Excommunication in the case proposed and therefore I see not how it can be sufficient to prove such a power in a Synod for which purpose Master Rutherford brings it Of necessity for ought that I see one of these must be said either that this Assembly have no power to rebuke the man but must suffer his sin to be upon him though God be dishonoured and others endangered thereby or else it must be said they have power to Excommunicate him as well as to rebuke him neither of which I conceive can safely be said or if neither of these can be said it must then follow that their may be power to rebuke even in an Assembly of many persons a Politicall Society and yet the same Assembly have no power at all to Excommunicate the persons so rebuked and so this learned Brothers arguing is answered Likewise I suppose it will not be denyed but one Congregation if need so require may rebuke and reprove another Congregation though neither of them be Superiour to other but both of them equall and Independant of each other in regard of subjection Mr. Rutherf confesseth p. 294. That Congregations and Churches may admonish and rebuke each other And sure it is that Scripture Cant. 8. 8. We have a little sister what shall we do for her Doth shew that Churches ought to take care one for the good of another And if they must take care and consult for one another there is the like reason that they should reprove and admonish one another as need shall require Now when one Church doth so practise towards another it cannot be denyed but here are the same things which Mr. Rutherford speakes of First a Rebuking Second a rebuking performed by many Third a rebuking performed by a Politicall Society and Body But can any man inferre from hence that the Church thus rebuking another Church hath power to Excommunicate that other Church I suppose none will affirme it And if this may not be affirmed I do not see how rebuking performed by many even by a whole Synod can be any sufficient ground to prove that the Synod hath power to Excommunicate The Apostles and Elders saith our Author are not considered here as meerely Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching for why then should they not be formally a Church Assembly if they be an Assembly meeting for Preaching the word Pag. 411. 412. Answ When the text Acts 15 doth mention sometimes the Multitude verse 12. Sometimes the Brethren verse 23. Sometimes the whole Church verse 22. Besides the Apostles and Elders we know no absurdity in it if one should say here was formally a Church and a Church Assembly in which Church-assembly the Apostles and Elders were teachers and Preachers though they alone were not the Church Yet though wee thinke heere was a Church and a Church-assembly wee do not thinke Mr. Rutherford reason doth prove them so to be For Paul and Sâ—las were Preachers of the word in the Prison at Philippi Act 16. And at Marâ—hill and the Market-place at Athens Act. 17. And yet we thinke it hard to inferre thence that these Assemblies were formally Churches Yea but saith our Author the exercise of the Keyes of knowledge in the hearing of a multitude is essentially an act of Preaching of the Word Page 412. Answ This is very true indeed an act of Preaching the word it must needs bee the word Preaching being taken in its utmost Latitude But is not unavoidably and alwayes a Church-act or an act that infallibly proves the Assembly where such an act is performed to be formally a Church This is the thing that should have been cleered or else the thing is not cleered But this our Reverend Author doth not cleere at all and the contrary is very plaine from sundry instances in the Acts where the Apostles did exercise the Key of knowledge in the hearing of multitudes in sundry places where yet for all this there was not forthwith any Church and therfore whereas he saith The Apostles and Elders are not considered in this Assembly as Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching because then the Assembly should have been formally a Church We rather thinke they that shall consider it will find that the Apostles did and other Elders in these dayes may put forth the act of teaching and Preaching in some Assemblies suppose Assemblies of Turkes and Indians and yet the Assemblies not thereby proved to be Churches CHAP. VI. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Jerusalem NExt of all in his Page 414 in a 16 th Objection in this and the former Page he saith thus Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes no compleat Church because all the Ordinances of God cannot be performed in the Synagogue and therefore were the Jewes commanded only at Ierusalem and in no other place to keepe the Passeover and to offer Offerings and Sacrifices which were ordinary worship but there is not any worshiper Sacred Ordinance saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames of Preaching Praying Sacraments c. prescribed which is not to be observed in every Congregation of the new Testament and then he subjoyneth Mr. Tompsons Name and mine and in his Margent cites the Answer Page 12 13. And further saith in the Objection That others say because there was a representative worship