A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.

CHAP. X.

Whether the necessity of Discipline be greater then of Sacra∣ments: and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise intirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none: and whether a man may take on him the whole Ministery having no outward calling thereto; and may not as well take on him one act of Baptizing or Ministring the Lords Supper.

THe next place where I find our Reverend Brother dealing with the Answer, is in Page 453, 454. Where disputing that there was a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem, he saith it is Objected by us (al∣ledging the Answer, Page 6.) That if a Church in an Iland by Divine institution and so the first Congregation as Ie∣rusalem which did meete in Solomons Porch had once an intire power of Iurisdiction, though in an extraordinary case, the case is ordinary, as in the Dominion of Wales there is scarce a Congregation to be found within 20, or 30 miles. 2. Suppose the case were extraordi∣nary and rare, may they violate the ordinary rules of Christ? For so some may thinke and say that though according to ordinary rules, Bap∣tisme and the Lords Supper must be dispensed only by men and by Mini∣sters, yet in the want of these the one may be dispensed by a woman or mid-wife, and both of them by such as are no Ministers. And then hee subjoyneth his Answer.

Answ. Our Authors scope and intention being to prove a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem, I cannot apprehend a good reason, why now he should fall upon the place of the Answer alledged, in as much at the place makes not any mention of Ie∣rusalem at all, nor of any Presbyteriall Church there, either one way or other. But it seemes he was willing to go something out of his way that so he might have a saying

to the Answer, yet if it must needs be so, I could have desired that the words of the Answer might have been kept, without making alteration by leaving some things out, and putting others in of his own accord, and by mentioning others with another face then was ever intended by us. For though he is pleased to mention a Church in an Iland and the first founded Congregation at Ierusalem, in his Objection which he•• brings in under Mr. Tompsons name and mine, yet he that shall peruse the place will find that neither of these are once mentioned by us at all, and why then they should be brought in as ours I do not know. And for the former part of our Answer, wherein we show that for a Christian Congregation to want neighbour Congregati∣ons to whom they may with conveniency have recourse, and not so unusuall as some may imagine, we do not only alledge for that end the Dominion of Wales as our Bro∣ther doth report, but also the remoter parts of the North, and specially the state of things in times and places of generall Persecution and generall prophanenesse, and new Plantations in Heathen Countries; all which our Brother doth omit, as if wee had not mentioned any of them. And whereas we mention the scarcity of Congrega∣tions in the remoter parts of Wales and of the North, as intimated by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle in that learned and loving discourse of his, whereto we doe apply our Answer, Mr. Rutherford concealeth that we do mention this, as the apprehension or intimation of another, and instead thereof makes bold to set it downe under our name, as if we had delivered it as our own. All which alterations, omissions and ad∣ditions are such as wee for our parts would not willingly have made the like in any worke of his nor of any other man. For let such liberty as this be taken in repeating what men do speake or write, and misapprehension of their true ••ntent and meaning must needs be bred hereby in the minds of all those that shall read or heare such re∣ports and beleeve the same. Neverthelesse, let us consider what our Brother doth re∣turne in his Answer.

We thinke saith he, a Ministery and Discipline more necessary to a Con∣gregation in a remote Iland, or to the Church of Ierusalem before they increase to such a number as cannot meet for their numerous multitude in one Congregation, then the Sacraments when there be no Ministers to dispense them.

Answ. Would not one thinke by th••se words, and the other laid down in the Ob∣jection, that we had spoken something of a Church in an Iland, and of the Church in Jerusalem? Else why should these be objected, and answered as ours? But th truth is we have not spoken one word either of the one or the other of these particu∣lars: which will plainly appeare to him that shall view the place. Something wee have spoken in the generall of a Congregation that wants neighbours, which we did being thereunto led by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle, but of a Church in an I¦land, and of the Church at Ierusalem in particular, of which Mr. Rutherford heere speaks, of these we have said nothing.

