Congregation, and be 
 Heard in fuch requefts. Neither was the Sanedrim to be looked upon, 
 as having All the Grace, fufiice, Wifdome of the whole Nation, though 
 they were by Gods appointment the highefi Court ; but onely an Afli- 
 ftincefutable to the wcrkwhich God called them to : Nor will the Text al- 
 ledged out of Detit.ij.(where they are bid to go up to the place which God 
 Jhallchoofe, and to doe according to thefentence Vvhich they jh all fljcvp) prove 
 more. And fo far is that from making againfi what we aflert, that it 
 makes much for us: For though the Place (Jerufalem) and the Perfon 
 (the High Priefl) were Typicall, and fo ceafed ; yet the Bufinefe itMfc 
 (of hearing Appeales,redrefling Injuries, expediting of difficult cafes, 
 &c.)are things of a Moral! nature,and there is the like need of provifion 
 for them ww,as there was then. 
 
 Zz As 
 
j 70 The Anfwer of the Affewbly of Divines^ unto the R eafons of 
 
 As to what they next adde, That this makes them in thefe A/femblies 
 fo many *s4rch bi/hops or Biftops : We An Twer, No more then every 
 Eldtr in one of our Brethrcns Congregations joyning in the Trefbytery 
 may be judged Popes in their ownc parifh; norfo much neither, as 
 might be eafily fhewed if it were needfull to make Retortions of this 
 nature. But we have often fpoken to this comparifon, which our Bre- 
 thren fo much delight in 5 though yet they would not take it well to be 
 fo often told, How near their way comes (and in how many principles) 
 to that of Brownifis or Anabaptifis ; and, What might be faid mcreplau- 
 fiblj for Bi ownifis Tenents wherein they differ, then for Theirs. Yea, 
 and themfelves acknowledging Eletlive Synods of Elders, who may 
 (authoritatively) Teach, and Declare men Subvertersofthefaith,Fitto 
 be excommunicated, &c. would not yet be willing to be charged to fee 
 up fo many Bijhops or zsfrch-Bi flops in thofe branches of Authority which 
 Bifhops challenge to themfelves. 
 
 To their laft exception, That if thefe reprefentations having the power of 
 all the Churches in the 2(ation be warrantable, they mufi ^^Church, 
 andalo-dy to Chri(},&c. We Anfwer, (as often times in this cafe) That 
 we doe not enquire for Thames, but Things. That there may be Synods 
 thus collet ed, owe Brethren doe not deny; but fay, they are ufefullfor 
 finding out, and declaring of truth in difficult cafes, for he ding offences ;&e, 
 "whether they will fay fuch a Synod is a fourch, or is a Body to Chrift y 
 we w ill not contend ; if They may be fo called, then fo may the Synods 
 we contend for ; if not, then their Arguments hurts not us more then 
 themfelves, for then (by this Argument; neither are their Synods war- 
 rantable. But their Conference will no way follow ; for our "Brethren 
 aflert often, That every Apoftle had the power of all Churches, not onely 
 in a N^t ion but in the Wor L D,and their atls did oblige them to Subjetli- 
 on: Yet will not our "Brethren fay, That every Apoftle is a fourch, or 
 isfo called, or u a Body to fori/}. And in every of their Congregations, 
 where they fuppofe the Elders and Brethren, without the women and 
 children, have the whole Church-power ; we need butturne their words 
 upon themfelves If thefe reprefenters (Elders and Brethren, without the 
 women and children,) having the power of all the perfons in that Con- 
 gregation, were warrantable, they mufl be a fourch ; 2*(o\X> y be fides that 
 they are no vherefo called, if they were called fo, then they are a Bo iy to 
 Cbrift,forfo every Church is, and where u Chrifi faid to hAve a reprefenta- 
 tive Body of his Body t Avdyetfo they muft be, or they have not the power 
 of all 1 h; meml e,s of that Church in them, nor otherwife dee their atls ob- 
 iige them tofubjetlion : And when our Bre % have thought of an Anfwer in 
 
 this 
 
the Dijfentmg Br: agahfi the Subordination of Synods. 171 
 
 thisczfe, we doubt not but they may fee the fame Anfwer will fcrve our 
 turne. That the Elders and Brethren without the women and children 
 are a Church, we fuppofe they will not fay; for if fo, then either the 
 women and children are of no Church, or of another Church ; that they 
 are of no Church we bcleeve they will not fay j nor can they fay, that 
 they are of anot her Church, unlelle they will fay, that one (f fair ch governs 
 another ^that the Church of Elders and Brethren J governs the Church of wo- 
 men and children : If they fay, That the Elders and Brethren, together with 
 the women and children make but One Church ; and yet, though the wo- 
 men and children atflnor, yet the Church is faid to act thus and thus, 
 when thofe in the Church doe thus act, who have authority and commijfton 
 fo to doc ; we fay fo to : And then the queftion will be this,Not whether 
 thofe who acl are a Church ; but Who thofe are in the Church that ought 
 to atl. 
 
 The Anjvper to our 'Brethrens Reafons, a- 
 gainft the allegation of Alls 15. for the 
 
 Subordination of Synods, Provineiall, Na- 
 tional^ Oecumenicall. 
 
 WE cannot but wonder to fee our Brethren fo frequently run 
 upon Qtoftc miftakes, and mif-recitings of our Propofitions and 
 Proofes. We fay nothing in any of our Propofitions concerning Subor- 
 dination ^OECUMENICK Synods, but only of Congregational!, Claf- 
 fically Provincial^ and National! Ajfemblies amongfc themfelves ; but in- 
 ftead of Congregation 'all and Ciijficall y our Brethren addc Oecumenicall : 
 Nor did we alledge Alls 15. for a proof of any Subordination a: all ; 
 nor fomuch as for the being of Provhc'iallor Nationall Aifcmblies, as 
 fuch, butonely for the Larrfulnefe of Synod s ; fThat the Scrip: we 
 holdeth forth another fort of<*s4ffemblies for the Government of the ChU'-ch^ 
 befide Congregational I and Clafficall, which we call Synodic aU-J a Propo- 
 fition to which our "Brethren entred no Dijfent, nor (fo far as we can re- 
 member) did give any ntgmvt Vote. For, That there are Synods held 
 forth in Scripture, our Brethren grant ; (and That they are an holy Ordi- 
 nance of God ;)& That they are proved by this place .-but, .whether Proline L 
 all, Nationally Oecumenicall \ whether Standing, and S ubor&mtt ; oc 
 Occafionall, and £leclive ; whecher to Excommunicate, or to Advif r, &c. 
 that Propofirion fpeaks not. So that this Text is brought 1 y us Cu [ 
 
 Zz 2 no 
 
I n The Anfwer of the Jffembly of 'Divines unto the Reafons of 
 no more then what they acknowledge to be truths and what they affirme 
 to be proved from it. 
 
 But fay tixzyjhis one example cannot prove both Presbyteries and Synods, 
 but ifVce lean to the one, we mufl quit the other. 
 
 esfnf.i. Nor is it brought by us to prove both: We brought it be- 
 fore to prove, that the Elder s of Jerufalem didperfirme atls of Govern- 
 ment over more Congregations then one ; and it is brought now to prove 
 the Lawfulnejfe of Synods, which may both very well ftand together. 
 2. At leaft, fome paflages in this Chapter may prove the one, and fome 
 the other, without any inconfiftence. 3. Yea further, if it be fuffkient to 
 prove, that Churches, at fo great a di fiance, may joyne in a Synod ; it will 
 prove a fortiori, that neighbour Churches may joyn in a Claffis* 
 
 They fay further, That this Affembly, A&s 1 5. was not aformall Synod, 
 but onely a reference by the particular Qhurch 0/ Antioch, to the particular 
 £hurch 0/Jerufalem. 
 
 *Anf Whether either Antioch or jerufalem were a particular Church, 
 (in our Brethrens fenfe) or, whether this reference were made onely 
 from Antioch, and not from any other Qhurch or Churches affembled 
 there, either in a Claffis or a Synod, it is not needfull now to difpute : 
 Nor whether this meeting at Jerufalem were a formal! Synod. Our Bre- 
 thren grant, That a Synod is an holy Ordinance of God; and That 
 h may be proved from this place: But whether the inftance be a 
 for mall Synod, or onely afufficient Warrant for a Synod, is to our pur- 
 pofe all one. 
 
 But fay our Brethren ; If it had been a Synod, yet 1. Neither Provin- 
 eiall nor Nationall. 
 
 tsfnf t . Nor doe we fay that it was a TrovinciaH or N 'at wnall Synod ; 
 But, though it were neither Provinciall nor Nationall, yet it might be a 
 Synod; which is enough to our purpofe, who bring this, onely to prove, 
 That there may be Synods. 
 
 2. If (according to our Brethrens Principles^ this meeting, though 
 formally not a Synod, might y ct be zfufficiant warrant for a Synod, (yea, 
 for a multiplicity of Synods, in cafe the firft Synod be not able to do the 
 work J then this Synod, though it were not formally either Provinciall 
 or Hationall, may yet be afujficient warrant for both : For if we be 
 bound precifely to follow this example, in All the Circumftances of it, 
 without any circumftantiall variation, then cannot our Brethren approve 
 ofElettive Forma ll Synods under colour of this example, which, 
 
 fay 
 
the Ditfenting Br: agawfctbe Subordination of Synods. 1 73 
 
 fay they, was not a Formal/ Synod: Nor may they, in cafe the firft 
 Elective Synod doe notfatisfie, haverecourfe toa/fcW, ('which yet 
 here they fay, they may) becaufe thofe of zAntioch refted in this firft 
 re/o/ution. 
 
 They adde, T^either 2. was' it a ftanding Synod, ( 'Which the Word 
 Subordination doth imply) but Elettivc ; and that, but for this one f£ne- 
 ftion without obligation to referrezAU other matters to them in an ordina- 
 ry Way. 
 
 Anf. I . Oar Brethren fhould not difpute againft the Subordination of 
 Synods in this place ; For Alls 1 5. was not by us brought to prove the 
 Subordination, but the Being of Synods. 
 
 a. Nor doth the word Subordination prove, that they muft 
 needs be Standing Synods ; more then the Subordination oflnferi- 
 cur fauns to the Parliament, proves that the Parliament muft needs be a 
 Standing Court and not OccaftonalL 
 
 3. Nor is there fuch a materiall difference between Standing Synods 
 wAOccafionall, in regard either of their Lawfulneffc, or their PoWer : 
 unleflfe our Brethren think, that a Trienniall or Standing "Tar liamentht 
 Subftantially different, in point of lawfulncfle and power, from Occafio- 
 nall Parliaments, and that, though the fundamentall Laws of a King- 
 dome fhould warrant the One, yet they would not therefore warrant 
 the Other. We know not, but that Occafionall and Standing Synods 
 are of the like Divine Authority ; and our Brethren have as yet made 
 very little Objection againft it. Nor doe thofe of New-England 
 make any fuch difference ; fee (fottons Keyes, pag. 48. zAnfwer to 32. 
 queftions,pzg. 64. 
 
 They adde, Nor 3. was there a Multiplicity of Synod*, but one/y one, 
 in whofe Judgement thofe 0/Aritioch refted, 4. Much leffe a (fantignati- 
 on of Synods, Superiour and inferiour, 
 
 Anf Yet fay our Brethren in the next words ; when offences are not 
 healed, undone reference toother Churches vs not fuffcient to cure them, 
 there fhouldbe a feeling to others : (b that this Inftance of One, is a furfici- 
 ent warrant for a Multiplicity* by their own grant: (And if the firft 
 Synod be able to difpatch the buiineffe, we doe no more plead for a 
 needlefTc carrying it further, then thcmfclvcs doe.) But in cafe there be 
 reafon after the firft Reference or Appeal, to whom fhould they next 
 goe? The Text is wholly, filent • there is nothing for direction, but 
 Generall Rules of Scripture, together with principles of Prudence, 
 and the Light of Nature, to judge of what is moft for convenience. 
 
 Zz 3 Order, 
 
1 74 The Anfwer of the ^jfembly of Divines, unto the Reafons of 
 
 Order, and Edification ; which all will perfwade rather to fceke higher, 
 then lower : And not we only (with other reformed Churches) but 
 Mr. fitton, with the Divines of New. En gland, do argue from hence, by 
 a parity of reafon, for a Contignation, even to an Oecumenical! QounceH % 
 as upon a Morall and Perpetuall ground. But, Whether this aflbcia- 
 ting muft needs be of Neighbour Churches, and, Whether of All Churches 
 promifcuoufly without election ; hath been fpoken to before. Whe- 
 ther they have power t o bind fubpana (as our Brethren fpeake ) per- 
 taines net to this queftion, either about the Being of Synods, or of their 
 Subordination ; nor do our Brethren here object againft it. 
 
 But becaufe our Brethren infift on this, that Sjnois mufl be Ele- 
 ctive ; wefhallfpeakefomewhatmoretoit. 
 
 If by FJetlive, they had meant, an Aflbciation of Churches who meet 
 in a Synod, by their owne mutuall confent and choice, to determine, and 
 manage matters of difficulty, &c. there had been no difference between 
 us ; We thinke that Churches (hould voluntarily agree into fuch Affecta- 
 tions, as well as Perfons ought voluntarily to aflbciate into Congrega- 
 tions, fo as may be mod for generall edification : yet is not the 1 one nor 
 the other a matter of choke, but otDutj. 
 
 But by Eletlion, out* Brethren meane, a Reference made by a particular 
 Church, whofe the bufinefle is, tofome other Church or ^hurches of their 
 owne chcofingy and They codealeinit, only fo far, as they Refer their 
 bufinefle unto them. 
 To which we fay, 
 
 i. That we thinke our Brethren are the fir ft that ever held out fuch 
 a kind of Synod. 
 
 2. Nor doth this place Aftsi$. on which they ground it, fpeake 
 any thing ofELECTiVENESSE. It faith indeed, when there was a 
 s-*CTff, a fide or Faction in the Church that taught Errours againft the 
 Doctrine of Paul and Barnabas, the Church concludes that Taut and 
 Barnabas with others of them {"hould goe to ferufalem ; But no menti- 
 on, that it was meerel] at their owne choice, whether to ferd or not to fend, 
 or whether to Jerufaltm or any other Churches, and about What queftions 
 tkey ples.fed,andr.o ethers, 
 
 3. That it iliould be at the choice of the (fhnrch whofe the bufinefe is, 
 is to us moll: incongiuous; partly becaufe it croflcth another principle 
 of our Brethrens, That neighbour Churches offended may (without their 
 reference) call them to an account ; and partly becaufe it feemes contrary 
 to all principles either of Nature or Scripture, that it iliould be in the 
 power of the Offending party, either to choofe whether he will be accountable 
 or n *, or who alone fhall be his Judges, B iS 
 
the Differttwg Br. dgamft the Subordination of Synods. 1 75 
 Betides that 4. our Brethren do not (hew, in this Church that needs 
 help, w/?o r/70/tf *•« //>** fhall choofe the Synod • whether both fides muft u- 
 gree in choice of the Arbitrators, or whether one party must chufefome 
 an,{ the other party choefe others, (neither of which they can fh . w in the 
 inftance ; ) or, in cafe a Church be divided, whether party fhall choofe, 
 thofe in the right, or thofe that erre ; if thofe who be in the right, yet ftill 
 the queltion will be, who thofe are, for both parties pretend to it ; or if 
 the Major part of the whole, then if either all or the greater part, be in an 
 Errour, there will cither be no choife of a Synod at all, or elfe one ly offuch 
 4U sulfide with them in their errour,and confirme them in it. Yea, and by 
 this meanes, that Remedy which our Brethren fay is an Ordinance of God, 
 for the removall of 'Offences, Scandals, Errours, will have no place at all 
 where thofe prevaile, for an Erroneous Church will never make choife 
 ( if it be in their owne folc power) offuch a Synod as they know will 
 condemne them. 
 
 And whereas our Brethren make it a matter of Reference, by way of 
 Arbitration. 
 
 If their meaning be that this Reference doth give the Judges pcfoer and 
 authority to determine and conclude them, at Elders, who now have autho- 
 rity from Chrift (upon this call) to exercife the power of Elders to them • 
 then indeed they fay fomething ; But fhould they fay thus, then would 
 they fall under all the Incongruities and Inconveniencies of their firft Ar- 
 gument in their former Paper; Then muft thefe Elders ft and related to 
 them as Their Church, for Church and Elders are Relata , Then muft 
 they he chofen by them , Ordained by them, Maintained by them ; Then 
 mull they Preach to them as well as Rule them ; Then muft they viftt their 
 fick^, &c. as our Brethren there argue. 
 
 If their meaning be but this, That thofe to whom it is referred, may 
 noto declare their Judgement upon the cafe, holdout Light to them, exhort 
 them to follow their Advice, but have no farther authority : vdll this they 
 might have done Before, or Without any fuch Reference made to them ; 
 Yea the ne ighbour Churches in the Province or Nation (whom our Bre- 
 thren would not to have to take upon them the power of a Synod) may, 
 without being called, doe thus much ; and fuch a Synod as this would 
 be but a Colledge of Advifers, and comes far fliort of the Syaod Atls 15. 
 who not onely dijputed, and declared the falfe Teachers to be Pcrverters 
 and Subverters, but Ma d e Decrees and La i d B u r d e n s up- 
 on the Churches necefl'ary to be fubmitted ; And that not onely on the 
 Church of Ant ioch, who alone (fay our Brethren) Referred the queft ion 
 to them, but on All the Churches in Syria and C'dicia, of Vfhofe Reference 
 
 wc 
 
i j6 The Anfwer of the A(femhly of Divines wto the Reafons of 
 
 we read nothing : And our Brethren cannot well imagine fitch a Refe- 
 rence, untefc they grant either a Synod at tAntioch, before the fending to 
 Jerufalem, or a Synod at Jerufalem of more tlxn two Churches* 
 
 But if our Brethren fay that thefe Referrershzvc an Authoritative tow- 
 er ( though not to excommunicate, yet) to Declare, Command, Proteft, 
 non-Communicate, &c. yet not as Elders, but onely by vertue of this Re- 
 ference,w\\kh power before they had not ; Then how can our" Brethren 
 deny all Reprefentation or Delegation of fprituall power f for what is this 
 but a Delegating offomcVthat of that poVver to thefe Arbitrators, which was 
 before Intirely in themfelves ; and that to thofe who (as to Them) are no 
 Church Officers; yea not onely a giving to a Multitude of Churches joyntl) 
 to have authority over One of themfelves fingly, but putting an authority 
 at their owne pleafure into the hands ofoneftngle Congregation, over ano- 
 ther Jingle Congregation ; for a Reference may as well be made to one as 
 to many Churches : And if they may thus delegate one part of their own 
 power to thefe Arbitrators, why not another part ? why not a power of 
 excommunicating, as well as of declaring to be fubverters of the Faith. 
 
 And if they may thus delegate, either all, or part of, their Church 
 power, What is this but zforraine and extrinfick^poVver to that Church ? 
 which they fo often fpeake againft, with leflfe reafon,whcn in ClalTes and 
 Synods, the particular Church concerned is zpart of thofe that Judge, 
 whereas in their way the power is put quite out of their owne hands, to 
 the Arbitrators. And if they may not be confined herein to the Churches 
 of a Province or. lotion , but muft make Reference at pleafure to any 
 Churches in theWorld whatfoever ,as they lift;&thereby invert thofe Chur- 
 ches,if not with complex Church power ",yet at leaft with a power to Judge 
 authoritatively in Dotlrines of Faith, to declare and pronounce the Churches 
 of this Kingdome to be Hereticks, fubverters of the Faith p perverters of 
 ^W^and (perhaps) fo make and impofe decrees and lay burdens: and in all 
 thefe things to be looked at and acknowledged as an Ordinance rfChrift: 
 What is this but an introducing iforrame Ecclef aft kail Jurifdicltin, 
 which in their fecond Argument they would charge upon us } 
 
 m 
 
 If our Brethren fay (as fometimes they doj that in this power of ma- 
 king decrees, laying bur -dens, &c. efpecially as to the Churches of Syria 
 andC*7fV/rf,andas to thofe points not referred, the Apoftles acted by 
 an Apoftolick authority, and not as Elders in a Synod : 
 
 Then i. (to fay nothing at prefent of the Elders joy ning with them in 
 thefe Decrees, even to thofe Churches, <*AEls 15. 23. and 16.4.) we 
 aske, How can our Brethren make this Reference to Apoftles, and De- 
 cifion by Apoftles, as Apoftles, to be a warrant for eleelive Synods of thofe 
 
 who 
 
the Diffenting Br. againfi the Subordination of Synods.' , 1 77 
 
 irh$ have not Aposlolkk^ power ? Or how dial I we know what they did 
 as Apoftles^nd what as a Synod for our imitation? 
 
 2. How can our Brethren lay, that this fending to Apoftles, as aApo- 
 ftles, was Elective ? for it was not Sleclive to the Churches of An- 
 tioch, whether or no to make the I aft reference for decifion in Contro- 
 verts to the Apoftles then living ; but they were obliged then to ftand to 
 their decifions as much as we now to their writings. 
 
 3. How can our Brethren fay,that it was a Reference in This cafe One- 
 ly, without any obligation to refer other matters at other times to their deci- 
 fion ? For certainly they were obliged, in All matters to ftand to their 
 decifion as Apoftles, as much as in this One. 
 
 4. We might adde, that if the Apoftles here acted as Apoftles y then 
 (having authority as Elders in all Churches) they might not only De- 
 ctarr, znd Cenfure, but even Excommunicate and exercife All (fhurch pow- 
 er ; And then, if what was here d6ne, or might be done, be a precedent 
 
 for Synods now, the authority of Synods will be more then what our 
 Brethren allow them. 
 
 5. Nor had they then an authority, by vertue of this Reference,W?/V/[> be- 
 fore they had not ; but onely exercifed that authority which before they ha<L 
 
 And whereas our Brethren adde, That though this of Acts 1 ?. were not 
 a for mall Sy rod, yet it holds out by a rule of equity, that ojfences among (fhur- 
 ches fhould be referred by them] elves to others who are beft able to he ale 
 them ; andfo may be a pattern of Elective Synods : ( they fhould have ad- 
 ded, And that they may by other Churches be called to give account^ in 
 cafe of offence • for fuch Synods alfo they acknowledge.) 
 
 Anf.i. Our Brethren here refolve all into Rules of Equity .-and certainly 
 the rules of equity will as Ikongly plead for Subordination upon Affocia- 
 tion, as for an Arbitrary Reference, for the offending party to choofe 
 whether he fhall be tried or no, and by what Judges. 
 
 2. If this onely be their warrant for Elective Synods, then we leave 
 them to anfwer their owne firft argument ; ThatjWj Courts as have not 
 the Great eft and mo ft Sxprefs warrant and affignment for them in the Word, 
 both for their Subordination and7^umber,andfor their Bounds and limits of 
 Powe, .ire r.ot to be erected in the (fhurch of God. 
 
 jOttr Brethren conclude, That they have (hewed fiifficiently, the difference 
 between the meeting at fcrufalem, and fuch Synods as we contend for • and 
 fay.thit upon fuppofition that one Kingdom Were governed by way of Elective 
 Arbitration, another by way of Subordinate Courts, thefe are fuch differing 
 at he who Would make the firft conforme to the last, fbsuld over- 
 throw ihe fundament all laws of 'it , 
 
 A a a zAnfw. 
 
1 78 The Anfwcr of the Affembly of Divines, unto the Rcafons of 
 
 A»f. Befides that,all this is fufficiently anfwered already;and,That this 
 place was not by us alleadged to prove either the Subordination or 
 Power of Synods, but onely the Being of Synods, (which our Brethren 
 grant to be Efficiently proved from it : ) We only adde, That fince the 
 Government of Chrifts Church, is firft by brotherly Admonition, and if 
 this prevaile not, then to cure them by Church cenfure, and neither in 
 the One nor the Other the party Offending to choofe his owne Judges : 
 They who would bring it to an ^Arbitrary Sltctiventffefo as the parties 
 Offending may choofe y whoJballheare their caufejLnd fubmit no further then 
 themfelves liks, Do change the Laws of Chrifts Kingdome. 
 
 The Answer to our "Brethrens Reasons 
 againjl the Argument dravmefrom the 
 
 Analogy of Mai. 18. 
 
 T He ftrength of that Argument (fay our Brethren) runnes y That be* 
 caufe there Should be this remedy •, therefore there Isfuch a Remedy. 
 
 Anf Why our Brethren (hould take this to be the ftrength of our Ar- 
 gument, we cannot tell: Our argument lies plainly thus : Mat. 18. 
 proving the Subordination of a particular per/ox offending, to a particular 
 Churchjoth by a like reafon prove the Subordination of an offen&ng Congre- 
 gation to greater <*AffembUes: And the reafon of it is, Becaufe the 
 Grounds , Reafans, andSnds of Subordination are the fame in both^That God 
 may be glorified, The Offender fhamed, humbled, reduced, and fin not 
 fuffcred to reft upon him, That others may be preferved from conta- 
 gion and made to feare, That fcandall and pollution of the Ordinances 
 may be prevented or removed, &c. All which argue as ftrongly and ful- 
 ly for the Subordination of an Offending Congregation tofuperior andgrea^ 
 ttr Affemblies, as of an Offending Brother to a particular Congregation ; 
 for (as our Brethren often intimate) there is the fame relation between 
 Church and (fhurch, as there is between Brother and Brother. 
 
 If our Brethren were asked, what courfe were to be taken with a 
 Sister offending? we doubt not but they would fay, the fame that 
 Chrift here propofeth in cafe of an offending Brother ; and they would 
 give this reafon, Becaufe there is the like reafon of both, and therefore 
 Chrift fuppofed to intend both : And if they will then fay, The ftrength of 
 this reafon (concerning an offending Sifter) is this, Becaufe there fbould 
 If* this remedy, therefore there isfuch a Remedy, we hope they will then al- 
 low that Argument to be a good one. And we, not doubting but that 
 it was Chrifts meaning to prevent and remove fcandalls as well of an offen- 
 ding 
 
tht Diffcnting Br. againfl the Subordination of Synods. 1 7* 
 
 ding Sifter, as of an offend mg Brother, and of an Offendmgffhmrch, or 
 fbme Number of offenders, as well as of a. particular per/on; and that 
 in cafe of 'puhlike fcandals, as well as of private offences ; doubt not but 
 it was his meaning while he gives Inft+wce in One, that the Itkc courfe 
 (mutatis mutandis) fhould in a due proportion be ufedinMlthe reft. 
 
 Nor is this our Argument alone, but (as others, fo) Mr. Cotton of 
 7{ew-England makes ufe of it in his Kejes , Chap. 6. ( a Treatife 
 published by two of thefc Brethren) Where, having fpoken of one 
 Caufe of Synods, that is, when a Church dejireth the helpe and comtcell 
 of ether Churches, as Atls 15. he addeth another diftinft ground 
 of Synods (which frith he, juft cenfequmcefrom Scripture giveth us) that 
 is, the cafe of any Church lying under Scandall, Lwkjhen as one Bro- 
 ther being offended with another , and net able to heale him by the mouth of 
 two or three Brethren privately, it behooveth him to carry it to the whole 
 Church ; fo by proportion if one Church fee matter of Offence in another^ and 
 he not able to heale it in a more private way, it will behoove them to procure 
 the Afeml'ly of many Churches, that the Offence may be orderly heard, and 
 judged and removed. And more fully in another Treatife of his, The fame 
 conftitution of a particular vifible Church, p. 12. I 3. Where he cleerely 
 diftinguifheth this cafe, (in which he recommends a remedy by propor- 
 tion from Mat. 1 8 ) from that cafe of Atls 1 5 . 
 
 But fay our Brethren, There is a remedy for Congregations , which is a 
 going forth toother Churches, held out in Acls 1 5. *A remedy of Coordina- 
 tion, fuch as between Nations, between Pares, not of Subordination. And 
 Vpere itfo, how ineffetluall would it be for a Generall C ounce 11 or Tfytionatl 
 Affembly,to excommunicate a Nation or Province } 
 
 Anf. 1, This doth not take away the ftrength of our Argument- it 
 fhewes not, that Inhere is not the like reafon of both, or if there be, that the 
 fame Courfe (fo far as can be) is not proportionably to be ufed in both. 
 
 2. As to that point of Ineffectual neffe ; we doubt not but our Bre- 
 thren thinke that there is an Efficacy in Subordinations of Churches as well 
 as perfons, though there fhould be no proceeding to Excommunication of 
 n ^Province or Nation ; And though they would fecme to plead, that 
 fuch a Subordination would be Ineffectuall and to no purpofe : We be- 
 lcive, their feare is,*> would be too Effectual!. 
 
 3. The Tarity of Church and Church doth no more hinder the Sub- 
 ordination of One Church to aCombination of Many, then the Parity of 
 Brother and Brother will hinder the Subordination of one to a Congrega- 
 tion of many. And fo it was with the Parity of 'Tribe and Tribe. 
 
 4. The Remedy themfehes propofe, as held forth tActs. 1 5. muft have 
 the fame foundation with this Argument of ours ; For I. they do not 
 
 Aaa 2 fay 
 
1 8o The Anfwer of the Ajfetnbly of Divines, unto the Reafons ef 
 
 fay, That there Was at Jerufalem an Elective Synod, but a Reference which 
 (By A Like Reason) mil Give Warrant to an Ele- 
 ctive Synod.; For if one Church may go forth for help, then by the fame 
 reafon many m:iy fo do;& if they may go forth to/<? o- e Church for help, 
 they may by the fame reafon goe forth to many, and thus by Equality of 
 reafon they gather warrant for an Eletlive Synod, 2. Nay more, our 
 Brethren fay here,Tto all Churches (not only thofe to whom a reference 
 is made) have a poWer to declare the Offence, and withdraw (fommunion 
 from thofe Churches : Which power they have not hy venue of that 
 Refer enceifox poflibly there was none fuch made,at leaftnot to aUChur- 
 1 ches) but in themfelves, Without fuch reference ; and whence can our Ere- 
 thren prove this, but by a Like Reafon, either from Atls 15. or A4at.i$. 
 for it is not Expreffe in either. 3 . Againe, the Declaration Atls 15. was 
 notagainft the Church of Antioch, but againft fome ptrfons in it that 
 were guilty of thofe crimes : yet hence our Brethren infer a Declaration 
 againfl an Offending Chur c h : which muft be on this ground. That this 
 Meeting at ferufalem might by the fame reafon declare againft the 
 Church of Antioch ,if 'the (fhurch offended, as they did againfty^ perfons 
 in it, upon their offence. 
 
 5. Whereas our Brethren thinke there is no ufe of Subordination in 
 Churches, unleff for the Excommunicating of whole Churches (a thing not 
 known in the Presbyterian government ) their owne Inftance alledg- 
 ed from Atls 1 5. fhewes the contrary. For though the 'Decrees were cU- 
 recTed and in joyncd to (fhurchcs, yet not the (fhurches, but particular per- 
 fons in the Churches, are cenfured asfubverters of the Faith, &c. And thus 
 may a CUffis or xS)wi,Excommunicate one or more perfons in a Churchy 
 Province, a Nation,without excommunicating of whole Churches ; where 
 as in Jour Brethrenswzy, their Eltclive Synods, do Non- Communicate 
 Whole Societies for the offence of one or a few perfons not redrefled. 
 
 6* How ineffetluall would that be, if, according to this notion of Ele- 
 ctive Synods, as our Brethren would have it, there were no other courfe 
 to rechime or deale with an Erroneous offending Church, but onely upon 
 their own reference to fuch perfons or Churches as themfelves would choofe 9 
 and or&\y Jo far as themfelves pie afe ? if there had been no courfe taken 
 with thofe fubverters at Antioch, till themfelves had made a reference 
 to Jerufalem ; thofe Churches might much fooner have been infe- 
 tled with their leaven, then they perfwaded to make fuch a reference. 
 Our 'Brethren fometimes fpeake of Churches offended, requiring an ac- 
 count of Churches offending, but we find them here very fparingof 
 innTting thereupon,or fhewing upon Vehat grounfohey build that practice. 
 For the place of Atls 15, as they interpret it,, of a voluntary Reference 
 
 by 
 
iJii Deeming Br. againft the Subordination of Synods. 1 8i 
 
 by way of Arbitration to other Churches, is fomewhac different from that 
 of thofe other Churches faffing tljem to an account without fuch a reference ; 
 nor will chis be fuch an Elective Synod. And that Argument which 
 would ferve mod fairJy for warrant of that practife, (viz,, by analogy 
 from Mat* ] 8. preflecj by Mr. Cotton and others) they cannot make 
 ufc of, without granting our Argument. For if the Argument, from A- 
 nalogy, be good but fo far as they pleafe to urge it ; it furficeth to our pur- 
 pofe in this propo/ition, which aflertsonely a Subordination ; but, what 
 power the Superior Ajfembly fiall have over the Subordinate, this propofi- 
 tion aflerts not : yea, though the proposition had aflertcd that which 
 our Brethren here fuppofe, the power of Excommunication infuperior Af- 
 femb/ies,the Argument from Analogy would as well hold in that branch 
 of proceeding as in all the refl. 
 
 7. And our Brethrens exception, odhe fneffectaalneffe which they 
 urge : \_lfthey cannot ufe this remedy (of excommunicating a whole Nati- 
 on)ro What end is this fubordinat ion of Synods pleaded far/] Is of no weight- 
 For 1. there may be occafion ofSubordination,yea. of exercifing the power 
 of Excommunication in Synods^ that to good purpofe, 2g&in{\ particular 
 Perfons in a Province,or Nation,or particular Congregation, without ex- 
 communicating that ^o/f Province.Nation,or Congregation^ the Mee- 
 ting ixjerufalcm centered thcfalfe Teachers nAntioch without cenfuring. 
 the Church of Antioch. 2,Or,if only the Ineffectualnejfe, might be a reafon 
 why a Synod Should not proceed to Excommunicate a Province or Congre- 
 gation ; yet this doth not prove^jp have no authority to do it, but only, 
 that there may be fome caufe to flop the Sxerafc of that poWer or Autho- 
 rity. As when a Prince or State makes aLawagainft^^&orTV^yw/ 
 to punifh them with Death; In cafe an Army of Tuch Rebels or Tray- 
 tors, or a whole Province rebels ; this Multitude doth not excufe any one 
 perfon of them from being obnoxious to that Law or the Penalty of it, 
 yet it may be a reafon why fuch a Prince or State fhould not (in pru- 
 dence) execute that Rigor of the Law upon every perfon of them, but only 
 upon (ome principal! Offenders ; yet is that Whole Province, or Army of 
 Rebels, fubord'mate to that Prince or State, and the Laws thereof. 
 
 Our Brethren likewife may remember, that many other things in the 
 AffemMy were given in Anfwer ; as That this gives to a Synod of many 
 (fhurches no more power over a Particular (fhurch (yea a particular pe 
 then one Brother hath over another brother, yea over a whole Churcl, j F< >r 
 our Brethren will not deny, but that he may admoniflr, dechire, and 
 withdraw Communion :) That Independent Churches eftec>m Non.- 
 Communion with other (fhurches their owi-. : e Happinejfe ; and therefore to 
 be Nor.- Communicated Would be to them No Punishment at all ; or at lcafl y 
 
 A a a 3 no 
 
181 The Anfwcr of the Affembly of Divines^ u»to the batons of 
 
 no other then what Themfelves infiitl on A 11 4 he Churches of the World be- 
 ftdes : And 9 That it is not finable to the Wifdome offefits Chrifi to apply the 
 Strongeft Remedy, for the JVeakefl and lea ft dangerous Difeafe,\iz. the cafe 
 of an offending Brother ; and the Weakeft Remedy to the mofl dangerous 
 Difeafe, viz. the cafe of an offending Church. 
 
 Of this laft onely, our Brethren take notice ; and give no other Anf- 
 wer to it, but onely by way of Retortion : That in a 2{ationaH zAffcm- 
 bly, not onely there wants this Strongefi Remedy f , but they have the great e/i 
 PoWer to doe Hurt; and if they £rrc y their £rrour is greater then of a Bi- 
 /bop or Pope, who being but one, may be depofed ; and the greater part of the 
 (flergie being ftill the n or fe and more corrupt, and yet by the Presbyterian 
 principles mufi all be taken in y a National Affembly chofen by them 3 are 
 like to be, for thegreateft fart ofthem,the more Corrupt. 
 
 To which retortion, ("omitting their fo frequent ufing of the word 
 Clergy ', which, for what reafons they doe it, themfelves beft know ; 
 and their fo frequent comparing the Government of the Reformed 
 Churches to, and making it worfethen, that of Popes zmi Bifbops) \yt 
 Anfwer, 
 
 1 . If a T^ationall Affembly doe altogether "toant this remedy of Subor- 
 dination, then fhould not our Brethren have charged us in their fecond 
 Argument, with bringing in aforraign Sccleftafiicall Power over each State 
 and Kingdome : and we know no reafon for their fo doing, unlelTe 
 thereby fas much as they can) to render this Government odious. 
 
 2. We fay more of the Subordination of General! Ajfemblies y then they 
 of 'Particular Congregations; we fay, not onely that they may Erre, be 
 fubject to the advife of a Synod, be Separated from, Non-communicated^ 
 Sec. we fay, they are not more Independent then we think leffer sAfftm- 
 blies to be ; For, if Providence leave a particular Church, without the 
 help of neighbour Churches, they muft needs want the benefit of Aflfoci- 
 ationsand Subordinations, (anchfo muft a particular Perfin, if he can- 
 not enjoy the opportunity of joyningwith any particular Congregation) 
 but this is not their privilcdge, but their loffe : the like we fay, when a 
 Nationall aAffembly cannot enjoy , abfqtts gravijjimis incommode 
 the help of an Vniver fall Synod, or an Synod of fever all Nations, 
 
 3. All the Remedies that our Brethren hold out for particular Chur- 
 ches offending, leave then yet more Independent then Bifljops or Popes ; 
 for thefe may be not onely admomficd, prayed for, feparatedfrom, Nm- 
 communicated, but (as our Brethren acknowledge) depofed; but their 
 particular Congregations offending, are not fit bje tl to any fuch authorita- 
 tive Cenfnrc, nor any perfons in them, from any but their own Congrega- 
 tion. 
 
the Differing Br. tgainft the Subordination of Synods. 183 
 
 tion, Whtn Bellarmine and others, in the cafe of an He reticall Pope, ^ ltar ' d * 
 fey, that though a Councellmay not Depofe him, yet thy may Pray for him, ,^1', g 
 and Admowfh him ; and that (h\th Bellarmine) is fuffcicnt ; and though'' 
 Chrifi have given no other humane efficacious Remedies for the evil I that 
 •may arife bjjuch a Popetye muft reft content, the Churches condition isfafe, 
 becaufe u depends upon God, and not upon men: To this Doctor Ames « ,_ 
 replies (and may it not beapplycd to our Brethren?) Ecclefia ^^To m . 2. U 
 non eft rtfpublica perfefla fbi fufficiens in ordine ad fntm finem ; nor hath i.Op.jr. 
 Chrift provided means for all the Churches neceflities. Wbtwt. de 
 
 4. For healing the Offence or Errour of a National Church, the Conc S u - 
 ftrongeft and molt efficacious Remedy that can be had, may be made ufe *' cap "*' 
 of; if that of a further Subordination cannot be had, the reafon then, 
 
 that it wants this Remedy, is not Becaufe, though it could be had,tf 
 tnight not be ufed ; but, Becaufe, though it might be ufed, yet it cannot be 
 had : But this will not be a reafon why a particular Congregation fhould 
 not make ufe of fuch remedies as may be had: No more then, Becaufe if 
 a Parliament Errc, there is no higher Court to Appeal to ; therefore 
 there may not by an Appeale/™** inferiour Courts to it, 
 
 5. To what they adde, that the greater part of the Clergie are the more 
 Corrupty and yet muft a/1 be taken in ; We fay, 1. Though fuch corrupt 
 UHimftersy as our Brethren fuppofe, and thofe Congregations that have 
 fuch Minifters, and (as our Brethren fuppofe) can have no better, becaufe 
 there are no others to be had in their roome, have as much me-d as others te 
 be under a Government ; and not therefore to doe -what they lift without con- 
 troky becaufe they are Corrupt ; (for we doe not think our Brethren will 
 own this Principle, That becaufe the greater part of Men are the more 
 Corrupt, therefore there may be no Government, but every one be al- 
 lowed to doe what is good in his own eyes;) yet that fuch corrupt Aitm- 
 fters mud needs be taken into Synods, we fee norealon, nor doth our 
 Proportion aflert. it 2.And as to their Electing of a National Aflembfy; 
 though we doubt not but fuch corrupt Ministers as our Brethren fuppofe, 
 Who deferve to be depo/edfrom being Mimfters, may well be denyed their 
 Vote in f/ff?;cw;yet,if their fuppofitton were granted,they have no better 
 reafon to conclude,That the greater part of a NationallAfembly muft be 
 corrupt,becaufe chofen by the generality of Minifters ' y the:n } Thzt the grea- 
 ter part of a Parliament muft needs be corrupt, becaufe chofen by the 
 generality ofL^Ien, of whom the greater part may as well be fuppofed 
 to be the worfe, as the greater part of Minifters, And indeed this 
 Argument doth not fo much oppofe Subordination of Synods, as it ftrikes 
 at the root of All Government 5 both EccleftafticaJl and (fiviH» 
 
 But 
 
1 84 ?bt Anfwcr of the Affemly of Divines^ unto the Rcafons of 
 
 But fay our Brethren, the preferring the rights and liberties of a State] 
 andfeekjn^ the common good of it ,is wturali to the generality ofmen- y but the 
 Truthes of the Gojpell, and the Purity of Religion, and the Power thereof is 
 contrary to the principles of all naturall men, and hath ever been oppofed bj 
 the moft part of the Clergie. 
 
 Anf 1. This at moft would prove only, That corrupt men may more 
 fafely be trufied with civill Liberties ; it doth not prove, but That accor- 
 ding to their Argument, the Parliament are like to be the more corrupt, 
 as well as the Generall Afembly. 
 
 And 2. Though they might thereupon be trufted with civil Liberties, 
 yet (according to thefe principles) they muft not meddle with Religion 
 at all, more then the National! Synod. 
 
 3. Though the generality of corrupt men may be forward enough to 
 preferve the Liberties of a State -^ (yea, and liberty of Confciencetoo^l 
 yet they are not forward to have j^ purified; yet That hone maine 
 Work^oi bodies Politick^ 
 
 4. If the Truth of the Gofpell, and the purity and power of Religion, be 
 contrary to the principles of all naturall men, yea, and much more, then the 
 Rights and Liberties of a State: then is there lefle reafon that every 
 Perfon, or Combination of perfons fhould be permitted under pretence 
 of Confcience, to Beleeve and Practice what they plcafe ; in matters of 
 Religion ; then, that they fhould fo be permitted in matters of State. • 
 For if the generality of men be in matters of Religion thew^ cor- 
 rupt fand the more apt to corrupt others) they have the more need of 
 Cjovemment. 
 
 5. But why our Brethren fhould thus feek occafion to call: odious afper- 
 fions upon the miniftery in generall, as here they do, (That in greater boJ 
 dyes of the Clergy, the greater part are t and have been fill the \X>orfe and more: 
 corrupt ; That Minifters, if not converted, are of all others, the worft and 
 create ft oppofers to Relgion ; That in a T^ationall AJfeptbly, the greater 
 number are like to be of the Worft 5 That in all Ages, the moft of the Clergie 
 have been apt eft to corrupt the Truth, and to oppofe the purity and power of 
 Religion) we cannot tell* unleffe it be their ('/figne to Biaft and Vilifie, 
 (as much as they can) not only the Authority and Power of Synods , but 
 the Office and Work of che Miniftery 01 Clergy, (as they love to call 
 them;) cfpeciallyavhen they know that Synods, in Reformed Churches 
 confili of Others befde Minifters -and that perhaps in as large or lar- 
 ger proportion. 
 
 • 6 But . T it be true which they fa) ,that the generality ofM'nfters are thus 
 apt to corrttpti; the Truth -Cy < <--ower and purity of *7;then 
 
 of how cUngerom a confequence would that b^,if every iwchMinifter muft 
 
 be 
 
the Vifienting Br; agdinft the Subordination of Synods. i g y 
 Lc permitted to [educe and gather to himfelf a company of people at his 
 Oivne pleafurc, who fliould thenceforth plead Exemption and Independency 
 in reference to any Authoritative Eccldiaiucall Judicatory whatever? 
 efpechlly when we may far more truely fay, of thole tk.tr, ro obtaine 
 Liberty ,would pretend Tendcrnelle of Conference and Exemption from 
 Ecckfiafticall Judicatures, what our Brethren here fay of Minilter?, vU. 
 Thatofthofe the greater fart arc and 'have been ft Hll t he \\ 'erf e and more 
 corrupt, as is apparent in this Kingdome at prefent. 
 
 7. This reafon of our "Brethren doth no way take off the llrength of 
 that Objection ; For we fay further , that both Parliaments, Synods, 
 and particular Churches have many times dangeroufly erred ; which 
 proves,That great care fhould be had of thofe who are to be elecled and 
 admitted into (uchAifemblies,that no juft exception may be made againft 
 them, but nor, That fuch Affemblies fhould not therefore be. Nor doth 
 this anfwer of our Brethren at all take offtheftrefjgth of our Argument 
 apart ratione, that by their Argument, there muft either be punifhments 
 for Parliaments, or none for inferiour Courts. 
 