of Sacrificing of all the twelve Tribes at Ierusalem therefore all the Synagogues were dependant Churches and Ierusalem the Supreame and highest Church Answ To leave what is alledged aâ— Objected by others and to consider only of that which concernes our selves Because the Synagogues in Israel were dependant on the great Synedrion at Ierusalem therefore some would inferre that Congregations in these dayes must be dependant on the Iurisdiction of Synods To this Argument we are endeavouring to give answer in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford where we shew that the Synagogues might be dependant and not compleat Churches because the Sacred Ordinances of God which were of ordinary use could not be performed in them but Congregations in these dayes compleat and intire as having liberty to enjoy the use of all the Ordinances within themselves for both which particulars we alledge the testimony and words of Dr. Ames The summe is thus much If the Synagogues could not enjoy all the Ordinances within themselves and our Congregations may then though the Synogogues were dependant on the Synedrion at Jerusalem it will not follow that Congregations in these dayes must be dependant on Synods This is the 〈◊〉 of that which is said in the answer in the place which Mr. Rutherford alledges Now what answer doth he returne to this passage Truly none at all that I can find None will you say How can that be Doth he not propound it in his 16 th Objection as that which he undertakes to answer I confesse he doth so but neverthelesse all that he hath set down for
arise offences between Congregations there must be a Church of Synods above Congregations and those Synods must judge and redresse those offences to this we there answer that all offences do not fall within the compasse of this rule and remedy tell the Church and so no dependency of Congregation upon the jurisdiction of Synods can be sufficiently proved by this text First of all we instance in the offences of nationall Churches of which we suppose our Brother will not say that they fall within the compasse of our Saviours rule Tell the Church for then the independency of nationall Churches and nationall Synods is overthrown as well as the Congregations which we suppose he will not grant and yet it cannot be avoided if his reason for the dependency of Congregations upon Synods do stand firm And next of all we instance in the offences of Turks and Indians and other heathens who may offend Christians and yet are not to be complained of to the Church the Apostle expressely teaching the contrary 1 Col. 5. This being the scope of that passage in the answer which here Mr. Rutherford excepteth against let us now hear what it is which he saith thereto Because saith he ordinary communion faileth when you go higher then a nationall Church and Christs way supposeth art ordinary communion as is cleare If thy brother offend c therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a nationall Church Answ 1. If this remedy be not needfull in any Church above a nationall then the rule doth not universally hold true that the remedy complaint to the Church must be as large as the malady offence and so our purpose is gained For our purpose in that place is to prove this very thing by this same instance of the offence of a nationall Church wherein Mr. Rutherford we see doth come over to us and affirms the same that we do To what end therefore was it to make shew of removing or weakening what he had said sith when it comes to the issue he plainly concurs with us For by this means our tenent is not confuted but confirmed with his attest thereto 2. Though here he saith this remedy is not needfull in any Church above a nationall yet I am mistaken if elsewhere he speak not otherwise For in pag. 311. prepounding this objection viz. Christ here speâ—keth of a present and constant removall of scandalls A Catholike councell of the whole visible Church is farre of and cannot be had he returneth this for answer thereto That Christ saith he speaketh of a present and constant remedy only and of no remedy against the scandall of whole Churches is denyed He speaketh of all remedyes to gain any offenders persons or Churches And in pag. 322. he saith Christ giveth an instance only in an offending brother but the doctrine is for the curing of an offending Church also and for all persons to be gained Thou hast gained thy Brother and saith he we are to gain Churches as we are not to offend Churches 1 Cor. 10. 32. Again in his second pag. 332. speaking of five sâ—rts of Synods of which he cals the fifth the generall and Oecuminick Councell he saith that all these differ not in essence but in degrees and what word of God as Matth 18. 