Second, the former part of our answer, that for a Congregation to want neigh∣bours is not so unusuall as some may imagine, this Mr. Rutherford wholly passeth o∣ver in silence, only he propounds it in his Objection in such sort as we have heard, and so leaves it, whereby it seemes he yeelds the thing. And thereupon it followes, that intirenesse of Iurisdiction in a Congregation must be yeelded frequently lawfull,

it being frequently seene, that Congregations want neighbours in which case their in∣tirenesse of Iurisdiction is not denyed.

Third, for the second part of our answer, we thus expresse our selves therein. viz. That we suppose it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in ex∣traordinary cases to transgresse and violate ordinary rules, whereof wee render the reason, least some body doe thence inferre the lawfulnesse of ministring Sacraments by non-Ministers, in case Ministers be wanting. This is that which we have said in this matter. If therefore Mr. Rutherford would take away what we have said herein, he must say it is not good nor needfull to take such heed, but men may yeeld it lawfull in such cases to transgresse and violate ordi∣nary rules, and never need to take heed how farre they yeeld therein. This indeed were contradictory to what we have said, and if this be once cleered for truth, then I must confesse our saying is cleerely disproved. But the cleering of this we hope our Brother will never attempt: Sure yet he hath not done it, and so our saying yet re∣maines as it was.

Fourth, Whereas he saith he thinkes a Ministery and Discipline more necessary in the cases he speaks of, then Sacraments and there be no Ministers, though this be not directly opposite to what we have said, yet because I would consider of every thing wherein he seemes to ayme at us, therefore I am willing to consider of this also. Our Reverend Brother thinkes Discipline in the cases mentioned more necessary then Sacraments: and yet in his Page 287, 288. handling that question, whether Disci∣pline be a marke of the visible Church, and laying down sundry distinctions about the same, hee gives us these severall Propositions in termes: First, care to ex∣ercise Discipline may be wanting in a true Church. Second, right Disci∣pline is not necessary to the essence of a visible Church as a City may bee without Wals, a Garden without a hedge. Third, the exercise of Disci∣pline may be wanting, and the Church a true visible Church. Fourth, the Church may retaine the essence and being of a visible Church, and yet have no Discipline in actuall use or little, in which place he cites and ap∣proves the judgement of Parker, Cartwright and others; who make Discipline necessary only to the wel-being of the Church, as being not in∣different but commanded in the word and necessary in respect of its end. Now if this be all the necessity that is in Discipline, how is Discipline more necessa∣ry then Sacraments? For may not as much bee said of them as here is said of Disci∣pline? Are not Sacraments necessary to the well-being of the Church, as being com∣manded in the word, as well as Discipline is? And serving for excellent ends, as well as Discipline doth? I suppose it will n•••• be denyed, and therefore the necessity of Discipline above Sacraments doth not yet appeare. Especially if that be conside∣red withall which our Brother teacheth else-where. viz. In his second P. 211. & sequ. Where he tels us, That Sacraments are not only declarative signes, but also reall exhibitive seales of Grace, having a causality in them to make a thing that was not, and so excelling all civill Seales which do adde no

new Lands to the owner of the Charter sealed therewith. Now if Sacra∣ments be thus excellent and effectuall, how is it that in the place wee have in hand, Discipline is made more necessary then they? For a greater Elogie then here hee gives to Sacraments, I suppose himselfe would not give unto Discipline. Yea in P. 302 he expresly affirmes, That Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are essentiall notes of the visible Church. But of Discipline I conceive he will not say the same, sure it is in the Page following distinguishing betwixt notes of the Church which are necessary ad••sse, To the very being of a visible Church, and such as are necessary only ad bene esse, to the well-being thereof, he expresly makes Discipline a worke or note of this second sort, and as we heard ere-while, he in Page 287 expresly affirmes it is not necessary to the essence of a Church. And therefore it is some marvell why now 〈◊〉〈◊〉 makes Discipline more necessary then Sacraments.

But he gives us two reasons of this greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacra∣ments. First, that intire power of Discipline in a Congregation that wants neighbours is not extraordinary Second, that there is no such morall ne∣cessity of Sacraments, as there is of Discipline, Page 455.