 Our Brethren adde ; that after the firfi 300 years when Synods began 
 to be moft in credit ^he my fiery of Iniquity grew uv with them, 
 
 aAnfw, i. So have many Schifmes and other errors, with Indepen- 
 dent Congregations. 2. So do Tares and Wheat. 3, The truth is, the 
 myfterie of Iniquity increafed, as well conftituted Synods did decrcafe ; 
 for as the Pope was exalted,fo were Synods difgraced and difufed. much 
 like as it was with us, between Prerogative and Parliaments. 
 
 And for what they fear, That by this meanes 2^W truths would not be 
 taught, butfupprejfed, till a Whole Ration is inlightened in it ; We anfwer, 
 That Synods ought to furpreflfe new Errors, and old ones revived, though 
 they come in the name of new Truthes ; if they do otherwife, its the 
 fault of the Men, not the Government, and we muft not deny ail power 
 of fuppr effing Errors 3 fot fear left poflibly fome men may abufe that 
 power to the prejudice of Truth ; no more then we may take away all 
 ofpumfbingtJMalefatlorsy for feare that fome fhould abufe that power 
 to the prejudice of the Innocent, It is certaine true, That the Higheft 
 Courts, if corrupted, may doe the moft mifchiefe ; but it follows not, 
 That therefore fuch Courts (though uncorrupted) iliould not be. 
 
 Their fecond anfwer to our Argument a pari ratione from Max. 1 £ 
 is this, The effcacy of all remedies depends, 1 . on thrifts Ble/fittg, which de- 
 pends upon his Inftitution ; but Par ratio will never fit up an Ordinance of 
 (fhris~l. 2. The Sutablenejfe of the condition of thofe that are to be dealt 
 with ; now its more Sutable for Churches to be dealt with in a Brot/xrly 
 
 s Bbl> way 
 
1 86 ; ; . . Tj?e Anfw to the Rcafons of 
 
 Way of Admonition and Withdrawing Communion; asifaTh-ovinee, or a 
 Multitude rebell, a State will not hang up all, though to particular Perfons 
 this Were an efficacious remedy. 3 . Chrift hath futed his remedies to all 
 times, and aH conditions. 
 
 <>Anf. i. If Par ratio will not fet up an Ordinance ofChrift, yet it 
 may fervc to prove an Ordinance ofChrift, or at leaft to Warrant apra- 
 clife, which is enough to our purpofe. If not, How will our Brethren 
 prove Baptizing of Infants, or Womens receiving of the Lords Supper, to 
 be Inftitutions ofChrift ? How will they prove from Mat. 18. an Infti- 
 tution of Chrift to proceed in cafe of a publike fcandall as well as of a 
 private Offence ; or to proceed againlt a Sifter offending in the fame 
 manner,as with and offending Brother ?How will they prove^that it is an 
 Ordinance ofChrift that our Synods mud be Now, Slctlive, as they fup- 
 pofe it was in the cafe of Antioch?or How will they prove that Synods are 
 at ally*** Ordinance of 'fhrift L ,if(as they fayj the meeting at Jerufalem were 
 not zformall SynodfsAow will they prove their Non-Communion of Chur- 
 ches, from the example of Pauls departing from Barnabas Ad:. 15. 39. 
 which they alleadge for it,upon this ground, That leokwhat power one A- 
 p-jftle had in reference to another Apoftle, the fame hath one (fhurch to another 
 Church? In ail which (befide many more Inftances that might be alledg- 
 ed) our Brethren will be very far to feeke, unlefie they will admit a par 
 ratio to prove an Inftttution. 
 
 2. This way of proceeding with Churches is a very Sutable remedy ; 
 and our Brethrens Inftance will help to make it out ; For as if a Pr*- 
 vince rebell, the Ring-leaders of that Rebellion may be hang'd up, with- 
 out hanging up all in that Province, and the reft reduced by other means 
 (though yet the whole Province be fubord'mate to that Prince or State:) 
 So may a Synod Provinciall or Nationall excommunicate the cheif 'Offen- 
 ders in an Erring Church without excommunicating that whole Church, 
 and reclaime the reft by other meancs,and yet that whole Church be Sub* 
 ordinate to that Synod. But if they may onely Admompj an offending 
 Church, and, if that prevaile not, withdraw communion from them ; it is 
 much as if that Prince or State, who may hang aftngle Rebell, but in cafe 
 a Province or CMultitude rebell, he may onely fend them an <*Admoniti- 
 on to lay downe their Armcs, and if that prevaile not, declare them Re- 
 bels and then let them take their owne courfe. 
 
 3. To that of Chrift s futing his remedies to all times and conditions ; 
 We have anfwered before, (Tor indeed many of our Bretljrens Argu- 
 ments are more then once produced : ) Synods and Affbciations arc 
 at all times a Remedy to be made ufe of, fo far as may be obtained, and 
 as may moft tend to the e feeling ofthofe ends for which they are ap- 
 
 % pointed 
 
the Diffcnting Brethren cmuuixg Ordination* 1 87 
 
 appointed : But, that Gods providence is fo futable to his Infh'tutions, 
 that what ever may, by his appointment, be made ufe of at any time, can 
 be injoyed at all times, and in alLconditions, our Brethren will never prove. 
 Ruling Elder s,Deacons 3 Elder flips are by our Br: acknowledged & pro- 
 fefled to be Inftitutions of Chrift,yec they will not fay that all their Con- 
 gregations (perhaps not any of them J have been fo happy as at all times 
 and in all Conditions to have them zW.Impofttion of hands on Church officers 
 by an Slderpjip, our Brethren acknowledge to be an Inftitution of Chrift, 
 yet we beleeve that fome of their Congregations have not at all times 
 and in in til conditions been in a capacity offuch impoftion of hands, or 
 have had an Elder Jhip to do it. To fay nothing of Excommunication and 
 Church cenfures, which we thinke that all their Churches have not been 
 at times and in all conditions in a capacity to exercife according to their 
 owne principles. 
 
 Their laft anfwer is this ; If the Analogy oflAxt. 1 8. be argued from, 
 Then. I. Let the Analogy be kept, For as a Brother is not at fir ft to be 
 kr ought to aftanding Court, but admonifhed fir ft by One, then by Two or 
 Three : So by this proportion infteed ofthefe Set and Standing Affemblies 
 there Jhould ontly be t^Xo or three or more neighbour Churches to admonifh 
 the Offending Church, not aftanding Court 
 
 dnfii. l£ not at firft brought to aftanding Court, yet there muft 
 be a fi 'aiding Court by this proportion to which it may at length be 
 brought. 
 
 2. Though in private offences between man and man, there mnft be 
 fab private Admonition, to prevent ( if it may be) the making of it pub- 
 like ; yet our Brethren (we thinke) will not fay,that in an Openfcar.dall, 
 which is publike alrcady,the Church may not take notice of it till fome pri- 
 vate Brethren have thus proceeded. \Wread of no fuch private Admo- 
 nition injoyncd by Paul in the cafe of the Inccftuom Corinthian ; Nor 
 I Tim. 5. 12. in rebuking thofe that finne openly. But cafes brought to a 
 Synod, are fuppofed to be known before ; if not, we grant that the fame 
 obligation of private admonition lieth upon thofe who iliall complaine to 
 a Synod (either of a Church or of a Perfon) as on thofe that complaint 
 to a particular Church* 
 
 To what they next adde their (Argument fo often repeated) And 
 2, where is a Synod called The Church* We Anfwer, That when our Bre- 
 thren have fhewed us fir si, where the Elders and Brethren of a particular 
 Congregation, without the women and Children are fo called, zndfecend- 
 ly that a Synod is not fo called in Mat. 1 8. we (hall then betides thofe 
 Anfwers formerly given (which yet areabundantly fufficient)givc them 
 more. » Bbb 2 The 
 
1 8 3 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines unto the Reafons of 
 
 The Church Vniverfall (they grant) is called a Church and One body to 
 Chriffi ; biK fay tl.ey, as Materially confidered and not as a Tolitickjody in 
 reJpeEl to government, which was never jet averted by this ssfjfembty. 
 
 A»f\X>. Whether the Affembly havej^ averted this or no, is not ma- 
 terial; there are many Truthes in Divinity, which this Affembly hath 
 never Yet «jfJ<?r/*i:But,Tliat this ChurchZ^niverfall is an Organica'lBody, 
 in which the members are not all one member but many, and thofc many 
 members hive fcverall d'ft'wEh funtlions: That the Officersfirdinances^c. 
 tirefet in this Church, and given to this Church Vniverfall, and are to 
 cxercife their feverall offices as in relation to the whole, and for the <?ood of 
 the whole ; and,That every Particular Viilble Church(which our Brethren 
 will not deny to be a political! body for government) is but a part or mem* 
 her of this Church generally (and much more to this purpofe ; ) we 
 thinke our Brethren will not fay /That this Affembly hath never yet aver- 
 ted : But whether they will thinke that this is tantamount as to fay , the 
 Church gener all is a ?olitickJBody r we do not much pafle ; for we lift not 
 to contend with our Brethren for words. 
 
 To what they lad objecT, Then 3. by this Argument from Anafegie, no 
 more poster muft be placed in the greater %Affembly then in the particular 
 Congregation We anfwer ; what power the fuperior Affembly hath over 
 the Subordinate, is not the queftion in this Proposition. If there be a 
 Subordination of the Affcmblies one to the other, it is as much as this Pro- 
 portion contends for. And let our 'Brethren grant the like power to 
 Synods over offending Congregations, as we grant a Congregation to have 
 over an offending Brother, and the controverfie will foone end,. 
 
 Concordat cum Original!. 
 
 iA*doniram By field) Scriba. 
 
 s 
 
 The 
 
"k E A S O N S 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 DISSENTING BRETHREN 
 
 CONCERNING 
 
 THE POWER 
 
 THAT IS IN 
 
 C o *tg %Egjn o w^s, 
 
 Having in them a Sufficient Presbytery 
 FOR 
 
 Ordination. 
 
 ? 
 
 LONDON 
 
 Printed for Humphrey Harvard. 16*48. 
 
Jpa 
 
 Againft thePiiorosi t i o n touching 
 Ordination ; viz. 
 
 It is very requifitt, That no fwgte Congregation that can 
 conveniently affociate^ doe ajfume toitfelfe all and [ok 
 power in Ordination : 
 
 We offer thefe Reafons. 
 
 ffi^|*|g|?^i Here there is afufficient Prefbytery, all and file power in Or- 
 dination may be ajfumed 9 though Affociation may be had : 
 But there may be afufficient Prefbytery in a particular Con- 
 gregation. 
 
 The Major hath two farts : I. That afufficient Pres- 
 byterie may affume all and file power in Ordination. 2 . That it may doe fo, 
 though it may affociate. 
 
 The former part is proved, I 7*07.4.14. By the laying on of the hands of 
 the Prefbytery, as is voted by the Affembiy, which is the only Scrip- 
 ture brought for Ordination by ordinary Elders. 
 
 The ficond part, [That they may doe this though they may aJfociate~] 
 appeares, 
 
 1. Bccaufe Affociation doth neithec adde to,nor diminilli the power 
 of a Presbytery : it is by way of Accumulation, not Privation, as is 
 acknowledged by the Reformed Churches. 
 
 2. If Ajfociation be fo ncceflarrly required, where it maybe had; 
 then neither a Clafficall, Trovinciall, nor National! presbytery can 
 affume all and fole power in Ordination, if there be any other Qaf- 
 ficall, Provincial^ or National! Presbytery, with whom they may af- 
 fociate : And that there is, or may be alwayes fome, is neceflarily 
 tobeTuppofd inthefe times of the Gofpell, if any Aflbciation 
 oughuo be. ■ The 
 
Reafom of the Dipnting Brethren, ig\ 
 
 The CMinor,thzt there may be afufficient presbytery in a particular 
 Congregation, is proved, 
 
 i. By the fecond propofition touching Church Government, fenc 
 up to the Honourable Houfes of Parliament, vU. A Presbytery 
 confifts of (.Mmifters of the Word ^ and fitch other pub tike Officers, 04 
 are agreeable to> and warranted by the Word of God to be Church-Go- 
 vernours tojoyne with the Minifiers in the Government of the Church. 
 All which may be in a particular Congregation. 
 
 2. Wherein confifts the fufficiency of a Presbytery f The number of 
 how many Elders, isnocfet or bounded by Inftitution ; fuppofe 
 two or three : & if more be requi(ite,in a particular Congregation 
 there may be four or five : And a Presbytery over many Congrega- 
 tions, is acknowledged to be fufficient, though it confift of no 
 more ; If /^j have this power at afuffcient Prefbytery^why not 
 the other alfo? Have they their power only>as having relation to many 
 Congregations f Is that, the clTentiall requifite to their fufficiency > 
 Here are Elders , and as many Elders , having relation to a 
 Church : and the Argument ufed by the Reverend Aflernbly to 
 prove a Presbytery over many Congregations, is, that Elders are 
 mentioned in Relation to One Church, 
 
 That which two Apo files being joyned together ; might doe in a particular IL 
 Congregation, that ordinary Elders may doe in a particular Congregation : 
 But Paul and Barnabas ordained Elder s in particular Congregations, though 
 they might affociate. 
 There for e,&c. 
 The Conference appears thus, If the Argument brought by the Reve- 
 rend Artcmbly doe hold, viz. That when the d^poftles meet together 
 for ordination, or for ordering the affaires of the Church offerufalem, 
 they meet as ordinary Elders^ which they have voted J then fureJy, when 
 Paul and BarnabM met to ordaine Elders in particular Congregations ;. 
 it is to be averred they met for that act as ordinary Elders. 
 
 The Minor hath two parts. I . Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders in 
 particular Congregations. 2. That they might A ffociate. 
 
 i. That thele were particular Congregations wherein they ordained 
 Elders, appcares, 
 
 Becaufe it is not fuppofable, that the Cities, much leffe the Regions 
 round abound, where the Apoftles preached & erected Churches, 
 (as appears by Acl.13.49> compared with *y?cl. 14.6. 21,22,23.) 
 were grown to many Congregations before th: Apoftles appoin- 
 ted Elders to them : For the Apoftles who were to preach in all 
 
 places, 
 
i 9 z agawjt the Proportion touching Ordination. 
 
 places, would not (lay fo long in one place; and it was their 
 Courfe, when they were there, i^ as at Derhe, AH. 14. 2 1 . to 
 fet Elders to them. 
 
 A^aine, this was the firil ordination of Elders tothofe places, and 
 ^therefore muft needs be to particular Congregations, for the 
 Claflis is made up of the Eiders of many Congregations. 
 
 Laftly they ordained Elders, k&t U»ww* and *«tok ; and at their 
 ordaining, they fafted and prayed, commending them to the 
 Grace of God; which failing and praying, being ( according to 
 the principles of us both) to be in particular Congregations, it 
 followeth that the Churches, to which thofe Elders were appoin- 
 ted, were particular Congregations. 
 For the fecond, that they might Aflociate, It appears, 
 
 Becaufe there were Churches in the Regions Round about, and yet 
 the Apoftle mentions not Aflbciation, which they would have 
 done, if that had been the way, for when they did things with 
 ordinary Elders, it is thus Recorded, The Apofiles and Elders : 
 But they Commend them to the Grace ofCfod^s Paul did the Church 
 ofSphefitt, Alt. 20. 32* as leaving fufficient meanes to perpetuate 
 fuccefllon,andtoordaine other Elders, ifanyihoulddie, asalfo 
 to build them up to et email life. 
 
 Tho* Goodmny William Bridge^ 
 
 SkfdfcribiW: Philip Nje, William Greenhill, 
 
 fer. Burroughes, William Carter. 
 Sidrach Sj/mpfon. 
 
 Concordat cum Originali. 
 
 Adoniram Bjfield, Scriba, 
 
ANSWER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ASSEMBLY of DIVINES 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REASONS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DISSENTING BRETHREN 
 
 Againft the Proportion concerning 
 
 0^2) I 2^A r 10 J^l 
 
 ±13* 
 
 LO 7^D N, 
 Printed for Humphrey Harvard. i^S*. 
 
Die fovis 20. April. 1 6 4, 8. 
 
 W' Hereof there is an Order of the right Honourable 
 the Houfe of Peers for the printing of all their Rea- 
 fons of the Diffenting Bret hen, againft fever all 
 Tropofitions concerning Presbyteriall Government, and the An- 
 fwers of the Affemhly to thofe Reafons 5 It is Ordered that the like 
 Order be granted for the printing and publifhing of the Anfwer of 
 the Ajfembly^ to the Reafons againfi the Propofition concerning 
 Ordination^ the Reafons being already printed, and the anfwer of 
 the Ajfembly to thofe Reafons, though brought into the ajfembly 
 long lef ore their Lordpips Order, yetnotpafing in the Ajfembly 
 tilljince the faid Order , andfo is not included in it. 
 
 Jo. Browne Cler. Pari. 
 
*8j 
 
 The Answer to the Reasons of 
 the Diffenting Brethren Jgainfl the 
 
 Proportion touching Ordination^ viz. 
 
 It is very requifite that nofingle Congregation, that can con- 
 venicntly ajfociatc, doajj'ume to its J elf all and fole power 
 
 in Ordination 
 
 Mong all the Propofitions which the Aflfembly prefen- 
 ted to the Honourable Houfes of Parliament, concer- 
 ning Ordination, our Brethren have fingled out this one, 
 to which they enter their Difent ; as if this alone 
 were oppofite to their opinions touching this matter : 
 Which, whether it be fo, or, that there was not fome 
 other reafon of their infifting on this, rather then on any of the reft, 
 themfelves beft know. We remember that in a Propofition riot altoge- 
 ther unlike to this, fome others of the Aftcmbly differed fomewhat in 
 the debate,from the Major part. And we have obferved our Brethren rea- 
 dy enough to take notice and make ufe of any fuch difference (although 
 fometimes but in point of method ; as, whether, of two propofitions, 
 This, or That fhould be firft debated,! and to talke of a third party in the 
 Aflembly. We obferve likewife that the Arguments here brought a- 
 gatnft this Propofition are not properly Arguments of their owne, nor 
 preffed by themfelves in the Affembly, nor fuch as arc mod futable to 
 their owne opinions ; but, Arguments ufed by others, in that debate. 
 And whether that difference were not fome reafon, why our Brethren 
 chofe rather to infill upon this Proportion in their DiiVent, then on 
 fome other, themfelves are beft able to determine. We expected from 
 our Brethren (in a fearch for Truth, not a conteft for Victory,} Argu- 
 ments to prove, That every ftngle Congregation f whether there be in it 
 a fufficient, or inefficient Presbytery,or none at all) have the Whole pow- 
 er of Ordination within themfelves; and that, none but themfelves may 
 Ordaine for them ; (For, we fuppofe our Brethren, or at leaft fome of 
 ^ Ccc 2 them., 
 
i85 The Anfwer to the Reafons of 
 
 them , are of this opinion : ) but this , they >re pleai d to declined 
 We muft obferve alfo of thefe borrowed Arguments wrought by our 
 Brethren againft this Propofition, that neither of them concludes againft 
 the Propofition in debate. The firft can conclude onely this, That there 
 WayBe fuch a Prefbytery^ may ajfume all an J file power pot that there 
 is ; nor (if they were,/ That, it is requifite they (hould fo do. The other 
 concludes onely thus much, That Ordinary Elders may Qr- 
 daine I N a particular Congregation, (which we never denyed : ) not, 
 That the Elders ofonefingle Congregation may Ordaine ; nor, That they 
 may a fame all and Cole power in Ordination ; nor, That it is requifite they 
 fhouldfodo. But, fkh as they are, .we fhall take them into Confedera- 
 tion in order. 
 
 The Anfwer to their firjl Argument. 
 
 Their firft Argument is thus framed. " where there is afitfficient Trefi 
 et bytery, all and file power in Ordination may be affumed, though tsfjfocia- 
 €< tion may be had. But there may be afuffcient Pre/by tery in a particular 
 u Congregation. What their concludon would be we cannot tell, but we 
 thinke they would conclude , Therefore a particular Congregation may 
 affume ail and file Power in Ordination though ajfociation may be had : But, 
 they muft adde z\(o,andit is Requifte that they do ajfume it 3 though afocia- 
 tion may be had, Conveniently .or elfe, they conclude not againft the Pro- 
 pofition. And were their Argument fo framed, we muft tell them, that, 
 befides leffer faults^ there would be thefe two great ones in it. i. That 
 there is more in the Conclufan then is in the Premises. And 2.That it ap- 
 parently confifteth of fourtermes : For in the Major Propofition it is, 
 -where there I s afuffcient Pre/bytery ; the Minor fayeth onely, there 
 Ma y Be ; which is a very material! difference. 
 
 To their Major. 
 
 "The Major (fay they) hath two parts, i. That a [undent Presby* 
 u tery may afiume all and file power in Ordination.' 2. That it may deefi y 
 lt though it may ajfociate. 
 
 sAnfw. 1 . But we thinke, when they better confider of it 5 themfelves 
 will fay, That neither of thefe parts are true. Not the firft part ; For They 
 do not place the whole power in the Presbytery, but (hare it between 
 them and the people; and, therein, fometimes they tell us, they go in a 
 middle way between the Br ownifts and the Tresbyterions. And if not 
 the firft part, much lefle the fecond, 
 
 Befides 
 
the Differing Brethren concerning Ordination. 187 
 
 Befidcs that, in thus arguing, they confirme a power of Ordination in a 
 CUJJtcallTresbjterjy which they would oppofe ; For, they cannot de- 
 ny, but that in a Clajjis there may be sufficient Presbytery ; Or, if chey ' 
 deny it, the Proof that they here bring, to prove the fufficiency of a 
 Presbytery in a Congregation, will much more ftrongly prove the fuffici- 
 ency of a Presbytery in a fla/ps. 
 
 Nor can they help themfelves, in faying, That, by sfufficient Presby- 
 tery y they mean a Congregation that bath a Efficient presbytery (thereby, 
 either to take in the Teople, or /but out the Claffu : ) For, (befides that 
 this would not ferve their turne to make a Major Propofition to their 
 Argument, and, that fuch kind of expositions would feeme too harfh to 
 be juftified ; ) the Proof they annex would not ferve to confirme it ; 
 For, they could not fay, That it Is proved by 1 Tim. 4. 14. (which fpeaks 
 nothing either of the people, or of a Congregation, but only of a Presby- 
 tery ;) nor That it Vrasfi voted by the tsfjfembly. 
 
 2. And as this is inconfiftent with their owne principles, fo neither 
 can We allow it,to be in it felf, a truth, Thzt,wherever there is afufficient 
 Presbytery (efpecially in our Brethrens fenfe, who tell us elfewhere, 
 That two Elders, though neither of them be a Minifter of the Word, are 
 afufficient Elder fbip) they may affinme all and file power in Ordination, 
 when yet they have opportunity and convenience to affociate with 0- 
 thers: much lefle, That,// is Re qui fit e for themfo to do. For 
 
 I. We thinke it very poffible, that there may be fo many Elders, as 
 might be fufficient, for number, in fome fenfe, to be called an Elder/hip, 
 and might perhaps be fafely entrufted (under the infpeclion of others) 
 with managing/iw?e affaires which concern one Jingle Congregation onely 
 (at leaft enow to make fuch an Elderfhip, as our Brethren deeme fuffici- 
 ent) whom, yet, to inveft with fuch a forcer as our 'Brethren here claime 
 fo.r then 1 , would be very unfafe : nor do we beleeve that Chrift hath fo 
 inverted them. For, we do not thinke it to be the will of Chrift, that 
 every fuch number of Elders as our Brethren account a fufficient Elder- 
 fhip (confifting perhaps but of two ruling Elders) fhould be entrufted 
 with fuch a power, as to bo. file judges ofthefitnejfe ofaperfin for the Mi- 
 niftry, and, actually to ordaine him thereunto, fo as, he mult thenceforth 
 be o\^ned as a minifter of Chrift, by all other Churches, as well as that to 
 whom thefe Elders belong (for we cannot thinke, as perhaps our Bre- 
 thren doe, that a Minifter is a minifter Only to his owne Congregation, 
 and may there only performe minifteriall ads :) Much lefte That they 
 are to be trufted with all and file power therein •. and, That they might 
 do it, not only inconfultis, but even renitentibus omnibus zicinis Ecclefis : 
 
 Ccc 3 And, 
 
1 88 The Anfwer to the Rcafons of 
 
 And, lead of all, That they may affume fuch >ower (whether others 
 allow it them or no) fo foon as they deeme themfelves fuch a fufficient 
 Elderfliip (for who but themfelves (hall be Judges of it ? ) and, That 
 it is requipte that they fo doe, yea though they might affociate, and that 
 conveniently. 
 
 2* Nor are we fuch friends to QlafficaR Presbyteries becaufe CLfficall y 
 as, to affirme it Requifite for every CUJfwa.ll Presbytery, to afume all, and 
 file power in Ordination^ or we hold it very poflible thatin aC/^/7//,where 
 there may be Elders fufficient for number, to be called an Elderjbip (for 
 we lift not to difpute the minimum quod fie) their Number may be yet fo 
 fmall, or their ^Abilities fo weak*, or their Judgements (at leaft many of 
 them) fo erroneous, or their Lives fo corrupt, that we fhould not hold it 
 requifite to intruft them Vrith a power of 'Ordination, when they may with 
 convenience affociate with others better qualified. 
 
 And, if our Brethren fay,This is but a particular cafe and extraordinary' 
 and, That we will not judge it much confiderable in making the ordina- 
 ry rule, which cannot be fuppofed to provide particularly for all cafes 
 poffibly incident : We fay the like for their fufficient Presbytery in a 
 particular Congregation. For, we thinke it will be a cafe as extraordina- 
 ry, to find, in a particular Congregation, a Presbytery fufficient to be intrtu 
 fied with all and fole poVcer of Ordination, We beleeve that fuchvaPref- 
 by tery as that in Charenton near Paris ; or, fuch as was, in the debate of 
 this point, fuppofed poflible, (vU. a particular Congregation having 
 fix or eight preaching Presbyters conftantly im ployed in the Miniftery,) 
 are not like to be the Precedents of ordinary Congregations, or Con- 
 gregationall Presbyteries in this Kingdome. And, if ever fuch a thing 
 fliould happen, it will be then time enough to confider of that extraor- 
 dinary cafe, Whether it be more requifite for that Elderfhip, To aflume 
 the whole & fole power of Ordination; or,To affociate with the Elders 
 of other neighbour Congregations,if (as the Propofition fuppofeth)they 
 may with convenience fo doe,rather then make fuch a precedcnt(though 
 themfelves fhould be thought able for fuch a worke) for other Congre- 
 gations or Presbyteries lelle fufficient to claime the like, to the preju- 
 dice of themfelves, as well as of the neighbour Churches ? 
 
 3. Neither can we allow, that even thofe CUfficall Presbyteries who 
 may be conceived mofl fufficient to be entrufted with a power of Ordi- 
 nation, may therefore affume all and fole power in it> without Appeales, 
 or Subordination to fuperiour AfTemblies ; at leaft, when fuch Superi- 
 our Aflemblies may conveniently be injoyed. Yet, fuch is that whole and 
 fole power which our Brethren challenge for particular (Congregations : 
 and that, not onety ioifime particular Congregations, but for all ; not 
 
 only 
 
the Diffenting Brethren concerning Ordination 1 8$ 
 
 only where there is afujficient Presbytery (as here they fpeak) that is, 
 any two Elders ; but alfo where there is not : for even a Congregation 
 Without Elders, are by them fuppofed to have the whole, and fole power 
 of Ordination within themfelves ; foas, they neither ftand in need of 
 any Power without themfelves for the doing of it, nor may there be any 
 Appeal from them in it, nor may any but themfelves Ordaine for them. 
 And if any thing lefle then this be allowed them, they would not think 
 it to be All and Sole power. If, in Government, there be fomewhat which 
 themfelves alone may not performe, or that there be Appeals from them to 
 Superiour Afiemblies, or that any others but themfelves might (in refe- 
 rence to them) exercifeit, they would not think that they had all and 
 file power in Government : So for Ordination, if either themfelves alone 
 may not Ordaine ; or, any others Ordaine for them ; or that, in matter of 
 Ordination, there may be Appeals from them • they would not think that 
 they have all and fole power in Ordination allowed to them. 
 
 c< The former part (that afujficient Pre/by tery may ajfume all and Sole 
 « pofrer in Ordination) is proved (fay they ) I Tim. 4. 14. by the laying on 
 <c of the hands oftheTrefbytery, as is Voted by the Afembly. 
 
 zAnfi By afujficient Presbytery we fuppofe they mean, every fufpei en t 
 Presbytery, or every number of Presbyters, who are fufficient to be cal- 
 led a Presbytery ; ( for, if their CMapr Propofition be not Vniverfall, 
 their Argument will conclude nothing:) And, if fo, We deny, that the 
 tAffembly huh ever voted, 1 Tim. 4. 14. to.prove, that every futh Prefi 
 bytery, (at leaft according to our Brethrens judgement, concerning a fuf- 
 ficient Presbytery) may ajfume aU 9 and Sole power [in Ordination. Nor is 
 this at all made out by what they adde ; Q" Which u the onely Scripture 
 " brought for Ordination by ordinary Elders f\ For, if it were fo, yet, it is 
 one thing to vote, That Ordination may be performed by ordinary Elders • 
 another thing to vote, That every company of fitch Elders hath all and 
 Sole power in Ordination. Nor doe we think our Brethren will allow this 
 to follow from that other. - 
 
 And we have the lcffe reafon to believe, that the place alledged will 
 prove, That every particular Siierjhip may affume all, and lole power of 
 Ordination (even when they might conveniently aflbciate,) fo as they 
 Alone. tL Onely they may there Ordaine : Not onely. t. becaufe of Pauls 
 joyning in that Ordination ( as our Brethren elfewhere affert from 
 2 Tim, 1. 6.) who was not a fixed member of any Particular Elderfhip : 
 But likewife 2. becaufe even that Presbytery there fpoken of, by whom 
 Timothy was ordained, feemes not to be the Presbytery of any Particu- 
 lar Congregation, having power to Ordaine Officers for themfelves one- 
 
i po The Anfwer u the Rcafons of 
 
 ty ; but, a Presbytery made up of Slden from fever all places ; as Derbe, 
 
 iyfira, and Iconium, and the region round about, as is probable from 
 
 Apollon. Acl. 1 6. 1,2. compared with A&14.6. asisobferved by Apollonitu, 
 
 Confuiera- fout ofthe Belgick interpreters) inatreatife of his directed to this 
 
 tio qmrun- AiTembly,from the Wallachrian Churches,CV?/>.<5. guefi.i. So that, how 
 
 mjMm, this P Jace can P r ° ve > Tnat: > m ever y Sf *ffi cie ** Presbytery, there is AU^ 
 
 c. 6. q. z. an ^ &°le poWer of Ordination ; fo as themfelves alone may ordaine, and 
 
 none but themfelves have power to joyne in it ; and, That it is Requifite 
 
 they doe affume this power to themfelves we doe not difcerne. Efpeci- 
 
 al!y when as 3. the ApoftJc Paul (whofe authority certainly was as great 
 
 as the authority of a particular Elderfhip) thought it requifite that others 
 
 as well ashimfelf fliould joynin Timothies Or dination, and thought it 
 
 no disparagement to AlTociate with them. 
 
 c 'Thefiecond part (that they may doe this, though they might AJfociate) 
 " " appears (fay they) I . 'Becaufe ajjociation doth neither adde to,mr diminijh 
 the poMrer of a Presbytery ; it is by way of Accumulation, not privation, at 
 " it acknowledged by the Reformed Churches* 
 
 Anf Our Brethren taking it now for granted, That the Presbytery 
 mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. (where Timothy > an Svangelifi, and fo not an 
 Officer of one fingle Congregation, was ordaineo) was a particular Pres* 
 byterie, and not Clajficall, or made up of Elders of feverall Congrega- 
 tions ; and That, befide thisf articular Presbyterie, there was none elfi 
 that cither did, or had power to joyne with them ; and, That they did af- 
 fume all and file power in Ordination, (which perhaps at another time 
 they would not grant, becaufe ofthe peoples intereft;) and, That it was 
 Requifite for them fo to doe ; and consequently, That every jnffcient 
 Presbyterie (that is, every Prefbytery ; for our "Brethren will not fay, 
 that any Presbytery is infiufficient, although confifting but of two ruling 
 Elders) may aftume, yea, and that it is requifite that they doe affume, all 
 and file porer, and not aflbciate with others : That which they now at- 
 tempt to prove, is, That an Opportunity to AJfociate, even with Covenu 
 ence, doth mi hinder but that they may thus aflume ; Yea, and that it is 
 requifite fo to do?. For, we are not now difputing, what may be dope in 
 fime poj/ible cafes ; as, if a llngle Congregation were caft upon fome re- 
 mote lfland, or in the midft of Heathens, Turkcs, Pagans, or evena- 
 mongft Pjpifb, or the like, where either there be none to Atfbciatc 
 with, or oncly fuch as would make fuch AfTociation DeftrucTive to 
 them, ffor, what power they may aflume or exercife in fuch a cafe, is 
 not the Q^ieftion now in hand:) But Whether even there, Where they 
 jnay ;c9nve/neritly AJfociate, it be yet Lawfull and Requifite that every 
 
 Prefby- 
 
the Difjentmg Brethren concerning Ordination. ipi 
 
 Preflrytery (at leaft every fufficient Presbytery) do affume all and file pow- 
 er of Ordination ? 
 
 To the reafon they zMeadgcfacaufe Ajfociation doth neither adde U/tor 
 diminijh the poWer of a Prejbytery) we anfwer. 
 
 i. We are glad to hear our Brctljren acknowledge that Aflbciation 
 doth not Dimini/h the power of a Presbytery : for, if fo, then why do 
 they deny that power to diverfe Tresbyteries aflbciated into one CUffis % 
 which they allow to each of them (ingly ? And why be our Brethren fo 
 affraid of it, and reprcfent it, upon all occafions, fo prejudicial! to Con- 
 gregations, and to their power ? If the power of a Presbytery be not 
 diminifhed by aflbciating with others ; and this, acknowledged by the 
 reformed Churche?, (as our Brethren here intimate) we know little rea- 
 fon why they fhould be fo averfe from it. 
 
 But 2. that, by Aflbciation, there is nothing added to the power of a 
 Presbytery, we cannot grant them : for, we beleeve, that Presbyteries in 
 AlTociation, have more power (at leaft Extenfively, if not Intenfively) 
 then a (ingle Presbytery alone. And, though it were granted, That 
 Presbyteries Aflbciated, could do no other atls> then each Presbytery 
 fingle ; yet, their power might extend further then the power of a (ingle 
 Presbytery. 
 
 3. If what they alleadgewerc true, That, by aflbciation there were 
 neither *sfdditien y nor Diminution of Poster ; yet doth not this prove 
 ought, but that it mav be requifite for them to Aflbciate : Becaufe though 
 there were no addition of Powerpr Authority ,yet there would be there- 
 by an addition of Sufficiency, or ^Ability ; and, in reference thereunto, 
 it might be requifite, at kz&forfome, to aflbciate : Yea, even thofe who 
 may be thought mofl able, if not for any need of their owne (as conceiving 
 themfelves fo fufficient, that they want no help) yet at leaft for the good 
 of others, who may ftand in need of help from them. Though they had 
 fingly a like authority to do the thing, yet in Aflbciation they will have a 
 greater ability to doe it Well. And therefore, if, by AlTociation, there be 
 no 'Diminution of * Tower (as our Brethren hereaffirme) and vvithall an 
 Addition of ability, it is requifitcthat where it may be had convenient- 
 ly, it be made ufe of ; and, confequenily, it is not requifite that every 
 fingle Presbytery, though fome way fufficient , fhould decline Aflbciati- 
 on, and alliimc to themfelves all and fole power. 
 
 And that the Inconfequence of this Reafon may the more appeare, 
 we (hall propofe a cafe that is like enough to fall out often in onr Bre- 
 thren! way. If in a Single Congregation of their way, there were no 
 other Ruling Officers, but one Taylor and one Ruling Elder > we beleeve 
 
 Ddd they 
 
ip2 The Anfwer to the Reafons of 
 
 they would fay, that thefe arc zfufficient Presbytery ; and that, if no 
 more can be had, they may exercjfe the whole power of 'an Elderfblp to 
 that Congregation ; yet, .if God afford opportunity to them of having 
 another Mifiifter, to be a Teacher, or one or more perfons fit to be ru- 
 ling Elders, we beleeve they would thinke it requifite to have a larger 
 Presbytery then that of two : But we aske, Why? fmce when two mors 
 be added to the former two, it will neither adde to,nor diminijh the power 
 of the 'Presbytery : For, thofe two (they fuppofe) had the entire power 
 of a Presbytery, and the whole four can have no more, lb that there is 
 no addition of power ; and why there fhould thereby be a diminution of 
 power we cannot fee. We fuppofe they would anfwer, Becaufe, though 
 there be m addition of Power, yet there is an addition ofzAbility, and thefe 
 four are now more able to manage thofe affaires, then thofe two alone. 
 And the like we fay in the cafe of Affociation : For, though (as our Bre* 
 r^w affirmc) it did neither adde to, nor diminifh the power, yet diverfe 
 Presbyteries affociated are more able to manage that power, then each of 
 them fingle : (To fay nothing of a multitude of other inconveniencics 
 that are thereby likewife avoided.) 
 
 What our Brethren adde, That it is by fray of Accumulation, mt Pri- 
 vation, as is acknowledged by the Reformed Qhurches ; We acknowledge 
 likewife; being glad our Brethren do acknowledge it too . And, we 
 hope, that what they here make the foundation of their owne Argument, they 
 Will not afterwards deny, when wefhall have occafon to make ufe of it. 
 
 But, if they infer, That therefore, whatever a fingle Church might 
 do alone, when they did not, or could not affociate with others, they alone 
 may do now, when they may, or do affociate ; we deny that Confequence. 
 And we Give reafon for that denial!, from a pra&ife that they muft 
 needs grant in their owne way. For, in a fingle Congregation where 
 the Elderfhip confifts but of three Elders (which according to out Bre- 
 thren! principles is a very fufficient Presbytery) any Two $f 'thefe may per- 
 fume any Presbyteriall att, becaufe they are the major part of the whole 
 Elderfhip j Bur, in cafe this Blderfhip be encrcafed to the number of 
 five (as well it may J the act of thofe two {hall not be now accounted the 
 zSt of ^ Elderfhip (a9 before it was) and that, Becaufe there be aw 
 others adjoyned to them, who before were not. Yet, we fuppofe, our 
 Brethren cannot deny, but that this Addition of more members to the El- 
 derfhip, is by way of tAccumulatin, not of Privation ; for the power 
 k not taken from a/y of the former members by adding of thefe new ones, 
 but others are admitted to the fame power : And that difference which doth 
 ■rife upon it, (That thofe Wo, coald before perforrae a Presbyteriall ac% 
 
 but 
 
the Diffenfing ¥>xt\\\rmconcernhig Ordination. ip 3 
 
 but now cannot,) is mcerely Acadenta.ll • Becaufe, bcf re, chc were the 
 major part of the Elderfhip, bur, now, they are not. For the) nad not 
 that power,- cjttateniu Tfto 3 but, qnatcnus the A'LijOr pa,t. And fo it IS 
 in Aflbciation of divers Elderfhips in one Claffls, for the performing of 
 fuch ads as they are all concerned in ; and yet, this difference is by way 
 of Accumulation properly, and not of Privation : for there is an Accu- 
 mulation of the power ot more Slders in the fame judgement : and, if the 
 Votes of a few, who were before able to have earned the bufineffe, be 
 not fufficient no\\ to do it, it is not becaufe their Votes arf leffe valid in 
 themfehes, then they were before, but onely ex accidenti, becaufe they 
 are not ( now) the Major part. 
 
 They ad de. 2. Ifaffuciation befi nee efarily required, where it may be 
 had, then neither a (flafficatl, Provincial!, nor National/ Presbytery can af~ 
 fume all and file power of Ordin.it hn y if there may be any other (flafficalt. 
 Provincial! \ or T^ationall Presbytery, with whom they may ajfaciate. And 
 that there u,or may. be always foments neceffarily to befuppofed in thefe times 
 of the Gofpellyif any Afociation ought to be. 
 
 Anfw. This doth no way hurt us at all : For, 
 1 . We do not fay, that either Cla/ficall,ov Provinciall Aflemblies may 
 tfiume all and file power , but, that there may be Appeales from either, 
 where there are higher Aflembiies to appeale to: No,nor yet the 2{ati- 
 onall Aflembly, if there may be (with convenience ) an Aflbciation lar- 
 ger then it : As we ihew at large in our anfvver to our Brethrcns reafons 
 againft Subordination. A Provinciall or National! AfTembly may ordaine 
 Minifters, as well as a Clajfu ; yea, and may depofe thofe whom a Gaf- 
 fe ordaincth: And we would fay the like of \fuperior Ajfembly to a 
 3$ationall,\f there were a like opportunity of larger afTociation. 
 
 Yet, 2. there is leffe dinger in trufting a (flaffis y or Sy nod, with a pow- 
 er of Ordination, then in trutting 2l particular Congregation with it, (as 
 might eafily be fhewed, if it were needfull to mention the infuferable 
 mifchiefes that would arife, if every Slderfhip m a Congregation might or- 
 daine for Minifters whom they pleafe, without controllj and therefore 
 more requifitefhzt Congregations do not affumc that power. c othat nei- 
 ther the thing fuppofed to Follow upon our Propofition is any Ablurdi- 
 ty t nor is the Confequence valid. 
 
 Especially, if 3. we coniider that the Propofition doth not fay, (as 
 they here fjppofe) that Allocation is neccjfardy required where it may 
 be had, (which yet perhaps might have been faid more fafely, then what 
 our Brethren aflert) but that it is 1 <e>y rf<p«/*Vf,where it may be had with 
 convenience* 
 
 Ddd 2 To 
 
iP4 Th* Anfwcr to the Reafons ef 
 
 To their Minor. 
 
 The Minor (that there may be a fufficient Presbytery in a particular 
 Congregation) is proved (fay they) I. by the fecond Proportion touching 
 Church Government fent up to both Houfes of Parliament viz. ^A Presby- 
 tery confifi s of Minifiers of the JVord, andftich other pub! ike officers as are a- 
 greeable to,& warranted by the word of God to be Church governors, tojoyne 
 With the minifiers tin the government of the Churh.~\ All which may be in a 
 particular (fongrtgation. 
 
 Anf. How this of the AtTembly flxmld prove our Brethrens Propofi- 
 tion,we cannot underftand. That a Presbytery confifis of Minifiers & Ru- 
 ling Slders } \vt thinkc our Brethren will not deny ; But r will our Brethren 
 hence infer, that, Vrhere ever there be Minifiers and ruling Elders, there is 
 a fufficient Presbytery to per forme All alls that belong to any Presbyteries ? 
 
 Iffo; then they muft not deny, Clajficall, Provincial! and Nationals 
 zsfffemblies to be fufficient Prefbyteries (at lead, if they be made up of 
 Minifiers and ruling Slders ; ) and that, they may Ordiine, Excommuni- 
 c*ite, Cenfure, and do all Presbyterial! acTslawfull for a Presbytery to 
 doe* If not ; then, how doth This Proposition prove their Minor I 
 We do not yet fee the ftrength of this Confequence,That, If a Trefbyte- 
 ry confifi of CMiniflers and Ruling Elder s y Then there may be a fufficient 
 ^Prefbytery in a f articular Congregation unto all ail s ; and, particular ly> 
 unto Ordination. We fay, That Claps and Synods, Provincial!, and Na- 
 tional!, confifi of Minifiers anh Ruling Ellers ; but, we doe not fay, (nor 
 can our *Bre t hre n infer it from our words) Thar, therefore, there may 
 be, in a Jingle Congregation, a fufficient Clajficall Pre/by tery, or a furficient 
 Provincial or National Synod ; Either of which might yet with as good 
 confequence, be affirmed, as that whkh our Brethren impofe. That the 
 Alfemblies Propofition was true, we fuppofe our Brethren will not de- 
 ny ; (if they doe, they fho'ild not' have hid that as a fouadatton of 
 their Argument : ) But, if they will argue from it, as not on< ly a true 9 
 but as a reciprocal] Propoikion, and an adequate Definition of a Prefbyte- 
 ry ; wc defire they would firit owne it asfuch > and wc ("hall make u(e 
 ofitinduetime: if not, they mud not take that as granted on both 
 fides, whkh neither the AflemblVjnor Themfelves admit. 
 
 They adde, 7. Wherein c on fifls the fufficiency of a'Vrefbytery ? The 
 number of how LMany Elders is notfet or bounded by Infi it ut ion. Suppofc 
 Two or Three ; and, if more be requifite, in a particular Congregation, there 
 may be Four or Five. And a Trtsbytery ever many Congregations is ac- 
 knowledged to be fufficient , though it confifi of no more. J f they have this 
 fower as< a fufficient Presbytery, Vrhy not the other alfo f have they their pow- 
 er 
 
the Dimming Brethren concerning Ordination* 195 
 
 tr otrtly M having relation to many Congregations ? Is tkit the effentiallrt- 
 quifitt to their fttfficiency ? Here are Elder .r, an J ai many Elder /, hiving 
 relation to a Church ; ar,a\ the Argument ufedby the Reverend Affembly to 
 prove a Presbytery over many Congregations , U y that Elder s are mentioned 
 in relation to one Church. 
 