16 17. proves the lawfulnes of one is for the lawfulnesse of all the five sorts of Synods Lastly nothing can be more plain then those words pag. 39. This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a Catholike Councell The same is also to be seen in the Peaceable Plea p. 86. In all which sayings he plainly understands the text we have in hand to speak of a remedy for all that are to be gained yea a remedy for the offences of all persons and Churches that may give offence which Churches he saith may do and expresly affirms that it is to be applyed to generall Councels and that necessarily and how these things do agree with the place in hind where he saith he denyes the remedie is needfull in any Church above a nationall let the wise and himself judge For for my part except there be some difference between necessary and needfull the sayings to me do seem inconsistent one affirming the place is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to generall Councells and the other denying that the remedy there mentioned is needfull in any Church above a nationall 2. Christs remedy saith he is a Church remedy for offences among the brethren and members of the visible Church And Indians are nomembers of the visible Church and so being without they cannot be judged 1 Cor. 5. 12. Answ That Indians cannot be judged by the Church is very true but nothing against us for the very same that here is said by Mr. Rutherford was said by us before in the place which himself doth alledge where we also brought the very same text of Scripture which himself doth bring Now why should these things be brought as a confutation of us which are nothing but a reception of that which we had delivered afore as our own judgement May not his reader be induced hereby to think that we had spoken otherwise But to let this passe If Indians cannot be judged by the Church then still our purpose is gained for by this it appeareth that an offence may be committed where Christs remedy Tell the Church may not be applyed for the redresse thereof and so that universall proposition Christs remedy is as large as the maladie and where an offence may be committed there to tell the Church is the remedy for the redresse of the same which our brethren do lay as the foundation on which to build the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods the universality I say of this proposition is utterly overthrown by this instance of Indians and so that scripture Matth. 18. appears to be too weak a bottome to bear the building which our brethren would erect upon it Nor is the matter much amended by that which our brother here brings for the helping and clearing of it That Christs remedy is a Church remedy for offences among brethren members of the visible Church For let this be granted as I know none that denies it yet still the question remains what is that Church to which our Saviour here gives power to remove and redresse scandals by excommunicating the offenders we conceive this Church is only the particular Congregation and its Presbytery and our brethren think it is also the Classes and Synods but this apprehension of theirs is not confirmed by saying our Saviours remedy is a Church remedy for offences amongst members of the Church inasmuch as the members of a nationall Church as such are members of the visible Church in our brethrens judgement and yet our brother holds here is nor remedy prescribed for a delinquent nationall Church And if he can so
1 the substance of their calling consisted not in this laying on of hands but in some thing else and what should that be but their election by the people 2. If it was nothing but a signe of praying over then then why is a consummatory rite and a benedictory signe gainsaid and opposed For what great difference is there between a sign of prayer and a benedictory signe And how shall he be reconciled with himself that saith it was nothing but such a sign of praying and yet will not yeeld that it was onely a benedictory signe And for the other particular where he saith this laying on of hands was enjoyed to Timothy as a ministeriall act if by ministeriall act he mean an act that could be lawfully performed by none but onely by a Minister then I desire some proof that this was so enjoyned to Timothy That it was enjoyned to him I grant but that it was so enjoyned needs some better proof then a bare and naked affâ—rmation specially sith many things were enjoyned to Timothy in those examples which were and are justly applyable to all Christians Furthermore suppose it were true that Imposition of hands were enjoyned to Timothy as a ministeriall act how doth this reach to make good the thing in question what should hinder but the peoples election might contain the substance of a Ministers calling notwithstanding or how doth it therfore follow that Imposition of hands was not a consummatory rite or benedictory signe but somthing more Is there any such necessary consequence here that the one of these must needs follow upon the other For my part I see it not nor see any thing to the contrary but if Imposition of hands were such a ministeriall act as he saith it is yet it might still be meerly a consummatory rite or benedictory signe and the substance of the calling consist still in the peoples Election Himself doth say as we hear even now that Imposition of hands Act. 6. though here he call it a ministeriall act was nothing but a signe of praying over the Deacons And therefore these two to be a ministeriall act and yet to be nothing but a signe of prayer or benedictory sign which to me are the same are not so inconsistent by his own doctrine but that they may well stand together And himself doth also hold that the laying on of hands mentioned Numb 8. 