Concerning the former his words are these, viz. That the Church be in an Iland it selfe alone may possibly be extraordinary, but that in such a case they have intire power of discipline whole and entire within themselves to Excommunicate Scandalous persons is not extraordinary. Wherein first of all I observe a difference between him and our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle, who having granted that where there is no consociation or neighbour-hood of Congrega∣tions, there a single Congregation must not be denyed intirenesse of Iurisdiction, doth presently adde that the case is extraordinary, and so fals not within the com∣passe of the question of the ordinary rule of Church-government: Independencie of Churches, P. 2. plainly confessing that the case is extraordinary, whereas Mr. Ru∣therford here saith it is not.

Second, as he expresly differs from Mr. Herle, so it is considerable whether his words do well agree with themselves. For saith he, That the Church be in an Iland it selfe alone may be extraordinary, but that in such case they have entire power of Iurisdiction of Discipline within themselves, to Excom∣municate Scandalous persons, is not extraordinary. Which saying needs good explication. For it seemes hard to conceive how the power and actions of any subject or efficient should be more usuall and ordinary then its very being and sub∣sistance: Which yet must needs bee, if this stand good that the being of a Church in an Iland is extraordinary, and yet the power of such a Church to Excommunicate is usuall and ordinary

Third, If their power of Discipline, yea intire Power be in the case expressed or∣••••••ary, shall we then say that if the case ••e otherwise so that a Church be not alone

but have neighbours, entirenesse of power in such a case is extraordinary? It seemes a•• must ••ay 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or else wee must say that intirenesse of power in both cases is ordinary. If this latter be said, it is as much as we desire: for then I hope it must not be a small 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ordinary matter, that must hinder a Church that hath neighbours from exercising 〈…〉〈…〉 ••••••••diction within themselves, no more then a Church that lives alone, 〈…〉〈…〉 power being ordinary in them both. For if it be so in them both, in the one as well as in the other, I know not why any small or ordinary matter should hin∣der the one Church any more then the other from the use and exercise of such entire power. If we say that entirenesse of power in a Church that hath neighbours is ex∣traordinary, though in a Church that is alone it be ordinary, besides that such a say∣ing sounds harshly and seemes very improbable, we shall by this meanes make cases extraordinary to be very frequent & usuall, in as much as all men know it is very u∣suall for Congregationall Churches to have neighbours: and so if entirenesse of power in a Church that hath neighbours be extraordinary, it will follow that extraorninary power is very usuall and frequent; so that inconveniences on each side do seeme ine∣vitably to follow against our Brothers cause, upon this which here he affirmeth, that entirenesse of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary.

But let us here his reason in the subsequent words, why this entirenesse of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary. For it floweth saith he, continu∣ally from a Church, to which agreeth the essence of a Church, to exercise Iurisdiction over all its own members. And I suppose he must meane this of Iurisdiction entire and compleat, for of this is the question, and a few lines afore, He expresly cals it entire power of Discipline, whole and entire within themselves. Now if this be true which here is said, as for my part I conceive no o∣ther of it, that it floweth connaturally from a Church, to which agreeth the essence of a Church to exercise entire Iurisdiction over all its own members, then it will follow that a Church that hath neighbours as well as a Church that hath none must have this entirenesse of Iurisdiction, sith the essence of a Church doth agree to the one as well as to the other, to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that is alone. Our Author tels us Page 302. That a Congregation in an Iland is a Church properly so called, and hath the essentiall notes of a visible Church agreeing to it, and wants nothing of the being and essence of a Church. And if this be true of a Church that is alone, shall we thinke it is not true of a Church that hath neighbours? Doth the accession of neighbours to a Congregation take a∣way from such a Congregation the essence of a Church which it had before? I con∣ceive none will so say. And if every Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church may exercise entire Iurisdiction over all its own members, as our Brother doth ac∣knowledge, it followeth unavoidably thereupon that all Congregationall Churches, such as have neighbours and such as have none may exercise such entirenesse of Iuris∣diction, sith the essence of a Church doth agree unto them all. Vnlesse he will deny the essence of a Church to a Congregation which hath neighbours, which hee freely yeeldeth to a Congregation which is alone, he must grant entirenesse of Iurisdiction unto them both, because he grants it to the one upon this reason, that the essence of a