 Anfw. The number of Elders (fay 0»r Brethren) if notfet, or I our.de d 
 by ixfiitution. Very true, therefore, fay we ; There may be more Elders 
 in a Presbytery, then thofe of one Congregation. And, if there may be,. 
 Then, fo often as it may conduce to ^gener all good of the Church, and 
 the better edification bfthe whole body ofChnfl y it is recjuifite that there be 
 more, if conveniently they may be had ; And, confequendy, thofe of one 
 (ingle Congregation, not to aflume to themfelves all and fole power. 
 For, where there are no particular bounds let by Inft'itution, there the 
 generall rules of Scripture mud take place, for the ordering of fuch par- 
 ticulars fo as way tend moft to the Edification and Good of the Whole 
 Body of Chrift. O.iely ("upon this occafion) we defire our Brethren to 
 remember what they affirmed in their Reafons againft Subordination of 
 AiTcmblies. That there m:tfl be the greatefl and rnofl Exprejfe Warrant 
 and Defignment for them in the Word, both for their Subordination and 
 T^umber, and for their Bounds and^ower^r elfe they might not be owned : 
 And, ^comparing that Rule with their Aflirtion here) to conflder,whe- 
 ther k had not need of fome Limitation. 
 
 Upon this fuppofition our Brethren argue, That there may be Two or 
 Three y yea Tour or Five Slders in a Jingle Congregation ; and, the nun bee 
 of Elders in a Presbytery not being fet or bounded, it cannot be denied 
 btit theft may btfujfcient to make a Tresbytery. But this,.if granted,. doth. 
 not prove it rtquiftt that there fhould be r.o more, where more may be 
 had conveniently; or, that All Presb) terics muft be reduced to the 
 minimum qvod fie ; and, in that capacity, aillime all and fole power. 
 
 But, fay they, aTresbytery over many Congregations is acknowledged 
 to befufficient, though they confifi of no more. 
 
 Anfw, If they incane^/o more then two or three, we hardly belecve,. ei- 
 ther that there are aytyfuch Clafllcall Presbyteries ;. or, if there be, that 
 they are acknowledged fufficient ; Yea, though they ihould meaner 
 more then four or five , if that number be made up of Preaching and Ru- 
 ling Elders together. But, if they fuppofe thofe Four or Five to be all 
 Miniflers of the Word ; we beleeve that it will be a cafe fo rare, to finde 
 a particular Congregation furnifhed with fo many able Aiiniflers r as that 
 we need not trouble our felves much at prcfent to make a Rule for faeh 
 aGafe, but may deferreit, till that cafe falls out. Oncly, wethinke, 
 that, while that Congregation remaines fo well furnifliedythey will have 
 
 Ddd 1 nx> 
 
i $6 The Anfwcr to the Rcafons $f 
 
 ro great occafion to ordaine more for tbemfelves - and, that they afliime 
 all and fole power to ordunc f&r others, wefuppofe our Brethren W\\\ 
 not affirme. 
 
 But, fay our Brethren, if they faClafTicall Presbytery confiding of 
 four or five) have t hi* power as a fuffcient Presbytery, Vehy not alfo the 
 other , (a Presbytery in a fingle Congregation confifting of as many > ) 
 
 Anf\\\ If, by this power, they meane, all and fole power in Ordination, 
 we (for reafons before alleadged , both here, and in what we have faid 
 about Subordinations,,) deny it, even of fuch a (flafficall Presbytery, if 
 they have Opportunity and Conveniency of Aflbciating with others. 
 
 And,if at any time, either They,or a larger Presbytery,raay aflume all 
 and fole power in Ordination, it is not quatenus afufficient Presbytery ; 
 but, quatenus the whole number of thofe who can conveniently affociate. 
 
 As, if in a remote Ifland (or in a like cafe) fuch a Chfficall Presbytery 
 as they fpeake of, where they cannot have opportunity to affociate 
 with other Churches, may aiTume All and Sole power of Ordination for 
 their owne Churches ; we would not fay that they do this quatema a 
 fuffcient presbytery, or quatenus fo many ; but, quatenus all that can con- 
 veniently affociate ; and that, if they had opportunity of alTociating with 
 more, they ougiv, notwithstanding fuch afufficiency, fo to do. 
 
 In like manner, if in a particular Congregation, according to our 
 Brethrens principles, there were fuch a Presbytery as our Brethren fpeak 
 of, they would fay, (we beleeve) that this Presbytery might aiTume all 
 and fole power of Ordination or of Government in that Congregati- 
 on ; but not quatenus a furlicient Number, or quatenus Five, but, quate- 
 nus All the Elders of that Congregation ; for if to thefe five there frail 
 be fix more added, they will not fay that the firfl five have (now) all and 
 fole pofter ; but, that the other fix have their fhare in it alfo : not but that 
 thofe five be now as many, and as fuffcient as they were before, and as 
 furficient to conftitute $ fuffcient Presbytery as before ; but,becaufe they 
 are not all, as'before they were. So that, what power they had before, 
 they had it not quatenus fo many ; but, quatenus the whole number \ 
 
 Therefore the decifion of the Queftion, Whether a particular Con- 
 gregation, or the Elderfliip of a particular Congregation may affume all 
 and fole power in Ord '.nation ,doth not fo much depend upon this,Whether 
 that they have a number fuffcient to do the Worhe ; but on this, Whether 
 They be the onely perfons concer//ed y or interciTed in it. 
 
 Wherefore, that which follows, \Have they their power onely as ha- 
 ving relation to many Congregations ? &c] might have been fpared. 
 For , if there wee but one Congregation of Chrifiians in the ^orld, 
 They fhould have all an\ fole power ; not, as being but one Congregation ; 
 bur, as beir.g the Whole Church. As 
 
the Diverting Brethren concerning Ordination j 07 
 
 As for the Argument of the Affcmbly, f to which the Bret Ire* refer) 
 proving one Prefbytery in ferufalem ever the many Congregations there, 
 becaufe they are all mentioned as one Church ; what advantage it prodii- 
 ccthtoour Brt tbren, in the prcfent bufineffe, wc cannot yet perceive. 
 But as it ferved then, to prove tnanj Congregations, to he under one c Prtfi 
 bytery • fo may it be of like ufe here, to prove, \\vxtfingle Congregations 
 Are not to affume all, and file power in Ordination. 
 
 The Anfrver to their Second Argument. 
 
 Their Second Argument lies thus. That Which two ApofiUs Icing joy- 
 ned together, might doe in a particular Congregation, that ordinary Elders 
 may doe in a particular Congregation: But, Paul and Barnabas ordained 
 fldtrs in particular Congregation?, though thej might Ajfociate. There- 
 fore, &c % 
 
 Anf. This Argument concludes not at all againft the Proposition. 
 The Proportion fayes, It is not requifite that they afume all, and file poWer 
 in Ordination* The Argument concludes^ That they may Ordaine ; not, 
 That they may ajfume all, and file poorer ; much lcffe, That it is requifite 
 for themfo to doe. Our Brethren we think will not deny, but tbat 
 Paul alone, being an Apofile, might Ordaine 5 and yet they fuppofe that 
 Barnabas joyned with him : And if he, who might alone Ordaine,did not 
 think it requifite to affume all and fole power in it, but joyned with Bar- 
 nabas therein , having opportunity and convenience fo to doe ; why 
 fliould it be more requifite now, for the Elders »f a particular Congrega- 
 tion, to difclaime the conjunction of others with them, when it may be had 
 conveniently, and to affrme all and file po\\>er to themfelves ? And this 
 we may the better infift upon, becaufe it hath been fometime urged (as a 
 ground of our Bret hr ens opinion concerning IS^on- communion of Chur- 
 ches) that there wasthcjGwe relation between Apoftles, as there is be- 
 tween Churches-, and therefore, that the example of PauU departing 
 from Barnabas, Aclsi^. (whom yet he might not ex -communicate, be- 
 caufe the Apoftles were all equalled one had not power over another;) 
 may be a preiident of One Churches Pronouncing a Sentence of Non-com- 
 munioh againftAnother Church .which yet(bccaufe of the paritybetween 
 them) they may not excommunicate. Now, if Pauls denying Communion 
 fas our Brethren fuppofe^ with Barnabas, may be a preiident for one 
 Church to deny Communion with another ; Why fhould not Pauls joy - 
 ningwith Barnabas inOrdination y be as good a prcfident for a like con- 
 junclion of Churches? And, if /W, who might himfelf Ordaine alone, 
 thonght it requifite tojoyn with Barnabas, when he might conveniently ; 
 
 Why 
 
ipS **' Anfwer to the Rcafons of 
 
 Why fhould not a particular Elderfhip ( chough they had, as our Bre- 
 thren fuppofe, a power to ordaine alone)think it as reejuifite tojoyne with 
 the Elders of other Churches, when they may conveniently? Can our 
 Brethren think, that a particular ElderfTiip of one Congregation, hath 
 a greater Authority and Infallibility then Paul had > We have not yec 
 forgotten what our Brethren told us (in their Reafons agaiflft alledging 
 theinftance of the Church offerufalem, for a patterneof PrefbyteriaH 
 Government) That the A po files had Singly the fame Power which thej ex- 
 ercifedfoyntIy,A&, 6. Yet they exercifed it Together, becaufe it fell out 
 that they were Together , and it wa6 F I T none of them fbotild be excluded : 
 Which doth not onely conflrme what we have here faid before, upon 
 the former Argument, That the Sufficiency ofafingle Pre/by tcry to per- 
 form the aft of Ordination, (if that were granted)is no reafon,why it is not 
 reqitifitefor that Prefbytery to Afjociate, when they may conveniently^ and 
 not affume allandfole poWer to themf elves ; (for, the Apoftles had each 
 of them afufficiency of power;) But it doth alfo confirme that Inference, 
 brought from the Inftance of Paul and Barnabas joynin? in Ordination ; 
 (and which might be alfo brought from the Apofilesfoyning together 
 in Aft. 6. to ordain Deacons, and from T^anls joyning with ordinary Elders 
 to ordaine Timothy^ as our Brethren fay he did, befide many other in- 
 ftances of like nature) That, if Tauland Barnabas not onely did jopie 
 together ; but, it was Fit they fhould doe fo (becaufe unfit that any of them 
 fhould be excluded) though each had a fufficient power ; then , it is not 
 ondy lawfull that Elderfhips of fevera 11 Churches may joyne, but 
 ^or requifite that they doe aflbciate , when they may conveniently 
 doe it. 
 
 To the particular Proportions of the Argument we anfwer as fol- 
 lowed!. 
 
 To their Major* 
 
 For the Major Propofitiop,[j7'to which two Apuftles being joyned toge- 
 ther might do in a particular Congregation ^that^or dinar y £lders may do, in a 
 particular Congregation'] we appeale to our Brethren? confeience, Whe- 
 ther they beleeve it to be true. The Emphafis lyes in the words [_being 
 joyned together :~] For, they will not fay, That , what an lApoflle might 
 doe alone in a finale Congregation, may be done by ordinary Elders in a 
 fingle Congregation ; becaufe the Apoitles did acl many things (even in 
 fingle Congregations ) by a power Apoftclicatt, not imitable by ordinary 
 Elders ; But, what two or more of them did performe, being joyned toge- 
 ther, may (fay they) be performed by ordinary Elders : As if, what 
 everthe Apofties did, inCollcgio, they did as ordinary Elders, or by a 
 
 power 
 
tht "Dimming Brethren concerning Ordination. \gg 
 
 power common to them with ordinary Elders. If this be a truth -/sow, 
 then was it a truth alfo in the Ordination of Deacons, Ails 6. (which 
 our Brethren denyed, when the Afifembly made ufe of that place, as 
 appears in their Reafons againftthe Inftance of ferufalem:) unleflethe 
 fame Propofition which is a truth when it makes for them, be zfalf- 
 hood when it is alledged againfl them* If our Brethren think it not to 
 beaTruth; they fliould not here affirme it as fuch, and ground their 
 Argument upon it • efpecially having there denyed it. But let us examine 
 their proof of it. 
 
 The Conference, fay they, appears thus; If the Argument brought by 
 the Reverend AJfembly doe kold,V\z. that when the Apoflles met together 
 for Ordination, or for ordering the ajfaires of the Church of Jerufalem, they 
 met as ordinary Elders (which they have voted) then,eyc* 
 
 Anf But, what if the Argument brought by the Aflembly doc not 
 hold } (As our Brethren think it doth not, for they there deny ic.) What 
 then fliould become of our Brethrens Propofition, which is built upon 
 no other ground, but a Suppofitionwhkh themfelves will not grant ? 
 
 Yea, fuppofe the Atfembly had voted, what our Brethren here fay they 
 have, (fomewhat like this, we confefle, they have voted) and that the 
 Argument of the Aflemblydoth hold ; Will our Brethren fay (as they 
 fhould have faid, if they meant to prove their Conference, as they call 
 it, or major ^Propofition) that then, Vchat two Apoftles joyned together might 
 doe, that ordinary Elder s may doe ? No : But all they fay, is this, then 
 fitrely, whenViu\ and Barnabas met toordaine Elders in particular Con- 
 gregations, it is to be averred, that they met for that ail at o-d'nary Elders. 
 But what is this to the proofe of the Major Propofition ? there is not a 
 word of Paul and Barnabas in the Major Propofition, (either joyning as 
 ordinary Elders, or joyning at all; ) but onely a Generall Aflertion j that 
 What two Apoflles joyned together may doe in a particular Congregation, 
 that ordinary Elders may do in a particular Congregation : Of which gene- 
 rall Propofition our Brethren give no proof at all. 
 
 For our own part (though our Brethren would feemc to ground this 
 aflertion upon fomewhat voted by us) wc cannot aflert to the truth of 
 it ; becaufe, thou;h we think now as we did before, That the Apoftles in 
 the Ordination of Deacons, AH. 6. did idiot Elders, or by a power 
 common to them W;7/j Elders j and, That they are therein a patterne to 
 be imitated by Elderfhips ; yet we neither then did, nor doe now be- 
 lieve, That what ever two Apoflles joyned together might perform?, that 
 ordinary Elders may p erf or me {whether in a particularC onvreg/it ion,ot elfe- 
 where:) Yea,in that very Inftance, Ails 6. (as we told cur Brethren then 
 
 Eee in 
 
aco The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines to the Reafons of 
 
 in our Anfwer to thofeReafons) w doubt not tofay,that they did acl partly 
 as zApoftles, partly as Slders : fomething they did by a power Apoftoli* 
 ca<ll, and not imitable by ordinary Elders; fomething they did by a 
 power common to them with Elders. 
 
 And we think our Brethren are of the fame opinion ; for, they there 
 tell US, that in that very acl (of Ordination) they mufl needs acl as csfpo- 
 files ; for they doe not fimp ly Ordaine the Men, but doe a new, by venue of 
 mApoftolicall author ity 9 Inftitute the Office of Deacons, which none but the 
 Apofiles could immediately, and at frfi, have done. 
 
 But, how this confifteth with their prcfent Aflertion (that Vehat two 
 Apofiles together might doe, or d nary Elders may doe) we cannot tell, but 
 Jeave it to themfelves to reconcile. The infertingof the \\oxds[_ina 
 ps.rtia:Lr Congregation} (which, whether they intended as a limitation 
 or no, we cannot tell) will no way help it : for, if this erecling of a new 
 Office, were not performed by them in a particular Congregation (as our 
 Brethren think it was) yet doubtletfe, they cannot deny but it miafo 
 have been ; and,their Propofion fpeaks not onely of what two (or more) 
 Apoftles dd. but what they might c'oe. 
 
 If our Brethren fhould defert this Generall Propofition, fas we 
 think they have caufetodoe) and urge onely thus much, That if the 
 Apofiles at ferufalem, joyning together to ordaine Deacons, (whether it 
 were aOurchofone or more Congregations) did acl as £ldt rs y Then 
 Paul and Barnabas joyning together to ordaine Elders, did acl as Elders : 
 Yet, even this inference would not hold ; For there is a great difference 
 between the Apoftles performing ordinary acts of Elders, in an ordina- 
 ry way at ferufaltm, when it was a Church already conflicted and fitted; 
 and that ofTanl and Barnabas in ihefirft erecling and conftituting of 
 Churches in places W'here before there were note, affixing Elders to them. 
 So that, the latter being a work extraordinary, and more peculiar to the 
 >Apojilcs, whofe great work it was to Plant the Gofpcli throughout the 
 world, even in places where before it had not been heard of, may with 
 much more reafon be affirmed to be the excrcife of an Apoftolicall po- 
 wer, then that of performing Ordinary ssfcls of Government in an Ordi- 
 nary way at ferufalem, where theChu ch had been fetlcd, an regularly 
 governed for fome time before. And thus much for their Major Pro- 
 portion ; we proceed next, to confider their Minor. 
 
 To their Minor. 
 
 The CMinor (fay they) hath two parts, i. Paul and Barnabas or- 
 dained Elders in particular Congregations. 2. That they might A (fociate. 
 Bur, there is, or at leaft ihcre fhould have been, a third thing in that 
 
 Pro- 
 
the Differing Brethren concerning Ordination^ 201 
 
 Propofitian, very materiall to their purpofe (which it conccerned chem 
 as well to prove as thefe two,) namely, That Paul and Barnabas were 
 joyned together in that ordination ; If not, it ferves not their turne ; for, 
 they do not fay, that what two Apoftles might/? verally performe j but, 
 what two Apoftles being joy ned together, might performe, may be per- 
 formed by ordinary Elders : and yet,for ought our Brethren have Shew- 
 ed to the contrary, fome of thefe Elders might be ordained by Paul } 
 fome by Barnabas , and not all by both joyntly ,• and, if fo , the in- 
 stance would not be at all to their purpofe. But this we doe not infill: 
 upon. 
 
 Yea, there (hould have been a fourth thing, fomewhere added, if 
 they would conclude againft the Propofition, viz. that, they were the 
 Elders of only one Congregation* For, we never denied that ordinary 
 Elders, may ordaine Elders in a particular Congregation ; nor, that 
 a Claflis or Synod of ordinary Slier s, may ordaine Elders for a particular 
 Congregation. But the thing in Controverfie is, not what may be done 
 I n a particular Congregation, but what may be done in it by their owne 
 particular Elders alone, and is recjuifite fo to be, notwithstanding the 
 convenience of *?» Ajfociation With others. And here, the Inftance (in our 
 apprehenfion) failes them exceedingly ; for, though it were granted 
 that Paul and Barnabas did ordaine as Elders • yet, who will lay they 
 did it as the Eiders of one Congregation Qnely ? they being as much Ei- 
 ders of ail the neighbour Congregations, as of that one wherein our 'Bre- 
 thren fuppofe them to have ordained ? and (\i they mud be called an 
 Elder/hip) they might as well beftyleda Clafftcall, or (if you will) an 
 ecumenic all Elder [hip, as a Congregationall. 
 
 And then, -xfft, and/** thing fhould have been call: in to all the for- 
 mer ; namely, Paul and Barnabas did not onely ordaine, but did affttme 
 allandfole power in Ordination ; and, that it \X>as requifite fo to do, fo as 5 
 no others might either challenge an intereft, or be permitted to joyne 
 with them therein. But, of thefe things ( although very neceflary ^o 
 make cut their Argument ) our Brethren fay nothing. We proceed 
 therefore to confidcr thofe two particulars which they endeavour to 
 prove. 
 
 I. "That, thefe Were particular Congregations wherein they ordained 
 R Elders appears (fay they) becaufe its not fuppofeable that the Cities,mueh 
 u leffe the regions round about, Where the Apoftles preached and erecled Chur- 
 a ches (as appears by A<$s 1 3. 49. compared with Ads 14. 6. 21, 22, 23.) 
 u were groyne to many Congregations before the Apoftles appointed Elders 
 c c over them. For the Apoftles who were to preach in all places, would not 
 
 E a "(lay 
 
202 The Anfwcr of the Jffembly of Divines to the Reafons of 
 
 "flajfo lovg in one place : and, it was their courfe, Vvben there \X>ere i*<&voh 
 " as at Derbe, Acts 14. 3 r. tofet Elders to them. 
 
 dAnfw. When our Brethren-ky in the firfl: part of their CMinor, that 
 fpaul and Barnabas trdaineA Elders in particular Congregations ; they 
 intend it, we fuppofe, in one of thefe two fenfes, Either (firft) that 
 the all of Ordaining was by Paul and Barnabas performed in particular 
 Congregations ; referring the words in particular Congregations (in their 
 proportion) to the word Ordained; and the words, *aer' 'vufrnciAv, (in 
 Atls 14. 23. yjteflwM earns £1 aCtois TfS0$V7sf B * kat exxtotiUw) to the 
 word x ei * t;T0V " 7AVT *> underflanding it thus, that Paul and Barnabas did 
 at each of thefe places, (Derbe, Lyftra, Icomum y and Antioch) faft, 
 pray, ordaine Elders, and commend them to the grace of God. And 
 it will not at all prejudice our caufe to allow them this fenfe:For we fhal 
 fay that Paul and Barnabas did ordaine E'*ders in each of thofe Congre- 
 gations, by a power which they had equally refpefting <*// of them, (like 
 as when a Claflicall Elderfhip doth ordain an Elder in a particular 
 Congregation ) and not that they were ordained by a full and fole 
 power redding in each of thofe Congregations, in which thofe Ordi- 
 nations are fuppofed to be performed : And that the rather becaufe it 
 is not faid that each Congregation or Church did ordaine Elders for them- 
 fehes, But, thatTW and Barnabas did ordaine Elders for them; and 
 the power of Paul and Barnabas was as much extrinfecall to each of the 
 Churches, and as little confined to them, as the power of zClaJficall 
 Bldcrjhif, to each particular Congregation within their limits* But if 
 cur Brethren thus interpret the words kat \jlkky\<ji*v, to denote the dif- 
 ferent places wherein thofe Elders were ordained ; they cannot well 
 urge the words kat \nMmtAv to be reftritlive of their power, as if 
 they were onely <b$ivGv7{$qi k&t sjukwav, each of them Elders in their 
 owne particular Church only, and had not power at all out of their 
 owne Congregations to jbyn with the Elders of other Churches to acl 
 in common for the good of them all. 
 
 Or elfe (fecondly) they mean it in this fenfc, That, the Elders Ordai- 
 ned by Paul and Barnabas Were fettled in particular Congregations ; refer- 
 ring the words in particular Congregations to the word Elders ; and the 
 words kat iKKMaJAv to the word «f«^v7fj»f> or to the word avtoi<, 
 hnderftanding it thus, that Paul and Barnabas ordained Elders for them 
 (kat 'zKzMciai) reff>eclive 9 viz. for each Church their o\\'n Elders : And 
 this fecmes rather to be their meaning, becaufe that all along in the pur- 
 fuitofthis Argumenr, they do promifcuoufiy ufe thephrafeof Ordai- 
 ning to them and Ordaining in them : And this interpretation alfo we 
 may without prejudice allow them. For, as we conceive it much con- 
 ducing 
 
the Vijfentlng Brethren concerning Ordination. 2c 3 
 
 during to edification, that where the numbers of B leevers are great, or 
 their habitations far diftant, they fhould for more convenience be di- 
 (iributed into feverali Congregations ; fo we judge it likewife condu- 
 cing to edification, that each of thofe Congregations fhou'd have one or 
 more appointed over them to take the fpeciall care of them : But, that 
 the power of the Paftors or Elders in thofe feverali Congregations, 
 fhould be fo limited each to the peculiar care of his own particular Con- 
 gregation, as that they may not joyn and act together, in things of com- 
 mon concernment for the good of all of them, our Brethren ,we fuppofe, 
 will not be able to prove^and what they have produced to that purpofe, 
 in their Rcafons againft the joyning of many Congregations under one Pref- 
 byteriall Government, and againft the Subordmatlon of Ajfemblies for Go- t 
 vernment ; we have in our Anfwers thereunto already confidercd. But 
 if our Brethren would be underitood in his latter fenfe; they do very 
 much vary from the thing in hand ; For the thing which at prefent we 
 are inquiring after is not, For whom, but By whom, thefc Elders were 
 Ordained : and this, though granted, will no way prove, that they were 
 Ordained each of them by a full and fole power redding in one Congre- 
 gation only. We fay likewife, that if they underftand %anr y wv&ri** in 
 y#?j 14. 23. in this latter fenfe, (to denote the Charge to which thofe 
 Elders were appointed) then there is nothing in the text concerning the 
 particular place wherein the Ordination was performed ; thofe Elders 
 might, for ought appears to the contrary, be all ordained at one Time 
 and Place,\vhen Paul and Barnabas at their departure out of thofe parts 
 commended them to the grace of God; at which might be prefent, if 
 not more Congregations, yet at lead ^Members of more Congregations, 
 then one. 
 
 We fay therefore in generail, to this firftpart of their Minor, Thar, 
 whether it be taken in the one fenfe or in the other, it makes nothing to 
 the prefent purpofe; For we are not now inquiring either inVthat 
 Tlace or to what Charge, hut by wh. a Authority, Elders then were or 
 now may be Ordained: And therefore we might fpare the paincs of 
 Examining the three proofs- which they bring for the Confirmation of 
 it ; Since that it is no more then what is ordinarily pracTifed by Claf- 
 ficall Elderfhips, who do in a particular Congregation ordaine Paltors 
 for a particular Congregation ; Th( u^h yet others may be and often are 
 prefect befide thofe that are Members of that one particular Congrega- 
 tion ; and thofe ordained for particular Congregations, are likewife to 
 take care in Common for things that do concern m-Any Congregations. 
 Yet the three proofes which they have produced *ve will examine in 
 order. 
 
 E e e 3 For 
 
204 Iht Anfwer of the AfJ'embly of Divines to the Rcafons of 
 
 For the firft Reafon, wherein they al ledge that it is not fuppofeabU 
 that thofe Cities and the regions round about were grown to many Congre* 
 gations before the Apoftles appointed Elders to them. 
 
 We Anfwer. If they meane onely, That there were not in each City $ 
 and each Village of the regions adjacent , many Congregations before the 
 Apoftles appointed Elders : We thinkefotoo. But, if their meaning 
 be, that in thofe Cities and the regions adjacent, taken altogether (colle- 
 clive,) there were not many Congregations before the Apoitles ordai- 
 ned Eiders to them ; the text is manifeftly againft them : fkcaufe, 
 though there be mention of Preaching the GofteU'm Antioch ofPifidia, in 
 Iconium, Lyslra, Verbe, and the regions about, Acls 13. 1 4. 49. ^#.14. 
 6, 8, 20. yet, we read not of 'an) 1 forming of them into dislintl Churches 
 and ordaining of Slders to them, till they had been at all thofe place?, 
 ABs 14. 21, 23. and, by that time, there was not onely z competent 
 number of Difciples to make a Congregation, but a competent number of 
 Congregations too, to make a Claffis. And it will be hard for our Bre- 
 thren to prove, either that there were no more prefent at the Ordina* 
 tion of each of thofe feverall Elders, then thofe of that one particular 
 Congregation wherein he was to be placed « or, That they were fo 
 confined each to the care ofhisoVvne particular Congregation, as that 
 they might not at all joyne in the eommon care of all. 
 
 2. <c Againe (fay they) this was the firft Ordination of Elders to thofe 
 (t places, and therfore muft needs be to particular Congregations ; for, a 
 " Q u ff ts ** mA ^ e U P °ftk e Elders of many Congregations* 
 
 AnpNo. deny not but that they \vere appointed to particular fiMgreg* 
 iions as their more peculiar charge;but,it doth not follow,that therefore 
 the Elders of thefe particular Congregations were not as well in com- 
 mon to take care of the whole that concerned them all, as each in par- 
 ticular of his owne fpeciall charge ; or that they were ordained in a par- 
 ticular Congregation without the prcfenccor afliftance of any others ; 
 much leffe that they were ordained by a particular Congregation, aflu- 
 ming allandfole power in ordination. They might be ordained too, 
 particular Congregation, though they were ordained In 4 meeting of 
 many Congregations ,and B Y the Elderships of many Congregations, united. 
 Nor doth it follow, that they were Elders to particular Congregations 
 onely • for, they might well, as a Claffts, take care of the whole in mat- 
 ters of joint concernment, and yet each in their owne Congregation deal in 
 thofe things that did more particularly concern them. Foraflajfisu 
 made up of the Elders of many Congregations, as our Brethren themlelves 
 f peakc. But, how it fhould prove that they were not 4 Clajfis, becaufe 
 
 elders 
 
the Diverting Brethren concerning Ordination 205 
 
 Elders to particular Congregations, or, becaufe it was the firft ordination of 
 Elders in thofe places, we doe not underftand. For, what hinders, but 
 that, at the fame time, they might be appointed both in common to 
 take care of the whole ; and, in particular, each of his owne particular 
 Congregation; and fo, to endeavour both fingly, andjoyntly, to the 
 utmoft of their power, the good of all and every of thofe Congregati- 
 ons, as opportunity and occafion fhould be offered? Indeed, if, as foone 
 as there were Difciples converted in oneCitj or Village, the Apoftlts 
 had affixed Elders to them (and to them onely) before there had been 
 any converted in a fecondplace : and then, at that fecond place, had ere- 
 cted a Church and Elders to them, and them onely ( independent on that 
 former Church) before any had been converted in a third or fourth 
 place ; and fo had conformed in each place a Church and Elders fo di- 
 flincl as to have no dependence on, or entercottrfe with any other Church, 
 which either was already, or fliould afterwards be erected: if thus 
 (we fay)they had done,therewcre fome reafon why our Br: might bring 
 fuch aconfequenceas this: But, if they thinke it was fo, they greatly 
 miftakc : for we read not either of erecting and forming of a diftinft 
 Church, or of ordaining Elders m any of thofe places, til there were 
 difciples converted in all of them, as is undeniably manifeit by the 
 whole feries of the 33. and 14. Chapters. And therefore, thatfuppoft- 
 tion, that it was their courfe when there W'ere Uavci, ( pcrfons met to 
 make up a Congregation or Church; prefently tofet ciders to them, is 
 built upon the fand : And the contrary is evident; for though at Iconlum 
 Alls 1 4.1. there were,not only i«*to but **» ^A*9©^a great multitude, 
 yet there is no mention of Ordination, till afterwards. 
 
 r< Laffcly (fay our Brethren) they ordained Elders *clt UK\xio-iav, and 
 ^AfTcjfi find, at thtir orcLiining, they f aft ed and prayed , commending 
 li the m to the grace of Cod ; which f aft ing and praying bei^g ( according to 
 
 • the principles of both) to be in particular Congregations, it follow (th,t')*t 
 
 * the Churches to which the fe Elders were appointed, were particular Cort- 
 *' gregxt'wi. 
 
 Anf\\\ If they would prove what they undertook , They fhould 
 have faid, therefore they were ordained I N thofe particular Congregations • 
 or rather, that they were ordained B Y particular Congregations, • nor, 
 that thty Were ordined To particular Congregations : We never de- 
 nied that the Churches, to which they, ( at leaft fome of them ) were 
 ordained might be particular Congregation?, no more then we do de- 
 ny that Minifters ordained by Claflis, or Synods, be ordained to par- 
 ticular Congregations ; and yet, the authority by which, and the Aflem- 
 
 bly, 
 
206 The Anfwer of the Affembly of Divines to the Rcafons of 
 
 bly, or meeting in which they were ordained might be more then of 
 one particular Congregation ; And, if the many thoufands at femfalem, 
 who were converted before the Ordination of Deacons Atls 6. yea, 
 all the myriads converted there before Pauls comming to Jerjalem 
 Atls 21. (which was a long time after) were no more then might con- 
 veniently meet together in one place for all ordinations as our Brethren 
 would have us to beleeve; they will give us leave, we hope, tothinke 
 itpoflible, if not probable, that the beleevers converted by 7W and 
 Barnabas in fo fhort a time, at Antioch, Icanium, Lyftra and Derbe, 
 were not fo numerous but that they, or at leaft more then one parti- 
 cular Congregation of them, might meet together in one place at the 
 Ordination of Elders : at leaft divers Brethren from feverall Congre- 
 gations might be prefent at it. What they alleadge (that Fafting and 
 Prayer are, according to the principles of both, to be in particular Conarc- 
 grations) makes nothing to the contrary .- for, if they meanenomore 
 but this, That there may be Fafting and Prayers in a Particular Con- 
 gregation ; or, That fometimes a particular Congregation is to fall: and 
 pray; we doe not deny to accord to our principles : But, if they intend, 
 That there may no more joyn together in Fafting and Prayer then thofe 
 of a particular Congregation ; or, That feverall Congregations may 
 not lawfully joyne together in it ; it may perhaps be according to our 
 Brethrens principles, but not according to ours. That they ordained Sl- 
 ders kcit iKKweUv, and avtok, we grant; they ordained Elders for 
 thofe of Derbe, Lyftra, Iconium, and Antioch ; thefe being the dvroi 
 for whom the Elders were ordained : and thofe Elders fo ordai- 
 ned had their particular Congregations affigned them **t Ux&esfcg, 
 where they were principally to attend ; it being mod conducing to the 
 generall good of beleevers, that they fhould be diftributed into feve- 
 rall Churches or Congregations, and have particular Paftors appointed 
 over them. Neverthclefle this doth not at all hinder, but that bedel es 
 the particular care which each had of his ownc charge, they might all 
 of them joyntly have common .care of the whole. 
 
 But how this or any thing elfe that can be made out of that Text, 
 doth contribute ought to our Brethrens purpofe, we do not fee. For,if it 
 were granted, That they were ordained in particular Congregations, 
 it would not at all advance their caufe, unleffe they prove withall, That 
 Onely a particular Congregation had to doe in it : becaufe it is not fo 
 much materiall, in what place they be ordained, as, by what authority ; 
 and, if a Clajpcall Presbytery do ordaine Elders in a particular Congre- 
 gation, it cannot be therefore faid , that the particular Congregation 
 doth ajftme all and fole power in it. And fo, though Paul and Barnabas, 
 
 (who 
 
the Diffentmg Brethren concerning Ordination. 207 
 
 ( who were as much Elders to all thefe Congregations , as to any 
 one of them) did in fome one Congregation ordaine Elders, it cannot 
 be thence inferred That this One Congregation did either ajfume or ex- 
 fov/falland fole power in it ; perhaps, not any power (further then 
 ofAjfent , ) for, it is not faid that they did ordaine, but that Paul and 
 Barnabas did ordaine/ar them. 
 
 2. '* For the fecond \jhat they might ajfociate^ it appearj (fay they) 
 ,c becaiife thereafter? Churches in the Regions round alo'At. And yet the A- 
 rt pojlle s mention no Ajfociation (Which they Would have done if that had 
 u been the way : ) for When they did things With ordinary Elders , it is thus 
 " recorded, The Apoftles and Elders. But, they commend them to the grace 
 u of God, as Paul did the Clyurch of Ephefus, AUs 20. 3 2. as having fuffi- 
 u cient means to perpetuate fuccejfion, and to ordaine other Elders, if any 
 u fhould die, at alfo to build them up unto et email life, 
 
 zAnfw. If they meane, That the tApoftles might aflbciate ; We think 
 fo too ; and, not onely, That they might, but That they did aflbciate and 
 joyne with every Church where they came, at leaft with thefe Churches, 
 to whom they adually ordained Elders : and we fuppofe our Brethren 
 will not deny it. If they mean, That the Churches might aflbciate ; nei- 
 ther do we in this contradict them ; for, we beleeve they might y zn& did 
 aflbciate ; but, we thinke they contradict themfelvesin it : for, they ar- 
 gued even now, that this being thefirft Ordination of Elder s to thofe places, 
 it must therefore needs be to particular Congregations ; whereas, if thefe 
 Churches, even in this flrft ordination of Elders to them, might aflbciate 
 (as our Brethren now fay,) where then lieth the neceffity of this infe- 
 rence, That it muft needs be to particular Congregations, becaufe it 
 was thefrft ordination of Elders to thofe places ? They would fir ft prove, 
 That the Apoftles ordained Elders to particular Congregations,becaufe 
 it was impojfibie theyfiouldajfociate ; and now r they would prove, That 
 they did not aflbciate, though they might. 
 
 They might aflbciate ffay our Brethren) becaufe there Were Churches 
 in the regions round about. 
 
 Anfw. That there were Beteevers in the regions thereabout , we 
 grant, becaufe Ails 1 3. 49. mentioneth the whole region, oaIw tUjj x^-ty 
 as well as the Town otzAntioch ; and Atls 14, 6. mentioneth the region- 
 round about, ilwieixptovizs well as the Cities of Derbe and Lyfira; 
 divers of the Country people thereabout beleeved the word, as well as 
 thofe that dwelt in the Cities mentioned. But, it is not faid, there were 
 Churches in the regions round about, and that there were Elders affixed 
 to them y who might joyne with Paul and Barnabas in ordaining Elders 
 
 Fff for 
 
2o8 The Anfvver of the Affembly of Divines tothe Reafons of 
 
 for Antioch, leonium, Lyjlra and Derbe ; Nor is it likely that the re* 
 gions about thefe Cities were by 7^/ and Barnabas fooner formed into 
 Churches, and fupplied with Eiders, then the Quiet themfelves* And 
 when our Brethren fa id before, that this Was the firft ordination of Elders 
 to thofe places we fuppofe they meant/That neither the Cities mentioned 
 nor the village s about them, had, before this time, Elders ordained to 
 them ; and not, That there had been a former Ordination of Elders for 
 thofe zillagesjthough not for the Cities themfelves. If they thinke other- 
 wife,, they might have done well to have ihewed the reafons why they 
 thinke fo ; for we may as well fay, That there is no mention of fuch 
 Churches and Elders; as,, they, That there is no mention of Ajfociation 
 with them. 
 
 As for the ^fociation of thefe Churches : we beleeve, That the word 
 avlols £ for themf\ takes in, not onely the Cities of Antioch, Iconlum, 
 <Derbeznd Lyftra, but the ^Ax^tw alfo, the region round about them 
 as appendices to them • and, That, the Ordination here fpoken of, is the 
 ^r/^Ordination of Elders, either for the Cities, or the villages about 
 them : and therefore, though the Churthes within thefe confines might, 
 and (as we conceive ) did aifociate among themfelves • yet, that there 
 were other Churches already formed, with whom they might thus conve- 
 nient Ij ajfociate, and whofe Elders might joyne with Paul and Barnabas^ 
 in ordaining Elders to thefe Churches, doth not appear. 
 
 Now, if the Elders of all thefe Churches were ordained at once, either 
 at an ^4fembly of all thefe Churches (if their members or diftances were 
 not fo great, but that they might conveniently meet ; ) or, of Brethren 
 from all or diverfe of them ; the reafonthen isplaine, why there is no 
 mention of the Elders of fome of thefe Churches joyning with the A- 
 poftles in ordaining Elders to fome othe r of them ; becaufe before this 
 joynt ordination of Elders to all of them, there were no Elders in any of 
 them: and, of any other perfons, who are not Elders, either ordaining 
 alone, or joyning in ordination with others (what ever our Brethren* 
 principles about it may be} the Scripture is wholly filent. Nor is there 
 any thing in the text to the contrary, but that they might be ordained 
 all at once, if mar 'iwwma* be to be interpreted of the Charge to which 
 they are appointed, as our Brethren feem to take it ; For, \tjpeahes but, 
 Once of Ordaining Elders, and that as one of the loft atls done by Paul 
 and Barnabas before their departing out of thefe coafts ; and, joyned with 
 their commending them to God, or folemn taking leave of them, (accor- 
 ding as the fame or alikephrafe is ufed zAfts 20. 32. as our Brethren 
 obferve, and Atls 15. 40. J Yea, our Brethren themfelves fay, they ordai* 
 ned Elders } and } at their ordaining, they f fled and prajed, commending ihcm 
 
 Thereby 
 
the Differing Brethren concerning Ordination. 209 
 
 Thereby to the irace of Go. I • making it as it were one acT. Neither 
 can it be inferred from their having dtftinti Charges, that therefore they 
 were ordained in different places ; For, it is not neceMary that the Elders 
 mnft be ordained either in the prefence of that people, amongftivhom 
 they are to refide,or in the place of their refidence: Nor do we thinke our 
 rcn will contend for it,if they be ftili of opinion, that the Jmpofition 
 of binds on 'Paul and Barnabas,k&s 15.3. was an Or din at ion -.for, neither 
 was that Antioch the place, nor thofe then prefent the people, to which they 
 were then fent forth : And our Brethren adde here^fj commended them 
 to the trace of God as Paul did the Church of Ephefus, Atls 20. 3 2. Yet was 
 not /Wthen at Ephefus, but at Miletus 5 nor was the whole Church of 
 Ephefus there prefent, but only the Elders of Ephefus, and perhaps/oW 
 Brethren accompanying them. 
 
 But, if our Brethren would rather fuppofe, That j&t UttW*)' in Atls 
 1 4. 23. doth denote not fo much the diftinclicn of (fharges to which> 
 as the difference of plaee sin which they were ordained, and That thefe 
 Elders were not ordained all at one time and place, but that Paul and 
 Barnabas did hrft in one Church ordaine Elders to them and commended 
 them to the grace of God ; and then, in a/k<W,ordaine Elders/or them, 
 commending them to the grace of God; and fo of the reft: and, if, 
 upon this fuppofition, they will askc, Why thofe Elders ordained for 
 the firfi, did not ajfifl in ordaining Elders for a fecond Church ; and, the 
 Elders of both thefe, afilft in ordaining others for a third, and fourth 
 Church,& fo of the reft? We fay,That our Brethren have not yet (hewed 
 but that they didfo, and none of their three reafons,which they produced 
 to m\ke good the firft part of their minor, \m\\ prove the contrary. 
 
 But, fay they, the Apofiles mention not Affociation. Anfw. True; nor 
 do the Apofiles Mention that which is mentioned ; for, Luke was the 
 Writer of this Biftory, not the apofiles; They are but part of the 
 Hiftory. And 2 . fuppofe it were not mentioned at all in this place ; 
 There be many things that the Apofiles do not mention,((tither here or any 
 where elfe) which yet our Brethren would faine have allowed in truir 
 way. The Apoftl s do not mention ("no more doth Lake) That each of 
 thefe fngle Cor t gyegation< didaffume all and fole power in Ordination ; yet 
 our Brethren, it feemes, thinke they did t The Apoftlcs do not mention, 
 That the people Without the Elders may ordiine an Elder ; or, That the peo- 
 ple may joy ne with the Elders in impofition of hands ; yet perhaps fome of 
 our Brethren, if not all of them, thinke it may be done : The Apoftles 
 do not mention l^on-Commumon of Churches : Nor a Church (fovenant: 
 Nor fuch elctlive Synods, as our Brethren contend for (befide many 0- 
 ther that might be mentioned :) But our Brethren will not thence infer, 
 
 Fff 2 That 
 
2 1 o The Anfwcr of the Ajfembly of Divines to the Reafons of 
 
 That therefore thefe things either were not, or, ought not to be ; becaufe 
 the Apoftles, without mentioning of thefe, commended them to the grace 
 of God, as havingjuffcient meanes to perpetuate fucceffion, and to ordaine 
 other Elders, if any Jhoulddie, as alfo to build them up unto et email life. 
 
 But, fay our Brethren, this they would have done (viz. mentioned Af- 
 fix iation) if this had been the way ; for, when they did things with ordinary 
 Elders, it is thus recorded, The esf potties and Elders. 
 
 Anfw. Sometimes it is fo recorded, but not alftayes. In 2 Tim. 1. 6. 
 Taut only is mentioned to have impofed hands on Timothy ; and yet 
 our Brethren thinke, from 1 Tim. 4. 14. that the Elderfhip joyncd with 
 Taul in it. And, why may not TWand Barnabas as well befaid here 
 to ordaine Elders for each (fhurch ( without mentioning others) though 
 others alfo, infome Churches, might joy ne in the action ? Efpecially 
 confidering that, in the firft of thefe Churches, there could not be a con- 
 junction of other Elders, becaufe, as yet , no other were ordained : And 
 therefore, though the Elders firft ordained might afterward joyn in or- 
 daining Elders for other Churches ; yet, it could not be faid, even upon 
 that fuppofition, That Paul and Barnabas with the Elders of neighbour 
 Churches ,did ordain Elders for each Church ; becaufe, in the firft Church 
 at leaft, Paul and Barnabas muft be fuppofed to ordaine alone, and not in 
 conjunction with other Elders of neighbour Churches: but, That T>aul 
 and Barnabas did ordaine Elders, for each Church, might well be faid ; 
 thougb,in/o»tf Churches, other Elders joyned with them. 
 
 Againe, it may be very probably conceived, That not only Paul and a 
 Prefbytery of ordinary Elders joyned in this ordination of Timothy ; but, 
 that 'Barnabas, or Silas, or fome other joyncd likewife ; though neither 
 the firft, nor the fecond Epiftle to Timothy (nor any other place) do ex- 
 preftely mention it. The firft time that we find Timothy mentioned, is 
 Atls 1 6. when Paul and Silas comming to 'Derbe, and Lyftra, found 
 Timothy there : but, how long he had been there before this time, we 
 cannot tell. Perhaps he might be one of thofe whom Paul and Barnabas 
 ordained <*s4tls 14. 23. and he continued there an Elder, till Tauls next 
 comming: And, iffo; then have we not only Barnabas joyned with 
 Paulit) this ordfnation,but alfo the thing that ouvBrethren enquire after, 
 viz. Elders ajfoc rated with Paul and Barnabas in ordaining Elders at leaft 
 to fome of thefe Churches. Or, if Timothy were not at that time ordai- 
 ned by Paul, it is likely, that at his next coming to Derbe and Lyftra, 
 Chap. 1 (. finding Timothy there, refolving to take him as a companion 
 of his jo »rney, he would ordaine him ; and whom can we then nippofe 
 to be the Elderfiip then joyning with him, but thofe of Derfie, Lyslra^ 
 and Fconiu^ (of whom exprcfle mention is made Alts 16.1.) and, pro- 
 bably 
 
the Diverting Brethren concerning O rcfination. 1 1 1 
 
 bably, thofe of Antioch too. So, that, at leaft by this time, we may find 
 thefc Elders a{fociated,if not with Tauland Bamabas,yeX with rattled 
 Silts, which is all one : For, why Silas (who was a prophet as appears 
 Aclsi^^i.) fhould not be thought to joy ne with Paul, inTimothies 
 ordination, as well as the ordinary Elders of thofe places, we fee no rea- 
 fon; and yet we find not him e xpreffely mentioned as joyning therein, 
 though wc cannot thinke that he was excluded. Or, if Timothy were not 
 yet ordained by Paul, but at fome time after, (though we fee no reafon 
 to thinke that his ordination was longer deferred) yet when ever it was, 
 it is probable,that Silas or fome other of like quality accompanying?^/ 
 in his travailes, (who did notufually travail without fome fuch compa- 
 nion,) did joyne with him in the ordination of Timothy, So that in a 
 matter of Fad, of this nature, it is no good argument to conclude nega- 
 tively , becaufe the hiftory doth not in every place, make mention of it. 
 
 And thus we have anfwered the Arguments produced by our Brethren 
 as the Reafons of their Difent froxi this Propoficion. But, whereas the 
 Aflembly had, to their Proportion, annexed this Proof , viz. 
 
 1. " Becaufe ftlere u no Example in Scripture that any fingle Congrega- 
 nt ion which might conveniently ajfociate did ajfume toitfelfe allandfote 
 Ct power in Ordination ; neither is there any Rule which may warrant fuch 
 " aprattife. 
 
 2. " Becaufe There is in Scripture, Example of an Ordination in a Pref- 
 Cf bytery over divers Congregations ; a* in the (fhurch of Jerufalem, where 
 <c Vtere many Congregations, thefe many Congregations were under one Pref- 
 u bytery, and this Trefbytery did Ordaine. 
 
 Our Brethren are pleafed to take no notice of this proof at al!,nor do 
 they alledge any thing againft the ftrength of it. But for what reafons 
 they chofe rather to wave it, then to objecT: againft it, themfelves beft 
 know. 
 
 Concordat cum OriginalL 
 
 Adoniram By field, Scriba. 
 
 FI^IS. 
 
 
E R RA T A. 
 In the diftnting Br ah em Reafins. 
 
 Pi.lin. 8. . i. 1 18. r ; y.\l 
 
 1 jo. r rdxic i. p 11.I 29. TpmiUrlj. p 1 
 
 : , p ji« 
 
 1 22. r flfafl :• 39 1 13. r P.r 
 
 /.; the Affemldiei Anfwtr* 
 
 ■ '. 27. r I 7"/W. ?. 17; l8. p l6. I Z.TVCtpt- 
 
 p 21.I 9-r .:. I 17, 18, io, tc 
 
 I . I - 
 l/?c /(flMOj #?i ihiri \ p ^.\6. : -tvu fjd - ulAf* I 2 $ . & : ' . .;■-■■ 
 
 .052, Ink 
 
 fc, we. f 71. 1 }8. p 8 2 I 2 5 . r >4rr». p 9 1 . 1 3 2. r J/a i J 
 
 094. . 16. rwbetMi m \oxibtrc p. 95. 
 
 In. r 50000.1 14 r h -. and fo ir. . - . p 98. 1 37. 
 
 r mberMrffmemSj tbcrt then, p 99 p 1 00. 1 24. r -^LL. 
 
 /» r&f dijfenting Brethren* Rtdfons againft the Subordination! &c. 
 
 Pag. 12?. in the tub r Spwbkl 7. . 1 -_ . - ijo.l 35. 
 
 dele the. p 1 3 1 • - 
 
 In the Ajfemblies Anyrer. 
 137. 1 4. r for Gviermncm. p 140. 1 32. r tbem. ! : 
 1 alt. r is. p 142. 1 1. r rjiiw. p 144. 1 7, 1 1 149. 1 18. 
 
 r -? rrcll M. p 1 5- ."• p 161. 1 5. dele ic p i8z. [3- i8$.li8. 
 
 r be. p 1 8 5 1 3 1. r 42 MOW </. p 1 86. title /. ' . 1 1 2. 
 
 r iff. 
 
 7^ the ai Renting Brethren; Reafons s.gainji Or 
 
 Pag. 191. 1 27. and 19. zmct. p. 192. 1 7. ntc* 
 
 In the A ff end lies Anfwer. 
 
 1 9 5. and foanfwerably in the re it that foi". : l 
 
 /« the -papers of Accommodation* 
 
 Pag. 18. 1 6.rpurfucJ. p 19. 1. 4. dele 10. p 22. 1 2. rjtttifc.l 19 rCUJpf.p 28.113, 
 14, runhini:) ihirg. p 30. & 31. r 30. 31. p 39. 18. rgtci. p 46. 1 6. : 
 
 /o«ni 3 r£>e. 1 21 . r dm Ml c:/j /.n. p 47. 1 1 5. r ojop 1 
 
 p 5?.r 53. p 54. 1 15. cele (Ac off. p 55.I 5. rar m 
 
 P 57- 1 29 r exclude tl ; 71. 1 uit. r /rcra ks .• tfe feme, p 82. 1 19. 1 ; 
 
 p 87. 1 17. r Lhjjcs. p 89. title, dele &f. p 90. 1 1 9. r Cbdtecbifme. p 96. 1 ulz.ifiil. 
 p 102.I *O.r*glOJ0*.f I '-" ■ i 16. r/'l. p 116, 117 
 
^r 
 
 ° X 
 
 
 % 
 
 An Order of the Houfe of Commons 
 
 for A Committee ofAccommodation. 
 
 Septemb. 13. 1644. 
 
 Hat the Committee of Lords and Commons 
 appointed to treat with the Commiffi- 
 oners of 'Scotland, and the Committee of 
 the Affembly, Dot ahg into confideration 
 the differences of the opinions of the mem-- 
 hers of the Affembly in point of Church-government ■, 
 and to indeavonr an union if it be poffible : And in cafe 
 that cannot be done Jo indeavonr the finding out fome 
 way how far tender consciences, who cannot in all 
 things fnbmit to the fame Rule, which jball be ejia- 
 blifbed) may be borne with according to the Word, 
 and as may ji and with the publihg peace > lhatfo the 
 proceedings of the Affembly may not be fo much re- 
 tarded. 
 
 A aaa 
 
 This 
 
At the Committee 
 
 
 This honourable Committee met according to 
 
 the Order, Septemb,2o. following 
 
 THe appointment of the Order Being, That the diffe- 
 rences of opinions, of the members of the A ffewbly, in point 
 of Church Government be taken into confideration. The honoura- 
 ble Committee appointed a Sub-Committee of fix of the 
 Members of the AfTembly. M T ,MarJhall, M r . Hearle, Matter 
 Vines i D r . Temple, M r . Gcodwin, and M r . Nje, ("two of the dif- 
 fenting brethren ) To confider of the differences of opinions in 
 the Affembly , in point of Church-Government : And to bring in 
 what might be matter for that grand Committee to confi- 
 der of. 
 
 In purfuance of this, the faid fub-Committee met, who fil- 
 led thQmfelvzs the fob-Committee of Agreements. And 
 after the Preface declaring their mutuall confidence to agree 
 in one Confeffion of Faith, and in One Direfforj of pub li que wor- 
 Jhip } &c. They prepared feverall Propofitions, concerning 
 the Government of particular Congregations , and Ordination, 
 &c. Declaring how farre inpra&icall principles they did 
 agree therein , together with the different practices^ which 
 each according to their principles 3 defired. 
 
 Ottober n. 1644. The honourable Committee mtx.a°ame , 
 At which the (ub Committee prefented the Propofitions they 
 had prepared, declaring they had further to bring in concer- 
 ning clajfesmd Synods. And what might be the way of ac- 
 commodation for the d/Jfenting brethren to enjoy Congregations 
 amongflw, according to their principles. All which (though 
 they had met rrnny day es ) was not as then perfc&ed. 
 
 Therefore the honourableC^ww/V/^did remit back to the 
 faid fub -Committee the Propofitions then brought in, to 
 be further explained, and as much,, as might * be perfected a- 
 
 gainfl: 
 
of Accommodation, o 
 
 gainft the next meeting , adjourning th*t Committee untill 
 Tuefday October i $. 
 
 When thefe Proportions that follow^vere brought in by the 
 fub-Comm;ttee,as containing both a fuller explication, and the 
 beft way to accommodate their own and their bretbrens 
 principles in apra&iqueway ("which was the end of that ho- 
 nourable Committee ) both for Congregations fiwdSynods^xvA the 
 government thereof. 
 
 ottober 1 5 . 1 644. The honourable Committee of Lords, 
 Commons, D Uvines of the A jfembly, with the Scotcb-Commijpo* 
 ners met. And thefe Proportions were read by Matter 
 Vims who was thcCbaireman of that fab-Committee. 
 
 A Vote was part in the Committee to take them into confide- 
 ration. But that debate was not entred upon, becaufe it was 
 the earned defire of (bme that the Rule fliould firft be made 
 complca te by the Aflembly and the Houfes. 
 
 And there was aCeJfttion put upon the honourable Committee 
 herein, by the honourable Houfe of Commons untill their 
 further pleafure. 
 
 Let the Reader take notice, that in whatparticn- 
 larstbe diflenting brethren do differ from 
 the Proportions of the reft oj the Su b -C o m- 
 mittee, or do expreffe their dejires a part 
 from them , there is a differing CharaSier 
 put in the T riming of them for the difceming 
 thereof and that in other things wherein they 
 expreffe not any difference or further expla- 
 nation, they agreed to them. 
 
 The Propositions were as 
 followeth. 
 
 Aaaa 1 At 
 
■q. At the CoMMJttte 
 
 At the Sub-Committee of Agreements. 
 
 IN confidence that we fliall jointly agree in one 
 Confeffion of Faith, and in one Dire&ory of 
 the Publick worfhip of God, with the help of a 
 Preface, we come according to our order to points 
 of Government, and therein do agree as fol- 
 loweth. 
 
 I> That a particular congregation having fuch officers as 
 the word of God holds out, both for preaching and go- 
 verning, is a Church that hath power in all Ecclefiafticall 
 affairs, which do only concern it felfe. 
 
 2. That thefe forementioned officers are to be Co many 
 in number, In every fuch congregation, as that three or two 
 at the leaft may agree together in every aft of government^ 
 By two at the leaft we mean preaching or governing offi- 
 cers, Butfbme of the Committee do hokhhat a preaching 
 Presbyter fhould coneurrein the fentence.of excommuni- 
 cation and fufpenfion. 
 
 3. That thefe officers have power in thofe things which 
 are voted by the Aflembly to be due unto them 7 and in fuf- 
 penfion and excommunication: Some of the Committee 
 meaning that the major part of the officers have power to 
 do it> the congregation not oppofing it, in which cafe of 
 oppofition they hold fit that the officersdo fufpend the aft. 
 Qthers of the Committee [aying that the Major part of the Offi- 
 cers have power udo.it, if the Major part of the Brethren do 
 confent unto it by their Votes : jo as the negative lies in the 
 major part ^either of the Officers or Brethren. 
 
 And as for Ordination , we all hold, that where there 
 are two preaching Presbyters atleaft 5 fuch a Presbytery 
 
 may 
 
of Accommodation. 5 
 
 may ordaine their own Elders. But fome of the Committtc 
 do further fa, that where there Are two ruling Elitrs at haft* 
 they Iwe power of ordaining Elder j for thit congregation and 
 incafethir? be no Elders ( u at tlx firflln Ecclefia conftiru- 
 enda ^tbtmtbt choice of Elder r 5 by the feople, with approbation 
 of the neighbouring Uiniflji wttb ftfttng and prayer* may 
 fuffce. 
 
 4. That the Elders of the congregation (hall advife with 
 the Claffis in all cafes of Excommunication before they pro- 
 ceed to ir, and the Claflis hath power to heare and deter- 
 mine :yet fo : as the power of the Congregation be not 
 concluded thereby in matter of Excommunication. But 
 fomt of the Committee do fay that in rvhitfoezer cafe 1 ley find 
 difficult either in excommunication or in any other aiminiftra- 
 Hon of their power, they fhallfirfl adzif with fome company or 
 Claffis of mi^bour Minifiers, as at the end of the fvuref Aim- 
 ing Proportions tfierwa r ds. 
 
 5. For the affociating of Churches, let there he in every 
 County ofthisKingdome, a certain number of felect, god- 
 ly and able Minifters of the word, within that County, to 
 heareanddeterarnethe caufes ar.d :es ft every 
 congregation within the fame, and let there be a cere 
 number of feleft Church-governoursaffiftant unto them: 
 thefirftchoyceofthefe to be rr,ade by the Parliament in 
 fucha way as they fhali determine, andfuch number to 
 havepowerof election fromtinve to time of any Mir.ifter 
 orChurch-governcurintoany place among them, rfcat is 
 void by death or other wife. 
 
 6. The Miniftersand Ruling-governors, of every con- 
 gregation within that County. foafiociaced,(ha:! have pow- 
 er to debate and vote in that mee tin gf/om time to rirr.e in 
 fuch cafes as pertain to that particular congregation, except 
 fu:h of them as are complained of 3 oi are parties to que- 
 ftion. 
 
 7. A certain number of the afore:a:d Minifters, ani 
 
 A aaa 
 
6 At the Committee 
 
 Rulmg-governoursasdo dwell near together, in the fame 
 Deanery or divifion of that County, and who may with 
 convenicncy more frequently meet together, (hall have 
 power to heare and determine the caufes and differences 
 within the feverall congregations of that precinft. 
 
 8. LetNationall Aflemblies ofMinifters and others, 
 bechofen from time to time, according as (hal be appoin- 
 ted by the Parliament, as the neceflity of the Churches af- 
 fairs (hall require. 
 
 To the fifth, fixth,feventh and eighth, the whole Com- 
 mittee dothafcent^ ornly fome of them doe defire that the ef- 
 fi& of that which hereafter followeth may for explanation fafe 
 be inferteJ.viz.That the Elders and Brethren of each Congre- 
 gation in cafe they find any thing too hard for thetnfelves or 
 have any controverfie among them felves, may have liberty to 
 advife with anyofthofefelecl Elders^ andothers in the Province 
 jointly or apart ,or with the Elders of any other Churches, for 
 the determining and compofing the controverfie or refolving of 
 that difficulty ) and in cafe they cannot befatisfied, then to have 
 recourje alfo to the advice and help of that Clajfis unto 
 which they appertain, tofolve and determine it. 
 
 9 That the members of particular congregations do co- 
 habit and live together within certain bounds and precin&s 
 of a parifli under preaching and governing Officers : unto 
 which Jo far as it concerns the mter bounding of congregations 
 fome of theXaommittee do defire that thefe provifiom may be 
 added. 
 
 i. That they may have liberty to dwell in another Varijh if 
 the confent of the Minifterof that other parifhbe procured. 
 
 2. For Countrey villages that the limits be extended 'to take 
 in from fome one parifh immediately adjoining. 
 
 We having weighed our Brethrens Principles,do find no 
 probability of accommodation for them, ordinarily to en- 
 joy congregations, unlefie when it (hall happen in a parifh 
 
 that 
 
^Accommodation. 7 
 
 chat the Minifter cannot adminifterthe S.craments to all 
 in theParifh, wbompoflibly the neighbour Mir iftcrs or 
 the Ciaffis may judge fie to be admitted ^ fnch perfons fliall 
 have po wer to procure to t hemfelves the Sacramen t s, cither 
 by the help of a neighbour Minifter, or fome other previfi- 
 on be made by a proportionable allowance out of the 
 Tythes of the pari(h according to the wifedome of the 
 State. 
 
 Whereunto our Brethren adde as followeth. 
 
 Or otherwise if in aparifloit happen that there be a confide- 
 rable number of fuch as cannot partake i-j the ordinances with 
 the Minifter and people thete y theyfhaU have liberty to difpofe of 
 t hemfelves tsadiftinft Churchy and to choofe a Mimfter or Ml- 
 viftersat their own charge to be maintainedjo be their V aft or. 
 
 If fnch a liberty fhallfeem in the wifedome of this honoura- 
 ble Committee to be prejudice all to the peace of the 
 Church ', as not to be per mitt ed^ vee humbly deftre the 
 do&rinall principles wherein we differ about Church* 
 government may be taken into ferious conpderation^ 
 and fome other way of accommodation in pra&ice 
 thoughtKtpon } as ft) all feemft to this honour able Com* 
 mittee. 
 
 Concerning Claffes and Synods. 
 
 1 . At thefe raeetings,!et them pray, expound fcrip rare, 
 refolve difficult cafes of confeience and preach the 
 word. r 
 
 . 2 .They may dogmatically declare what the will ofChrift 
 *s in fuch cafes as are before them 5 And this judgment of 
 theirs ought to be received with reverence, and obligation, 
 
 as. 
 
8 At the Committee 
 
 as from an ordinance of Chrift. Some of the Brethren (though 
 affenting) jet are bold to adde hereunto , that the judgment of 
 any other ^of thofe Elders in the province^ or elfewhere, advifed 
 withy they doe in lily manner looke at as the ordinance of Chrift 9 
 and to have the like obligation in them. 
 
 3. If the do&rine or praftile of any particular congrega- 
 tion be erroneous, hurtful! or definitive to holinefle or the 
 peace of that or other congregations, they are bound to give 
 account thereofto the Clafli3 or Synod, Some of the Brethren 
 adde to this j That the ground of this obligation to give account to 
 the Chjjis or Synod is their being offended, or their Churches 
 fcandaliz>edthereat. 
 
 4 . The Claflis or Synod may examine, admonifti, and in 
 cafe of obftinacy declare againft that congregation or any 
 particular member in it, as the nature and degree of that 
 offence (ball reqmre.Some of the Brethren ajjent tofuchprocee- 
 dings as towards a Church offending and fcandahzing of 't hew: 
 but adde y That nofnch examination, admonition in any Clajfis 
 or jffembly be extended to any particular perfon in that Churchy 
 but unto the Church it felfe for not putting forth the power that 
 Chrift hatb given them for reforming him. 
 
 5 . The Claflis or Synod may judge touching any perfon 
 who defer vesexcommunication,and may charge the feverall 
 congregationall Presbyteries whom it concernes to do if. 
 
 6. We conceive that in cafe the particular Elderfhip re- 
 fufe to doe their duty, the Claflis, may and ought not one- 
 ly to withdraw communion from them, but alfo when need 
 is, exercife the fcntence of excommunication themfelves. 
 Infteadofthkftxth Propofition^fome of the Brethren doinfert 
 thn, In cafe the aforefaid particular Churches and Elderjbips 
 offending ft) M refufe to Submit to this courfe, that then the Chf 
 fis or Synod are to acqmint their congregations re fpe&ively, 
 andfo withdraw from them> denying Church-Communion and 
 fellorvfdip with them. 
 
 7. Incafeofappeale if it appeare to the Claflis that the 
 
 fentence 
 
<?/ Accommodation. 9 
 
 fentcnce was unjufl 1 , they may judge that the particular 
 Presbytery ought to reverie it : and in cafe they obftinately 
 refute to do it, the Claffis may reverfe it. Others of the 
 Brethren only fay that they are to proceed as in the former Ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 8. The Claflls or Synod have power to ordaine 
 Minifters for fuch congregations as have not a (ufficienc 
 presbytery in them, and let all congregations aflbciated, 
 firft advife with the Claffis, and take their affiftance before 
 they ordain a Minifter. Some of the Brethren do referre them- 
 felvesforthts^tothUUclaufein the third Prop$ftign delive- 
 redin. 
 
 Bbbb 
 
THE 
 
 PAPERS 
 
 AND 
 
 AnfVers 
 
 Of Th e 
 
 DISSENTING BRETHREN 
 
 An d 
 
 The Committee of the Affembly 
 of D i v I n e s. 
 
 Given into the Honorable Committee 
 of Lords and Commons, and AC- 
 fembly oiDiv'ines with the Scotch 
 Commiffioners, 
 
 FOR 
 
 ACCOMMODATION, 
 
 At the Rev iv i ng of that Committee. 
 
 164$. 
 
 London, Printed AnmDom. 164$* 
 
Ifi 
 
 The Order of the Lords and Commons 
 for the Reviving of the Committee 
 
 for Accommodation, 
 
 Die Jovis 6. Novemb. 1645. 
 
 Rdered by the Lords and Commons in 
 Parliament Affembled , that the Com- 
 mittee of Lords and Commons appoint- 
 ed to treat with the Commiffioners of 
 Scotland > and the Committee of the Af- 
 fembly y Do takg into confederation the differences in 
 opinions of the members of the Affembly in point of 
 Chnrch-^iwernmenty and toindeavonr an union if it 
 he poffible : And in cafe that cannot be done y to indea> 
 vow the finding out fome way how farre tender 
 conferences, who cannot in all things fnbmit to the 
 Common Ride , which jh all be ejiablijhed 5 may be 
 borne with according to the Word^and as mayjiand 
 with the publihg peaces Thatfo theproceedings of the 
 Affembly may not be fo much retarded. 
 
 The Lords Committees, 
 
 Earle of Northumberland^ Earie of Manckefler^ Lord Vicount 
 Say and Seale y Lord Wharton^ Lord Howrd. 
 
 Novembc 
 
At the Committee of Accommodation. 13 
 
 Novcmb. 14. 1645. 
 
 OKkredthat the fvd lords Committees , are to meet with a 
 Committee of the Houfe of Commons \onUun day next at 
 time of the clock in the afternoon m Jerufalem chamber in theCol- 
 ledge of Weftminfter, and that the Committee of the Affembly be 
 there prcfent. 
 
 John Brown Cler.Parliamentorum. 
 
 The Members of the AfTembly who were a 
 Committee for to meet with the Committee of 
 the Lords andCommons appointed to treat with 
 the Commiffioners from the Church of Scotland, 
 are asfolloweth. 
 
 MzfcrMarfljall,DoEtorBurges, Mafter White, 
 Do&or Hoyfe, Do&or 'temple, Do&or Smithy Ma- 
 fter F aimer, Mafter Seaman, Mafter Herle, Mafter 
 Goodwin, Mafter Nye, Mafter Bridge, Mafter Hill, 
 Mafter Reynolds, Mafter Arrow fmith , Mafter 
 Young, Mafter Vines, Mafter Tuckpey, Mafter New- 
 comen, Mafter Simpfon, Mafter Burroughs, Mafter 
 Dury. 
 
 On the 17. of November, 1645. the Commit- 
 tees above mentioned, met in Jerufalem chamber, 
 and did then order thatthofe Divines of the Af- 
 fembly, members of this Committee, who had for- 
 merly been a fub-Commitiee for this purpofe 
 fhould confider and prepare matter for the de- 
 bate of this Committee at their next meeting, 
 
 which 
 
14. At the Committee of Accommodation. 
 which meeting was then appointed to be Mun- 
 day the 24 of the fame moneth. 
 
 Novemb. 24. 1^4$. The Committee met a- 
 gain, and the chair-man of the Sub-committee, 
 declared that they had not prepared matter for 
 their debate, according to their order, becaufe 
 the Diflenting Brethren, did wave the firft part of 
 the Order of the Houfes touching accommoda- 
 tion, which though the reft of the Sub-committee 
 could not aflent unto, yet they left it to the Dif- 
 fenting Brethren , if they pleafed to prefent 
 their thoughts to this Committee, not as the re- 
 fult of the Sub-committee, but as their own, and 
 accordingly the Diflenting Brethren did prefent a 
 paper which is as followeth. 
 
 Novemb. 24. 164$. 
 The nature of the bujinejfe puts us upon the fecond 
 part of the Ordinance of Parliament. " The indeavou- 
 a ring tojtndoutfome way howfarre tender confeien- 
 cc ces, who cannot in all things fubmit to the Rule 
 u which fjall be eftablifbed may be born with, accor- 
 cc ding to the Word, and as may jiand with the pub * 
 " likg peace J hat fo the proceedings of the Affembly may 
 not befo much retarded, which we humbly prefent to 
 the confi deration of this Committee. 
 
 After ibme debate upon this paper it was 
 Refolved upon the Queftion, that Mafter 
 
 Goodwin^ 
 
The Dejires of the Diverting Brethren. 1 5 
 
 Goodwin , Mafter Nye, Mafter Sympfon , Mafter 
 Bridge^ and Mafter Burroughs , do bring in unto 
 this Committee upon thurfday feven- night, 
 wherein they defire to be born with in point of 
 Church-government, inallthoie things wherein 
 they cannot fubmit unto the common Rule that 
 is eftablifhed. 
 
 December 4. 1 645 . The Committee met again, 
 and the Diffenting Brethren prefentcd their defires 
 in a paper, as folJoweth. 
 
 Decemb. 4. 1645. 
 Agreeing in thofe things that containe thefubjiance 
 oftbefervice andworfljip of God in the Directory ac- 
 cording to the Preface ', and being confident that we 
 fljali agree in the confeffion offaith,jfar<*x much as 
 we doe agree with the Reformed Churches in the do- 
 Brine contained in their Confefpons andwritings as 
 our Brethren doe, who differ from us in matter ofdifci- 
 pline* 
 
 We humbly crave, 
 1 .In relation to the Ordinance for giving pow- 
 er to Claffcal Presbyteries to ordaine Mini- 
 fters,Novemb. 10.1645. 
 That where there is a Presbytery, ( that is, two 
 Elders at leafi ) in any of our Congregations, thert 
 way be power of Ordination: and where there is not 
 a Presbytery , thofe who are fuffciently qualified and 
 
1 6 The De fires of the Differing Brethren, 
 approved for their gifts and graces by godly able Mini- 
 jters, being tho fen by the people, and fet apart for the 
 Minijlry, with prayer andfajiing in the Congregation, 
 may prima vice exercife their Minijlry. 
 
 2. In relation to the Ordinance for the fetling 
 of the Presby terial Government. Aug 1 9. 1 645 . 
 
 1 . That our Congregations may not be brought under 
 the Government of Clajjicall, Provincial!, orNatio- 
 . nail Affemblies, in refpeSi ofEcclefiaflicallJurifdiSti- 
 on ', but may be permitted to enjoy liberty as fome pri- 
 viledged and exempt places, formerly have been per - 
 mitted to enjoy, in refpeSi of the Ecclejiajiicall Difci- 
 pline, then exercifed. 
 
 1. That our Congregations may haveJiberty to con- 
 jiitute their own Elder-jhips , having a competent 
 number of per fons fitly qualified for Elders : and that 
 all men who communicate in the Lords Supper, may 
 have liberty to choose their own officers, 
 
 3. That we may not be forced to communicate as 
 members inthofe Parijhes where we dwell; but may 
 have liberty to have Congregations offuch per fons, 
 who give good tejiimony of their Godlineffe and peace- 
 ableneffe, yet out of tenderneffe of conference cannot 
 communicate in their Parijhes, but do voluntarily of- 
 fer them felves to joine infuch congregations. Which, 
 how it may bejijiandwith the peace of the Kingdome, 
 
 wc 
 
Defires of the Diflenting Brethren. 17 
 
 we humbly leave to the consideration of this ho- 
 nourable Committee. 
 
 That all fitch congregations as are made up 
 of (Itch as do voluntarily joine themfelvs , ha- 
 ving an Elderfjip which them felves have chofen or 
 accepted of, and fitbmitted to, may have power of all 
 Church-cenfures, and of the Adminifiration of all Or- 
 dinances within themfelves. Tetfo as they fubmit to 
 give an account of any of their proceedings ', to whom 
 the Parliament pall appoint. 
 
 This Paper being read and the day fpent ia 
 explayning it. 
 
 It was ordered , that the reft of the Divines, 
 members of the Committee be made a Sub-com- 
 mittee to confider of the Paper of the DifTenting 
 Brethren, given in, and to meet firft betweene 
 themfelves , then with the Diflenting Brethren, 
 and to prepare fomewhat againfl: the next meet- 
 ing of this Committee which was rcfolved to be 
 on Munday fevenight Decemb. 15. The Com- 
 rniffioncrs of the Church of Scotland were defired 
 to affift the Sub- committee. 
 
 Decern. 15. 1645. 
 The honourable Committee met againe. And 
 the Sub-Committee prefented an anfwer to the Dif- 
 fering Brethrens Paper, which is as followeth. 
 
 Cccc Although 
 
i $ The Anfvpers of the Sub-Committee of Divines. 
 Although it woud have been a farre more com- 
 fortable and happy way , and nriore agreeable to 
 the peace and edification of the Church, and a 
 meanes to prevent the danger of Schifme and ma- 
 ny other mifchcifs;& which we have always much 
 rather defired to have perilled , the method ap- 
 pointed by the Honourable Houfes. And in the 
 foft place to have indeavoured an Accommoda- 
 tion : yet our Brethern profeffing that an Ac- 
 commodation was now impoflible, and that the 
 nature and prefent ftate of the bufinefle doth lead 
 them to defire a forbearance (in both which we 
 yet humbly conceive they are miftakenj upon 
 ferious consideration had of their Paper to that 
 purpoie, we have found it needfull to premife 
 theie three particulars. 
 
 i. That what ever forbearance we {hall agree 
 upon, we take it for granted upon our Brethrens 
 Preface, that the fameDire&ory for worfhip,& the 
 fame Confeffion of Faith, fliall be impofed upon 
 them in the fame manner^askis impofed upon us. 
 2. And therefore whofoever agrees not in 
 thofe things that containe the fubftance of the 
 fervice and worfhip of God in the Dire&ory, ac- 
 cording to the Preface ; and (hall not agree in the 
 Confeffion of Faith, nor with the do&rine of 
 the refomed Churches, contained in their con- 
 feffionsand writings, as we do, who differ from 
 
 thefe 
 
To the Defires of the Diffenting Brethren. i 9 
 
 thefe Brethren in matters of Difcipline, fliallnot 
 have the benefit of this indulgence. 
 
 3. If any ftiaM practice any thing contrary to 
 the Dire&ory, or to write, publifli,or declare any 
 do&rinc contrary to the Confeflion of faith, he 
 {hall be liable to the fame penalties, that we our 
 lelves are for the like offence. 
 
 Which things being premiied, we have found it 
 needfull and moft confonant to the bufineffe , to 
 take jirjl into confederation, the third Propofz- 
 tionofour Brethrens particular defires under the 
 Head of Presbytery, unto which all the reft have 
 foneceflary a relation, which they have offered 
 to this Honourable Committee. 
 
 Concerning which we humbly conceive. 
 
 I. That this defire of our Brethren is not to be 
 granted to them iu terminis, for the reafons which 
 wc here withall humbly offer. 
 
 1 . Becaufe it holds out a plain and totall i epa- 
 ration from the Rulc,as if 5 in nothing,itwere 
 to becomplyed with; nor our Churches to 
 be communicated with in any thing, which 
 fhould argue Church-Communion; more 
 could not be faid or doneagainft falfe Chur- 
 ches. 
 
 2. It plainly holds out the lawfulneffe of ga- 
 thering Churches out of true Churches, yea 
 
 C ccc 2 out 
 
ao The Anfrver of the Sub-Committee of Divines. 
 out of fueh true Churches which are endea- 
 vouring further to reforme according to the 
 word of God : whereof we are affured there 
 is not the leaft hint of an example in all the 
 Book of God. 
 g. In granting this, the Parliament fliould 
 grant liberty to deftroy and pull down what 
 themfelves are endeavouring to fet up. 
 
 4. The indulgence they leek is a greater pri- 
 viledge then they (hall enjoy who (hall be 
 under the Rule, as may appeare in fever all 
 particulars.!. Such as own the Rule, ir.uft 
 live in the fame Parifh with the other mem- 
 bers of their Church : Thefe may live any 
 where, and be of any Church they pleafe y 
 yea though a Church of their own way, were 
 in the place where they live. 2. If fuchas 
 live under the Rule would better themfelves 
 in living under the Paftorall charge of ano- 
 ther Mini-fter, they mufi remove their 
 dwelling 5 Thefe need not. 
 
 5. This would give countenance to a perpe- 
 tual! Schifme and divifion in the Church, 
 ftill drawing away fome from the Churches 
 under the Rule,which alio would breed ma- 
 ny irritations between the parties going a- 
 way and thole whom they leave; And a- 
 gaine, between the Church that -fliould be 
 
 forfaken r 
 
1'he Anfrver of the Sub-Committee of Divines. 1 1 
 
 forfaken, and that to which they fhould go. 
 6. This would introduce all manner ofconfufon^ 
 in families where the members were of fe- 
 verall Churches; and exceedingly, if not al- 
 together hinder the mutuall edification that 
 might be afforded and received amongfi: 
 them. And efpecially in gteat families, it 
 would be impoflible for theGovernours to 
 have a fure' account of all their families at- 
 tending upon the Ordinances, when twenty 
 of them may poffibly be of twenty feverall 
 Churches; and much lefle take account of 
 their profiting by the Ordinances. 
 
 II. Thatnoneareto be allowed upon diffe- 
 rences only in matter ofGovernment,to withdraw 
 communion from us in things wherein they de- 
 clare an agreement : But feeing it isconfefled in 
 Worflhip and Do&rine , we are one, and have co- 
 venanted to endeavour the neareft conjunction 
 and uniformity, there may be no fuch indulgence 
 granted to any as may conffitute them in diftinft 
 feparated congregations, as to thefe Parts of 
 worfhip where they can joyn in communion with 
 us, but only fome expedient may be iqdeavoured 
 how to beare with them in the particulars where- 
 in they cannot agree w ith us. 
 
 III. For this purpofe we humbly offer. 
 
 C ccc 3 i- That. 
 
3 2 The Anfwer s of the Sub-Conrmit tee of Divines. 
 
 i. That fuch as through fcruple or error of 
 con(cience,cannot joine to pertake of the Lords 
 Supper, (hall repaire to the Minifter and Elders 
 for fativsfa&ion in their fcruples, which if they 
 cannot receive, they (hall not be compelled to 
 communicate in the Lords Supper, provided that 
 in all other parts of worfhip, they join with the 
 congregation wherein they live and be under the 
 government of that congregation. 
 
 2. That fuch as in this manner are under the Go- 
 vernment of that congregation wherein they live, 
 and are not Officers therein,being of the Indepen- 
 dent judgemental feek fatisfa&ion as in the for- 
 mer Ptopofition, which if they canot receive they 
 (hall not be compelled to be under the power of 
 cenfures from Claffis or Synods : provided that 
 they continue under the government of that 
 congregation, and that no man who hath fubmit- 
 tedto Claffis and Synods flaall decline them in any 
 cafe pendente lite. 
 
 Thefe Papers of the Sub-Committee ,in Anfwer 
 to the diflenting Brethrens Papers , being thrice 
 read after fundry Debates, it was refolved, 
 
 i. That the Brethren (hall have a coppy of 
 the Papers in Anfwer tot heirs communicated to 
 them. 
 
 2. That they are to returne an Anfwer in wri- 
 ting 
 
To the De fires of the Diffenting Brethren. 2 3 
 ting to this Committec,by Tuefday fevenight. 
 
 December 23. 1645. 
 The Honourable Committee met againe, and 
 the diflenting Brethren prefented an Anfwer in 
 writing,which was read : firft reading a Paragraph 
 oit\\z Sub-Cowmittees Taper , and then a Paragraph 
 of their Anfwer, in manner asfollowes. 
 
 An Anfwer to a Paper brought into this 
 
 Honorable Committee by a Sub-commit- 
 tee ot' the Divines of the Affembly. 
 Decern!?. 23* 1^45' 
 
 As to the Preface. 
 
 <c \ Lthough ic would have beene a far more comfor- 
 sc l\ table and happy way, and more agreeable to the 
 <c peace and edification of the Church 5 and ameanes to 
 cc prevent the danger of Schifme and many other mifchiefs 5 
 "and which we have alwayes much rather defired to have 
 u purfued the Method appointed by the honourable Hon- 
 "fts^ and in the firft place to have endeavoured an Ac- 
 commodation : yet our Brethren profefTmg that an Ac- 
 commodation was now impoffible, and that the nature 
 "andprefentftateofthebulinefle doth lead them to defire 
 :c a forbearance ( in both which we yet humbly conceive 
 " they are miftaken ) upon ferious confideration had of 
 u their Paper to th*tpurpofe D we have found ic needfull to 
 "premifethefe three particulars. 
 
 Anfw. 
 
24 The Reply of the Viffenting Brethren^ to the 
 
 Anfwer. 
 xAs Accommodation would have been more ad- 
 vantagious and fafe for #<r, becaufe it would have fet 
 usint^e fame fiate with our Brethren, fo we have 
 earnejlly purfuedit, and according to f£rc Method ap- 
 pointed by the honorable Houfes , we did in the fir ft 
 place endeavour an Accommodation, and in a Sub- 
 commit tee made a great progreffe therein y which 
 was prefented to this honorable Committee 12 months 
 fince \ but the impediment to it was y the infixing on 
 by our Br ethr en ,that the Rulcmuft firfi: be refolved 
 upon; But now that the Rule is refolved on by the 
 Ajfetnblyjandeftablifhedby the Parliament (we ha- 
 ving according to our confciences entred our DifTent 
 nnto y and given in Real ons to the Affembly againji it) 
 we cannot go onin the way ^Accommodation ac- 
 cordingtothe former Methods Becaufe Accommoda- 
 tion is an agreement in one common Rule, and we 
 doe not presume to feeke a new Rule to be made. 
 That impoffibility of Accommodation which was fpo- 
 hgn of y wasjhen y withaU explained to be only in refpeSi 
 of the Rule,as now it is eftabliflicd: For otherwise as 
 touching ihe nature of the thing fimply considered 
 without a fuppoftion of fuch a Rule, either Voted 
 by the Afjembly^or eftabhfhed by the honorable Hon- 
 fes we have from the beginning profeffed that we 
 thought we and our Brethren did agree in com- 
 mon principles enough, and iufficient to have pre- 
 
 ferved 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 2$ 
 
 ferved the Churches and Saints in thefc Kingdoms 
 in peace. And when the honorable Monies renew- 
 ed this Order, they havingnot iecn (as wehitmbly 
 conceive ") the difference of our judgements tn point of 
 fub-ordination of Afiemblies, and our Reaibns a- 
 gainji them, they might thinly, that we might accom- 
 modate with the Rule they have fet forth. 
 
 Neither will fuch a forbearance as we fee\,endanger 
 Schifme. Becaufe there may be a variation jn a greater 
 latitude from a government, that is efabliJJjedonaD'i- 
 vine right, much more from one which is not cjlablifh- 
 edupon]usDw\nmr\:when the government it felfhath 
 its authority but from the State, a forbearance/nw/ 
 zr,by the Stated/7/? laws to prevent contention,cannot 
 be Schifme, or any way endanger it ; the nature of 
 Schifme ( according to the Scriptures) confifing in 
 an open breach of Chriftian love, and not in every 
 diverfity of opinion or praftile. Tea, as both 
 others, and we alfo have found, the great caufe of 
 Schifmcjjath been a ftrid: obligation of all to an 
 uniformity, beyond that of the Apoftle. That fo far 
 as we have attained wee fhould walke by the fame 
 rule, and if any beotherwife minded God will rc- 
 vcale it in his time. 
 
 To the three frji Premises. 
 
 I . " That what ever forbearance we fhali agree upon 3 we 
 "take it for granted upon our Brethrens Preface, that the 
 cc fame Directory for worfhip,and the fame Confcffion of 
 
 Dddd Faith. 
 
0.6 The Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, to the 
 
 " FaitbjQiallbe impofed upon therein the fame manners it 
 " is impofed upon us. 
 
 a. cc And therfore whofbever agrees not in thofe things,that 
 <c contain the fubftanceof the fervice and worfhip of God in 
 "theDire&ory, according to the Preface^and (hall not agree 
 * c in the Confcffion of Faith : nor with the Doftriue of the re- 
 u formed ChurchesjContained in their conftffions and writ- 
 " ings, as we do, who differ from thefe Brethren in matters 
 c: of Di(cip r ine a fha!l not have the benefit of this indulgence, 
 g. "If any (hall praftifeany thing contrary to theDirefto- 
 ce ry ? orwrire,publi(h, or declare any Doftrine contrary to 
 cc the Confeflion of Faicbjhe (hall be liable to the fame penal- 
 <c ties, that we our felves are for the like offence. 
 
 Anfwer. 
 lngeneral,we only ^^affirmatively -.that thofe who 
 do agree in thefe things that contain the fubjiance fer- 
 vice^&worfhipofGodintheDireEtory according to the 
 Preface; and in the confeffion of faith with Reformed 
 Churches in the DoBrine contained in their confejfions 
 and writings (as we and our Brethern do, who differ 
 from us in matter ofChurch-governmeni)m2y lawful- 
 ly be tollerated according to the word of God 
 in fuch things as we defire : But we meddle not 
 with the Negative ; or Impositions ; or to fet the 
 bounds and limits of forbearance unto all tender con- 
 fciences. Yea,before, we brought in this Paper, we not 
 knowing,but that the honorable Houfes might intend a 
 conf deration of the generall Rules howfarre ten- 
 der confeiences might be forborn according to the 
 word of God, and as might fLnd with the peace of 
 
 to 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 27 
 
 this Kingdome, Profejfed that we pre fumed not 
 to limit it to % our judgements^ nor would bring in any 
 <tf/?erReport than about the general! Rules of Tolera- 
 tion, unleffe the honorable Committee did determine 
 and limit us^ which accordingly was done ; It being 
 alfo declared, that they were fure, that we were inten- 
 ded and the matters of difference in point of Church- 
 government betweene its and our Brethren in the Af- 
 fembly: yet we Jo wipe offfnch afperfions, prejudices, 
 and fujpicions as were upon us, and to makg a full and 
 candid Declaration of our judgements and agree- 
 vients in point of Do&rine and the fubftance of 
 VV orfhip, did adde that Preface : which njw having 
 done, by thefe interpretations which our Brethren pre- 
 fent, we jhonldnot onelytake on us, to call upon the 
 Parliament Jo exclude other tender confciences/?w* 
 this forbearance and to impofe uponthenv,but makg Im- 
 pofitionstf/Dirc&ory ^WConfeffions of Faith i# 
 the latitude oftbeBody of Divinity, ^W not i/z fun- 
 damentals only\ and that not only upon the Minifters 
 but upon all the people efttris Kingdome', and that 
 as a qualification for receiving Sacraments : JJur 
 Brethrens Principles may be larger, for power inEccle- 
 fiafiicall Affemblies to determine and impofe circum- 
 ftantial orders in worflnp,as well as in the fubftance, 
 and therefore jor us tojoyn with our Brethren to have 
 all tbofe things impofedon m, which they can beare 7 
 feems hard tons. 
 
 Dd dd 1 Which 
 
1 8 J he Reply of the DiJJenting Bre thren, to the 
 
 ec Which things being premifed, (fay our Brethren) we 
 cc have found it needful and mod confonanc to the bufinefle 3 
 Cq to take firft into confideration//^ third Proportion of our 
 f c Bretherns particular defires under the Head of Presbytery, 
 cs unto which all the reft have fbnecefTary a relation^whlch 
 "they have offered to this Honourable Committee. 
 
 Concerning which we humbly conceive. . 
 
 I. " That this defire of our Brethren is not to be granted 
 "to them inUtminn % for the reafons which we herewithall 
 "humbly offer. 
 
 1 4C Becaufe it holds out a plaine and totall (operation from 
 
 ic the Ru!e 5 as if, in nothing, it were to be complyed 
 
 cc with, nor our Churches to be communicated within 
 
 cc an thing, which (hould argue Church- Communion ^ 
 
 " more could not be faid or done againft falfeChurches. 
 
 To this firji Reafotz. 
 Anfiw. 
 
 i. A defire to have liberty for multitudes, thai 
 tannot out of a tenderneffe of confcience partake as 
 members in your Churches, to gather into congre- 
 gations to enjoy the ordinances', not onely profefpn% 
 your Churches to be true Cnurches,^ not darwgto 
 judge them for that, for which they are in rejpeB of 
 their owne confcience s enforced to, namely, to prefer ve 
 themfielves from fin againft their confidences to remove 
 from that communion with them ; and though gather- 
 ing into other congregations for the purer enjoyment Qas 
 to their confidences) of all ordinances, yet fill main- 
 taining 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 29 
 
 tainine communion with them as Churches fas is ex- 
 preffedin the third Paragraph Jis far from feparation, 
 muchleffe a plain and tota\\ fcparation. The Af- 
 femblv having in what they h ive g^ven np unto the 
 honorable Houfes f aid thus, Nor is it lawful! for any 
 member of a Parochiall congregation., if the Ordi- 
 nances be there adminiftred in purity, to go and 
 feck them elk where ordinarily , fo as in cafe the 
 Lords Supper be not in purity adrniniftred, a remo- 
 val 1 is allowed ordinarily. And this is not letting up 
 Churches a gainft Churches , but neighbour fitter 
 Churches of a differing judgement : If the pureft 
 Churches in the world (unto our judgement in all other 
 reJpe£ts y )ftjuuld\mipo{casa condition of receiving 
 the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing 
 that fuch tender confeiences cannot joy ne in (as fuppofe 
 kneeling in the aSi of receiving, which was the cale 
 of Scotland and England) if they remove from thefe 
 Churches, and have liberty from a State to gather in- 
 to other Churches to injoy this and other Ordinances j 
 here is no feparation. 
 