Church doth agree thereunto, which reason if it agree to both, how can i•• be avoided but entirenesse of Iurisdiction must be in both? And how can it be affirmed or imagi∣ned that a Congregation having the essence of a Church afore and have neighbours, should lose this essence of a Church when neighbours are added to it? A family ha∣ving the essence of a family now it is alone, doth not lose this essence by meanes of o∣ther families added. Nor doth a City that is such, as it is alone lose the essence of a City by the accesse of other Cities: and the same might be said of a Corporation, a Province, a Kingdome, or any other society whatsoever. And that it should be other∣wise with a Congregationall Church, that it should lose the essence of a Church as other neighbours Churches do arise, doth seeme very strange and unreasonable. And let the essence of a Church be still retayned by such a Congregation, as I conceive it must, and then intirenesse of Iurisdiction must not be denyed to such a Congregation, sith it doth flow connaturally from every Church to which the essence of a Church doth agree.

If there bee no more consociated with that Church that is by accident, and an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence. As a Master of a family is to educate his children in the feare of God, but if God take all his children from him by death, he doth not transgresse the ordinary rule of educating his children in the feare of God, as he hath none.

Answ. If this comparison doe suit the present purpose and case in hand, then this Master of a family is a Congregation, and these his children are the members of o∣ther Congregations: And so as a Master of a family needs not to educate his chil∣dren in Gods feare, when they are all taken from him by death, so a Congregation needs not to governe the members of other Congregation as there are no other Con∣gregation extant, but it selfe is left alone in an Iland. In which kind of arguing sun∣dry things may be excepted against. As fir•••• of all that there should be such power in a Congregation as in a Master of a family over his own children, which needs a good deale of proofe afore it may be yeelded, in as much as the power of the one is plainly and plentifully taught in the Scripture, as Eph. 4. 6. Col. 3. Deut. 6. 7. Deut. 21. And many other places. But I desire one cleere place of Scripture, in all the Book of God either old Testament or new, to shew the like power in a Congre∣gationall Church, over the members of other Churches. Againe, when a Master of a family hath all his children taken from him by death, he hath then no children of his own to governe, but wants a Congregationall Church & is left alone in an Iland, the Presbytery of that Congregation is left alone, but have still the members of that Congregation whom they may and ought to guide and governe in the feare of God, which is another particular wherein the comparison failes.

But though the similitude as Mr. Rutherford hath laid it down, doth not confirme his purpose, yet I conceive it may be▪ so framed and applyed as that it may well serve for the weekning thereof, thus; A Master of a family having (when that family is alone) entire power to governe his family in the feare of God, when other families do arise that become neighbours neere adjoyning, he is not by this meanes deprived of the power which he had before, but still retaines the same entire and compleate as formerly it was: even so the Presbytery of a Congregationall Church having (when that Congregation is alone,) entire power of Iurisdiction over its own mem∣bers,

is not when neighbour Congregation do arise, deprived by this meanes of the power which it had before, but still retaines the same entire as formerly it was. A∣gaine, though when God takes away a mans children by death, he is no longer bound to educate and governe those children in the feare of God, yet as long as his children live with him in his family, it is not the sitting down of other families neere by him that can take away this power from him, or discharge him of this duty: even so, though when members of a Congregation be taken away by death or otherwise, the Congregation or its Presbytery doth no longer stand charged or bound with the over∣sight and government of such members yet as long as they live in the Congregation, it is not the arising of other Congregations neere to them that can free them from the power wherewith they were invested, nor from the duty wherewith they were former∣ly charged towards such members, Thus the comparison runs even, and we see our Brothers cause is not a little disadvantaged thereby. But as he hath laid it down, it doth so apparantly faile that I do not perceive how it can afford him any helpe at all.

This argument supposeth that the Congregation hath no power of Ex∣communication at all, either compleat or incompleate, as the Midwife hath no power to Baptize, either compleate or incompleate.