 2. A plaine and totall feparation from the rule 
 is not in fuch Churches , unlejfe /fcej/ wholly ///all 
 things differ, by fetting up altogether differing rules 
 ofconftitution worfoip and government : Now in the 
 Churches we defire wejhall practice the moft of the 
 fame things-, and thefe the moft iiibftantiall which are 
 found in the Rule// felfe : The fame Ordinances of 
 D d d d g worfliip 
 
2 9 The Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, to the 
 
 worfhip in the Dire&ory ,the fameOfficers,Pafl:ors, 
 Teachers, Ruling Elders; of the fame qualification 
 required in the Rule : the fame qualification of mem- 
 bers the Affembly its felfe holds forth to have beene in 
 the Primitive Churches, <vh>. vifible Saints, that be- 
 ing of age do profeffe faith in Chrift, and obedi- 
 ence unto Chrift, according to the Rules of Faith 
 and life taught by Chrift and his Apoftles : and 
 thefe officers to joyne into <wElderfhip in all ads of 
 government of the Church : Holding alfo the lame cen- 
 iiires, namely, 0jf Admonition, and Excommunica. 
 tion and Abfolution and receiving in upon repen- 
 tance ; And -who, wherein they differ from the Rule 
 will be accountable ^all their wayes and tenets///?. 
 tothofe,whom the State fjallbepleafedto appoint. 
 Andy 
 
 3. Holding and retaining communion with 
 neighbour Churches in Baptizing our children (as 
 occafion may fall out) of ab fence of our Miniflers) in 
 their Churches , and by occafionall receiving the 
 Lords Supper in their Churches , and receiving liich 
 members of theirs, as are above mentioned, unto coni- 
 munion with us alfo occasionally : Alfo our Mini- 
 fters to preach in their Congregations , and receive 
 theirs alfo to preach in ours, as Minifters of the Go- 
 Jpel, as mutually there fl ball be a call from each other i 
 And when we have any Caies difficult and too hard for 
 mir felves , ele&ively to advife with the Elders of 
 
 their 
 
Firft Part of tJye Anfwer of the Divines. 03 
 
 their Churches : And in cafe 0/controverfie not to re- 
 fufe to call them in y for the compofing oft. Further, 
 in cafe of the choy cc of Elders, to feekjhe approbate 
 on and right-hand o( fellowfhip from godly Mini- 
 fters of their Churches together with our owne : And 
 when an Ordination fals out among us, to defire the 
 pretence and approbation of their Elders with our 
 owne : And in cafe any of our Churches mifcarry 
 through Mal-adminiftration or negledl ofcenfnres, to 
 be willing, upon icandall taken by their Churches to 
 give an account, as to fifter Churches offended: And 
 to efteeme and account (as we do) a ientence of Non- 
 conimunion by them, as Churches,againjius,uponfuch 
 fcandals wherein they are notfatisfed, an heavie and 
 fad punifliment, and to be looked at as a meanest 
 humble us, and an Ordinance of God to reduce us. All 
 this ismorethan as if i n nothing they were 
 
 TO BE COMPLY ED WITH, NOR THEIR CHURCH- 
 ES TO BE COMMUNICATED W I TH,IN ANY THING 
 WHICH SHOULD ARGUi CHURCH COMMUNION, 
 
 More kfaidand done by thefe that acamtt them falfe 
 Churches. 
 
 To thefecond Reafon. 
 2. "It plainly holds out the lawfulnefTe of gathering 
 " Churches out of true Churchesjea curof (uch true 
 " Churches which are indeavouring further to reform 
 zC according to the word of Cod : whereof we are 
 "aflured there is not the leaft hint of an example in all 
 <c the Book of God. 
 
 To 
 
3 2 The Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, to the 
 
 We anfwcr. 
 
 That, this Reafon is founded upon this fuppofi tion, 
 that nothing ought to be tolerated which is un- 
 lawful! in the judgement of thofe who are to tole- 
 rate : andiffo, then by the like reafon no State, no 
 Affembly, no Presbytery is to tolerate any practice or 
 opinion which they account to be in the leaft erro- 
 nious. 
 
 2. The -way we are to go, is not to difpute what is 
 unlawfull or lawfull in it felfe, becaufe we are upon 
 the point of forbearance, in what is thought unlaw- 
 ful!. 
 
 3. For that addition [_ u out of fuch true Churches 
 u which are endeavouring to reformed we fay , The 
 Reformation which the Affembly hath ultimately 
 pitcht upon, /atisfies not our confciences, as our bre- 
 thren know. 
 
 4. For that addition [f Q that there is no hint ofex- 
 cc ample in all the boo\of God for gathering Churches 
 out of Churches'] we fljall onely, at this time humbly 
 prefent the nature of the thing or case it iclfe, as it 
 lies in our conferences and as in the Aflcmbly we 
 alfo ftated it. 
 
 The cafe is this, A multitude ofbeleevcrs after 
 all means ufed to obtaine light 5 tofatisfietheir con- 
 fciences in what to them is fin in partaking of the 
 Ordinances as members of the Churches they live 
 
 or 
 
Fir ft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 3 5 
 
 orhavelivcd in, by which/o long as they continue 
 in theie Churches, they fhall be debarred from 
 thefe ordinances, though it be all their day es ; and 
 although the opinion bee judged an errour 
 by thofe Churches they live in, yet of no higher 
 nature then .thole errours, for which they are not 
 to be fulpended from any ordinance,by cenfure;or 
 caft out of the Church} and in all other things are 
 fuch in their opinions and pra£Hfes,as are meet 
 partakers of Comunion withChrift in all ordinan- 
 ces, which as their right, as members of his myfti- 
 cal body,he hath give to them as to their brethren. 
 In this cafejhereis no obligation laid by Chrifi either 
 on the perfons thentfelves, for ever to continue in 
 thofe Churchesjtfr on the Churches they live in, to 
 withhold them from removing, to other Churches, 
 free of that^which would defile their confidences', or, 
 when there are no fuch Churches/'// the places they 
 live in To Gather Into Churches, wherein 
 they may injoy all ordinances without fin. This afler- 
 tion, as thus ftatcd, we are ready to debate, when 
 this Honourable Committee fliall think fit. 
 
 To the third Reafion. 
 
 3. cc In granting this, the Parliament fhould grant li- 
 cc berty todeftroy and pull dovvne what themfelves are 
 * endeavouring to fet up. 
 
 <-Anfiw. 
 An exception doth not make void a mlciefpecially 
 
 Eeee fuch 
 
24 1 he Reply ofihe Diverting Brethren, to the 
 fuch a one, as is not founded on a Jus Divinum, and 
 where it is, in the power ofthofe, who make the rule to 
 grant a forbearance from it. The reformed Churches 
 grant a forbearance ; and yet their general! rule 
 fiands.Andwe in our Des i res ,dofnbmit to this Ho- 
 nourable Committee, to find out fuch wayes as may 
 hefljiand with the peace of the Kingdome. 
 
 To the fourth Re a fori. 
 
 4. iC The indulgence they feck is a greater priviledge 
 "then they (hail enjoy who (hall be under the Rule,. 
 cc as rmy appeare in feverall particulars. 1 . Such as own 
 4Q the Role, rnuft live in the fame Parifh with the other 
 "members of their Church:Thefe may live any where^ 
 "and be of any Church they pleaie^ yea though a 
 * c Church of their own way, were in the place where 
 "they live* 2. If fuch as live under the rule would bet- 
 ter themfeivs-in living under the Paftoral charge cf 
 "another Minifter., they muft remove their dwelling; 
 £c Thefe need not. 
 
 Jnfw. 
 
 The Triviledge ofthofe Minifiers who fubmit to the 
 Rule is to be capable of all Eeclefiaftical prefer- 
 ments, which we are not. They find no need of in- 
 dulgence to their confciences as touching the rule ejla* 
 blifljedi which we do ; poffibly their confciences may 
 be fcrupled in the fame or other things hereafter, and 
 they have the priviledge of the fame addreffesfor re- 
 lief, we have. 
 
 And as forthe two particulars therein exprejfed-, 
 
 we 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 3 5 
 wefayfirfi,itis a priviledge, and much to be defzred 
 to dwell neer together, and we alfo fh all inde avow it 
 as much as may be for mutual! edification . Secondly it 
 is the right of every man ( we humbly conceive) 
 to choofe his own Minifter, whereas theparijhes and 
 their bouttds by dwellings, are but of CivilJ right.- 
 provided the State be pleafed, to take fome order 
 
 that it may be known, whether every man doth 
 refort. 
 
 To the fifth Reafon. 
 
 5. < c This would give countenance to a perpetual Schifm^ 
 "and divifion intheChurch,mIi drawing away Come 
 "from the Churches under the Rule, wh & Jfc 
 « would breed many irritations between the narti^ 
 * going away, and thofe whom they leave • And a 
 "gain between the Church that mould be forfaken" 
 c and that to which they mould go. ro "aKen, 
 
 We anfwer. 
 
 Whathurttheabufe of words, andamong other, 
 this of Schifme hath done in the Churches, o H r Br e 
 thren know, and we all have felt ; wherefore Ceeina 
 as yettheMzxMly hath not debated, nor the State 
 determined,^ Schiimeis, we defire our Brethren 
 that in the feeing to countenance that way which 
 they things right, they would not feehjo caftan odi- 
 nm,upon their Brethren, who dtfierfromthei, andyet 
 together with them, dcfoe (infaithfulnejje)to know 
 
 £eee 2 and 
 
5 6 The Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, to the 
 
 and obey the mind of Chrift, by fafining fuch a 
 name upon them, or their way. 
 
 2. What we de fire forbearance in, will counte- 
 nance only this; When men who give good teftimony 
 of their Godlmeffe and Peaceableneffe, after all means 
 vfedinfaithfulneffeto h^ow the mind of Chrijl, they 
 yet cannot without fn, to them, enjoy all the ordinances 
 ofChriji, and partake in all the duties of worfhip^ as 
 members of that Congregation, where there^Awelling is, 
 they, therefore in hunility and meekneifodefire, they 
 may riot live without ordinances; but for the injoy- 
 ment of them for their edification in their fpirituall good 
 may joyn in another congregation; yet fo, as not 
 condemning thofe Churches they join not with , as 
 falfe, but jii! preferring all Chrijiian communion with 
 the Saints of the fame body of Chriji , ( Of the 
 Church-caiholicbf) artHjoyne with them, in all duties 
 ofworfhip, that belong to particular Churches, ib far 
 as they are able. If this be called Schifme, or coun- 
 tenance of Schifme, it is more then ye; we have lear- 
 ned, from the Scriptures, or any approved Au- 
 thors. 
 
 3. And as for that irritation our Brethren fpeah^ 
 of: as we humbly conceive, it will be according to the 
 temper of mens hearts. If fnch a pra&ice meets with 
 me n, who fe hearts are gracious, it will only irritate 
 them to fearch further into the mind ofChrifi, and to 
 walkg before their Brethren with more exatineffe, and 
 
 t@> 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer oftheDWxncs. 37 
 
 to exercife love, meekntffe and forbearance towards 
 their brethren who differ from them, andiuch irritati- 
 on there is no great can fe that either we, or our bre- 
 thren (hould make complaints of. If this liberty meet 
 with corruption^/ is like enough there may accident 
 tally /;ean irritation to fin, but the way then toop- 
 pofe fitch corruption, is by inftru&ion, prayer, wal- 
 king convincingly before them : and if they grow 
 turbulent,^ callin the help of the Civil-Magiftrate; 
 but not to give that refpett to their corruptions , as to 
 deny to men, who give undeniable tefiimony of their 
 Godlineffe, that ufe of the ordinances of Chrift,, that 
 they may with the peace of their conferences en- 
 
 To thefixth Reafon. 
 
 6 . cC This would introduce allmanmr ofconfufwn, in fami- : 
 QC lyes 3 wherethe Members were of Severall Churches.; 
 Cr andexccedingly,ifnoc altogether hinder the mutual! 
 M edificationjthat might be afforded and received a- 
 cc mongft them. And fpecially in great Familyes, it 
 cc would be impofiible for the Governours 3 tohave a 
 ' c fure account of all their familyes attending upon the 
 " Ordinances, when twenty of them may poflibly be of 
 • c twenty feverall Churches*,and much lefle take account 
 * of their profiting by the Ordinances, 
 
 Anfwer. 
 I. Firft in general!, our judgements do thus far a- 
 gree with yours , that except upon very waighty 
 E e e e 3 confi- 
 
38 The Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, to the 
 confederations, husband and wife, makers andfer- 
 vants, jhould partake together in the fame Minijiry. 
 
 II. Secondly, If it fhould happen ts be other- 
 wife : 
 
 1 . " All manner of confufion would not here- 
 cc by be introduced into families : For can our Bre^ 
 thren thinks, that per fens agreeing in all the fundamen- 
 tals of their faith, and in their judgment andpra&ice 
 joyning in al the fame duties of piety in the family\and 
 alfo agreeing in the fame duties of publick worfhip, 
 for the fubjiance jhough not livingunder the fame indi- 
 vidual Minijiry ,yet unleffethey do agree alio in an uni- 
 formity ,both publihg and private, they mufl needs run 
 into all manner of confufion? hath either nature, or the 
 Gofpel putfuch a neceffity upon uniformity, in leffer 
 things Johgep families from confufion? If this were the 
 Gojpel, then except it prevail upon the opinion ofthofe 
 whom it converts to fuch an uniformity ( which it 
 feldomedoth ) it mufl by this principle, of neceffity ', 
 fubvert humane fociety, by bringing confufion into 
 families, which we conceive to be a great derogation 
 to the Gofpel. 
 
 2. " Neither would it exceedingly , much leffe al- 
 " together, hinder the mutuall edification, that 
 might be afforded and received amongfi them. 
 
 For firfl, although perfons of the fame family, 
 not living under the fame Minijiry, may in 
 
 feme 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 39 
 
 fome refpeSt of family duties, not fo fully edifie, 
 as otherwife', yet in a, great meafure, they may: 
 and if there be a %eal, and good conference in 
 any of the family*, to be helpful in good confe- 
 rence^ &c. It is no f uch great bin de ranee to he are 
 in federal I places, or fever all Preachers ', As 
 Schollars reading fevcrall Books, and then 
 conferring. Many god Chrifiians have for edi- 
 f cation purpofely pra&iced &\ and it hath fome 
 advantages for edification, which the other 
 way hath not. 
 Secondly, that further degree of edification, which 
 comes to the per fon sin a family, by going all to 
 the lame M'miftvy,amounts not to that propor- 
 tion, rfj'ta countervail the want of enjoying 
 the publick ordinances for ever; which compa- 
 red with family duties ^ fiwply conjzdered, have 
 hadthe preeminence, both in refpeSt to Gods Glo- 
 ry, and the edification of fouls, in all mens coneef- 
 fions-, which cannot be enjoyed by many that yet 
 are truly confeiencious, except the liberty pet it i- 
 onedbe wanted. 
 
 o 
 
 III. Thirdly, " For the account,Governours,in 
 " great families,are to take of all in their families 
 a attending upon the ordinances, and of their pro- 
 cc firing thereby • We anfwer, the Churches we defire, 
 beingconfiant and fixed, it is no more impoffible, then 
 it was for a Godly Tutor in the ^Univerfity to take 
 
 ac- 
 
^o The Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, to the 
 
 account of 'his Pupils, having liberty to go to feverall 
 Churches. And, 
 
 IHI. Fourthly, c< Whereas it isheightned, that 
 cc twenty of onefamilv may poffibly be oftwenty 
 cc feverall Churches, wefuppofe if the State bepleafed 
 to grant us the liberty we petition for , that they in 
 their wifedome ( to which we have referred our 
 felves ) will take into confideration, the limitting fuch 
 congregations t e a certain number j and then there way 
 not be twenty Churches ,, in any city or Town, to di- 
 vide themfelves into. 
 
 But the truth is, thofe that thus plead againfi this 
 permiffion ( which we dejire ) as infufferable, mufi 
 certainly fuppofe that men are to be tyed, throughout 
 this Kingdome, to their own parifh Churches, 
 where they live, both Mafiers audfervants, and that 
 not only for facraments, but for conftant hearing : 
 which how burdenfbme it was in former times, 
 the godly people are very fenfible of ' and now in the 
 time of Reformation, it finds many Mimjiers who 
 cannot be caft out, by order of Law, though bad and 
 unprofitable, as appears by the leaving them out of 
 the Clafles j and fh all the people be tyed to live under 
 them, as their Minifter , who are not worthy to joyn 
 in Government, with your felves ? and for time to 
 come, as places are void,they muji be fupplyed by the 
 choice of others for them, or by themfelves .if by them- 
 {clvQS,allparijhes are not reformed, as concerning the 
 
 people 
 
Firft Part of the Anfwer of the Divines. 41 
 
 people, and whereas the major part being generally the 
 worji, the Minijlers chofen by them, will befuch as the 
 oodly ca?mot live under their Minijlry : If by others, 
 thofe that are the chufers , may alfo be fuch as t\yey 
 cannot be d^nyed by law, their right inchoojing, and 
 Co alfo unprofitable Minifiers, may be put upon the god- 
 ly people, And if they be not tyed to their pari- 
 shes, the weight ofthisreafon,and the inconveni- 
 ences prefentedjWill fall more heavy upon the nu- 
 cmrous multitude of parifhesin city andcountrey. 
 
 For the Rules towards an Expedient, and the 
 Preface thereunto. Numb. II. & III. We 
 humbly conceive our Brethren have not made a 
 comple at report in thit point of what they in- 
 intend ( as was intimated, ) and therefore that 
 this Honourable Committee doth not expeSl that 
 we fhouldfpea\any thing to it y till that part of 
 their Anfwer beperfeSled. 
 Let the Reader take notice, that an Anfwer to 
 the fecondpartoi the former Anfwer of the fub- 
 Committee of Divines, was afterwards given in to 
 the Honourable Committee, by their command. 
 And comes in printed after the Rejoynder (that 
 next followes) made by the fub-Committee ofDi- 
 \ines to this Anfwer of the Diflenting Brethren, in 
 that Order it was given in to the Honorable Com- 
 mittee* 
 
 Ffff After 
 
4.2 Tk hnfmr of theSub-eommittee of the Divines 
 
 After ferae debate upon the cautions premifed, in the 
 paper of Sub-committee, prefented Decemb. 1 5. and drawn 
 out oftheBrethrens Preface, it wasrefolvedby the Honou- 
 rable-Committee. 
 
 Refolvtd chat bath the affirmative and negative of the fe- 
 cond caution, (hallbeputuntotheQusftion^ and accor- 
 dingly it was. 
 
 Refohed upon the 'ghteftioa, that they which agree in the 
 fubftanceof the vvoiibipofGodin the Direftory, accor- 
 ding to the Preface, and agree in the Confeffionof Faith, 
 and with the doftrine of the Reformed Churches, contained 
 in their co nfeffions and writings, as we do, who differ from 
 thofehrcthren in mattersof Difeipiine, (hall have the bene- 
 fit of this indulgence. 
 
 Refohed upon the Qucfiion , that fuch as agree not in 
 thofe chingswhieh contain thefuhftance of the woifliipof 
 God in the Direftory, according to the Preface $ and (hall 
 not agree in the Confeffion of Faith, nor with the Doftrine 
 of the Reformed Churches, contained in their conftffions 
 and writings, as we do, who differ from thefe Brethren m 
 mattersof Difcipline, /hall not have the benefit of this In- 
 dulgence. 
 
 ! RefofoeduponthegtuftioV) that the Brethrens Paper this 
 day brought in (hall be referred to the Sub- committee to 
 eonfider of it, and they are further to go on with the work 
 begun ; and the Brethren to go on with their anfwer to the 
 former Papier of the Sub-committee. 
 
 Jan. 23. 1645. The Committee met again, and the fub- 
 committee prefented a Reply to the Anfwer of the Diflen- 
 ting Brethren, brought in Decemb. 23. 1645. which is asfolr 
 towetho 
 
fif the &Jfe**l>ty, ** the Reply of the Diverting brethren. 45 
 
 <v.pte. 
 
 A Reply to An Anfwer brought in to this 
 
 Honourable Committee, (Decern. 2 3 . 1 645 .) 
 
 unto a paper formerly tendred by a Sub-Cora- 
 
 mittee of the Divines of the Affembly. 
 
 To their Preface. 
 
 OW Reverend Brethren being charged with an unwll- 
 Jingnefleto purfae the method prefcribed in the Or- 
 der of the Honourable Houfes, which was in the firft place 
 to endeavour an Accommodation 3 do declare, t . That in a 
 Sub-committee twelve moneths fince , they had earneflly 
 endeavoured fuch an Accommodation 5 and made a great 
 progrejfe therein. 2. That the Rule being now refoived on, 
 unto which they had entred their dtjjent 3 it is by that meanes 
 become impcjjible for them to endeavour an Accommoda- 
 tion 5 which implyeth an agreement in one common Rule^ 
 fince they doe not prefume to feeke a new Rule to be 
 made. 
 
 To which we fay, That although our Brethren had en- 
 tred their diflent againft fbme particulars of the Ruleeftabli- 
 fhedfforwe know net that any diflent was ever entred a* 
 gainft the whole, ) yet the Honourable Houfes being plea- 
 fed in their Order to prefcribe this method of procee- 
 ding, and to require the endeavour of an Accommodation^ 
 which Order 5 nor withstanding any fuch diflen t of our Bre- 
 thren, they have in their wifedome and zeal for the peace of 
 the Church, thought good to renew, we conceive our Bre- 
 thren ( as weil as our felves ) were obliged firft to have en- 
 deavoured an obedience to it, before they declare that that 
 
 Ffff 2 is 
 
44. the Anfrver of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 is in their judgement impoffible to bee done, which the wit 
 dome of theHoufes( notwitbftandingthey were not igno- 
 rant of the caufe, upon which chat pretended impoffibilky is 
 grounded ) have been pleafed to require, and therefore we 
 humbly declare, that the only flop of endeavouring an Accom- 
 modation is ih our brethren themfilves and not in the Honour a^ 
 hleHoufes^crinm. 
 
 And for the progreffe which they fay, was formerly made 
 in a Sub-Committee towards an Accommodation , that 
 lhouid the more have encouraged them at this time in the 
 fame endeavor. But indeed we find by the afts of that 
 Treaty, 
 
 i. That the fub- Commit tee declared. That they faw no 
 probability of any Accommodation with our Brethren, be- 
 caufethey could not perceive any wiliingneffe in them to 
 take any fueh congregations, as ours, which feme of them 
 have fince that time profefled they cannot do. 
 
 2. That they did not yeild any thing towards any union 
 with us, but every where put in exceptions to the Propofals 
 tending thereunto. So that in that Accommodation they 
 did in a manner fully demand according to their principles, 
 the fame things by way of exception, which they now crave 
 by way of Toleration. 
 
 3. In that Treaty, they defired the liberty of gathering 
 churcks , yet then feemed to doubt whether this Honou- 
 rable Committee wouid not judge it a thing prejudicial! to 
 the ftate. But now they wholly infift upon it, only referring 
 the manner how it may ftand with the publick peace to the 
 confideration of this Honourable Committee, 
 
 They fay that in the nature of the things without fup- 
 pofltion of the Rule^as ncvpitjsefiablijhed^ they and voe a- 
 gree in common principles enough , and fufjjcient to have 
 preserved the Churches a?/d Saints in thefe Kingdomet in 
 peace. Whereuntoweanfwer. 1. If fo, that again fhould 
 have encouraged them to proceed in the Treaty of Accom- 
 
 modation. 
 
of the Affemblyjo the Re fly of the Di(fentingBretbren. 45 
 
 modation. 2. We conceive thole common principles are 
 thofe only which concern the power of congregations, 
 which they mifapply to an independency, and if the peace of 
 the Churches muft have been preferved by our making the 
 fame ufe of thofe Principles, it is evident it muft have been 
 procured not by an Accommodation between us, but by our 
 going over to our Brethren^ and acquiefcing in their way. 
 3. What ever agreement may be in other things, there is 
 none in that which is fundamentall to the very conftitution 
 of Churches, namely, the qualification of members, wherein 
 their principles are fofarre from permitting them to joyne 
 with us, and fo to lay any grounds of peace, that indeed they 
 lead them to draw members continually from us unto fepa- 
 ration. 
 
 4. They make no mention of any muruall bond to pre- 
 ferve Churches in Truth and Godlinetfe for mutuall edifica- 
 tion, wherein we think their way is much defective* Nor 
 Jaftly,do they tell us how orhers,whom they look not on as 
 Saints, (hall be dealt withall, and brought in , they 
 having in their way no Paftorall relation unto any fiich : 
 and we doubt not but our way will continue to be, as it hath 
 been effeftuall to that purpofe, if we be not difturbed in it 
 by our brethrensoppofition. 
 
 They fay, the Honourable Houfes not having feene their 
 differences And redfons againfl Subordination of Affemblies^ 
 mhen thef renewed this order , might thinke that they might 
 Accommodate with the Rule which they have fet forth. 
 Towhichweanfwer. 1. That the Honourable Houfes can- 
 not be ignorant of their judgement in this po int t It appearing 
 evidently in their diflent and reafons againftClaflicall Pres- 
 byteries, and in their difclaimtng of Synods to have power of 
 Government. 2. Let our brethren joyn with us in the reft, 
 and we doubt not to find out fome expedient to eafe them 
 in this particular. 
 
 They proceed, neither will fnch a forbearance as we feeke^ 
 
 Ffff 3 endan- 
 
46 the Knfwer of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 endanger Schifme , because there may be a variation in a 
 greater latitude , from a Government that is tftablifoed on a 
 Divine Right , much more from one which is not eftablijl)ed 
 en a Ju3 Divinum, when the Governments felfe hath its 
 authority but pom the State , a forbearance from it by the 
 State, which Lawes to prevent contentions, cannot be Schifme , 
 or anyway endanger it : the nature of Schifme , according to 
 the Scriptures, confifting in an of en breach of Chriftian love> 
 and not in every diverfity of opinion or pra&ice; yea as both 
 others , and we alfo have found the great caufe of Schifme, 
 hathbeene aftriff obligation of all to an uniformity ^ beyond 
 that of the Apoftle , that fo farre as we have attained, we 
 fhouldwalbJ>ythe fame rule-, and if any b$ otherwife minded, 
 Godwillrevealeitin his time. 
 
 How farre this forbearance may endanger a Schifme, 
 comes after to be confidered 3 nor are we (acisfied what great- 
 er variation may be without Schifme, then to confefle Chur- 
 ches to be true, and yet to require feparated Churches from 
 them of another conftitution. Their observation, that for- 
 bearance when a Government hath its authority from the 
 State only,, cannot be fchifme 3 doth not lay an afperfion on 
 the Rule, as if it were meeriy and totally humane, and had 
 nothing of the wili of God in it 5 but doth clearly open a 
 wide gap for as many as either by them in their way, or by 
 any others in other wayes can be perfwaded of a divine 
 Right elfewhere, to (hake off their obedience and fubmiffi- 
 on unto it. Nor can laws to prevent contentions, hinder 
 fdeh a dangerous confequence as this, for who will not hold 
 himfelf bound, upon fuch premifes, to contend earneftly 
 for the way of God, againft meer humane conftitution, who 
 will not rather lay hold on the Priviledge of a Toleration, 
 to be amongft thefe of the godly party, as they call them- 
 felves, and in the way of Chrift, as they fpeak, then to con- 
 tinue under fuch a Rule, and in fuch a Communion for 
 Government as ischarged to be meeriy of an humane origi- 
 
 tiall? 
 
of the kffembly, to the Reply of the Differing Brethren. 47 
 nail ? Such a Toleration to be provided before-hand,not on- 
 ly for perfons already feparated from us, buc for"hs many as 
 art and induftry for all time to come, can be able to gain un- 
 to the fame perl wafi on, from the obedience of the Rule efta- 
 blifhed, was we beleeve, never yet demanded of the Chri- 
 ftian Magiftrate by any in Churches confefled bythem- 
 felves tobetrue^ efpechlly confideringthatthofe who de- 
 mand it, have bound themfelves by Covenant to indeavour 
 to bring all the Churches of God in theft Krr/gdomes to the 
 necrcfl uniformity and conjunction , and to extirpate 
 Sch/fme. And albeit this Schifmeconfifts not in every di- 
 versity of opinion orpraftife, but in an open breach of Chri- 
 ftian love, yet we fee not how our brethren can acquit 
 themselves even by this Rule, when they openly profefle a 
 neceffiry recede from our Churches as members , while 
 yet they acknowledge them to be true Churches ofChrift. 
 Thus to depart from true Churches, is not to hold Com- 
 munion with them, as fuch, but rather by departing to de- 
 clare them not to be fuch. Surely at beft we may fay of this 
 courfe as the Philofopher did of the Milefians 5 Milefii quidem 
 nonfunt infipientcs^ ea tamen agunt qu£ infipientes. 
 
 And although no Uniformity were neceffary againft 
 Schifme , yet to our Brethren, by vertue of their Covenant, 
 uisaltquoufque neceflary , (b farre as the Apoftle dire&s., 
 which isphereunto we have attained to wallaby the fame 
 Rule. Therefore agreeing with us in Worfliip and Do- 
 &rine,and acknowledging our Churches, Ordinances and 
 Minifters to be true, fotru?, as that they can occafionally 
 joyne with us in allafts of Worfhip, we conceive they ought 
 in thefe things to aft in ioynt communion with us by one 
 common Rule, and not by different Rules, and in feparated 
 Congregations. And certainly Gods way of revealing 
 truth to fuch as are otherwife minded, is not by fettinp men 
 at a diftance from one another, but by keeping them in the 
 unity of the fpirit, to walke together peaceably and regu- 
 larly 
 
48 The Anftver of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 larly inthat whereunto they have attained, and more is not 
 
 defired of our Reverend Brethren, 
 
 To their Anfwer to the three jirfl Premfes. 
 
 We need not make any large Reply to their Anfwer to 
 our three Premifes. The firft they do not deny, but ac- 
 knowledge in their Explanations. 1 he fecond is Voted in 
 this Honourable Committee. And the third we doubt not 
 but the Honourable Houfes will adde. Their reafons mov- 
 ing them to decline the negative, and impoficions, and the 
 fetting bounds of forbearance to aJl tender confciences, wee 
 will therefore examine. 
 
 Bpt when our Brethren alleadge, that to wipe off afper- 
 fionS) prejudices , and fufpicions which were upon them^ and 
 to make a full and candid Declaration of their agreements 
 in point ofDeQrine and fubfiance ofWorfhip i they added 
 the Preface: If they meane the agreement of their owne per- 
 fons (who brought in that Paper) in thefe things, we know 
 not any neceffity of fo doing, they not having been ever 
 charged with difagreements of that nature : and befides it 
 would have no relation to the defires of our Brethren which 
 are not for their own perfons alone,but for all others of their 
 judgement in the matters of difference betweene them and 
 us 5 but if they meane all others of that judgement, we con- 
 ceive it a difficult thing to affirme that aU fuch do agree in 
 Worfhip and Doclrinemth the Reformed Churches, as we 
 and our Brethren do. And therefore except our interpreta- 
 tion of it, which they diflike, be admitted, we cannot look 
 on itotherwift then as a Cipher before a Number, which is 
 of no fignification at all. 
 
 In the next place our Brethren mifinterpret our intentions, 
 when they (ay , we mnke thefe impositions upon the people 
 as a qualification of receiving Sacrament* 9 for we defire to 
 have no more impofed on our people, then they in that cafe 
 
 do 
 
•fthe hjfembljy to the Re fly oftht Dijftnting Brethren. 4 9 
 
 do on theirs, namely that they appeare to us to be Or- 
 thodox. 
 
 Laftiy, We wonder at our Brethrens conclufionof this 
 point touching the largenefs of our principles for power in 
 Ecclefiafticall Aflembliesto determine and impofe circum- 
 ftantiall matters, feeing onr propoficion interminis doth 
 mention nothing but rgreement infubfbnce, according to 
 their own words^ therefore for ttoemto refufe to joyn with 
 us in fetling thofe thines which they declare they agree in, 
 feemeth hard unto us, and doth too much intimate an unwil- 
 lingnefle to come to that neernes of conjunftion, which may 
 fettle us in one body without offence. 
 
 For the Brethrens anfwertoour firftreafbnaga'mft their 
 defire of Toleration as it is by them exprefled, we (hall pre- 
 mife thefe few obfervations to our Reply. 
 
 1 .They feem to grant that aplain & tot all feparation from 
 tlx rule, or our Churches 5 as no true churches, is not to be induU 
 gei,which ftrengtheneth ourreafon. 
 
 2. They Cuppofefome things inour Congregations will be f§ 
 far ojfenftve to Multitudes who are of tender Consciences ^ that 
 they mil not dire to pertake as Members therein. This is a hard 
 judgment toentertaineagainft Churches, which are under 
 thetyeofa Solemn Covenant, endeavouring a reformation 
 according to Gods word. We defire the particular matters of 
 offence may beexpreffed, profeffiag our earned: endeavor, 
 fo much as in us lies > to remove whatever may hinder com- 
 fortable Communion , that there may be no juft occafion of 
 (eparation. 
 
 3. We defire to know whether every perfbns bare al- 
 leagingtenckrnefs of Confciencefhallbe fufficientto war- 
 rant his deferring of our Congregations $ or if not } what 
 (hall be the rule of difcerning, or who the judges in fuch a 
 cafe ? 
 
 4. We conceive that our Brethrens ground of feparation 
 from one Church, 8c gathering others, to this end that men 
 
 Gggg may 
 
yo The Anfmr of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 may be preferved from finning agafnft their Consciences & 
 for the purer enjoyments of ordinances as to their Con- 
 fciences^may, to men of other judgments be a ground to 
 crave toleration for feparating from Churches which are 
 conftituted in all things according toGods word in the fenfe 
 of our Brethren, and gathering impure and corruptChurches 
 out of them $ becaufe upon the diftateof an erring Con<- 
 feience (whereby Multitudes may be infeded) men may 
 really difallow Churches which are pure, in fome particulars 
 wherein they are pure , and fet up others which are more fa- 
 table totheir own erring Confcience; andconfequently 3 as 
 many feverall forts of Churches may be fet up in a State, as 
 the feverall dictates of erroneous Conferences may fuggeft^ 
 If our brethren conceive this ought not to be done in diffe- 
 rent cafes from theirs 9 they muft give us leave to judge that 
 neither in theirs it ought to fce done. 
 
 5. Whereas they give a character of thofe whom they de- 
 fire indulgence for,to be fuch as acknowledge our Churches to. 
 be true Churches , as dare not judge them in that for which 
 the } leave them ; andfttchas maintaint Communion with thofe 
 Churches \as Churches \which they leave , in feverall particulars 
 exprefled in their third paragraph, we defire it may be de- 
 clare^ that none other fhall have the benefit of that indul- 
 gence which (hall be granted, then they who are thus 
 minded. 
 
 I n this anfwer our Brethren fay , A defire to have liberty for 
 Multitudes who cannot out of tender nefs of conference partake as 
 Member $ inyour Churches ' 3 to gather into Congregations to enjoy 
 the ordinances 3 not onely ft of effing your Churches to be true 
 Churches y yea not daring to judge them for that for which they are 
 in refyeff of their own confeiences enforced to, namely topreferve 
 them f elves from Jin againfl their confeiences, to remove from 
 that communion with them\and though gathering into otherCon- 
 gregationsfir the purer enjoyment (as to their confeiences ) of 
 all ordinances , yet fill maintaining communion with them as 
 
 Churches 
 
of the Affemblyjo the Reply of the DiffintmgBrethren. 5 1 
 
 Churches,as isexpreffdin the third paragraph's far from fepi- 
 raih# i much leffeaplaine Andtotailftparation. 
 
 We anfwer not to the EngUj])^ (for who evercalled defire 
 ofLiberty, a Separation?; iiuc to the matter, 1. Weknow 
 not whom they meane by Multitudes 5 If Congregations, 
 we would gladly know where they are , and how they may 
 be known anddiftingwifhed, that we may be able to judge 
 whether this chara&er do agree unto them , or whether 
 they will owne that, which our Brethren here affirme of 
 them: ( For it is dubious unto us, whether there be Multi- 
 tudes of fuch who are thus minded,) If (ingle perfons, we 
 have already exprefled our fenfe how farre they may be in- 
 dulged , appearing to be fuch as are here defcribed. 2. We 
 much doubt whether fuch tendernefs of Confcience as a- 
 rifeth out of an opinion Cut potefl fubeffe falfum , when the 
 Confcience is fo tender , as that it maybe withall an erring 
 Confcience, can be a fufficient ground to juftifie fuch a ma- 
 terials reparation as our Brethren plead for 5 For, though it 
 may binde to forbeareor fufpend the aft of Communion in 
 that particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold 
 Communion without fin , ( nothing being to be done con- 
 trary unto Confcience^) yet it doth not binde to follow fuch 
 apofitive prefcriptas poffibly may be divers from the will 
 andcounfell of God, of which kinde we conceive this of 
 gathering feparated Churches out of other true Churches 
 to be one. 
 
 TheyaddanAflertionof the Affembly, in thefe words, 
 nor is it law full for any Member of a Parochiall Congrega- 
 tion, if the ordinances be there adminiftredin purity, t$ 
 go and feek^ them elfewhere ordinarily •, and thence inferre, 
 in cafe the Lords Supper be not in purity admini fired, a re- 
 nt eveaU is allowed ordinarily. 
 
 Weanfwer 1. It was never the meaning of the Aflembly 
 to leave the judgement of pure or impure ordinances in this 
 cafe, unto the alone difcretion of a particular perfbn, but 
 
 Gggg 2 before 
 
p The Knfwer of the Snb.cornmMee of the Divines 
 
 before any leave their Parochiall Congregation, upon this 
 pretence ordinarily, he ought to declare the caufe of his grie- 
 vancejthat if it may be his removal! may be prevented,except 
 he think fit to change his dwelling, in which cafe his remo- 
 vall is without offence. 2. It is one thing toremove to a Con- 
 gregation which is under the fctfe ru!e,another to a Congre- 
 gation of a different coniiitunon from the rule^in the former 
 cafe a man retaineshis member flip, though for fome defects 
 he feek elfwhere>til thofe defe&s be by the care of the officers 
 of theChurch cured :in the latter he renounce th his member- 
 (hip upon difference of judgement touching the very conftr 
 tution of the Churches from and unto which he removes. 
 
 1 1 followes, Jfthepurefl Churches in the world unto our judg- 
 ment in all other refpeSsJhouldirnpofe as a condition ofreceiv* 
 ing theSacrament oftheLotds Supper any one thing that fuck ten" 
 der conferences cannot joy n in (as fuppofe kneeling in the aft ofre* 
 ceiving 5 which was the cafe 0/Scotta.nd and England ) if they 
 removt from the fe Churches and have liberty front aftateto ga- 
 ther into other Churches > to injoy this and other ordinances ^ here 
 is nofeparation. 
 
 Weanfwer 1. If a Church require that which is evil! of 
 any Member, he muft forbear e to do it , yet without fepara- 
 tion 5 and waUeon Gods providence in the difpenfationof 
 that Church, till all remedies have been tried. 2. He that 
 is in thiskindeopprefled. may be releived by Appeale , or 
 change of dwelling. 3. They who thought kneeling in the 
 aft ofCommunion to be unlawfu %eirher in England nt Scot- 
 landed not fepanse or renounce Memberfhip, but did fome 
 of thtmwith zeal & learning defend our Churches againft 
 thofe of the feparation. 4. Thofe words [if they have liberty 
 pom th* State to gather into other churches ] feeme to 
 imply that orherwife that liberty may not be taken $ elfe we 
 know not ofwhatufe they are- butwethinkeo«r Brethren 
 will not abide by that fenfe, having now for fome years 
 wtthoiidwe from the State gathered themfelves into fepa- 
 
 rated 
 
ef the Ajfembly, to the Reply $f the Di flirting Brethren. 5 5 
 
 rated Churches , even then when the State have been and 
 ftill are labouring to reforme rhe Church accordingto Gods 
 word, s . The nature of reparation isnot to be rneafured by 
 civil! afts of State,but by the word of God^what notion onr 
 Brethren have of it we know not , but finely to leave all or- 
 dinary ccmmunion in any Church with diflike, whenop- 
 pofition or offence offers it felfe , is to feparate from fuch a 
 Church in the Scripture fenfe 5 fuch reparation was not in 
 being in the Apoftles time, unlefle it were ufed by falfe 
 teachers 5 all who profefTed Chriftianity held communion to- 
 gether as in one Church, notwithftanding differences of 
 judgmenr, or corruptions inpra&ice. 
 
 In their fecond paragraph they fay, Apfain and totall fepa- 
 ration from the rule is not injuch Churches ^ unless they wholly in 
 aU things differ ^by fetting up altogether differing rules of con- 
 flituiwn^ worftip and government. 
 
 Of this aflertion we expeft fome proofe 5 we read not the 
 like in any Author ancient or modern. Under this pretence, 
 Novatians, Donatifls^ all that ever were thought to feparate 
 might (belter themfelves t the moft rigide Separates , who 
 themfelves boaft of their feparation , hold the fame rule of 
 worfhip and government for fubftance 3 with our Brethren :' 
 andconfcquently by this rule they muft boaft no longer of 
 their feparation , which is become by this meanes none , or 
 noplameand totallone. 
 
 In the next words they fay fo much of their agreement 
 with us , that we cannot conceive any fufficien t ground left 
 for their feparation from us. We fid all pra3ifefoy they ntofl of 
 the fame things^ anithoft the moflfubflantiaU^ teejftallhave tfo 
 fame ordinances of worftipt as intheDire&cry 5 the fame offi- 
 cers ^and of the fa me qudificattotiy the fame qualification of Mem- 
 bers which the Affembly holdt forth. 
 
 But here they leave out Infants , which the Aflembly did 
 exprefle,and amongftcenfures,fufpenfion ; in which they a- 
 gree not amongft themfelves ^ But we are glad 'to hear them 
 
 Gggg 3 proftfle- 
 
54 TheAnjwer of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 profefle to agree with us inpra&ice of moft of the fame 
 things, and thofe the molt fubftantiall in the rule it felfe^ and 
 we are the more forry to have heard them profefs that the na- 
 ture of the bufinefi, & the whole frame and bulk of the r ule 
 is fuch,as that they are not able to endeavour an accommoda- 
 tion with it,but are neceffitated to defire aToleration,for ga- 
 thering Congregations under another rule of their own, ne- 
 ver yet by them manifefted to us. 
 
 We defire our Brethren to confider,if every fmall and cir- 
 cumftantiall difference amongft thofe who agree in moft 
 things,and thofe moft fubftantial!,fhall be a fufficient ground 
 to gather Churches out of Churches into a feparate and dif- 
 ferent communion,how the Church of God (hal ever be kept 
 free from rents and divisions , and how the peace thereof is 
 poffible to be prefer ved > 
 
 To thefe agreements they add , That wherein they dif- 
 fer from the rule> they will be accomptable of all their rpajes 
 and tenets unto thofe whom the State fhall be pleafed to ap- 
 point. 
 
 We anfwer i . That in this alfb we agree with them , for 
 all things done by our Aflemblies$ for as we dare not claime 
 anintire,abfolute,independent power within our (elves free 
 from Clafles and Synods, fo neither dare we exempt our 
 Claffes and Synods from the power and infpe&ion of the 
 State. 2.Albeit our Brethren infinuate much refpeft and fub- 
 miflion to theState,yet we find not, that they petitioned the 
 State , or obtained leave from them topra&ice their own 
 Church- way ,but did it ot themfelves,and that by way of an- 
 ticipation to the State, when it had declared arefblution to 
 reforme the Church according to Gods word $ and wee be- 
 leeve they would continue as they have begun , though the 
 State fhould forbid them. 3. what ifthe State fhould at any 
 timebepleafed to appoint Synods andClafles to takean ac- 
 comptof our Brethrens wayes andtenets, would they here- 
 in acquiefce? But to proceed, 
 
 In 
 
of the Ajjhmblf) to the Reply of the D':ffenting Brethren. 5 j 
 
 In their third Paragraph they (hew what communion 
 they will hold with neithbour Churches. Holding and re- 
 taining (fay they) communion with the neighbour churches in 
 baptizing our children , asoccaflon may fallout of ab fence of 
 eur Miniflers in their Churches : and by occaftonall receiving 
 the Lords Sufper intheirChurches , and receiving fuch mem- 
 bers of theirs , as are above mentioned, into communion with 
 us alfo occaf anally. Alfo our Miniflers to preach in their con- 
 gregations > and receive theirs alfo to preach in ours as Miniflers 
 of the Go(j>el $ as mutually there pall be a call from each other : 
 andvphen we have any cafes difficult and too hard for our f elves ^ 
 elective If to advife with the Elders of ^ their Churches : and in 
 cafe of cont rover fie ) not to refuse to call them in for the compo* 
 fing of it . Further in cafe of the choife of Elders 3 tofeeke the 
 approbation, and right* hmd of fellow fhip from godly Miniflers 
 oftheirChnrches together with our own. And when anOrdina- 
 tionfals out amongfl us , to defire the pre fence and approbation 
 of their Elders with our own. And in cafe any of our Churches 
 mi f carry through mal- adminiflration or negleQ ofcenfures, to 
 be willing upon fcandall ' ta^en by their Churches to give an ac- 
 count as to fiflerChurches offended : and to efleeme and ac- 
 count (as we do) afentence of non- communion by them asChur- 
 che s y again fl us % upon fuch fcandals wherein they are notfatif* 
 fied) an heavy and fad punifiment , and to be looked on as a 
 mcancs to humble us , and an Ordinance of God to reduce us. 
 All this is more then as if in nothing they were to becomplyed 
 withy nor their Churches to be communicated, with in any thing 
 which fiould argue Church communion. More isfaidy anddone^ 
 by thofe that account themfalfeChurches. 
 