Answ. Suppose a Congregation have an incompleate power when they have neighbours, how shall it appeare that when they are alone their power is now com∣pleat? Or how will it be avoided but by the like reason, one Elder alone may Ex∣communicate in case there be no other Elders to joyne with him? For plain it is, that one Elder when their is a full Presbytery or Classis hath an incompleate power, though not a compleat. And yet I hope this incompleat power in one Elder when there are other Elders joyned with him, will not warrant him to exercise a power compleat when he is alone, because such a power must be exercised by a Church, with one El∣der alone cannot be. And if one Elder having an incompleat power when he is joyned with others, may not exercise a compleat power when he is alone, how will the in∣compleat power of a Congregation when they have neighbours (suppose that in such case their power were indeed incompleate) how will this I say warr••nt that Congre∣gation when they are alone to exercise a compleat power? For ought I see, the com∣pleat power of the Congregation is no more warranted upon this ground, then the like power of one Elder upon the same ground, the cases being alike in both.

Neither doth a Congregation transgresse any rule of Christ at all when it exerciseth entire power of censures within it self, whereas there be no consociated ••hurches to share with it in that power.

Answ. This I grant is very true; and I desire it may not be recalled, but may still stand as here it is expresly given to us; and then I desire to know what rule of Christ is transgressed, if an other Congregation, I meane a Congregation that hath neighbours, do exercise the like power. For my part I know no such rule, nor any good reason but if that the one Congregation may so practise, the other Congregati∣on may do the like, and that the grounds (at least some of them) which will warrant the one, will also suffice to warrant the other. Neverthelesse when any rule of Christ shal be produced that doth restraine a Congregation that hath neighbours of this en∣tire power, which is so freely and plainly granted to the Congregation that is alone,

I shall then grant that the former must have lesse liberty to exercise this power, then is here granted to the latter. In the meane time, that which here is yeelded to the one doth amongst other things induce me to thinke that the same ought to be granted to the other, and so that entirenesse of power is in them both.

A Congregation (viz. which is alone) is capable of entire Jurisdicti∣on because it is a Church.

Answ. How will it then be avoided but a Congregation which hath neighbours, or a Congregation which was alone and now hath neighbours added to it, how will it be avoided I say, but such a Congregation as this is also capable of entire Iurisdicti∣on? For can it be denyed but such a Congregation is a Church, as well as the other? Sure if Mr. Rutherford his Doctrine elsewhere delivered do stand good, this cannot be denyed at all. For in his Page 301 he saith, That is a Church, and hath the essence of a Church, to which agree the essentiall notes of a visible Church, and Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments saith he are essentiall notes of a visible Church. Which if it bee so, then a Congregation that hath neighbours is a visible Church, and hath the essence of a Church, because Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are cleerely found in such a Congregation. And if such a Congregation be a Church, then by his own Doctrine in this place which we have in hand, such a Congregation is capable of entire Iurisdiction. For thus I argue from his own words

Every Congregation which is a Church is capable of entire Iurisdiction.

But a Congregation which hath neighbours is a Church.

Therefore a Congregation which hath neighbours is capable of entire Iuris∣diction.

The conclusion is that which we stand for, and it makes directly against our Bro∣ther, and yet I see not how he can avoyd it, because both the premises are his own. For the Proposition is plaine from the words we have in hand, v••z. A Congrega∣tion is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church. Now if this be the reason why it is capable thereof, then looke to what Congregation this reason doth agree, every such Congregation must be so capable. For our Author well knoweth that à quatenus ad omnia consequentia. And for the Assumption, the same is confirmed by his words, Page 302, Where he makes that to be a Church, and to have the essence of a Church, to which the Preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments do agree. And these agreeing to a Congregation that hath neighbours, it followeth that a Congregation that hath neighbours is a Church. Vnlesse hee will deny to a Congregation that hath neigh∣bours power of Preaching the word and administring the Sacraments (which I am perswaded he will not deny at all) it will unavoidably follow from his own ground that such a Congregation is a visible Church. And if such a Congregation be a vi∣sible Church, then by his own ground also, such a Congregation must be capable of entire Iurisdiction: which conclusion if it bee granted we desire no more, for it is the thing that we hold.