 To thefe things we anfwer, firftingenemll. 1. That in 
 moftofthefeparticularsthey hwedefaffo eftranged them- 
 felvesfrom us hitherto > and therefore we have reafon to 
 queftion in what fenfe they account our Miniflers and 
 Churches true. 2. Iftheymayoccafionallyexercifcrhefe 
 afts of communion with us once, or a fecond , or third time, 
 
 with- 
 
5 6 the hnfwer of the Sub-committee eftbe Divines 
 without finne , we know no reafon why it may not be ordi- 
 nary, without finne too,and then reparation and Church ga- 
 thering would have been needlefle. To feperate from 
 thofe Churches ordinarily and vifibly , with whom occafi- 
 onally you may joyne without finne , feemeth to be a moft 
 unjuft reparation. 3. All the communion here fpoken of, 
 is but adphcitntn^ we defire to know whether our brethren 
 will be bound to thefe particulars as conditions of the in- 
 dulgence to be granted, as, 
 
 1. That no Officer be chofen in their Congregations 
 without the confent of the Churches in that Ciaffis. 
 
 2. That they and their members give an account be- 
 fore the Officers in the Ciaffis, who (ha 11, as they fee occafl- 
 on,aflemble torequire it of them. The feparatifts at Am- 
 
 Ft j abn p n fterdamece\ved none into communion with them out of the 
 
 in his in- Dutch,French, and other reformed Churches there inha- 
 
 anfJe/to ^"gj but re q airec * c h em to ad ver tice the Elders firft, and 
 
 ¥b"wlite° 3 then the whole body of the Church whereof they were (if 
 
 P a s«ir- ' they might befufFered) of the corruptions for which they 
 
 thought to leave them 5 but our brethren have taken out of 
 
 our Congregations into theirs, without (hewing anycaufe, 
 
 and their filence in this particular imply es they intend to 
 
 do the like for the time to come, though they cannot be 
 
 ignorant of the great offence our Minifters and people doe 
 
 take at it. 
 
 3. We defire to know whether they will fubmit the 
 power of Jurifdidion in their particular congregations 
 to the power of Arbitration which they give to Synods, 
 or willrefcind anyfentence upon the determination of a 
 Synod, or at the command of the State. 
 
 To the particulars. I. They fay they will Baptize their 
 children, and receive the Lords Supper cccafionally tnour chur- 
 ches. Itthenfollowes, thataMinifterisaMinifteroutof 
 the bounds of his own Congregation, and fo to theChurch 
 indefinitely 5 for members of 2 o or more (everall congrega- 
 tions 
 
of the hjfembly^ to the Reply of the Differing Brethren. 57 
 tions may occafionally communicate with one Minifter in a 
 diftinft congregation from all thofe ^ this ferves much to 
 ftrengthen our grounds for the Presbyteriall Government 
 and to weaken Independency. 
 
 2. They can preach in our congregations^ and admit Us to do 
 the like as Minifters in theirs. No need then of feparate 
 Churches fcr the cxercifeof their Miniftery. 
 
 3 . In difficult cafes too hard for themfehesjhey can eleSive- 
 ly advtfewithEthe Iders of our Churches. Ordinarily then 
 they will aflume a power to determine controversies and ca- 
 fes of Confcience within themfelves , and not make ufe of 
 the advice of others but at their own difcretion. 2. This 
 intimates another and greaterpoweraflumedby particular 
 congregations, namely to call Synods, more or fewer, 
 (mailer or greater, when they pleafe themfelves , which li- 
 berty of what conftquence it may prove to the State, we 
 leave it to this honourable Committee to confider. 
 
 4. In cafe of controverfie they will notrefufe to call our 
 Elder s in for com f oft ng of it. 1. T\\\%\% ad libitum > they wll 
 have no arbitrators but whom and when they pleafe. 2. 
 They (hall have but a consultative power for counfell, they 
 will (till referve a liberty of after debates ^ and the finall de- 
 termination of every controverfie muft be by a juridicall 
 fentence of their own , as the Bifliops who though they al- 
 lowed of Appeales, yet brough back all to their own 
 Courts at lafh 
 
 5 . In the choice of Elder s^they will fech^approbation from godly 
 Minifters of our churches^but unlefle our Minifters be judged 
 godly by them, they inted to exclude them 8c herein if they 
 will void their elettion upon thefe Minifters diflent, they fay 
 fbmething: but otherwise it is but a complement to get 
 countenance frcm neighbourChurches,when it may be had, 
 to their proceedings 5 and when not to be had,to negleft it. 
 
 6. In an Ordinatio they will deft re the pre fence and appro- 
 bation of our Elders with their own. It would pleafe them to 
 
 Hhhh have 
 
5 8> 7 he A nfwer of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 
 have ourprefence juftify and allow their praftife: but they 
 will not permit us to concur with them in the a£t of ordain- 
 ing : they will not receive Ordination from our Eiderfhips, 
 though they have none of their own: & with them any two 
 Elders , though neither of them be a Minifter of the word, 
 make afufficient Presbytery to this or other purpo(es. And 
 indeed they look on Ordination but as accidental! to the 
 calling of a Minifter, and place the eflence of it in the peo- 
 ples choice and acceptance. 
 
 . 7. In cafes of mal-adminiftration. or neglect, when fc and all 
 is taken by our Churches \ they will give an account to them as to 
 fifter Churches. We feare there are many corrupt opinions 
 in the members of their Churches, which they negleft to 
 cenfure. And we have long prof efled that we arc fcanda- 
 lized at their pra&ke in drawing away the members of our 
 Churches from us, and gathering Churches out of ours. 
 And that boundleffe liberty and toleration which they do 
 too much favour 3 andfbme of their own way plead and 
 write for, doth juftly offend u?. Yet we have not hi- 
 therto been fo refpe&ed, as Churches of God, unto whom 
 offence ought not to be given^ we would gladjy, to uk our 
 brethrens phrafe, receive fome account of thefe things* 
 
 8. For t he fentence of l non- communion > we do not wellun- 
 derftand it , nor the grounds ou x r of Scripture for it. We 
 know not how a power to ifcflift by way of fentence, an 
 heavy pun ; : fhmenr,by ver tue of a divine Ordinance, to hum- 
 ble and reduce , can b e levered from al kind of jurifdiftion^ 
 If our brethren would cleerly ftate and prove this point , it 
 might haply aff >rd f >me further light towards an Accom- 
 modation iuftead of a Toleration. 
 
 to the fecond Reafon; 
 
 In their Anfwer to our fecond Reafon they tell us in the 
 
 firft Paragraph , That this reason is founded upon thisfuppo* 
 
 fition, that nothing ought to be tolerated which is unlawfullin 
 
 the judgement of thofe who are to tolerate. And if ft 9 then by 
 
 the 
 
oflhe Ajfemblyito the Reply of the DiJJentitg brethren. 5$ 
 
 the lik^rcafon^ no St ate , Ajjcmbly } Presbytery > is to tolerate any 
 praSice or opinion which they account to be in thcleaft er- 
 roneous. 
 
 We deny this affirmation : ourReafbn is not founded 
 upon the fuppofition that nothing unlawful! may be tole- 
 rated : but upon the fuppofition of unlawfulnefle to tole- 
 rate the gathering of Churches out of true Churches. And 
 they do not once endeavour to prove either that fuch ga- 
 thering, or the tolerating thereof is lawful!. 
 
 Next they fay, Thz way roe are to go is not to dilute what 
 is unlawful! or lawfull initfelfe : becaufe we are upon the 
 point of forbearance in what is thought unlawfull. 
 
 We anfwer. 1. This is not the firfttime our Bre- 
 thren have waved the dispute of the lawfulnefle of their 
 Church-gathcring^upon feveralloccafionSjit hath been pret 
 fed on them in the Aflembly , but they have hitherto decli- 
 ned ic« 2* We are here to debate the lawfulnefs of forbea- 
 rance, and may infift upon any proper medium to that end: 
 for clearing whereof , the lawfulnefle or unlawfulnefle of 
 that point of Church gathering is one of the moftnecefla- 
 ry. 3. We conceive that to judge aright of the lawfulnes 
 or unlawfulnefle of forbearance, will neceflarily lead us to 
 confider the lawfulnefle or unlawfulnefle of the thing in 
 it felfe, which is to be tolerated •, there are great degrees of 
 danger or mifchief in things unlawfull, fome are more in- 
 confident with piety , truth , or peace in the Church then 
 others, and confequently lefle tolerable in the nature of 
 the thing then others. 
 
 In their third Paragraph they fay, for that adddition, 
 £ Out offuch tru% Churches as are endeavo wing U reforme, j 
 we fay, 7 he Reformation which the Affemhly hath ultimately 
 pitched upon % fatisfies notour confeiences as our Brethren 
 know. 
 
 We anfwer. 1. That our brethren hadfuch gathered 
 Churches before any ultimate Refolution of the Aflembly 
 
 Hhhh 2 was 
 
60 The hnfwer of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 was known >cr in being. 2. What the Affembly hath done, 
 in great meafure doth fotisfy our brethren , why elfe pro- 
 fefs they fo great an agreement with the rule in moft things, 
 and thofe moft fuhftantiall? 3* If our brethren had 
 brought in their modell of Government as was ordered A- 
 pril^. the Aflembly would have embraced any light they 
 fhould have found therein, and confcquently have pro- 
 ceeded unto further refolutionsconfonant thereunto, 4. 
 The wifdome of thehoncurabiehcufes 5 may find cut more 
 for Reformation then haply the Afiembiy have advifed, or 
 themfelves asyet concluded. W ehavefetcur felvesno 
 bounds but the word of God, ^nd example cfthebeft Re- 
 formed Churches,and therefore we are ftill Reformingjand 
 reparation is the more inexcufable. 
 
 In their fourth Paragraph they thus go on. For that ad- 
 dition [ That there is no hint of example in all the bookof God 
 forgathering Churches out of Churches'] wefoalloneiyatthis 
 time humbly prejent then.itureof the thing or cafe it fife as 
 it lyes in our co-nfciences and as in the Affembly we alfoftated 
 it. The cafe is this. A multitude ofbeleevers after all meanes 
 ttfed to obtainelrght 3 to fatijfie their conferences in what to 
 them is fin in partaking oftheOrdinances^ as members of the 
 Churches they live or have lived in^ by which fo long as they 
 continue in thofe Churches they pall be debar red from thefe Or- 
 dinances ^though it be all their dayes: and although the opinion be 
 judged an error by thofeChurches they live in y yet of no higher na- 
 ture then tfaft errors for which they are not to be fit ft ended from 
 any Ordinance by cenfure^ or caft out of the Church, andin allo- 
 ther things arefuch in their opinions andpraSices^ as are meet 
 part akers'of com munion with Chrifl in all Ordinances 3 whit h 
 as their right as members of his miflycall body, he hath given 
 to them, as to their brethren, in this cafe there is no obligati- 
 on laid by Chrifl either on the perfons themfelves for ever to con- 
 tinue in thofe Churches : 0? in the Churches they live in, to 
 with-hold them from removing to other churches , free of that 
 
 which 
 
of the AJfemblj, to the Reply of the Differing Brethren. 6 1 
 
 uhkh would d"fle their consciences : or when there are no fuch 
 Churches in the places they live in , to gather into Churches 
 xs> herein the) may injoy allOrdinances without ftnne. This Af- 
 fertion its thus flat ed % weareready to debatewhen this Honoura- 
 ble Ccmmitteejhall thinkefit. 
 
 Anjw. We defire it may be noted how they wave the 
 main bufineffe , whether there be any examplejn Gods 
 word for gathering Churches out of Churches : we rake it 
 for granted, no inftance can be given by them>becaufe they 
 produce none. As touching the cafe which they propound, 
 we are ready to joy n in the debate, when it is ftated by mu- 
 tuall agreement. At prefent weoffer thefe things to con- 
 fideration. 
 
 i . Whether it doth not imply that every one muft have 
 a liberty allowed him in the right of his being a member of 
 Chrift to gather a Church , or into a Church 3 wherein he 
 may receive the Sacrament futably to his own principles, 
 which opens a gap for all Sefts to challenge fuch a liberty as 
 their du p . 
 
 2 . Whether from hence it doth not follow that an erro- 
 neous, confeience doth bind a man to follow the pofitive 
 prefcript thereof, when indeed (though he fee it nor) the 
 prefer ;pt thereof is contrary to the Rule of Gods word. For 
 inftance. If a man were of an opinion that the Sacrament 
 ought to be received at night time , and after his ordinary 
 fupper, and could not joyn in communion with any Church 
 which (hould obferve another order, whether he were 
 bound upon the prefcript of fuch an erroneous confeience, 
 to feparate frorti all Churches where the Ordinance was in 
 truth righcly adminiftred, and co gather into a Church 
 where he might communicate according to the error of his 
 own 'judgement. 
 
 3. Whether this liberty be not denyed by the Churches 
 of New-England, which our brethren thinke to be the brft 
 Reformed , and had an eye unto , in taking the Covenant 
 
 Hhhh 3 (as 
 
62 The anfmr of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 
 ( as fbme of them have profefled ) and whether we have not 
 as juft ground to deny this liberty as they. 
 
 To the third Reafon they thus anfwer. 
 
 An exception doth not make void a Rule ; efyeciall) fuch an 
 one as is notfoundedon a Jus Divinum^ andrvherett is mthcpotv* 
 er ofthefe who make the Rule to grant a forbearance from it. 
 The Reformed churches grant a forbearance 5 andyet their general I, 
 rulefiands^andrve in our deftres dofubmit to this Honourable Com- 
 mittee to find out fuch wayes as may befl Jrand 'with the peace of 
 the Kingdome. 
 
 We anfwer , i . An exception limited and reftrained in 
 the extent of it, doth not void the rule in all other cafes unto 
 which thofe limits do not extend 5 bu,t an exception may be 
 of Co great a latitude , as by confequence and virtually it may 
 void the rule 5 and of that nature we conceive this exem- 
 ption which our Brethren defire, to be; for it doth a&ually e- 
 vacuate ic to all fuch as are for the prefent of their judge- 
 ment, and it doth the fame potentially unto all fuch who for 
 the future may be drawn unto the fame judgement, or any 
 other way to fcruple the eftabliflied rule in any branch of it, 
 which we have caufe to fear,if once tolerated,will be no fmal 
 number, feeing themfelves tell us that Multitudes are of this 
 mind already, before they have had the wing of toleration to 
 proteft them$ He that leaves open one wide gap in a ground 
 at whichany cattell that willtmy go out,doth make void the 
 ufe of the hedge> which is other wife round about it, unto that 
 purpofe of keeping them in. 
 
 2 . Whether the rule be founded on yus divinum or no, is 
 not our queftion, though if we would Cpeake ad hominem, we 
 conceive our Brethrens principles would not allow them to 
 agree in moft things , and thofe the moft fubftantiall of the 
 rule, if there were no divine right in their judgement to 
 found the rule in thofe particulars upon $ butwefindeour 
 
 Brethren 
 
of the kjfembly, to the Replf of the Diverting Brethren. 6% 
 Brethren very willing to infift onandwindein that notion 
 on every occafion^ we will not bufie our thoughts in conje- 
 cturing the reafons of it ^ but furelyicis not in this place of 
 fuch fpeciaUufe as they pretend $ for a rule founded on a jus 
 divimm pofitivum is no more voided by an exception then a 
 rule not founded on a jus divinum. 
 
 3. Norisitourqueftion, whether they who make a rule, 
 may not grant a forbearance:but whether a forbearance may 
 not be of fuch a latitude as ineffefttodifannull the rule 5 if 
 this be our Brethrens meaning , that an exception will net 
 void a rule, when thofe who make the rule, make the excep- 
 tion likewife, becaufe it may beprefumed that the fame pow- 
 er will not by an aft of favor evacuate a rule of Government, 
 which it felfehath fetup^ we are of the fameperfwafion, 
 which makes us humbly fuggeft that fuch a forbearance 
 as is defired, is of this nature, and therefore not to be 
 granted^ 
 
 4. We cannot but much queftion whether any reformed 
 Churches grant fuch an unlimited toleration as our Brethren 
 defire ^ that it may be free and lawfull for any Multitudes of 
 men even of their own natives, who are under a rule, to difc 
 pute and]declareagainftk y thatit is but arulefetupby hu- 
 mane power , and that there is another rule, appointed by a 
 divine law different from it, unto which men ought to ftb- 
 mit, rather then unto the other , and by fuch arguments to 
 draw as many as can be poflMTed with fo deep a prejudice 
 from the rule eftabli(hed,into feparated Chffrches,& fuch Re- 
 paration to be unto as many as pleafe , as well native as for- 
 raigners,as lawfull by a toleration, as the rule it felfe is by a 
 conftitution , and all this done by the advice of thole 
 Churches themfelves • we thinke our Brethren cannot finde 
 many reformed Churches that tolerate feparation at all, nor 
 any one that doth itinfo unlimited a manner, and that not 
 by connivence onely* but by a law. 
 
 To the fourth reafon they thus anfwer , The prfailedge of 
 
 thofp 
 
64 T& e A nfwtr of the Sub- committee of the Divines 
 thofe Miniflers whofubmit to the rule is to be capable of all Ec- 
 chjiafticall preferments ? whichwearenot • they find no need of 
 indulging to their conferences as touching the rule eftablijhed, 
 which me do^ poffiblj their confeiences may be fcrupled inthe 
 fame or other things hereafter % and they have the priviledge oft he 
 fame addreffes for relief e vpc have-, and as for the two particulars 
 therein ex preffed, wefayfirft y it is a priviledge, and much to be 
 defired i to dwell mere together , and we aljofiall endeavour it as 
 m uch as may be for mutuall edification. Secondly it k the right 
 of every man ( we humbly conceive ) to choofe his own Minifter y 
 whereas Pahfhes and their bounds by dwellings are but of civ ill 
 right, provided the State be plea fed to tahgfome order that it may 
 be knowne whether every man doth re fort. ' 
 
 We anfwer, i .Our Brethren miftake us$ we fpeake of the 
 priviledges of the people- they underftand us, as if we meant 
 Minifters and their adventages. 
 
 2. Admit this particular priviledge were true, yet our 
 realbn may be good , that in other things their priviledges 
 would be more. 
 
 3. We know no Ecclefiafticall preferment but employ- 
 ment and maintenance, and whether our Brethren enjoy 
 not thele as well as other Minifters , we leave to be 
 confidered. 
 
 4. Itispoffible as our Brethren fay, that others maybe 
 fcrupled in other things hereafter, as they are in thefe now, 
 and then they have the priviledge of thefame addrefle for re- 
 liefe which now they have ^ we much doubt this inference, 
 except our Brethren would have any (cruple whatfoever, 
 which may poflibly arife in any mens confciences,to be a juft 
 ground. 
 
 5. The endeavor, which our Brethren promife, t&have 
 iheir Members live together as much as may be,vi\\\ indeed be as 
 much as comes to nothing , confidering what they next (ay, 
 that it is the right of every man to chufe his own Minifter , 
 which affertion of theirs we will not difpute , but certainly 
 
 fome 
 
§f the hffemh ly> to the Reply of the Differing 'Brethren. &y 
 
 fbme would deny 5 and it will be like to breed much confu- 
 fion, and render that, extreme difficult, if not altogether im- 
 poffible , which they propound as the onely remedy for the 
 Magiftrate to take account of the people whither they reforc 
 to heare. 
 
 But granting this aflertion, it doth not take away our rea- 
 fon^ for, fuppofe it be the peoples right to chofe their Mini- 
 fter , then this is the priviledge of thofe which have the to- 
 leration, they fliall enjoy their right abfolutely, which thofe 
 who are under the rule cannot do without removing their 
 dwellings. 
 
 To the fift reafon they thus anfwer; What hurt the abufeof 
 words , and amongfi otters ibis of Schifrne hath done in the 
 Qhurches % our Brethren know, andwe all have felt •> wherefore fee- 
 ing as jet the Afjembl) hath not debated , nor the State deter- 
 mined what Schifrne is^ we defire our Brethren that in the fceking 
 to countenance that way vphic h they thinhfs right , they would not 
 feel{to cafi an odium upon their Brethren who differ from them, 
 and yet together with them defire in faithfulncfi to \now and o- 
 by the rninde of Chrijf, byfafningjuch a name upon them^ or 
 their way. 
 
 W hereunto we reply ,that had the word Schifrne been left 
 out , the reafon would have remained ftrong, viz. that this 
 would give countenance to a perpetuUl divifion in the 
 Church , ftill drawing away from the Churches under the 
 rule; and yet to that (as being manifeft in it felfe) they offer 
 no anfwer at all, but fiftning on the word Schifrne labour to 
 divert the odium thereof, whkhyet in the originall fenfe 
 thereof differs no more from divifion , then Greek from La- 
 tine in exprefTing the fame thing. 
 
 That theabufe of words hath done much hurt , we wil- 
 lingly grant , but that may be , as well by calling evill good* 
 as by calling good evill 5 So thePapifts abufe word ., nor on- 
 ly by faftning on the Orthodox the name of Heretiques, but 
 
 I i i i by 
 
g& The Anftper of the Sub. committee tf the Divines- 
 
 by afTuming to themfelves the name of Catho!iques5 and 
 therefore as we (hall be tender in this point towards our Bre- 
 thren, fo we defire them, that by aflbming the name of ten- 
 dernefle of confcience to their diffenting from the rule, or 
 of a ChurchwayorChurchorder, to their way and godly 
 party* they would not rtfledt an odium upon us or the Chur- 
 chesunder the rule. 
 
 And although the A (Terribly have not debated, northe 
 State determined what Schifme is , any otherwife then the 
 declaring of what '^re&um^ is the declaring of that which is 
 obliquum^ yet both h we covenanted to endeavor the extir* 
 p.-tion of Schifme,ard (bare bound to give no countenance 
 unto any jiift occafi on thereof 
 
 And however the Government which the Atfembly hath 
 advifed,& the State already in part eftabli(hed,hith had a faf- 
 ficient load of odium and afperfions caft upon ir by fome who 
 would thereby gaii reputation to their own way in fo do- 
 ing, yet we conceive it both unworthy to (eek countenance 
 unto that which we think right, by ciftmgodiumon our Bre- 
 thren, who differ from us, and yet together with us defire in 
 faithfuines to know and obey the m?ndof c£r*/?,and that the 
 caufe it felfe needs no fuch artifices to gain countenance to if, 
 which hath appear'djBc we hope (hall further appear fo agree- 
 able to the word, & warranted by ir,chat there will be left no 
 juft caufe of feparating from communion with us therein^ & 
 our Brethren know that to give countenance to an uojuft and 
 caufelefle feparation from lawfull Church communion, is not 
 farre from giving countenance to a Schifme, efpecially when 
 the grounds upon which this (eparation is defired^re fuch,as 
 upon which all other poffibleScrupJes with erring confcience9 
 may in any other cafes be fubjeft unto, may clanje the privi- 
 ledgeofa!ikeinduIgence,&& this toleration being the firftj 
 Cbal indeed but hy the foundation,and open the gap, where- 
 at as many divifions in the Church as there may be fcruples 
 i to the mindesof men ? (hall upon the felf fame equity be let in. 
 
 Our 
 
of tU Affembljjo the Reply of the ViffcnllngBrcthren. r 6y 
 
 Our Brethren go on in their anfwer thus- What we de fire 
 forbearance in, will countenance onely this , when men who give 
 good teflimony of their gollimfje and pcaceabkneffc , after all 
 meanes ujed infaithfulntffe to know the minde of Chrift, they yet 
 cannot without fin to them enjoy all the ordinances tf/Chrift , and 
 partake in all the duties ofworjhip as Members of that Congrega- 
 tion where their dwelling is-, thef therefore in bttmility andmeek- 
 neffe define thty may not live without ordinances i but for the en- 
 joyment of them for their edificationin their fpirituall good^ may 
 joyne in another Congregation ^ yet fo as nut condemning thop 
 Churches they joy n not with^asfalfe, but fill preferv ing all Chri- 
 Jlian communion with the Saints as Members ofthtfame Bod) of 
 Chrift, of the Church C atl oliaue ^ aod)oj/n alfo with them in all 
 duties of wo rfljip which belong to particular Churches fo far re as 
 they are able^ifthk be calledSchifme^or countenance ofSchifwe 7 
 it is more then fit we have learned eii her from the Scriptures or 
 any approved Authors. 
 
 We anfwer, The defir ed forbearance , which as they fay, 
 will countenance onely this , is aperpetuall divifion in the 
 Church , and a perpetual! drawing away from the Churches 
 under the rule 5 for they defire that they may have liberty 
 to have Congregations of perfons gathered out of Chur- 
 ches under the rule, and that not only for themfelves, but 
 for all who are of their vvay,(and indeed upon the latitude of 
 their grounds, for all who are, or may be of any other way, 
 being fo 8c (b qua!ified,)8c that not for a time,but for perpe- 
 tuity^and onely this is a fufficie nt reafon, why their defire can- 
 n ot be granted to them in ter minis ^ but to fbew the juftnef s 
 of this defacohhdrSjThejfrft'p'a a cafe^and thenconclude, if 
 this be called Schif me or countenance of Schifme, it is more then 
 yet we have learned from theScriptures or any approvedAuthors* 
 
 Whereunto we anfwer, i.in generall,That the putting of 
 cafes is an ufuall way of flipping out from the force of a rea- 
 fbn, when no other anfwer can be given; and we defire our 
 Brethren to give us their judgement upon their owne cafe 
 
 Iiii 2 pro- 
 
68 The Knfaer of the Sub-committee of the Divines - 
 propounded ., as the face of it may be fhewen in another 
 glaffe^ fuppofefome Members of their own Congrega ions 
 havef uch icruples as that they cannot without finne co them 
 enjoy all the ordinances of Chrift, and partake in all the da- 
 ties or woi (hip as Members, as namely, they cannot allow 
 the Baptizing of infants , and therefore that they may roc 
 live without ordinances , do feparate into another Congre- 
 gation, and then again fome Members oft hat fep3rated Con- 
 gregation 9 (hall fo fcruple feme other particular do&rine or 
 praftice,that they cannot without fin to them ( as they con- 
 ceive ) enjoy all the ordinances of Cbrifi , or partake in all 
 duties of worfhip as Members , and fo (hall yet joyn with 
 them in another Congregation which concurs with them 
 in their prefent principles , are thefe divifions and fubdivi- 
 fions as lawful! as they may be infinite? or muft we give that 
 refpeft to the error of mens conferences 3 as to fatisfie their 
 (cruplesby allowance of this liberty to them? & doth not this 
 proclaime an univerfall liberty to all unto whom the limi- 
 tations in the cafe may belong? and doth it not plainly flgni- 
 fie that error of confeience is a prote&ion againft Schifme i 
 But we come to examine the cafe particularly. 
 
 I . They give the qualification of the perfons for whom 
 the forbearance is defired, They Are mm who give good teftimo- 
 ay of their godlinefs andpactabknefs after all memesufedin 
 fdithfulnefs to know the minde of Chrift. 
 
 We (hall not minde our Bretheren how teftimonies of 
 godlinefs are not alwayes infallible prote&ions either againft 
 Schifme or Herefie , leaft it fhould be judged a cafting of o- 
 drum to tell them that men who have been not only eftee- 
 med the authors of Schifme in the ancient Churches, have 
 had great teftimony of their ftri&nefle and integrity of life, 
 as Mtktm, Lucifer, Audtw $ but even fuch as have been con- 
 demned juftly by the ancient councels for Herefie $ our bre- 
 thren know what reftimony in this refpeft hath been given 
 by Cyril of Alexandria to Ncftoriu*) and by Augujline toPela- 
 
 gins. 
 
of the KJfemlfa to the Reply of the Bijfenting Brethren. 69 
 gin. But we defire to know unto whom this teftimony 
 (hall be given : and whar affurance may be had that all they 
 whom the brethren or others o their way (hall gather into 
 their congregations; whether Mimfters or others, have ufed 
 all meanes, yeaall meanes in f i.thiuu fle co know the mind 
 ofChrift. May wenot <uggcft to our brethren onemeans 
 whichhathbeen earneftlydefiied, and that many y cares, 
 and never yet to this day by them attempted , namely a free 
 and cleere fetting foth of their whole way and grounds out 
 of Scripture for it, unto their brethren : by which meanes, 
 either theweakntfle of their Reafons might have been To 
 fully difcovered , as that thereby they might have been 
 moved to forfake this way, and continue in communion 
 with us : or they might have difcovered fo much light unto 
 us ; beyond what hath upon any fearch of our own yet ap- 
 peared, as that the rule might have been framed unto a gene- 
 rail content } Or who (hall keep thedooreof thisforbea- 
 rancebeing oncefetopen, to pre vent the entrance of fuch 
 as are not in this manner qualified > efpecially confidering 
 that the grant of Toleration to all which will make ufe of it, 
 is like to takeoff many from feeking fati station in their 
 fcruples, andufingall meanes h* faithfulnefle to know the 
 mind of Chrift,if they may without due try all betake them- 
 felves immediately to the indulgence. And fo the Tole- 
 ration may become a Sanftuary for fuch of our Churches to 
 fly unco atpleafurefrom the government, uponfuchends 
 as are not at all confeiencious , but carnall and corrupt 5 we 
 therefore conceive it neceflary for preventing manifold in- 
 conveniences, that amongft all other means ufed in faithful- 
 nefle, this be one, that each perfon give account of his Scru- 
 ples to the Elderfhip or Congregation where he d wels, that 
 fo he may either receive fatisfaftion or have from them a te- 
 ftimony of godlineffe and peaceableneflc. 
 
 2. They propound the cafe of perfbns thus qualified. They 
 cannot without fin tothemenjoj all the ordinances of Chrift, 
 
 H i i 3 and 
 
"jo The Anfmr tf the Sub*- committee of the Divines 
 
 and partake of all the duties of worfhip as Members of that Cen~ 
 gtcgation where their duelling if. 
 
 It they cannot in a!l,let them partake in as many duties and 
 ordinances as they can, and let the indulgence onely fupply 
 that wherein they cannot, and not exempt them univerfally 
 in that wherein they can^but we defire our Brethren to (peak 
 clearly and candidly, can they enjoy any one ordinance, or 
 partake in any one duty in our Congregations as Members of 
 them? we (hall be glad toheare from our Brethren, that 
 they can be Members of that Congregation where their 
 dwelling is, Ifotherwife, to fay they cannot partake in all, 
 or enjoy all , is but concealedly fpoken , fince in truth they 
 will partake in none at all as Members. 
 
 3. They therefore defire, They may not livetpithoutor* 
 di nances , but for the enjoyment of them for their edification in 
 their Jpir it uall good they may joyns in another Congregation. 
 
 This defire of joyning in another Congregation, is but 
 petitio prJKcipii, and no anfwer to our reafon againft it 5 
 and whereas they fay they muft live without ordinancesif 
 they joyne with us as Members in our Congregations, 
 I. This implication is very afperfive, it being (aid indefi- 
 nitely without ordinances, 2. It will not follow upon their 
 own conceffion ; for they con fefTe, they can occafionally 
 joynwith us without fin, and if theoccafionall joyning be 
 lawfull, we cannot fee why the conftant (hould be finfull. 
 3. When they fay they cannot enjoy ordinances without 
 fin , if this fin be founded upon an error of confeience , as 
 we are perfwaded it is , our Brethren know that an er- 
 roneous confeience can fo hamper and perplex a man , as 
 that during fuch an error, he (hall be bound under fin every 
 way, whether hecroffe the didhteof his confeience, or 
 follow it 5 in which cafe further meanes and inquiry is to 
 beufed how to extricate the confeience out of thefe drakes, 
 and the perfbn erring is bound to put away fuch an error , 
 as being a finfull infirmity, and the Church no way bound 
 
 to 
 
ofthsAjfernblfi to the Re fly of the D'-Jfentlng Lreth en. 7 r 
 
 to indulge a liberty of perfifting in it 3 efpechlly to the evi- 
 dent diftirbance of her own peace. 
 
 4, They propound certaine limitations in the cafe $ yet 
 fb lay they , as not condemning thofe Churches they joy n not 
 m:h asfalfe^ butftill pnfervmg all ChriftianCommnnionwith 
 the ± amtsas Members of the fame body ofChx ift oftheChxrchCa- 
 tholiqne^andjojn with them in all duties of worfliip that belong to 
 particular C hurt hesfofar as they are able. 
 
 Weanfwer, 1. What ever indulgence (hall be granted,let 
 this be the boundary of it which is given by the Brethren 
 themfelves^that fuch as give not teftimony of their godlinefs 
 and peaceablenefiTe, as have not ufed all meanes in faithful- 
 nefle to know the minde ofChr/ft, as do not condemne thofe 
 Churches which they joyn not with asfalfe, asdonotpre- 
 ferve all Chriftian Communion with the Saints D nor joyn 
 with them in all duties of woifhip that belong to particular 
 Churches, as far as they are able, fhall not have the benefit 
 of this indu'gence ^ and to the end that thofe words, fofar 
 as they are able, may not ftandfor ameer cypher, andfi- 
 gnify nothing, let each man particularly declare in what 
 ordinances or duties they are able to joyn, that fo alltotall 
 feparation may be prevented. 
 
 2. The not condemning of our Chruches asfalfe, doth 
 little extenuate the feparation ^ for divers of the Brownifts 
 who have totally feparated in former times, have not con- 
 demned thefe Churches asfalfe 3 though they do not pro- 
 nounce an affirmative judgement againft us , yet the very fe- 
 parating is a tacite and pra&icall condemning of our 
 Churches, if notfalfe, yet as impure, eoufe as that in fuch 
 administrations they cannot be by themas Members commu- 
 nicated with without fin. 
 
 3. As touching that expreffion of prefervingall Chriftian 
 Communion mth the Saints , as Members of the fame body of 
 Chrift , it is no vindication of our Churches at all when they 
 depart from us the lame may be kid of any Saints living 
 
 in 
 
7^ The hnfmr of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 in Sodome , in C<efars hoxjhold, in face Komuli , in falfe 
 Churches; we do not find our Brethren willing to have 
 communion with the Saints as Members of our Congrega- 
 tions, but as Members of the church Catholique, which 
 is as full a declining of communion with us as churches, as 
 if we were falfe C hurches. 
 
 4. And whereas our Brethren hy,that the forbearance they de- 
 fire will countenance only thn^ which is fpecioufly represented 
 with all favourable circumftance9 in the cafe : we conceive 
 under favour , that the defire of theirs in their third propo- 
 fition goes fomewhatfurther^ for there they defire a liberty 
 to have Congregations which themfelves have explained to 
 be, to hold thofe Congregations they already have, or to 
 gather Members into a Congregation, or to adde to thofe 
 they have already^ now it is one thing for a fcrupulous con- 
 fcience to have liberty to joy n in another Congregation, 
 as it is laid in the cafe , and another thing to have liberty to 
 bea&ive, andtogather Membersoutof our Churches, as 
 is implied in the defire 5 for that would be to defire not only 
 a liberty for confciences that are fcrupulous, but a liberty to 
 makeconfciences fcrupulous by preaching or any other way 
 infufing their principles into them 5 in order to the gaining 
 of them into their Congregations 5 norcanwe yetfeehow 
 our Brethren, looking on their way as the counfell of God$ 
 and on the ru!e, as not founded on divine right, can allow 
 themfeives not to be in this manner aftive- and fedulous to 
 promote that which they judge Gods way, and to difparage 
 that which they judge but mans. 
 
 The Brethren having framed a cafe which is lefle then 
 their defire in the third propofit ion, (andyetwefeare, will 
 not be the cafe of many who will make ufe of this indul- 
 gence, ) conclude thus, If thkbe called Scheme or counte- 
 nance of Schifrne^ it is more then yet ue have learned either 
 from the Scripture , or any approved Author. 
 
 We anfwer, That it is not this new formed cafe, but 
 
 the 
 
efthe Affmll]* to tie Reptyofthe Denting brethren. 73 
 thegramingof our Brethrens defire,in the third propoficion 
 as it ftands in terminfc 3 whereof we fay that ic would give 
 countenance to a perpetuall Schifme and divifion in the 
 Church, which we do ftill averre is a thing of it felf manifeft; 
 not that we think differences in judgement in this or that 
 point robe Schifrne, or that every inconformity unroevery 
 thing ufed or injoyned is Schifme, fo that communion be 
 preferved,or that feparation from idolatrous communion or 
 worfhip exfe unlawfu^is Schifme} but 
 
 1. We fin Je our Brechrei defire not onely that they may 
 be free from communicating as Members in thofe Parifhes 
 where they dwell , bu _ may have liberty to have Congre- 
 gations of fuch perf )ns who out of tendernefs of confcience 
 cannot communicate with us but do voluntarily offer them- 
 felvestojoynein feparate Congregations of another com- . 
 munion, which fecefiion of our Members from usisatm- 
 nifeft rupture of ourfocietiesintoothers, and is therefore 
 
 a Schifme in the body j andif the Apoftle do call thofe <#- 
 
 vifiorts of the Church , wherein Chriftans did not feparate 
 
 into diverfe formed Congregations of (ever all communion l c oc.i.r<H 
 
 in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, Schifmes, much \ l ^ or Ir ltm 
 
 more may fueh feparation as this defired be fo 
 
 called. 
 
 2. We finde it not alleaged as a caufeof this feparation, 
 either that our Churches are falfe, or our communion in 
 ordinances ex/J unlawful!, butonelyJir/'^/etf/ confeitnee* 
 that a man cannot without Jin *s to him partake in all duties ^ and 
 enjoy all ordinances , which is no caufeof fep.tr King, nor 
 doth it take off caufelefle feparation from being Schifme, 
 which may arifefrom errors of confcience as well as carnall 
 and corrupt reafons- therefore we conceive thecaufesof 
 feparation mull: befhewen to be fuch as ex natura rei will 
 beare it our, which hath not yet been done by our Brethren, 
 nor we think can be , and therefore we fay that the grant- 
 ing of the liberty defired will give countenance to Schifme. 
 
 Kkkk 3. We 
 
74 7- be A f freer tftbe Sub-committee of the Vtointt 
 
 3. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of 
 reafbn and experience of all ages, that this (eparation will be 
 the mother and nutfc of cpntennons, ftrifes, envyings, con- 
 f ufions, and fo draw wkh it that breach of love, which may 
 endanger the heightntng of itintoformall fchifme even in 
 thefenfeof our Brethren. 
 
 And we defireour Brethren to (hew out of Scriptures 
 and approved Authors what they have learned concerning 
 fchiime^ for the breaking of Members from their Churches 
 which are lawfully conftituted Churches, and from commu- 
 nion in ordinances diipenfed according to the word 9 with- 
 out }u ft andfufScient caufeea; naturarei to juftify fuch feceA 
 fion> apd tojoyneinother Congregations of feparate com- 
 munion ? either becaufe of perfonall failings in the Offi- 
 cers or Members of the Congregation from which they 
 feparate , or becaufe of caufileffe fcruple of their own 
 confeience, hath been accounted fchifme, andthefettingup 
 alt are contra altare 5 as the expreffion of former times 
 was $; and what is it elfe that approved Authors do call 
 Schifme? Schifma, ni f allot ( faith Auguftine) eft eadem 
 opinantem* & eodem ritu utentem folo Congregation** de le- 
 vari diffidio , & Schifwathos facit non diverja fides , fed 
 tewyhfeAo" commumonts difrupta J octet 'as. Agreeable whereun to is that 
 ■ap. 3. definition of fchifme by Cameron^ eftfchifmafeceffioinreli- 
 
 $ 3'th Vang * m & on * s vegotio vel temeraria^elinjttftajfivefaBafiti five conti* 
 ta\i/&de nuala, and concurrently do other approved Authors fay, 
 idc & o P erib, aQ( ] we likewife conceive, that it is the caufe of thefepa- 
 Dc bchifmate. ration from communion which gives both name and na- 
 ture to fchifme- for if that caufe beunjuft or inefficient 
 according t6 the rule of the word of God, let our Brethren 
 tell us what fuch a feparation is* 
 
 In their 3. paragraph our Brethren proceed, And as for that 
 irritation our Brethren fpeake of 9 wehumbly conceive it will 
 be according to the temper of mens hearts ; if fuch a pra&ice 
 waet with men vohofe hearts are gracious , it will onely irritate 
 
tfthe Affembly^to the Reply of the Dffenting trethrt*. r / \ 
 
 them to fear ch farther into the minde of Chrift, andtowalkg 
 before their Brethren with wore exaSne^ and to exercife love , 
 tneekpi fi and forbearance towards thofe Brethren who differ from 
 them '■> avdfuch irritation there is no great caufe that either we 
 or our Brtthrenflwuld make complaints of : If &c. 
 
 Anfwer. We know no evill which may not be excufed by 
 fuch a dilemma as this $ what fcandall , what hercfie can a- 
 iile , which will not operate upon men according to the 
 temper of their hearts? which will not irritate thofe who 
 are gracious to fearch the Scriptures? &c. for even Herefies 
 faith the A poftle , muft be , that they who are approved may 
 be made manifetf $ we may not do evill , nor plead for evill, 
 nor take it for granted that a thing is not evill, becaufegood 
 may come of iU 
 
 If thfc liberty fay they, m^et with corruption jt h like enough 
 there may be accidentally an irritation toJ!n$ but the way thin to 
 oppoft fuch corruption is by iuftruttion, prajer> walking convin- 
 cingly before them % & if they grow turbulent } to call in the help of 
 the Civil/ Magiflrate^ but not to give that rejfeS to their corrup- 
 tions , as to deny to men who give undeniable tefiimony of their 
 godlinefje^ that ufe of the ordinances of Chrift that they may With 
 the peace of their confeiences enjoy. 
 
 Anfwer , The irritation is not accidental! where the caufe 
 is caujaperfe^ we cannot conceive that this irritation will 
 be extra femper & frequenter , asaccidentalleffe&sarei for 
 to omit the corruptions which this liberty may meet with in 
 fuch as are not truly godly , will not this be an irritation of 
 their corruptions that are true Members of the Church? yea 
 haply not onely of their corruptions , but of their consci- 
 ences and zealc tooppofe fuch feparation and drawing a~ 
 way of their Members as this is 5 the Corinthians were 
 Saints, and yet by reafon of the Schifmes, contentions, 
 and ftrife amongft them , they are charged to be yet car- 
 nail, and to walke as men 5 and if we confult our own 
 experience already, this liberty meets with more whofe 
 
 Kkkk 2 cor- 
 
j6 The Anfmrofthe Sul-commHtu of the Divines 
 corruptions are too ftrong for their graces , then whofe 
 graces do make onely good ufe thereof 5 and becaufe we 
 already finde thisaflumed liberty to be an irricationto the 
 worfe, and not to the better, we have little reafbn toex- 
 peft that bemg made more confident and bold by a tolera- 
 tion, itfhcuid be ocherwife hereafter $ nor do we thinke 
 but fuch reparation of Church-Members hath been here- 
 tofore, and therefore may further be an irritation of con u- 
 ptionsamongft themfelves. 
 
 To (he way they fuggeft of oppofing fuch corruption?, 
 however it may be good to prevent the evill efFe&sit may 
 have upon a mansowne heart 5 yet folong as thecaufe of all 
 doth remaine , which is feparation , and fo long as men are 
 men, we cannot conceive it will beoiherwife 3 nor can we find 
 in any ageorhiftory, but the like caufe hath had the like 
 efFefts^ and though we acknowledge the Magiftrates power 
 to bridle turbuiency, and to prevent or heale the breach of 
 peace, yet the irritations will remaine^ and be often break- 
 ing forth to the fcandall of religion $ and the trouble of 
 the Magiftrate is not likely to be fo great in taking away the 
 &ell 5 as in coming alwayes into poure water upon the fire 
 when it breakes out. 
 