A woman in no case is capable of administring Baptisme or the Lords Supper, except she were extraordinarily and immediately inspired to bee a

Prophetesse, but for the exercise of entire power of Jurisdiction by a Con∣gregation in a remote Iland, I hope it hath no such need of immediate in∣spiration.

Answ. Nor do wee thinke otherwise; but (that we may keepe to the points and bring up the dispute to the thing in questio) if such a Congregation having no such inspiration may notwithstanding lawfully exercise intire power of Iurisdiction within themselves, and that upon this reason, because they now are alone, which if they had neighbours were not lawfull for them to do, then let it be well considered, whether by the like reason in the like extraordinary case, Baptisme and the Lords Supper may not be administred the one of them by a woman, and both of them by such as are no Ministers. For as in one case the plea, to make it lawfull is this, be∣cause such a Congregation hath no neighbours, so in the other the plea is because the Congregation hath no Ministers, nor perhaps there are no men at hand. And if the one which at other times were unlawfull, yet in such an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence may be lawfully done, though there be no immediate inspirati∣on to warrant the same, why doth there need such immediate inspiration to warrant the other, the extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence being alike in both. I desire I may not be mistaken in this passage, for I doe not affirme (nor ever did) that the dispensation of Discipline and of Sacraments in the cases mentioned are both alike unlawfull, or else both alike lawfull. The Answer will not witnesse that I have so affirmed, neither yet this present discourse t•• much lesse do I hold that Sacra∣ments may be dispensed by women or by men that are not Ministers. All that I have said in this matter is thus much, that it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in such extraordinary cases, as want of neighbours, to transgresse and vio∣late ordinary rules, least some body do thence inferre that Sacraments may be dis∣pensed by women or men that are no Ministers, in case that Ministers or men be wanting. This I have said indeed, as being tender and afraid to open a dore too far for liberty of transgressing ordinary rules, and conceiving that keeping close to those rules is the safest way. If any man be more bold and dare open the dore further then I dare adventure to do, and thinke he can easily shut the same againe, to stop the in∣conveniencies and ill consequents which I feare may thence ensue. I shall leave him to his discretion, and the guidance of God therein, onely craving thus much for my selfe that no more may be imputed to me, nor reported of me in this or other matters, then indeed I have affirmed or expressed.

Concerning his second reason of the greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacra∣ments, his words are these. There is no such morall necessity of Sacraments as there is of the Ministery of the word and consequently of the use of the Keyes, where a Scandalous person may infect the Lords flock: for where vision ceaseth the people perish. But it is never said where Baptisme cea∣seth the people perish, Pag. 455.

Answ. How shall we be sure that by vision, Prov. 26. 18. Is meant Discipline? Yea Discipline not in a large sense as comprehending generally all order and beha∣viour concerning a Church and outward duties therein, but Discipline strictly taken for administration of censures (for of this is one question) how I say shall wee be sure that by vision is meant this Discipline? The usuall Expositers Tremeli•••• and Ju∣nius,

〈…〉〈…〉, and others doe expound the same of the Preaching and dispensing of the word, making no mention at all of Discipline as meant thereby. And the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 branch of the verse, He ••hat keepeth the Law is blessed, doth ••hew that by vision in the former branch is mean the Law, or Doctrine or word of God. And if the Scripture do not s••y, where Baptisme ceaseth the people perish, yet neither doth it say, where administrat••on of Censures ceaseth the people perish; and therefore no necessity of censures above Sacraments can be concluded hence.

Vncalled Ministers in case of necessity without Ordination or calling from a Presbytery may Preach and take on them the holy Ministery and exercise power of Jurisdiction, because of the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation in a remote Iland requireth so.

Answ If they may do these things without Ordination (as for my part I deny it not, so that the election or consent of the Congregation be not wan••ing, for that I suppose might be a good part of an outward calling) then I demand whether one Mi∣nister alone may not thus do, I meane whether one alone may not in the case propo∣sed take on him the holy Ministery and Preach the word as a Minister. If many may do it, then I suppose there is no question but one may do it much rather. And if so, then I demand further whe••her such a single Minister may not also administer the Sa∣craments to such a Congregation: I suppose it cannot be denyed, for if he lawfully take on him the Ministery and Preach as a Minister, what should hinder, but he may also Baptize, and minister the Lords Supper? And if hee may thus doe, then I de∣mand lastly, whether this single Minister may also administer Discipline and cen∣sures in that Congregation. If he may, then either the power of those censures must be in himselfe alone, or in the Congregation also, in himselfe alone it cannot be, be∣cause censures must bee dispensed by a Church, and one man alone cannot bee a Church, If it be in the Congregation also, then here is a power of Excommunication or other censures even in the people which is against our Brothers judgement. If it be said that this single Minister as long as he wan••s other Ministers joyned with him may not administer censures or Discipline, then it will follow that power of censures is not alwayes annexed to the Ministery as an inseparable adjunct thereof, nor are Censures to be preferred before Sacraments as more necessary, as our Brother would have it, for as much as here is a Ministery and the administring of Sacraments, the necessity of the soules of the Congregation requiring so, and yet for all this not any power of censures at all. Our Brother therefore may make his choyce, whether hee will grant the power of the Keyes of Discipline to bee in the people, or whether he will say the necessity of the soules in a Congregation doth require Sacraments more then Discipline; For though these be both against himselfe, yet upon the ground which himselfe doth here lay, the one of the two is unavoidable.

But I hope no necessity in any of the most extraordinary case requireth that a Midwife may Baptize, or that a private man remaining a private man may celebrate the Lords Supper to the Church, without any calling from the Church.

Answ. Concerning the Midwife I thinke the same that he doth. And concerning the private man, I also therein ••••curre that without calling from the Church hee may not performe what here is spoken of. But here I would make this Quare whether

〈◊〉〈◊〉 man that never was a Minister may not as well in an extraordinary case performe 〈◊〉〈◊〉 act of administring of Baptisme or the Lords Supper, without any calling from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bytery or the Church unto whom the office of Ministery, as take on him with∣out any such calling the whole Ministery, and so Preach and exercise the power of Iurisdiction as a Minister For as for the one of these, our Brother expresly grants a man m••y lawfully take it on him without any such calling, the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation in an Iland requiring so; and if this necessity will warrant the one which is the whole and so the greater, why will it not warrant the other which is but one act and so the lesser? One would thinke one act of dispensing Baptisme or the Supper were a lesser matter then the whole Ministery, and all the actions there∣of. And marvell it is, that the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation should war∣rant this which is the greater, and yet the same necessity should not be sufficient war∣rant for the lesser, a mans calling being otherwise alike unto both, that is, having an outward calling to neither Himself doth sometimes reason thus, If wee give to beleevers that are not in office one pastorall act, wee may with the like weight of reason give them all: Peaceable plea, Page 272. Now if this rea∣soning be good from one Act to all, why is no this as good, from all to any one or to some one? And why may we not in like maner argue thus, If persons uncalled may without Ordination or calling take on them the whole Ministery, why may not persons uncalled without Ordination or calling take on them to Baptize or Minister the Supper? Not that I thinke such a practise to be lawfull, but only I intend to make quaere about the validity of our Brothers kind of arguing. Yea, it is elsewhere his arguing, that it persons not in office of Ministery may execute censures and Disci∣pline, they may then administer the Sacraments. For saith he, What hinders by this reason but they may also without Ministers Prea••h and administer the Sacraments: Peaceable Plea, Page 196. Yea saith he, I s••e not but with a like warrant private men may administer the Sacraments: Vbi Supra, Page 196. This we see is his arguing elsewhere: And yet in the place we have in hand he grants that persons uncalled may in case of necessity without Or∣dination or calling take on them the Ministery in generall, and in particular may ex∣erc••se the power of Iurisdiction, and yet for all this he sayes, that no necessity will warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church. Which two sayings for ought I perceive do not agree. For in the one it is affirmed that if they may exercise Discipline and censures, they may by the like reason admi∣nister Sacraments: and the other saith they may exercise Discipline and censures and yet may not administer Sacraments; and yet both the sayings are expressed by the same Authors Pen.