 And as to that which they fay, Thstfuch refpefilts not to 
 fa given to mens corruptions as to deny &*£• This impli- 
 cation is fcandalous, that the denying of this liberty is a 
 giving refpeft to mens corruptions 5. for it is out ofrefpeft 
 to the Churches peace and communion , and the cove- 
 nanted uniformity ^ and yet doubtlefie though we may rot 
 gtverefpeft, yet we may have refpeft to mens corruptions 
 fofar as to prevent the irritation of thtm $ elfe by thisreafoa 
 we muft hind over head grant an univerfall toleration of all 
 that are any waiy confeiencioufly fcrupled, without looking 
 to the probable events and conferences thereof , which 
 may follow either byreaibn of the corruptions of others* 
 or of the men themfelves, who ufe this liberty $ for it may, 
 
 be 
 
of the Affemlly^ to the Reply of the Diffenting Brethren. 7 7 
 bs as well indulged wirh refpeft to mens corruptions, as 
 denyedj except ir can be undertaken that there (hall be no 
 corruption in them that defire and u(e ir^ It isourearncft 
 dcfire and prayer that our Brethren might enjoy the ordi- 
 nances with the peace of theircon(ciences 3 and of theChurch 
 alfo, or that they would rather deny themfelves of their 
 full 'liberty in every point , then redeeme ir at the price 
 of fo much danger and difquiet to the Churches of 
 God. 
 
 To thefixth reafon our Brethren anfwer, 
 Firfl in general! \our judgements do thus far re agree with yours 
 that except upon very weighty confederations^ husband andwife, 
 mafter and ferv ants fhould partake together in the fame Mi- 
 nifry. 
 
 We take what they grant us , and cannot but thinke 
 it Change that when our Brethren account us true 
 Churches 3 agree with us in fubftance of do&rine and 
 worfhip, in the moft, andmoftfubftantia^l things of the 
 rule for government , can occafionally joyne with us 
 in the Sacraments, can hear with us and pray with us, 
 there fhould yet be fuch weighty confiderattons behind 
 ( though they call the difference bet wixt us , Leffer matters ) 
 astoneceffitatefeparatiDn, and to ground an allowance for 
 wife 5 childe , fervant, to withdraw from that authority, 
 which the mafter of the family hath to rule and overfee them 
 in religious duties 5 but [hey proceed. 
 
 2. if it fhould happen to be otherwife ^ 1. All manner of 
 confufton would not hereby be introduced into families ; for can 
 our "Brethren thinkjhat perfons agreeinginaS the fundamen- 
 tals of their faith , and who. in their judgement and praQice 
 jojn in all the fame duties of piety in the family , and alfo agree 
 in the fame duties of pub lick worflnp for the fubftance , though 
 netlivwgunder the fame individual! minijlry> yet unleffe they 
 disagree alfo in an uniformity in every thing ,' both publike and. 
 
 Kkkk 3, pri— 
 
<7 8 The anfaer of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 private, thcj muft needs run into all manner of confufion* had 
 either nature or the gofpeUput fuch H nee effity upon uniformity 
 in leffer things to kgep families from confufion ? If this were the 
 rule of the gofpell , then except it prtvaile upon the opinion of 
 thofe whom it converts to fuch an uniformity (whichitfeldowe 
 doth ) it muff bf this principle of necejfity fubvert humane fo- 
 cietj by bringing confufion into families, which we conceive U 
 be a great derogation to t hegoffell. 
 
 Hereunto we anfwer* i. The common people are nor 
 very likely from agreement in fundamentals, todrawcon- 
 fequences of mutuall forbearance, when they fee Minifters, 
 *notwithftandingthis,forthefelefTermatters 3 towithdraw8c 
 fet up feparate Churches , unto which rhey following them 
 upon opinion of fin, and that in the worfhip of God, which 
 isheightned with the notion of Wil-Wotfhip^andeven of Ido- 
 latry and AntichrifHanifee>muft. needs greatly endanger hea- 
 vy contentions and confufion : no animoficies being fo great 
 as thofe which rife out of differences in religion, Specially 
 amongftthofe that live neer together. 
 
 Nor is it the meer want of uniformity ( as our Brethren 
 would inferre ) which doth neceffitate this , but fuch a 
 pofitive difFormity in opinion and pra&ice, as that they who 
 live together, andlieinthebofbmesof one another, can- 
 not (which is more then (imply do not 3 ) ferve God together 
 in publick, but divide afunder* not unto afcverall miniftry 
 onely , but which is much more dangerous 5 unto a fepara- 
 ted miniftry, wherein fb often as thedo&rines which tend to 
 juftifie that feparation (hall be taught on the one fide, and 
 the contrary thereunto on the other , it is impofliblefor a 
 family thus contrarily in the Members thereof inftru- 
 &ed> to joyn together in mutuall edification at home, with- 
 out confufion. 
 
 2 . If any differences in a family (hould arife , efpecially 
 growing out of divided opinions in this matter of a Church 
 way, as is mod probable may, and that frequently, and 
 
 fuch 
 
of the hjjhmblfr to the Repl) of the Biffenting brethren. 79 
 
 fuch as may breake forth into publick fcandal, and require 
 the care of Ministers and Elderfhip to heale them, whi- 
 ther can they repaire in fuch a cafe for helpe , whofe 
 very difagreements are about the remedies that fhould cure 
 them:* 
 
 5. Where husband and wife are divided into feparated 
 Congregations , they will certainly endeavour to draw 
 children and fervants to their way , whence favors and 
 diafavors are likely to grow , and thereupon fuch jarrs and 
 contentions in the family, as may quickly amount to much 
 confufion. 
 
 4^ The very feverall contributions unto the maintenance 
 of feverall Minifters,when a man muft to his ownMinifter,ro 
 his wives, to his childrens,as theyfeverally (hall fcatter them- 
 felves , contribute , may not onely be a burden to the ftate 
 of a man, but much more to his minde, when being perfwa- 
 ded his wife or children are in a fin of feparation from him, 
 he muft yet be at charges to allow them therein \ differences 
 that ftrike this firing, do often beget jarring difcords, to fay 
 nothing of the bad ufes, which ill mindes , or the many 
 feares, which jealous mindes may draw from hence , when 
 young women or children fhall conftantly depart for the or- 
 dinances, it may be fbme miles from one another , out of 
 the .fight , and from under the in(pe£Hon and care of their 
 parents or husbands, when it is certain they fhould enjoy a9 
 powerful! and edifying a miniftry by flaying at home. 
 
 Laftly, if a wife or child fhould becenfured in their fepa- 
 rated Congregations, thatalfo might be a rife of domefti, 
 call contentions. In his own Congregation the husband 
 fhould hear and underftand the cafe , and have fatisfa&ion 
 in the known integrity of his own Elderfhip, or at leaft 
 might have the benefit of an appeal, none of which he 
 can have in a feparated Congregation of which he hath no 
 knowledge. 
 
 2. Neither mnldit ( fay our Brethren ) exceedingly , much 
 
 V 
 
8o The anfwer of the Subcommittee oftheDivines 
 
 leffe altogether hinder the mutuall edification that might be 
 
 afforded andreceived amongfl them\ for fir ft although p erf ons 
 
 of the fame family not living und'.rthefameminiftry , may in 
 
 fome refpeS of family-duties not fo fully edifie as otherwife, 
 
 yet in a great meafure they may , and if there be a z,eale and good 
 
 conference in any of the family to be help full in good conference, 
 
 it is no finch great hinderance to hear injeverall places y or fever all 
 
 Preachers ^as fchollers reading fever all boo^s & then conferring^ 
 
 many gcod chrifiians have for edification purpofely praffifed it % 
 
 and it hath fome advantages for edification which the other way 
 
 hath not. 
 
 Anfmr, Our Brethren grant that thiscourfe hindereth 
 fuch full edification in forrcerefpeft, as might otherwife be 
 had} and furely this fomerefpe& is a very great one , when 
 there (hall be none to help the memories, to clear the doubts, 
 to remove the mifcakes, to fupply thedefe&s of the reft, 
 none to inculcate the duties , to kindle and mutually warme 
 the aflfe&ions , or to whet the things which might joyntly 
 have been learned, upon the conferences of one another, 
 and having been more joyntly sife&ed in thepubliquedifc 
 penfition of them , to be the better enabled with joynt 
 fervency of fpirit to beggea bleffing upon them$ and ve- 
 rily when we are commanded to do all things unto edi- 
 fication , and to follow thofe thing3 whereby one may 
 edify another, if any courfe be more a hinderance then 
 a furtherance unto edification, we know not how upon 
 principles of confeience a man (hould conftantly be bound 
 unto fuch a courier Schollers may better profit by confer- 
 ring their obfervations out of feverall books, then ordi- 
 nary people by bringing broken, and it may be m'.ftaken 
 and incoherent notes from feverall fermons \ in that of 
 fchollers thercis nothingbutfpeculativeorinrelle&uall be- 
 nefit aymed ar^ here the heart, confeience , affe&ions are to 
 be kindled, and further quickned by mutuall conference, 
 and affiftance in the duties they heard before, which is 
 
 more 
 
of the Affemblyfo the Reply of the D/ffentingBrethrcn. 8 1 
 
 more eflfc&ually done when feverall perfons have been 
 joyntly warmed and ftirred up in the fame Congregation 5 
 befides books in that cafe may agree , wheninourcale, fer- 
 mons may not$ for one may hear a fermon for reparation, 
 another for communion, andfo conferring of notes will be 
 but the repeating of contradictions in the family 5 and 
 though fbme in the family may have zeale and good confei- 
 ence tohelpe thereft 3 yet what will this availe thofe whofc 
 underftandings and memories being weak have none to 
 improve and further them in the things which they nearu 
 themfelves? we are confident, no humble Chriftians who 
 know their own weaknefle , and are tender of the weak- 
 nefle of others, will dare to pretend their getting advantage 
 in matter of edification from the ordinances by thus con- 
 stant dividing and fcattering the family into feverall Con- 
 gregations 5 and therefore our Brethren do confefTe that 
 there is a further degree of edification which comes to 
 perfons in a family by going all to the Tame miniftry-, 
 Burthen they further proceed and fay 9 
 2. That this amounts not to that proportion as to' court* 
 tervaile the want of enjoying the publicly ordinancts for 
 ever , which compared with family- duties Jim ply confidered 
 have had the preeminence 5 both in rcfyeff to Gods glory , and 
 the edification of fouls, in all mens conceffims^ which cannot be 
 enjoyed by many that yet are truly confcientious J except the liberty 
 petitioned be granted. 
 
 Anftrer. What ordinances muft our Brethren want for 
 ever? they have told us they could not pyn in fbme ordi- 
 nances without fin$ here they fpeak plainer , and if that 
 iheyfaybe pestinentto the argument, they tell us they 
 cannot enjoy the mhiftryof the word without fin in our 
 Congregations $ for if they can , and if by their own con- 
 fe/fion there is a further degree of edification by going all 
 of a family to the fame mmiftry , then by dividing, with 
 what warrant do they divide,inthat wherein they can joyn, 
 
 LI 11 even 
 
8 3 The ktfvPtr of the Snbjtpmmitteeofthe Divines 
 
 even to the prejudice of edification ? They haveto!d us 
 before, they can hear our Minifters, and allow them to 
 preach amongft them as Minifters, and cccafionally receive 
 the Lords Supper with us, and admit us with them ^ and 
 if all this may be without fin , muft yet the toleration de- 
 fired be upon this ground granted , becaufe elfemany truly 
 confeientious muft want the publick ordinances, & that for 
 ever$we understand neither the Logick,nor Divinity of this 
 anfwer. 
 
 We confeffe to fimily-duties (imply confidered, publick 
 ordinances are to be preferred ^ but if one muft be loft for 
 the other , we think that which is canfaperfe of fuch an in- 
 convenience, to wit fuch a feparation, is even eo nomine 
 anjulfc 
 
 3 . They adde, for the account governors in great families 
 are to take off all in their families attending upon the ordinances 
 and of ' their profit ingthereby^ We anfwer, The Churches we 
 defire king conftant andfixed^ it is no more impofjibletben it was 
 for a godly tut or in the univerfity totty account of his pupils ha* 
 wing liberty to go to fever all Churches. 
 
 To which we reply $ The cafe is different 5 fcholiers can 
 write , and give a ready account £ every childe or fervant in 
 a family cannot do fo , nor be by the governor helped who 
 heard not with him. 3. Schollers fometimes have deceived 
 their tutors with falfe notes, andfo may children or (er- 
 vantS} what fecurity is or can there be that they will go 
 conftantly to their Congregation , and not to tavernes, 
 alehoufes , or fome other ill employment? 2* What time 
 will there be for receiving an account of fo many fermons ? 
 Add hereunto thedifFerenthoures of going and returning, 
 which may exceedingly hinder family duties * none of 
 which inconveniences will be remedied by the fixednefsof 
 th^feparated Churches. 
 
 4. They fay, Whereas it is height ned, that twenty of one 
 family may pofjibly be of twenty Qhurches 8 trefuppofeif the 
 
 State 
 
efthe kjpmbl/y to the Reply of the Differing Brethren. 8 3 
 State be f leafed to grant us the liberty roe petition for , that the} 
 intUir wifedome ( to which wt have referred oar felves ) trill 
 take into confi deration the limiting fuch Congregations unto a 
 certain \ number , and there may not then be twenty churches in 
 any City or Towneto divide themf elves into. 
 - To this we anfwer 3 that it is true according to the judge- 
 ment of our Brethren who make thofemany thoufandsof 
 Chriftians which were converted ztjeruflem > to have been 
 no argument of more ihcn one Congregation in that City , 
 that conformably thereunto a very few Congregations may 
 ferve to gather a great multitude of Members 5 but we 
 know not how the principles and grounds of our Brethrens 
 defire can allow them to reft in any fet number , if 
 they prove too few for fiich Multitudes as they may gather 
 out of our Churches into them ; for their petition being 
 indefinite for multitudes of perfons, cannot, be well defi- 
 nite for number of places or Congregations ^ but whether 
 they be more or fewer , they will be abundantly enough to 
 diftraft even a very great family and hinder their mutual! 
 edification , and the taking and giving of a fure and profi- 
 tableaccount 3 tothegreat greifeof the husband, parent, 
 and governor , to haYe his family fo authorized to for- 
 fakehim, and that he, ( to adde that to all the other confe- 
 derations ) who for his own benefit would be glad of their 
 help* muft want that, a9 well as they want his. 
 
 Our Brethren conclude their anfwerrhus 5 But the truth 
 is , thofe that thus plead againfi this permijfion which we defire 
 as infufferable , mufl certainly fuppofe that men are to betted 
 throughout this Kingdome to their own Pa rifij Churches where 
 thej live , both maflers andfervants^ and that not onelyfor Sa- 
 craments ^ but for confiant hearings which how burdenfome 
 it was informer times , the godly people are ve>y fenfib'e of^ 
 and now in the time of reformation 3 it finder many Mwifters 
 who cannot be cafl our by order of law , though bad and unprofi- 
 table, as appears by the leaving them out of the Claffes^ andfija/l 
 
 LIU 2 the 
 
3 4 %fc An fiver of the Sub. committee of the Divine f 
 
 the people be tyed to live undi r them as their Minifters % who are 
 not worthy to joy n in government with your felves > and for time 
 to come as places are void y they mufl befupplitd by the choice ofo- 
 thers for them, or by them felves-^ if by them fe Ives , allVarifhes 
 are not reformed as concerning the people 3 and the major part 
 behg generally the worft , the Minifters chofen by thtm^ will 
 befuch as the godly cannot live under their Miniftrj\ifby others, 
 thofe who are the c hoofers may alfo be fuch, as they cannot be 
 denyed by Lw their right in chojing^ and foal fo unprofitable 
 Hinifttrs maybe put upon the godly people^ and if they be not 
 tycd to their pdriffies the weight of this reafon s and the inconve- 
 niences prefented will fall more heavy upon the numerous multi- 
 tude of Pari fins, in City and Country. 
 
 Anfwer. To the pains which in this Paragraph our Bre- 
 thren have taken in fetting forth for the prefent, andpro- 
 phefying for the future of the unprofitablenefs and unwor- 
 thinefs of the Minifters in many of our Parochiall Con- 
 gregations under which godly men cannot live , we will 
 reply no more but this 9 that it a crimination which might 
 well have been fparedin a time of endeavoured and cove* 
 nanted reformation $ for it feemes to intimate one of 
 thefe two thing?, either that there is an impoffibilrty in na- 
 tura rei for a profitable miniftry to be for the time to come 
 generally fetled in our Churches, or that being poflible in 
 itfelfe, there would be fome defedt in thofe by whofezeal, 
 power and wifedome, this fo important a particular of refor- 
 mation (hould be promoted : neither of which we thinke 
 our Brethren eiihet will or can affirme. 
 
 Neither is it equall to argue from the former times of un- 
 j-uft vexation; when men were tyed to their Parishes, though 
 there were no preaching Minifter, or one who preached 
 errors 5 or oppofed godlinefs, unto thele times wherein 
 men have covenanted againft every thing that is of this 
 nature. 
 
 Nor do we beleeve that our Brethren meane that onely 
 
 fuch 
 
oftheAflembl^ to the Reply of the DiJJintivg Brethren. 8 5 
 
 fuch fhould be allowed to gather into their Congregati3ns 
 who live under bad and unprofitable Minifters, though that 
 be the onely medium here ufed againft our reafbn. 
 
 But to the whole we anfwer in breifethus much 5 1 . That 
 we never did, do, nor fhall deny any Members of our 
 Congregations to hear or communicate occafionallyeHe- 
 where. And 2. That we doubt not , butbythebleffing 
 of God upon the reformation to be fetled, there will 
 be that concurrent care of patrons , people , Cfafles , as 
 that there (hall be no fuch unworthy Minifters from 
 whom any confeientious Chriftian (hall be forced con- 
 ftantly to withdraw himfelf^ and where the miniftry is 
 without juft exception, we referre it to our Brethrens 
 own consciences 3 and to the praftice of their Congre- 
 gations, to fay how fit it is that the Members fhould 
 ordinarily, much leffe conftantty, feek the ordinances 
 eKewhere. 
 
 LIU 3 Fik 
 
36 A Reply of the DiJJenting 'Brethren to the Second Part 
 
 Feb. 2. 1645. 
 
 The Committee met again^ andtheDi£ 
 
 fenting Brethren brought in a Paper contain- 
 ing a Reply to a fecondPart of the Anfwer 
 of the Sub-committee,^ the Dejires of the 
 Diflenting Brethren, Dec. 1 5. 1645. 
 
 Which is as followeth. 
 Though it is our defire rather to anfwer to the 
 Papers brought in by our Brethren, before 
 we go on any further 5 yet becaufe the Com- 
 mittee requires us to go on , we humbly fub- 
 mit thefe Papers to the confideration of this 
 Honourable Committee, 
 
 Our Brethren fay. 
 1 1. cc That none are to be allowed upon differences only in 
 cC matter of government, to withdraw Communion from 
 "us in things wherein they declare an agreement : But (ee- 
 cc iogitisconfeffedin WorlbipandDoftrine, we are one, 
 u and have covenanted to endeavor the neareft conjunction 
 is and uniformity , there may be no fach indulgence granted 
 cc to any as may conftitute them in diftinft feparate Con- 
 gregations, as to thele parts ef worship where they can 
 cc joy n in communion with us,but only fome expedient may 
 < c be indeavoured how tobeare with them in the particulars, 
 cc wherein they cannot agree with us. 
 
 III. cl For 
 
of the Anfoer of the Skb-commHteeofDivfots. 87 
 
 III. cr For this purpofe we humbly offer. 
 
 1. ■ 'That fiich as through fcruple or error of conscience, 
 tc cannot joyn to partake of the Lords Supper, (halfrepaire 
 c< to the Minifter and Elders for fttisfaftion in their fcruple?, 
 Cf which if they cannot receive , they (hall not be compelled 
 iC to communicate in the Lords Supper: provided that in 
 «• all other parts of wotfhip, theyjoyn with the congrega- 
 tion wherein they live and be under the government of 
 "that congregation. 
 
 2. <c That fuch as in this manner are under the govern- 
 " ment of that congregation wherein they live , and are not 
 tz Officers therein , being of the Independent udgement, 
 <c (hall feek fatisfa&ion as in the former propofition, which if 
 tC they cannot receive, they (hall not be compelled to be un- 
 tc der the power of cenfiares fromCIaffes orSynodsrprovided 
 c f that they continue under the government of thatcongre- 
 cc gation, and that no man who hath (ubmkted to Claffisand 
 * Synods, (ball decline them, in any cafe, pendente lite* 
 
 Anfwer. 
 1 . This fuppofeth what our profeffed judgement: 
 is and hath been againji 5 namely , to be Members or 
 Fajiorscfthe Parijhes as now they are ; for the Ho- 
 nourable Houfes thinly mt mest as yet to give power 
 to the Minijiers by a law to purge the Congregations 
 fo farre as the Affembly it felf dejireth \ and ryle 
 have not as yon know, pre fumed to feehg the alteration 
 of the rule ejiablifhed ; And the rule for purging the 
 T arises given up by the Affembly it felf \ to the Ho- 
 nourable Houfes, is not onely (hort , but exclufive 
 of what j we in our conferences think? , is required by 
 God Tor the qualification of Members : fo that it is 
 not to m in view, how the Parifhes (hall be reformed, 
 
 to 
 
88 A Reply oft he Diflenthg Brethren to the Second Part 
 to that which will faisfie our consciences. And as the 
 divines of the Reverend Affembly have faid 7 they 
 cannot without fin adminifter the ordinances to 
 the Parilhes as they ftand ; fo neither can we conti- 
 nue or become Members or Fafiors according to our 
 principles ; and we humbly dejire that ourconfcien- 
 ex?* may be conjidered herein for forbearance, as our 
 Brethren dejire that theirs may for power by a 
 law. 
 
 2. If we could. Tet according to what is propo- 
 fed , we muji for ever want that great ordinance of the 
 Lords Supper^ which cannot but much prejudice Hi to 
 the Elders and Members of the Congregation, from 
 whofe communion we thus fe par ate j and yet we muji 
 be under their government and cenfures thm preju- 
 diced by m, which how unreafonable it will be y we de- 
 fire our Brethren to confide r. 
 
 3 . All this fuppofeth alfo that we are to be under 
 the government of a Church whereof we are not 
 Members ; for we account not living in the Tan foes 
 to be fufficient to makga Member of a Church, nor 
 did many of you. 
 
 4. It fuppofeth this ground ( the reafon of which 
 we fee not , only the charity of it we cannot but won- 
 der at ) that beraufe we come fo near in do&rim and 
 worfjip and communion with you 5 therefore we muji 
 not have an indulgence in a difference which yet con- 
 cerns 
 
pfthe Anfaer of the Sub-commHtzt of the Divines 89 
 cerns the edification ofourfoules by ordinances that are 
 fonecejjary. 
 
 " For the R E a sons the Reverend Brethren do 
 " give \ That feeing it is confefled in worfn-ip and 
 Cl do&rine we are one, and have covenanted to en- 
 cc deavor the neareft conjunction and uniformity, 
 cc there may be no fuch indulgence granted to any 
 "as may conftitute them in diftinci feparated 
 fC Congregations as to thofe parts of worfliip 
 y \Vhere they can joyn in communion with us 3 
 we Answer. 
 
 Whereat the uniformity {worn to in the Cove- 
 nant j is now urged here upon this occajion , and con- 
 tinually upon the like turned as the great argument a- 
 gainji us in pulpits , preffes^ and ordinary treaties , as 
 if what we de fired were contrary thereunto : this ar- 
 gument cannot hold againft us \ without afifixing an in- 
 terpretation upon that part of the Covenant \ and that 
 according to our Brethrens principles only, to the 
 prejudice of ours ; who when we tooke this National 
 Covenant were known to be of the fame principles we 
 now are of\ and yet this Covenant^ was prof ejjedly jo 
 attempered in the firsi framing it , as. that we of diffe- 
 rent judgements might take it f>oth parties being prefent 
 at the framing of it in Scotland: and if this jhould be 
 the way of urging , // is as free for us to give our in- 
 terpretation, of the latitude or nearneffe of unifor- 
 mity intended i as for our Brethren ; we having been 
 
 M m m m prefent 
 
90 A Reply of the Ltjfentwg Brethren to the Second part 
 prefent at the debates of the Affembly about it , and 
 welkpow and remember the fenle that there was held 
 forth thereof \ And further the Affembly being ap- 
 pointed by order of the Honourable Houfe of Commons 
 bearing date September 15. 1643- To (et forth in 
 a Declaration the grounds that have induced the 
 Aflembly to give their opinions, that this Cove- 
 nant may be taken in point of confeience 5 accor- 
 ding to which) fome of us were by a Committee en- 
 tr lifted to bring in materials to thdtpurpofe^ and ac- 
 cordingly did) which materials were committed to' one 
 of US) by a Sub-Committee to draw up j andamonv 
 many other things that which followes , as grounds 
 oftatyngthe Covenant, as touching that frfl article, 
 •z^x.That we (hall endeavor to bring the Churches 
 ofGpd in the three Kingdomes to the neareft con- 
 junction and uniformity in religion, confeffion of 
 faith , forme of Church-government , direftory 
 of worftvip and catechifmy, that we and our po- 
 fterity after us , may as Brethren live in faith and 
 love , and the Lord may delight to dwell in the 
 midft of us, 
 
 This indeavour in our places and callings, for u^- 
 niformity^e apprehended the meaning of it to 
 be. 
 That ate //; our rank* and jiations we jhould mdea* 
 <vmrit : fo according to thofe generall war- 
 rants of the word) to xegulate fuch an indeavour 
 
 in 
 
pf the dttfeer of the Sub-committee of the Divines . 9 1 
 
 in the ufe of means, whereby to accomplifj it. 
 And therefore ,z$ for the patterne, the word of 
 God is to be in our eye : lo, for the way and 
 meaws and progreffe in reducing the Churches 
 to fuch an uniformity, fuch rules are to be ob- 
 served, as the nature of fuch a wor\will beared 
 and which the Apojlles (who had infallibility) 
 tibfervedin reducing the Jewes, and thofe of 
 , the circumcifion, and the Gentiles ft? an uni- 
 formity') and without tyranny and preffing mens 
 confciences beyond the fever all degrees oflight y 
 which God vouchfafes to feverall Churches 
 more or leffe. So that although there be one pat- 
 terne in our eye in common, which all our con- 
 fciences fwear to bring all to ; yet de fa (So and 
 in the providence of God, it fofals out y in the re- 
 forming of Churches ( now after Anti-Chrijlia- 
 nifme hath over-fpread and corrupted all) that 
 the light growes every age more and wore, to 
 the perfeB day and the coming ofChrifl, who is 
 to melt that man offinne, by the fncreafing 
 brightnefle of his coming : andfo both of per - 
 fons and Churches fome fee more, fome fee 
 leffe \ and as we fee in the reformed Churches 
 at this day ; and will certainly fall out thus, in 
 thefe of ours. Now therefore in this cafe that 
 rule for effe&ing this uniformity muji certainly 
 he no other then what the Apojile gives^Fhil.^. 
 M m m m 2 As 
 
gl A Reptyofihe Dijf'enting Brethren^ Uthe SecmdPart. 
 As farre as we have attained y let us walk 
 by the fame rule. And therefore the way is to 
 fee how farre we have attained, andfet down 
 wherein we agree, (as in all fubfiantials of 
 faith and worship it is certain we fjall]) and Jo 
 to walk/7 that as the fame rule j And then in 
 fuch matters wherein men are other wife min- 
 ded, to leave it to God and fuch good meanes y 
 that Godmay reveal it to them in his time, as 
 his promife is. 
 Bat if an uniformity , for uniformities fake, 
 ( And f<> the argument of our brethren here 
 runs ) that is, affe&ing uniformity, fo much as 
 not to regard mens confciences, fjould be prefjed 
 and urged by fuchmeanes, as formerly, with- 
 out refpeSl had to that variety of light, in mat- 
 ters of a lejfer nature, this were beyond the cal- 
 lings arid warrants of the word', and will prove 
 aperfeB tyranny^ and will be fo farre from 
 being a means of love, which is aimed at, that 
 it will lay the foundation of confufion and dis- 
 tention, a? formerly it did. It is with Chur- 
 ches, as with men and particular Saints, they 
 are of fever all Sfces and I growth, of fever all 
 jiatures, and as men are left to be more or leffe 
 holy, as God by good meanes fhall make them, fo 
 wufi Churches. As it were agamfi nature, to 
 fir etch a low man to the fame length with a 
 
 taller. 
 
if tie knfipzrofthe Sub-committee ofDiwwj. 9 r 
 
 t alter 1 or to ait a tall man to the feature of one 
 that is low for uniformities fake: fo to bring both 
 more grown, or more reformed Churches to a 
 middle fiat are for comply an ce -with others, and 
 for meer uniformities fake. 
 
 And this fmts as with the rules of the word, 
 fo with the icope of the Article ; For firft 
 lookwhat k^nd of uniformity in confeffionof 
 faith, the like in matter ofworflnp andgoverne^ 
 went is to be intended; and that the rather be- 
 caufe directions for government and worjhip 
 are the more remote from all Chrifiians know- 
 ledge, and perhaps more obf cure in the word', 
 
 ^ and are the fpeciall controverfies of the times. 
 Now as in matters of faith yon would not for 
 uniformities fakg, determine all differences in 
 judgement but fundamentals, (and an uni- 
 formity therein is all intended,) fo by analogie 
 in point of worjhip and government. Andfe- 
 condly, the end is that Cod may dwell a- 
 mongftus, which is the author of peace, not of 
 confnfion in all the Churches : which peace 
 ( whilfi in his providence mens judgements 
 de and will differ ) will never be attained by a 
 rigid uniformity. 
 
 But this order of the Honourable Houfe of Com- 
 mons ^ foneceffary for the fatisfa&ion of all differing 
 M m m m 3 judge- 
 
94 A Reply, of the Ditfextwg Brethren, to the Second Part &c, 
 judgements : as atjirji to tafy the Covenant, fo to con- 
 tinue fed f aft therein; and which would in all lihgly- 
 hood have laid a foundation of this and other differen- 
 ces ^ wasfuper-fededtothisday. 
 
 II. We anfwer,, that we willingly again dopro- 
 fejfe that in thefubfiance ofworjhip and doSlrine , we 
 are one, and of the fame judgement with our brethren, 
 yet to pra&ice and injoy thole parts of worfhip, 
 as ordinances ofa Church, there is (as to our confci- 
 ences) neceffarily requtred,as the feat andfubjeSi of 
 worfhip and other ordinances , a Church-ftate ; 
 andthofe fuchChurches^J 1 where we may be members 
 and joy n in Communion therein as members without 
 fin, which we cannot do as we have all along profef- 
 fed, and fuch Churches,**/ wherein we can injoy all 
 ordinances, which is denied where in this Paragraph. 
 So that the only way left to reduce us to an uniformity 
 and conjunSiion in the fame pra&ices, is, to allow ns 
 fuch dijiinSl Churches from yours, according to our 
 principles, in which and by meanes of which, we 
 fhall hold all poffible communion and conformity with 
 yoursiwhereas otherwife,we fhall only retain an uni- 
 formity in judgement : whereas that uniformity 
 the Covenant much rather obligeth you and ns all unto, 
 is that which may be an uniformity in pra&ice with 
 fatisfaSiionto all mens conferences, and their edifca- 
 tton. 
 
 The 
 
95 
 
 March 9. 1645. 
 
 The Committe met again, and the Sub-committee pre- 
 fented an Anfwer tothelaft Paper of the Difienting Bre- 
 thren, which is as followetfn 
 
 The Aflfwer of the Sub-committee of Divines 
 unto the fourth Paper of the Diflenting Brethren, pre- 
 fented to the Honourable Committee. 
 
 Our Brethren being ordered by the Honourable Com- 
 mitte to go on upon the Paper brought in by the Sub-com- 
 mittee touching indulgence , are not pleafed to take notice 
 of thofe particulars of forbearance, which are therein of- 
 fered to confederation ; though this would much have con- 
 duced unto the expediting of the bufinefle of this Honou- 
 rable Committee 5 and encouraged us to have ftudied fome 
 further meanes for their accommodation 5 neither do they 
 bring in any reafonsout of Scripture to juftifie their defire 
 of that which we fay cannot be granted them in ter minis. 
 But thus they begin 5 
 
 Though it if our dejtre, rather to aujwer to the Papers brought 
 in by our Brethren , before wee go on any further ^ yet becattfe 
 the Committee requires us to go on , we humbly fubmit the fe Pa- 
 pers to the confederation of this Honourable Committee. 
 
 To which we anfwer , That before our laft Papers were 
 brought in , they were ordered by the Committee to con- 
 fider of this former Paper, and had a moneths time foto 
 have done, but have ftill declined it upon other reafons then 
 they here exprefle , and feeme more willing to lengthen the 
 
 worfc 
 
9 6 The anfwer of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 
 work into tedious and fruitlefle difputes againft chofe things 
 which do not pleafe them, then to exprefle a reall endeavour 
 of bringing things to an agreement fofarre as may be 3 by (b 
 much as taking notice of thofe parts of oarPaper, which tend 
 thereunto 5 leaving therefore the two lad: paragraphs of 
 our Paper utterly unobferved 3 they fingle out onely one 
 propoficion, againft which this prefenc Paper of theirs is 
 wholly direfted *J wherein our words are thefe 5 
 
 That none are to bee allowed upon differences in matter* 
 onely of Governemcnt , to withdraw communion from us 
 
 is 
 
 in things wherein they declare an agreement 5 but feeing it 
 covftpdin IVorjhip and D#3nne me are one , and have cove- 
 nanted to endeavour the nearefl conjunction and uniformities 
 there may be no fuch indulgence granted to any as may 
 constitute them in diftintt feparated Congregations 3 as 
 to thofe parts of Worfhty wherein, they can joy ne in Com mu- 
 ni on with us J; but onely feme expedient may be endeavoured how 
 te beare with them in the particulars wherein th:y cannot agree 
 with us. 
 
 Hereunto they reply diftindly 5 1. Tocuradvice- 2. 
 To the reafons of it ; againft our advice they have four pa- 
 ragraphs , the firftof which is in thefe words. 
 
 This fuppofeth y wo at our profefjed judgement is and hath been 
 againft namely to le Members or Paftorsoftbe Panjhes as now 
 they are • for the Honourable Houfes tbinkg not mcete as yet to 
 give po wer to tl e Minifiers by a law to purge the Congr egatiOns 
 fofarreasthe Affmblyit ftlfk defireth^ andwehavenot {as yon 
 know) pre fume a to feeke the alteration of the ruleejlablified : 
 And the rule for purging the Paripesgivcn^up by the Afjembly it 
 felfe to the Honourable Houfes ^ is not onely fljort, but ex- 
 iiufve cf what we in our confeiencesthinkeis required by God 
 for the qualification of Members , fo that it is not to us in view 
 how the Varices fl) Jibe refrmedtv that which will fatis fie our 
 conferences ; and as the Divines of the- Reverend Ajfrmbly have" 
 aid, thy cannot without fmne admin'ifter the ordinances to the 
 
 Panjhes 
 
of the Ajfembly, to the Reply of the Differing Bnthfen. 97 
 
 Par/Jhes as they ftand^ fo neither can we continue or become 
 Members or Paftors according to our principle* ^ and&e humbly 
 defire that our conferences may be confid&red her ein for forbea- 
 rance , as our Brethren defire that theirs may for power by 
 
 a law. 
 
 Whereunto we anfwer, What that is which they call their 
 profejfed judgement , would much more clearly appeare unto 
 us , if we could ever obtaine that, which hath been fo 
 long and fo much defired, namely , a full and diftinft mo- 
 dell of their way : but for the thing in hand we had no rea~ 
 fbn to fuppofe , that whatweadvifed was contrary to the 
 judgemeatof our Brethren 5 furewe are when at this Ho- 
 nourable Committee it was prefied upon our Brethren then 
 prefentto declare whether they would joyn in communion 
 with us inthofe things wherein they doftrinally agreed} 
 they did not then declare it to be contrary to their profeffed 
 judgment, nay the vote which was then made to be reported 
 to both Houfes, namely, that if the Congregations were 
 purged 3 it would very much tend to accommodation, was 
 pa(Ted, nemine contrahicente } and why our Brethren fhould 
 make the notion of Parilhes , as novo they Are , as a ground 
 of reparation , when they know further reformation is co- 
 venanted , and intended , we know no reafon : muft the 
 communion of true Churches be forfaken in all things, be- 
 caufe in fome things they want reformation , and that even 
 then when reformation is endeavoured?muft a man refafe to 
 live in any part of his houft , becaufe fome one chamber 
 orotherisoutofrepaire, and about to be mended ? It is no 
 good Logick as to our own houfes , and we thinke it is no 
 better as to Gods: we could not but look upon it as rea- 
 fonable (whatever our Brethrens judgement is) that in 
 thofe things wherein there is adoftrinalJ agreement, (as in 
 faith and worflrp , our Brethren profefle ) there might 
 be amongft men, fo agreeing, a prafticall communion, 
 specially confidering that they can occafionally joyn with 
 
 Nnnn us 
 
98 The knfwer of the Subcommittee efthe Divines 
 
 **s in thofe other things , concerning which their principles 
 differ , which could not but put us in hope that fome expe- 
 dient to falve that difficulty might the more eafily have been 
 provided. And if our Brethren may be neither Members 
 nor Paftors of any of our Congregations, how come they , 
 or what calling have they to have any minifteriall relation at 
 all unto them? they preach to them,they receive maintenance 
 from them, when a delinquent Paftor hath been fequeftred, 
 they haveentred upon his place, and received the profits 
 of it 5 we know our Brethren do not preach to our people 
 as Apoftles, Evangelifb, or Prophets $ norwrthcutany 
 minifteriall miflion : and if they preach the word to them 
 wirtkte munerti^ as the Mtoifters of Chrift, and as unto 
 profefled Chriftians , not as unto Pagans ( as we hope 
 they do , ) why they may not ftand in relation of member- 
 ftiipaswell ofminiftry orteaching, eoufque at Jeaft as they 
 do do&rinally agree with us, we know nocaufe$ we look 
 upon preaching the word as an office ,. which no man ought 
 to exercife except he be lent, Rom. 10, i 5. if our Brethren 
 may be unto our Congregations aliqyoufque & quoad hoc 
 Officers, why not in like manner Members ? especially 
 fincewebeleeveour Brethrens judgement is, that men may 
 be Members in a Church wherein there are not ( either our 
 of xhe exigence, or out of the iniquity of the times ) all the 
 ordinances diftinftly to be found in being, much lefle in per- 
 feftion} the Church of ifrael was fourty years together 
 without circumcifion in the wildemeffe : and is : r unlawful! 
 for Chriftians who live in Kingdomes where there are not in 
 Ecclefiafticall Congregations every office or ordinance,, 
 fuppofe Deacons, or Ruling-Elders, orthelike (thedo- 
 ftrine and worfhip being otherwife pure ) to live as Mem- 
 bersin thole Churches? if they may fodonotwithftanding 
 the totall want of one ordinance, why may not our Brethren 
 dothdike with us, notwithstanding a graduall defefton- 
 
 1* 
 
fifth hfembljy to the Reply of the Vtffenting Bret Inn. 99 
 ly in another, efpeciaily , when fome expedient is endea- 
 voured to cure that defeft as to them 5 and when feparation, 
 both by the intrinfecail evill of it felf , and by the example 
 which is thereby given unto as many as will todefpifeour 
 Churches, and by the pernicious ufe which ill minded men 
 may make of icto hinder both reformation in the Church 
 and tranquillity in the State, doth evidently threaten fo 
 much danger unto us. 
 
 They tell us, That the Honourable Houfes thinly not meet 
 as jet to give power to the Mwiften by a law to purge the Congre- 
 gations fif am as the Ajjemblyitjelfedeftrtthi They herein 
 intimate that the Aflembly bath deiired a power to be given 
 to the Minifters more then the Houfesthinke fit to grant $ 
 wedefireour Brethren to fliew where the Aflembly have de- 
 fired or ad viced the power which they conceive needfull for 
 ordering of the Church to be placed in the Minifters, with- 
 out mentioning of others who concurre wi h them : if they 
 cannor, they muft give us leave to look on fuch expreffions, 
 rather as artifices then as arguments^ but have our Brethren at 
 all waited to fee what theHonourabieHoufes with-the advice 
 of the Aflembly would do in the reformation of the Church? 
 did they fbrbeare fepararion till it appeared what power the 
 Hcufes would grant? did not they anticipate the advice of 
 the Aflembly 3 andtherefblutionscfthe Parliament in ga- 
 thering Churches out ofours, before they could forefee, or 
 be able with a judgement either of trurh or charity to con- 
 cede that our Churches notwithstanding reformation be- 
 gun, promifed, covenanted, would continue indeed as to 
 them uniformed ftill why do they argue from what the 
 Houfes thinke not meete to do, or from what the Aflembly 
 hath thought fie to advife , when themfelves thought meete 
 to feparate before the one or the other was known ! fure 
 we are, that we arc little beholding to our Brethren^ for 
 helping forwards thofe defires of ours for fuch a meafure of 
 reformation as themfelves acknowledge to be good, and wc 
 
 Nnnn 2 bdeev c 
 
too T&e A tfwir of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 
 beleevetobe fufficient, when one of them bath publickly 
 profefled that be would not joyn withm while he lived, and 
 it was faid in the open Affembly that though the thing we 
 dt [fired was good\ yet thej won Id not con cum with ws in 
 it , because it would be an hinder ance unto them - 3 but for 
 our parts, though our Brethren refufe to Joyn with us in what 
 themfelves acknowledge to be good , yet we doubt not but 
 God who hath ftirred up the Honourable Houfes to begin 
 To happy a reformation , will by them in his good time con- 
 fummate it, though our Brethren withdraw their affiftance^ 
 and yet we cannot fee what Angular excellency the reforma- 
 tion which our Brethren would feeme to aime at, hath above 
 what the AfTembly haveadvifed^ for they have told us that 
 they would admit Anabaptifts, ( andwefuppoleuponthe 
 fame grounds Antinomians and Arminians ) into commu- 
 nion ^ and one of our Brethren hath faid, that in their 'way, 
 if a man declare himfelfe willing to joyne with them in all the 
 ordinances of chrifi fo farre as fa kmwes } thk is Covenant 
 fufficient to joyn hinfelf with them\ wethinkethatmoftin 
 our Churches within the power of the Parliament have un- 
 dertaken as much, as this comes to, in the Nationall Co- 
 venant, 
 
 They adde, That they have not prefumed tofeehjhe alteration 
 of the mleeftabli(hed. i • They endeavor to make it void in 
 all refpe&s untothemfelves. 2 . They prefume to praftice 
 contrary to it without the civill fan&ion or toleration,whfch 
 we conceive comes much nearer to the formall nature of a 
 preemption, then when a reformation is but begun , and in 
 fieri, for thofe who are called together to advife about it, by 
 way'of humble petition, to defire not the alteration, but the 
 further perfeftion of the rule. 3 . To feeke a totall exemption 
 from a rule, hathfurely more of confidence in it, then to de- 
 firelthat,unto that which is done already^more may be added 
 with a purpofe to fiibmit to all. Our Brethren feeke no al- 
 teration in the rule, becaufe they intend not to be fubjeft 
 
 to 
 
of the hjfembfa to the Replj of the Dijfenting Brethren. 101 
 
 to ir. 4. The more defe&ive rhe rule is, the more colour will 
 they have for feparation and gathering of Churches, and are 
 likely to g lin the more people from us:\ve wonder not at all, 
 that our Brethren being vigilant enough upon their own 
 intereft, do not feek an alteration of the rule in melius^ when 
 it might tend to the prejudice of that, we beleeve their piety 
 would dittate and juftifie as great a preemption as this they 
 fpeake of, if their wifedome did not look upon it as inconve- 
 nient tothemfelves. 
 
 They fay , The rule for purging the Variftes given up by the 
 Afjembly it felfe to the Honourable Houjer^ if not onely port, 
 but exclufive, of what we in our confciences think is required by 
 God for the qualification of Members. 
 
 Though our Brethren tell us in their Paper afterwards , 
 thatafhortmanis nottobeftrerched to the length of a tal- 
 ler,yet we cannot but wonder at their modefty, which when 
 the rule given is not onely fhort, but exclufive of what God 
 requires, doth not prefume to (eeke the alteration of it, we 
 aflure our felves that the Honourable Houfes are fo tender 
 of the truth of God 3 as never to efteeme that prefumption 
 which feekes the alteration of that , that is exclufive of what 
 God requires • but withall we wonder likewife at this whole 
 expreflion of theirs, in their laft Paper they told us, that 
 they had the fame rule for qualification of Members which 
 the Affembly it felfe holds forth, here they fay our rule is ex- 
 clufive of what they in confeience thinke is required , nemo 
 tarn prope t&m proculque nobis ; this conftraines us to im- 
 portune them for their rule for qualification of Member?, 
 that it may be clearly laid downe and debated. 
 
 So that it is not in view ( fay they ^ to us bow the V&rifhet 
 JhaS be reformed to that which wiBfatisfte our confciences • we 
 think this is no good argument for feparating from true 
 Churches, becaufeit is not to us in view how they fhall be 
 reformed, but fo long as reformation is in fieri, we judge 
 it more confonant to piety and Chriftian unity , to wake 
 
 Nnnn 3 upon 
 
1 2 the Anjwcr of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 upon God, till we fee what ifiue his power and providence 
 will bring things unto. In the tneane time we long to know 
 and have defiredinthe AfTembly what reformation of our 
 Pariflies will fatisfie our Brethrens conferences, or how this 
 Kingdomemaybemadethe Kingdome of the Lord and of 
 his Chrift, better then by dividing the inhabitants of it into 
 feverall parts by the bounds of their dwelling, that all who 
 give up their names to Chrift, may be taughtand governed, 
 and have all ordinances adminiftred atnongft them futable 
 to their condition. 
 
 They alleadge the example of theAtferably^ the Divines 
 ( fay they ) of the Reverend Affembly have faid they cannot 
 without fin adtninifter the ordinances to theFarifhes as they fl and ^ 
 fo neither can VPe continue or become Members or IPaflers ac~ 
 cording to our principles 5 and we humbly defire that our con- 
 sciences may be confedered herein for forbearance, as our Brethren 
 defire that theirs may for power by a law. What feft in the King- 
 dome is there which may not plead exemption from the 
 rule , and liberty to aft what it felfe thinkes fit by fuch an a- 
 greementasthis? The Affembly never refufed communion 
 in Parochial! Churches, nordiflikedthediftinguifhing of 
 Congregations by Iocall bounds 5 but they cannot admini- 
 fter to wicked and fcandalous pet fens in thofe Pari(hes ; (uch 
 men are on all hands confeffed to be apparently unworthy: 
 doth it follow that becaufe we do defire a power to keepe 
 away thofe who are truly fcandalous upon principles con- 
 fefledbyall} therefore they upon error of judgement (as 
 we fuppole) may defire a power to keepe away thofe who 
 are not fcandalous , but as to knowledge and vifible conver- 
 fation duely qualified? they would faine make our defire 
 looke like a defire of Power, rheirsonelyasa defire of for- 
 bearance , when in truth they defire a greater power then 
 we either do or dare defire: we defire to keep away onely 
 thofe that are fcandalous , and to have a rule to ftrengthen 
 as therein:, they do not onely keep all fuch away, but many 
 
 more 
 
oftheAjfembly, to theR'plyofthe Difjenting Brethren. 104 
 
 more , without ether rule warranting them , or a forbea- 
 rance permitting them$ fome better way would befound 
 out to further their owndefires 5 then by mifreprefenting 
 ours. 
 
 Their fecond paragraph is in tlvfe words $ If we could.ytt 
 according to what is propofd , we muflfor ever want that great 
 ordinance oj the Lords Supper 3 which cannot bat much preju- 
 dice us to the Elders and Members of the Congregation from 
 whofe communion we thus feparate 3 and yet we muftbe under 
 their government and cenjnres thus prejudiced by us , which 
 how unreasonable it will be , we dtfire our Brethren to e$n- 
 fider. 
 
 We anfwer. 1 . That it doth not follow if they be Mem- 
 bers of our Congregations that they muft for ever want the 
 Lords Supper 5 except they will fay that unto the receiving 
 of the Lords Supper, it is neceflarily requifitethataman be 
 atormall Member of that Congregation where he receives 
 it 5 if they affirme this, what then becomes of their occafio- 
 nall communion? ifnot> whymaynot fome expedient ia- 
 tisfietheminthisto prevent fo great anevillas reparation? 
 for they here do therafelvesprofefle feparation from com*' 
 munion with us. 2. We may not do evil] for any good 
 end, if a man (hould be brought tofucha ftraire, as that 
 either hemuft want the Lords Supper , or feparate from the 
 Congregation whereof he is a Member, he may here wane 
 the ordinance ( during this error of his confeience) with 
 lefle danger, then to purchafe it by a finfull feparation $ this 
 is a ftrange and dangerous way of arguing , which may open 
 agaptoas many divifions and fub-divifionsinthe Church 1 
 as the errors are unto which themindesof men arefubjefi*^ 
 if one mans confeience cannot allow the word preached bur 
 according to a diverfeftney, which hehath framedtohimt- 
 fc!fe, another not hold communion where infan ts are b3pri'. 
 zed, another not receive the Lords Supper but after his own 
 fopper y or in foch kinde of bread or wine , asis not in o(e 
 
 or. 
 
* 04 Tfo anfmr of the Sub-committte of the Dhines 
 or the like 5 if fuch per fwafions of confeience, when men 
 cannot receive the ordinances, but according to their own 
 private principles 3 (hall be a fufficient ground for renoun- 
 cing of memberfhip , we defire our Brethren to confides 
 how long not our Churches onely , but their own, or any 
 other Churches in the world (hall be free from incurable un- 
 quietnefle. 5. Ifour Brethrens conferences through error 
 do caufe prejudice againft them, is it unreafomble for them 
 to be under the government of that Church which is preju- 
 diced by them? may they with good reafon fcandalize the 
 Church by reparation, and the Church have no reafon to 
 governe them? then prejudicatingor fcandalizing errors are 
 aSuperfedeas to all government, we do not then wonder thac 
 errors and perverfe opinions fo much abound^ it may be they 
 are all but the mediums to liberty, and exemptions from go- 
 vernment* 4, There can no fuch prejudice remaine againft 
 them/if what they do 3 they do only by venue of a fpeciall in- 
 dulgence. 
 
 In their third paragraph they fay ^ All this fuppofeth alfo, 
 that roe are to be under the government of a Church whereof we 
 art not Members , for we account not living in the Parijhes to 
 be fufficient tomake a Member of a churchy nor did many of you. 
 
 What our Brethren meane by all thk we know not 5 we 
 are fure there is no fuch fuppofition can be drawn out of the 
 words of our propofition againft which this Paper of our 
 Brethren doth militate $ it hath not one word of Govern- 
 ment to this fenfe in it,but only of Communion^it doth not 
 fuppofe men to be under the government of aChurch where^ 
 oftheyarenot Members, but it doth exprefly fuppofe that 
 they may be Members in a Church , and hold a prafticall 
 communion fo far re as they do do&rinally agree ^ and to 
 thofe purpofes having forbearance as to thofc other ordi- 
 nances wherein they differ : But it is worth theobferving 
 how our Brethren avoid government by withdrawing 
 of memberfhip, cut out their name9 as it were out of the 
 
 Col* 
 
of the Affmblyfo the Refly of the D'i(fcntingErcthrtn. 105 
 
 Colledge book, that they may free themfelves from the 
 discipline thereof 3 what Herefie , Schifme, or Scandall 
 hath not by thismeanes a ready way to efcapeall govern- 
 ment? we grant that living in Pariihes is not Sufficient to 
 make a Member, aTurke, or Pagan, or Idolater may 
 live within the bounds of a Parifh , and yet be no Member 
 of a Church ^ a man muft therefore firft in order of nature 
 be a Member of the Church Vifible, and then living in a 
 Parifh, and making profeflionofChriftianhy,he may chime 
 admiffion into the fociety of Chriftians within thofe 
 bounds, and enjoy the priviledgesand ordinances which are 
 there difpenfed. 
 
 In their fourth paragraph they Gtfi lifyppofeth thisground^ 
 the reajonofwhichwe fee not, onelythe char it) of it we cannot 
 but wonder at y that becaufe we come fo ncare in doffrine and 
 wortlnp and communion with you , therefore we muff not have 
 »n indulgence in a difference which yet conccrnes the edification 
 of ditr forties by ordinances that are fo neceffary. 
 
 We thinke our proportion was not Co deftitute either of 
 rerffon or charity as our Brethren would feem to charge up- 
 on it; Thereafoninitwasthis., that doftrinall agreement 
 (hould preferve pra&icall communion in the things wherein 
 that agreement flood. The charity this, 1 . that we did 
 defire to continue Fellow- members with our Brethren in 
 Church- unity and to prevent reparation. 2. Thit for that 
 purpofe we did advife fome expedient to be endeavoured 
 how to beare with them in the particulars wherein they can- 
 not agree with us^ if not withstanding our agreement in moft 
 things, and thofe moftfubftantiall, nothing will fatisfie our 
 Brethren , but a feparation from us ( the word is their own 
 inthefecond paragraph) and they cannot be edified with- 
 out fcandalizing the Church of God, we leave it to all men 
 to judge whole charity is greateft, theirs who labour to pre- 
 ferve union, or theirs who refolve to feparate and break it^ 
 we thinke that charity bindes Chriftiana to prevent all un- 
 
 O o o o jufl: 
 
io6 The knfwer of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 )uft and needlefle reparation $ andfappofe Browmfis^ Ana- 
 baptist or Antinomians were in our Brethrens Congrega- 
 tions, and they Ihould finde outfome expedient to hold 
 communion dill with them, and (b prevent their feparation, 
 would this bee (teemed a breach of charity? orisall expe- 
 dient to this purpofe impoffible , lave onely renouncing of 
 memberfhip ? our Brethren muft give us leave to wonder at 
 their charity as well as they dp at ours, that comming (b near 
 to us in Dofrrineand Worfhip,nothing (hould content them, 
 but a reparation. 
 
 Thus farreour Brethren have made obfervations upon 
 our advice $ in all that follows they endeavor to anfwer the 
 reafons of it $ where we cannot by the way but take notice 
 what an edge our Brethren have againft Uniformity, and 
 howhaftily (as it is faidof Benhadads fervants) theycatdi 
 at that word to make a large difcourfe upon it , although 
 had that word been left out of our Paper 9 the force of 
 the reafon would have been the very fame which now 
 iris. 
 
 Their anfwer to our reafons is partly argumentative, and 
 partly hiftoricall $ we (hall breifly confider both .• They tell 
 us , that the uniformity [worn in the Covenant is not only here 
 upon t his occajion^ but continually^ enthelikgi tut ml as the 
 great argument againft them in pulpits y prejfes, and ordinary 
 treaties 3 as if what they de fired were contrary thereunto j how 
 it is elfe where turned againft them by others we know not$ 
 if any do it either uncharitably or irrationally, (which we 
 belee ve none that are wife and fear God would do ) let them 
 anfwer for themfel ves^ but fare by how much the more they 
 hear of it abroad,by (b much the more reafon have they to lay 
 it to heart 5 and to confider whether that great growth of 
 fe&s and errors in the Church, under which it fo much 
 groanethat thisday^havenotoccafionaltyiatthe \t aft and in 
 part>grown out of that liberty ,& thofe principles for latitude 
 and difformity as well in pradtice as in judgement, which our 
 
 Brethren 
 
of the kffembly, to the Reply of the D/Jfcnting Brethren. 1 07 
 Brethren fo much plead for and allow unto themfelves; but 
 for our mentioning it in this Paper , we thinke it very fea- 
 fonable and futable to the matter for which wealleadgeit, 
 not with anydefireof oppoficion, ortoturneit againft our 
 Brethren as their phraie is , but out of a fyncere zeal to the 
 peace of Gods Church, and to the preventing of unneceflary 
 feparation 5 which we cannot but thinke would in tims 
 prove the occafion of fchifmes and errors againft which we 
 have covenanted. 
 
 They tell us, That this argument cannot holdagainfi them 
 without affixing dn interpretation upon that part of the Cove- 
 nant , according to our own principles only, to the prejudice of 
 theirs* 
 
 Ourpropofition was never intended for an argument a- 
 gainft them , but for a meanes of accommodation between 
 them and us^and that reafbn and argument which is in them, 
 is not drawn from any private interpretation of the Cove- 
 nant ( which wedarenotaflume the liberty to affix there- 
 unto, however our Brethren would infinuate the contrary) 
 but from the words thcmfelves $ the words are, that we 
 mil endeavor the neareft conjunction and uniformity • now 
 we thinke from the immediate and grammaticall fenfe of 
 thefe words without any explication at all , the evidence of 
 our reafon doth appear : That fince we have covenanted to 
 endeavor the neareft conjun&ion and uniformity, there- 
 foreinthofe things wherein we profefle to be of onerainde 
 and judgement, that conjun&ionQjouldbepra&icailypre- 
 ferved. 
 
 They adde , When we tooke this National! Covenant , we 
 were kf own to be of the fame principles we novo are of \ and jet 
 this Covenant was profejfedlj fo attempered in their firSi fram- 
 ing of it, as that we of different judgements might take it 9 both 
 parties being prefent at the framing of it in Scotland. 
 
 We know not how far their principles were thenknown^ 
 they might have been much better known would they have 
 
 Oooo a givoo 
 
*c8 The Anfwer of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 given a free and full account of their judgement to the 
 world inafa affirmative way 3 and nor alwayeskept them- 
 felves on the^£gative part , ro objeft and difpuce againft 
 the affirmations of others^ nordowe know how their prin- 
 ciples could then well be known, matters of government 
 not being then when the Covenant was debated before the 
 Aflembly till afterwards $ bat we wonder our Brethren 
 (hould be Co intimately acquainted with negotiations of 
 State, as to tell us that the Covenant was profefledly attem- 
 pered to different principles and to different parties 5 it 
 feeroesto us an undecent aflerrion> and tending rather to 
 divifion then union > that Commiffioners were; fent into tfre 
 Kingdome of Scotland*** different parties to be treated with 
 underfucbanotion^ fureweare, our Brethren did not take 
 the Covenant with any jVzw to their own principles ^ and 
 if it were made as a National! Covenant,) as we know it 
 was ) whatreafon is there to think that it was particularly 
 attempered to them 3 morethen others who have confer- 
 ences as well as they ? doth not thisfeeme to lay an implicite 
 obligation upon the Parliaments of both Kingdornes, as 
 if neither of them might do any thing in prejudice of our 
 Brethrens principles^ leaft it be interpreted as done con trary 
 to the profefled temper of the Covenant, and con fe- 
 quently to the fcope of it? Theft to us are ftrange inti- 
 • mations. 
 
 They further adefe$ If 'this fhould be thewayvf "urging , it 
 - if as free for us to give our inter pretationvf the latitude or near- 
 neffe of uniformity intended^ as fir our Brethren 5 we having 
 been pefent at the debates of the ^jfembly about J it , and 
 well know and remember the fenfe which was there held forth 
 thereof 
 
 For our parts,as we think It not free either for us orthem 
 or any private perfon , to make in terpretations of the Co- 
 venant, (owe deny that we have done it 5 we hive argued 
 from the very words themfelves 3 andlbweallmuftdo, or 
 
 elfe 
 
of the Affembly, to the Re fly of the Diffenting Brethren. i o 9 
 
 elfe we can make no ufe of it : As for the fenfe held forth in 
 the Aflembly, which our Brethren fo well know & remember, 
 we remember indeed that the AfTembly gave their fenfe by 
 vote touchingPrelacy > which was after inferted into the body 
 of the article^ but for other particulars concerning which no 
 vote parted, this we know that no Member of rhe AfTembly 
 ccuW give any other fenfe but their owne as finglc perfons, 
 nothing being the fenfe of the Aflembly , but what appears 
 to be fo by their order or refolve $ and that if one fpeak any 
 thing as his fenfe, the reft being filent, their filence is not to 
 be taken for a confent. 
 
 They tell us j 1 hat further when the A (femhly was appointed 
 by an order of the Honour Me Houfe of Commons bearing date 
 Sept* the 15. 1643. to fet forth in a Declaration the grounds 
 
 • that have induced the Afiembly to give their opinions that this 
 Covenant may be taken inpornt of confeience^ accordingly fomc 
 
 ' of them were by a Committee entrufled to bring in materials to 
 that purpofe , and accordingly did y which materials were com- 
 mitted to one of them by a Sub- committee to draw up, anda- 
 moqg many of her things , that which followes as grounds of 
 taking the Covenant) as touching thatfirft article, that mfhall 
 endeavor &c 
 What ever was done by one or more of thefe Brethren by 
 
 ' way of comment upon the Covenantor any article thereof, 
 was not dofte according to the foreme.nrioned order, feeing 
 it requires onely a declaration of the grounds upon which 
 the Aflembly gave their opinion concerning the hwfulnefle 
 of taking the Covenant, not an explication of what pri- 
 vate men conceived to be themeaning of it$ and furely that 
 which is here obtruded a* the fenfe, and the onely fenfe in 
 which thefe Brethren judge it iawfull , never pafTed the 
 vote, never was fo much as debated in the AfTembly, and 
 therefore cannot poffibly come within the compafle of thofe 
 grounds which the Order relates to $ but that which we 
 wonder moft at, is that our Brethren fhould a little before 
 
 Oooo 3 charge 
 
no The anfwer of the Sub-committee of the Divider 
 charge us without caufe (as hath been (hewed) of acrime, 
 and (hould prefently fall into the fame themfelvesj for what 
 is, ifthisbenot, to affix an interpretation upon the Co- 
 venant futable to the principles of one partie, and exclufive 
 tothofe of another? but we proceed to the explication ic 
 felfe. 
 
 This endeavor ( fay they ) in our places And callings for u- 
 niformty, we apprehended the meaning of it to be , that as in 
 our ranks and ftations we fliould endeavor it 9 fo According to 
 thofe generall warrants of the word to regulate fuch an endeavor 
 in the ufe of meanes whereby to accomplish it $ and therefore as 
 for the pattern, thewordofGodu tobeinoureye, fofortheway 
 and meanes and progreffe in reducing the Churches to fuch an u~ 
 niformity , fuch rules are to be observed as the nature of fuch a 
 vpork will beare , and which the Apoftles who had infallibility 
 ohferved in reducing the Jews and thofe of the Circumcijion, 
 and the Gentiles to an uniformity , and without tyranny or 
 prejjifig mens conferences beyond the feverall degrees of 
 light , which God vouchfafes to feverall Churches more 
 orleJfe,&c, 
 
 Our Brethren here give us fuch an explication of u- 
 niformity, as indeed may fuitetoanythe moft difformous 
 Churches that are , who will all tell us that they propofe to 
 themfelves the right patterne, rules and examples, and from 
 thence are inftru&ed unto difformity with others $ it is not 
 an uniformity of endeavour which we are bound only unto, 
 but to endeavour an uniformity in the particulars exprefled } 
 namely as in Do&rine andWorJhip, fo in forme of church-go- 
 vernment : We all moft readily agree that the word of God 
 is the rule in all refpe&s for reformation, and the Apoftles 
 examples to be followed in all things of perpetuall equity 5 
 but doth not the word of God prefTe upon us unity of judge* 
 ment and practice 5 tobeof oneminde^ of one accord* not to 
 caufe divifions and offences contrary to the E>o8rinen>hichwe 
 have learned * tojpeafy the fame things, to be perfeSlf joyned 
 
 toge- 
 
ojiheAjfemkly,totbeReflyoftheD>]fentivg Brethren, lit 
 together in the fame judgement, that then be no divisions amongji 
 vs. 2 Cor. 13. II. Phil. 2. 1,2. Rom.i6.17. I Cor. i.lo. 
 Or did the A poftles ever endeavour fuch an uniformity , or 
 fo much as call it fo , as was nothing el(c but a doing every 
 man according to his own light , or to ufe the phrafc of the 
 Old Teftament, thatvphich is right in his oxen eyes t did they 
 not fupprefle the contentions of men by thecuftomeof the 
 Churches of God, \Cor. 1 1 . 1 6. and ordaine the fame prattice 
 in all the Churches, notwithftandingour Brcthrens di- 
 ftinftion of difference of light ? 1 Cor. 7. 1 7. For the cafe 
 which our Brethren mention of reducing thofe of the 
 circumcifion and the Gentiles to an uniformity, were they 
 not thereunto brought by a Synodicall determination ? A3. 
 15. And did not the Apoftles binde the burden of Come 
 necefiary things on the Churches, albeit there were in thofe 
 Churches graduall differences of light i> 
 ^ We could be glad our Brethren had explained themfelves 
 when they fpeak of Tfranny and prejfing mens confeiences, be- 
 caufe under that pretence many oppofe all kinde of Go- 
 vernment , and many moft injurioufly reprefent Presby te- 
 riall Government as formidable and tyrannically our Bre- 
 thren in their way exercife the fame kinde of power , and 
 that with more rigour 5 the relief which the law of nature 
 allows to appeal from an un juft fentence , to a power which 
 may com ft it , they deny $ Chriftian Profeflbrs , though 
 neither ignorant nor fcandalous^they fhut the doore againft, 
 and keep out of communion $ They do doftrinally and pra- 
 ftically condemn all Churches which are not Independent, 
 refufing all memberfhip and ordinary communion in them, 
 and may according to their principles aflume a power to in- 
 flift the heavy fentence of Won- communion upon them,when 
 they fee occafion as a punifhment to reclaime them. Laftiy 
 we fuppofe our Brethren will grant thefe two things, 1. 
 That a Member of a particular Congregation may be ex- 
 communicated for Herefie or Schifme. 2. That the Offi- 
 cers 
 
II 2 the A nfwer of the $uh committee of the Divines 
 cers of feverall Churches may convene,and pronounce a fen- 
 tence of Non-communion upon other Churches 5 furely 
 except our Brethren refolve to tolerate all Seftsand Here- 
 fies whatfoever, they alio may foon lieu ader the charge 
 a-nd odium of tyranny. 
 
 They proceed and tell us > Although there be one pattern 
 in our eye in common 9 which all our consciences fwear to bring 
 all to 5 yet de fa&o , and in the providence of Goditfo piles 
 cut in the reforming of Churchei ( now after Anthhriftianifme 
 hath overfpnad anb corrupted a 11} that the light grows every 
 age more and more to theperfeS day, and the comming of Chrift, 
 who is to melt that man of fin by the incrcafing brightneffe of his 
 comming^ andfo both ofperfons and Churches ', fomefee more r 
 fomefee lejfe , as we fee in the reformed -Churches at this day , 
 and will certainly fallout thus in thefe of ours ; now therefore 
 in this cafe the rule for effe&tng uniformity mufl certainly be no 
 other \thenwhat the Apoftle gives, Phil. 3. Asfarreas we have 
 attained let us walke by the fame rule \ And therefore the way 
 is tofeehowfarrewehave attained, andfttdowm whereinwe a- 
 gree , ( as inallfuhflaniials of Faith and Worfloip it is certain 
 wefoall^) and fo to walke by that as the fame rule ^ andthenin 
 fuch matters wherein we are otherwife minded i to leave it to 
 God, and fuch good means that God may reveale it to them in his 
 time as hkpromifeis. 
 
 Weeafily underftand what our Brethren meane by the 
 overfpreading of Antichriftianifme 5 and how they do tacitly 
 charge all who diflent from them with no meaner a guilty 
 and they teilusof the increafe of light , whichmufl melt the 
 man of finne ^ if our Brethren meane by hntichrifl or the 
 manoffinne that which the reformed Churches have gene- 
 rally underftood, namely 3 the Papacy, we do not think 
 but that in the great differences between them and us, the 
 light already revealed is clear and (ufficient enough for con- 
 vi&ion, and manifefting of the errors thereof 3 andwebe- 
 teeve if our Brethren were imployed in that conflict, not- 
 
 with- 
 
of the AJfetMj, t$ the Reply of the Diffenting Brethren, n 3 
 
 withstanding they appropriate the increafe of light unto their 
 way at this time , yet they would not u(e any more convin- 
 cing weapons againft the man of fin then the Champions of 
 the reformed Churches both in thefe and other Kingdomes 
 have formerly ufed ^ we (hall not at this time curioufly exa- 
 mine whether the A poftle by &n&tfH*Tf< mp*<rtA$> which they 
 render the incrcafing brightneffe of his comming ( we know 
 not upon what either ground or authority) meane the light 
 of the Gofoell, or the fecond comming of Chrift to judg- 
 ment , or fome other notable manifeftation of Chrifts 
 prefencein wayes of power and juftice & (baking the earth- 5 
 but let us admit what our Brethren fay , that Antichriftia- 
 nifme is to be melted away by a growing light, doth any fuch 
 growing light appear at this time? weconfeflfe there is great 
 crying up of new lights ; but under that notion do not old 
 and decried errors of Anabaptifme^ Antinomianifme^ Brow- 
 nifme, yea hrrianifme and Fhotiniantfme break forth to the 
 great fcandall of the Church? furely the new lights we now 
 hear of in the mod places are no other in the Church then 
 a Come tin the heavens, which doth onely illightenmen 
 to forefee calamities 5 whatever this light is 9 muft it not 
 increafe in the next age as well as in this ? and muft that new 
 light then melt away the Antichriftianifmeof Independen- 
 cy as that doth in this age the Antichriftianifmeof Pre£ 
 by tery ? and (hall Government in every age be changed ac- 
 cording to differences of light ? have not our Brethren 
 found out a Jus Divinum for their way in Scripture ? we fb 
 underftand them $ and muft fome increafing brightneffe 
 hereafter abolifh that? to us fuch principles tend to very 
 Scepticifme and to a floating fufpenceandcontinuall uncer- 
 tainty and unperfwafion of judgement. 
 
 We heartily embrace the rule which our Brethren give us 
 out of the Apoftle, Phil. 3. 1 5, 16. anddefireto walkeby 
 it-, but did the A poftle ever intend out of that place to al- 
 low Brethren who agree in all fubftantials of Fairtrand 
 
 Pppp Worfhip 
 
1 1 4 the hnfaer of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 
 Wor(h:p to feparatefrom one another ; & to denyFellowfhip 
 and Communion with one another even in thofe very fub- 
 ftantials wherein they agree? is this to walkeby the fame 
 iule,and to mind the lame things 3 to feparate from Churches 
 in thofe very things wherein we agree with them? orfluli 
 every circumftantiall difference be a fufficient ground to 
 withdraw Communion totally and to all purpofes ? When 
 there were differences of judgement amongft the Corinthians 
 and Romans , dia not the Apoftle write to them as one 
 Church, as one body? did he ever fuppofe that a few diffe- 
 rences (hould be fufficient grounds for exftingui filing the 
 mutuall relation of Memberfliip which they had in thofe 
 Churches ? Befi Jes, may not the Magiftrate out of a care to 
 prefeive the Churches which are under his Government 
 and prote&ion , in unity, and free from fchifmes and divi- 
 fions , allow one way of Government, and difallow an- 
 other 3 as they have done in the cafe of the Liturgy and 
 Dire&ory, and in the cafe of Epifcopacy and Presbytery , 
 without referving zfaho for fuch as fhall in judgement differ 
 from the alteration which they have made? ormuft Epi£ 
 copal! men be indulged Separated Diocefes wherein to 
 worfhip God and enjoy ordinances fut.ibly to fuch princi- 
 ples as they hold , diftin&ly from the Churches under an- 
 other rule? furelyif our Brethrens principles extend to fuch 
 a latitude fot other mens judgements as well as for their 
 own D which we know no reafbn why they fhould not , they 
 put them in a fitter temper to covenant multiformity then 
 uniformity. 
 
 They go on , But if an uniformity for uniformities fafa 
 {and fothe argument of our Brethren here r urines') that is , af- 
 fecting uniformity fo much as not to regard mens conferences, 
 {hould be prejfed and urged by fuch meanes as formerly , mthout 
 refpeff had to the variety of light in matters of a h$er nature, 
 this were beyond the callings and warrants of the word, andvpiU 
 prove "a perfetf tyranny - and'vrill be fo fane from being & meanes 
 
 of 
 
of the kjfembly, to the Reply of the Differing Brethren. 1 1 5 
 eflove, which is aimed at) that it will lay the foundation of 
 conf fwn and dijfenfton as formerly it did: It is with Chunks 
 as with men, and particular Saints, they are of fcver all Sizes 
 and growth, of fever all flat uns\ and as men are left to be wore 
 or Uffe holy , as God by good meanes fl?all make them , fo mhft 
 Churches ^ as it were again fl nature to fir etch a lor* man to the 
 fame length with a taller , or to cut a tall man to the future of 
 one which is lew \ for uniformities Jul^e , fo to bring both 
 more growne or more Reformed Churches to a middle 
 ftature for compliance with others for meer uniformities 
 fike. 
 
 We know not what our Brethren n erne by uniformity 
 for uniformities fi\e^ we think they afperfeusin fbchex- 
 preflions as if we laid grounds for tyranny , or intended not 
 to refpeft the cenfeiences of men \ we defire uniformity for 
 order, and order for edification $ wedefireitasisexprefled 
 in the letter of the Covenant, by which our Brethren are 
 bound as well as we. 
 
 But they fay to defire it without rcjpeffto variety of light w 
 Uffer matters &c. Certainly ieparation is not either*"* natu- 
 ra rei or in the confequences of it fb fmail a thing as our 
 Brethren make it 5 but we wonder our Brethren fhould 
 mention variety of light here fo often, when it is p'ain that 
 the mention we makeof uniformity covenanted, was in or- 
 der unto their Communion with us in thofe things onely 
 wherein they and we have an unity of light, Viz. in the 
 fubftantials of Faith and Worfhip, wherein we defire no 
 more of them then we are confident was pra&ifed by the 
 Saintsat Philippic to whom the Apoftledirefts th:t rule 
 our brethren mike mention of, namely, to hold pra&i- 
 call Communion in things wherein they do&rinally agree; 
 certainly this can never prove a perfeft tyranny • though for 
 ought we perceive, any thing which is one muftbe judged 
 the foundation of tyranny 5 but to touch that point of va- 
 riety of light, we defire our Brethren to anfwer us in this 
 
 Pppp 2 noe 
 
1 1 6 of the djfembly, to the Reply of the Bijfenting Brethren* 
 
 one thing, whecher fome muft be denied the liberty of their 
 confcience in matter of pra&ice, or none? if none, then 
 we mud all renounce our Covenant, and let in Prelacy a- 
 gain, and all others wayes^ if a deniall of liberty unto 
 fome may be juft , then uniformity may be fetled notwith- 
 ftanding variety of lights , without any tyranny at 
 all. 
 
 We acknowledge degrees of light and growth amongft 
 men , and do not aflirme that fome muft be kept under for 
 conformities fake with thofe who are worft then them- 
 felves} or that all matters of difference in judgement muft 
 be authoritatively decided for uniformitie fake 5 yet hence 
 it doth not follow but that as one confcffion of Faith and one 
 DjteSorjfor Worfljip , fo alfo one forme of Government and 
 confutation of churches may be fetled • for we are fure that 
 in this general! our Brethren agree with us , that one way 
 forthefubftanceof it is neceflary for all, though touching 
 the particulars we areat difference^ andtheonenefleof the 
 way (if it be right ) can be no hinderance to Chriftian 
 growthj nor the diversities of growth unto it $ are not Chri- 
 ftiansof feverallftatureiniv^*?, HoBmd, Scotland, where 
 the Government is but one?may not Churches differ in light 
 and agree in Government ? 
 
 They fay , As men are left to be more or lefie holy, as God 
 by good means (hall make them , fo are Churches 5 muft men 
 be left to themfelves to be more or lefle holy as they pleafe, 
 under no discipline to further holineffe in them? if nor, what 
 argument can our Brethren draw from fuch a proposition be- 
 tween men and Churches ? we embrace the proportion , 
 and from thence argue, as men though of different growth 
 in light, ought not to be Independent and exempt from Go- 
 vernment, fb neither particu ! ar Churches^ and as men thus 
 differing miy be under one uniforme Government, foalfo 
 may Churches. 
 
 For pur Brethrens fimilitude of lm men and tall men\ 
 
 though 
 
the Anfatr of the Snb-eommittee of the ttivlnes 1 1 7 
 
 though it be pretty andplaufible, yet our Brethren know 
 fucharebut popular and inartificiall arguments , which have 
 mere of tiounfh then of fubftance in them 5 for would 
 our Brethren apply this argument againft endeavouring to 
 bring low and middie ftatur'd Churches to a more growne 
 & more reformed condition 5 becaufe a low body is not to be 
 ftretched to the ftature of a tailer? why then do c hey fo much 
 endeavour to gather Churches out of curs unto themfelves? 
 or if the MagWrace fhould thinke fit to (ettle their way by a 
 law, would they allow a Toleration to Epifcopacj, Vreibyter^ 
 Brovpmfme^ Erafiianifwe , or any other Government exco- 
 gitable by the fancies of men upon this reafon , becaufe men 
 muft not for uniformities fake be pared or ftretched to the 
 meafure of other men ? would they endure the lower fuckers 
 at the roote of their tree to grow till they had killed the tree 
 it felfe ? Ad populum phaleras. But fince they will ufe fuch 
 kind of arguments, we muft needs learn of them who is the 
 low man, and who the tall, leaft the low man be cut yet 
 fhorter by uniformity , or the tall man ftretched taller^ 
 though they know without ftretching or cutting , long 
 and fhort timber may be imployed in one and the fame 
 building, and tall men and iittle children be Membet9 of 
 one and the fame family without feparatingfrom one an- 
 other 5 but did the Apoftks and Elders of Jerufalem cut tall 
 men and ftretch low men when they ordered neceflary 
 things for mutuall peace > we will not envy our Brethren 
 their talnefle , we will defire to be low in our own eyes as 
 well as we are in theirs ^ we confefleovr day is but the day of 
 fmaU things^ yet we hope i t is a time of love^ far be it from us 
 to fay we are rich and ftand in need of nothing^ yet we hope 
 whenPresbytcrian Government is up, we (hall labour both 
 by our Miniftry and Difcipline to prefect our Members blame- 
 lefje before chrifi. Our Brethren have nothing but what they 
 have received:, and time was when he who was taller 
 then all his Brethren by the head was laid afide , and 
 
 Pppp 3 alow 
 
ii 8 the Anjrver of the Subcommittee of the Divines 
 
 a low and lowly perfon came in his roome. 
 
 Itfollowesin our Brechrens Paper ^ And this (kite* as 
 with the rules of the word, fo with the fcope of the article ^ for 
 look what kinde of uniformity in confejfion of faith , the like 
 in matter ofWorflnp and Government is to be intended $ and 
 that the rather bee aufe direSions for Government and Wor (hip 
 are the more remote from aU Chriflians knowledge^ and pet haps 
 more obfeure in the word^ and are the ffeciall controversies of 
 the times 5 now as in matters of Faith you wuutSnotfor unifor- 
 mities fake determine all differences in judgement , but funda- 
 mentals , and an uniformity therein is all intended ^ fo by ana* 
 logie in point of Worflup and Government. Andfecondly , The 
 end is that God may dwell amongflus , who is the Author of 
 peace and not of confufion in all the Churches 3 which peace 
 (whilfl in his providence mens judgements do and will differ} 
 will never be attained b) a rigid uniformity* 
 
 We allcdged uniformity covenanted for this end that in 
 thole things wherein we agree doftrin ally we might agree 
 praftically 5 and not feparate as to thofe purpofes • and our 
 Brethren throughout this Paper difpute againft it which re- 
 fpeft to variety of lights $ furely they will not eafily per- 
 fwadeus, or (we think) any indifferent man to beleeve that 
 it was not the fcope of the Covenant that where there was 
 unity in judgement, there fhould be at lead fo farre forth 
 uniformity in practice and communion ; furely if the Co- 
 venant intend but one confeffion of Faith and onedirefto- 
 ry for Worfhip, we cannot lee how our Brethren can make 
 the fcope of it to favor diverfe wayes of difcipline and 
 Church-government 5 but taking all proconcejfo, we further 
 anfwer 3 that as in matters of Faith we do not for uniformi- 
 ties fake determine all differences in judgement but funda- 
 mentals^ fo when all do agree in fundamentals, if any (hould 
 for fome (mall differences in judgement feparate from Com- 
 munion with true Churches, we fhould think that thofe 
 men did finne againft that unity which ought to beamongft 
 
 Chri- 
 
of the Ajfembly, to the Reply of the Diffentlng Brethren I 1 9 
 
 Chriftians Co fundamentally agreeing^ like manner, though 
 inmatters of Government being more obscure and remote 
 from Chriftian knowledge ^difference of judgment, & haply 
 in fome things of pra&ice alfo, may be allowed, yet when in 
 the moft things and thofe molt fubfbntiall, there is an a- 
 greement 8 for Brethren upon fmaller differences not to 
 content themfelves with fuch expedients as may be pro- 
 vided to reconcile thofe differences, but to feparate from 
 Communion with true Churches of Chrift, we cannot 
 but beleeve it to be contraiy to the word of God and to 
 the Scope and Letter of the Covenant $ and we would wil- 
 lingly underftand from our Brethren what disjunftion or 
 difformity is contrary to the Covenant , if this be not , to 
 have divided praftice and feparated Communion even in 
 thofe things wherein men have united judgements, or when 
 the peace of the Church is likely to be preferved , if men 
 will not keep Communion with one another no net in thofe 
 things wherein they do doSrinallyagree^ for our Brethren 
 do all along infiftupon a wrong ground , namely, diffe- 
 rence of judgement, when in our propofition the unifor- 
 mity mentioned is evidently reftrided unto unity of judg- 
 ment. 
 
 Our Brethren conclude this long Paragraph thus 5 But 
 thk order of the Honourable Houfe of Commons fo necejfary 
 for the fatisfaSton of all differing judgements , as at firfi , to 
 take the Covenant , Jo to continue fiedfafi therein 5 and which 
 would in all likelihood have lath a foundation of ending this and 
 other differences ' , was fuperfededto this day. 
 
 That there was an order and fuperfeded, we acknowledge $ 
 but that it was intended for the fatisfa&ion of different judg- 
 ments we deny 5 it is but their preemption fo to affirme; 
 the ufe thefe Brethren made of it was upon pretence of 
 fuch a declaration to have given in their private fenfe of the 
 Covenant, which they very much contended for, and the 
 Committee of the Alterably together with the Conimifc 
 
 fioners 
 
120 The Anfvper of the Sub-committee of the Divines 
 
 fioners from the Church of Scotland oppofcd as deftru- 
 Rive and inconfiftent with the end of the Cove* 
 nan F . 
 
 Forthefuperfedmgofit y we give this account 5 1. Where- 
 as other orders from the Honourable Houfe were wont to 
 be fent by Members of their own, this was given by one 
 of the under Clarks tooneoftheMeflengerSj who brought 
 it to the Scribe of the Affembly after it had lien in the office 
 manydayes. 2, Upon debatek was fround that thefe Bre- 
 thren , (whofe great care to fecure their own principles, and 
 long travel! to be delivered of that private fenfe , which 
 themfelves had conceived , were fufficiently known ) la- 
 boured to turne it to a wrong ufe for their private intereft 
 and advantage, as appeared by many circumftances , and 
 in this efpecially , That one of them though he was in Scot- 
 land, or in his journey from thence, andnotatthe Affem- 
 bly when they debated and relblved the Cafe of Confcience 
 touching the Covenant, would yet undertake to fetdown 
 the reafons which moved the Affembly to judge the Cove- 
 nant lawfull to be taken in point of Confcience. 3. Itwas 
 the advice and counfell of fome Eminent Membersof the 
 Honourable Houfe of Commons, who were of the Com- 
 mittee from the Houfe to joyne with the Divines of the Af- 
 fembly, and the Commiffioners from Scotland, about the 
 bufineflej that this order (hould not be proceeded upon 
 without further direftion from the Houfe 4. There was 
 an Ordinance of Parliament bearing Date Feb. 2. 1645. 
 wherein among other things it was ordained Art. 1 o. That 
 fir t fa better encouragement of all forts of perfons to take the 
 Covenant , it be recommended to the Affembly of Divines to 
 make a breif Declaration by way of Exhortation to all forts of 
 perfons to take it, as that which they judge not onely lawfull, but 
 (all things confidered) exceeding expedient and neceffary for 
 allthatwifh well to Religion, the King and Kingdome tojoyn in* 
 and to be a (Ingular pledg of Gods gracious goodneffc to all the 
 
 three 
 
of the kffemblyjo the Reply sf the Diverting Brethren. 1 2 1 
 
 three Kingdomes. Aadin Art. 14. Itisagainremembred* 
 That the Affemblyof Divines do prepare an exhortation for the 
 better taking of the Covenant , in obedience whereunto the 
 Aflembly did draw up fuch an exhortation to fttisfie the 
 conferences of men for the taking of it $ which exhortation 
 being feat to, and read in the Houfeof Commons, they 
 made this order upon it, viz,. Die Veneris 9. Febr. 164.3. 
 An exhortation touching the taking of the Solemne League 
 and Covenant, andforjatisfyingoffuchfcruplcsasmayarife 
 in the taking of it, was this day read the firft and fecond time, 
 and by Vote upon the queftion affended unto , and ordered to be 
 fortwith printed 5 So that in obeying that latter Ordinance 
 we conceive that both that and the former Order of sept. 
 1 5. then foregoing, and now infifted fo much upon by our 
 Brethren, were fully fatisfied. 
 
 Our Brethren conclude thus; 2. ivcanfwrthit we wil- 
 lingly tgair.e doproffetUt in thefubflance of Worfhip and D$- 
 Qrinevpe are one and of the fame judgement with our Brethren , 
 yet to practice and enjoy thofe parts of Worflnp as ordinances of a 
 Churchy there is ( as toourconfeiences) necejjarily required 
 as th:feate andfubyeU ofWofl:ip and other Ordinances, a Churh 
 State, and thofe fuch Churches as where we may be Members, 
 and joy n in Communion therein as Members wit ho u tfin f which 
 we cannot do as we have all along profefied^ and fuch churches 
 as wherein we can en)oy all Ordinances jvhich is denied us here in 
 this Paragraph , So that the only way left to reduce w to an uni~ 
 formity and conjunShnin thejamepra3ices,is to allow us fuch 
 difiinil Churches from yours according to our principles, in 
 which, and by means of which wefhdl hold all peffible Commu- 
 nion and Conformity withy ours , whereas othervptfe we fo all only 
 retaine an uniformity in judgement ^whereas that uniformity the 
 Covenant much rather obligethyou and us all unto,is > that which 
 may be an uniformity in praSice 5 with fatisfa&ton to all mens 
 confeiences and their edification. 
 
 Upon their profefled unity with us in judgement our de- 
 
 Qqqq fire 
 
r 2 2 The dnfmr of the Sub-committee ofihe Divines 
 
 fire was they mightcontinue Communion and Membership 
 with us iathofe things wherein theyfb agree $ here they 
 anfwer, No > they cannot do it without finne^ and intimate 
 two reafons of it , 1 . Because t$pra3ife and enjoy thofe parts 
 of Worfhip as Ordinances of a Churchy there is necefjarily re- 
 quired as the feate andjubji 8 of Worfiip and other Ordinances , 
 a Church State. 2. Thofe Churches muft be fack y as mo herein 
 they may enjoy all Ordinances , which is denied them , they faj 9 
 here j i.This to us voids their occafionall Communion quite, 
 for can they occasionally pra&ice and enjoy Worfhip and 
 Ordinances out of the feate and fubjeft of that Worfhip and 
 Ordinances ? or, when they preach and pray with our 
 Churches, do they not difpence thofe Ordinances to our 
 peopleasto Churches of Chrift who come unto the Ordi- 
 nances as in their proper feate to be edified and comforted 
 by them ? 2 . They tell us not what their Church State is 
 which they make the feate ot Ordinances, and which we 
 want, and confequently enjoy Ordinances out of their right 
 feate 5 They acknowledge us true Churches of Chrift, have 
 not true Churches the State of Churches ? are not true 
 Churches the feate and fub je& of Worlhip ? 
 
 But they hy,They muftbe where they may enjoy allOrdinances , 
 which here is denhdthem 5 1 . We know not any Ordinance 
 which will be denied them in our Congregations. 2 . Have 
 they all Ordinances in their own Churches? do not they 
 hold Ruling Elders to be an Ordinance? have all their 
 Churches Ruling Elders ? or may they be in their own 
 Churches without fome one Ordinance^ and not in ours ? if 
 they fhould think anointing of the fick with oyle,or wafhing 
 of feet be anOrdinance^will they be noMembers where they 
 cannot enjoy theft? To determine controverfies of Faith 
 andcafesof Confcience judicially, is an Ordinance 5 if they 
 be of no Church but where that is exercifed , and the liber- 
 ty of opinions judicially reftrained, their Churches would 
 foone be diflblved, and they would finde it we beleeve diffi- 
 cult to gather more. A s 
 
of the JJfembly, to the Replj of the Dijfenting Brethren. r 2 f 
 
 As for their own expedient for uniformity and conju&ion 
 with which they conclude, namely, to allow them diftinS 
 Churches accordingto tlmr ownprinciplesjNt lookupon it but 
 as a riddle, and wonder how t disjun&ion can be an only way 
 of conjunction, 8c multiformity of uniformity, Jk reparation 
 of commi!nion,and different principles and practices of con- 
 forroity^what Churches under Heaven may we not hold con- 
 junftion,uniformity, communion with upon fuch termes? 
 
 They fay, Thy agree with us in judgement, butmll not joy n 
 in frafftce , but perfwade us, that notjojning in pra3ice is the 
 beft, the only meanes to attaine unto that prafficall uniformity 
 which the Covenant principally intends , acdclofe all up with 
 this gloffe upon uniformity in pra&ice,7to it mufi be withfa- 
 tisfa&ion to all mens confciences and their edification ^ This to 
 us founds as if they did not onely defire liberty of Conference 
 for themselves \ but for all men, and would have us belee ve that 
 this is all the uniformity which the Covenant requires, that 
 wefhould endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three 
 Kingdomes to the near eft conjunQion and uniformity t ye t fo as 
 that we may leave all men to the liberty of their confciences $ we 
 hope our Brethren have fbme other meaning, yet at pre- 
 (ent thefe their expreffions favor (b much of fuch a fen(e,that 
 we cannot understand what they do meane Iefle then this $ 
 and whether that be the fenfe of the Covenant, we humbly 
 leave together with this whole Paper unto the confederation 
 of this Honourable Committee. 
 
 After the delivery of this Paper , the Commit- 
 tee of Lords and Qommons, and AJfembly of Di- 
 vines adjourned to a day, but being diverted by o- 
 ther occasions ', have not fince had any meeting, and 
 fo there wa$ no further proceeding in that bufinefs* 
 
 FINIS. 
 
4-2 t- ' 
 2 i 
 
N 
 
 ~ ^ 
 
1*1