10. was a ministeriall act and that they who did it performed the same as Ecclesiasticall Elders and yet I hope he will not deny that the substance of the Levites calling was in the immediate designement and appointment of the Lord and not in the performance of this laying on of hands And therefore it follows that if laying on of hands were granted to be a ministeriall act yet still it may be meerly a benedictory signe and the substance or essence of the Ministers calling not consist in it but in some thing else A miniâ—â—eriall calling standeth in an authoritative sending Rom. 10. 15. and I see not well how the people do send a Minister to themselves Answ But it is not easie to see how they choose a man for a Minister to themselves being sent unto them by God And if God doe furnish a man with gifts and an holy propensity of minde to the work in generall and to such or such a people in particular and make way by his providence thereto then who can deny but such a man is sent of God unto that people And then if that people observing Gods sending of him in this sâ—â—t do hereupon elect and choose him and promise to be obedient to him in the Lord what is there now wanting to the substance and offence of such a mans calling to such a people and yet the man is not sent by them to themselves but sent by God and received and chose by them Parcus understands this sending Rom. 10. of Gods sending and so doth Piscator and who not And to understand it otherwise would be to condemne the Prophets and Apostles who were not sent by men at all and yet did truely answer this scripture in that they were sent of God True it is ordinary Ministers are not sent of God in such an extraordinary way as the Prophets and Apostles were but in an ordinary way and by ordinary means which way and means if they doe observe they also may be truly said to be sent of God unto the people But peradventure our brother means that the people may not lawfully choose a man for minister unto themselves except he be first sent unto them in an authoritative way by some other men and that otherwise he is not sent unto them of God which if it were true then it would follow that the Apostles and Prophets as I said were not sent of God for plain it is that men sent them not It would also hereupon be requisite to be cleared that some men besides the Church have authority to send Ministers to the Church and who these men are that have such authority had need to be cleared also which I for my part think will not be done in hast And till this be done I know no reason but I may still retain this apprehension that men who are qualified according to the rule of the word and duly elected and chosen to some office of the Ministery by Gods people are truly sent of God unto that people The people have not either formally or by grant of Christ virtually the keyes committed to them how then can they give the keyes to Pastors Answ Yet in p. 7. He tells us that he denyes not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of beleevers to supply the want of ordination of Pastors or some other acts of the keyes simply necessary hic nunc and this power saith he is virtuall not formall Now to say they have this power neither formally nor virtually and yet to say they have this power virtually though not formally what is it but an apparent contradiction But suppose it were true that the people had not this power either formally or virtually yet Mr. Ball and Mr. Baiâ—s afore him doe tell us that ministerially they may give what they never had viz. As ministring to him who hath power and virtue of deriving its as a man not 〈◊〉 a peny of his own may give an 100 l. if the King make him his Almoner Thus the Church deriveth aâ— taking the person whom Christ describeth and out of power will â—ave placed in this or that office in his Church The power of the imperiall dignity is not in the electoâ— of the Emperours nor the power of that office and authority whereunto a Minister is elected in the Church who chuseth him to that office Ball Tryall of Separat pag. 239 240. Pag. 494 495. People may as the sheep of Christ discern his voice Joh. 10. and so have a power of election of their own Pastors nor doth this
have taken things upon my report upon trust and partly that my candid and faire dealing with the Author whom I have to doe withall might the better appeare For when a mans words are not kept but forsaken and others substituted in their place his minde and meaning may soone be mistaken and represented amisse unto the Reader Which is a practise that I have often seene but never approved and therefore I have not used it For I would be loth to wrong any man specially a man of such worth as I take Master Rutherfurd to be by imputing to him what he doth not teach nor deliver and for this cause it is that I have usually transcribed and expressed his owne words and by this meanes my booke is growne to the greater bulk One thing more I would advertise the Reader of and then I shall quickly have done the figures from 185 and so forward noting the number of the Pages in Master Rutherfurd his Treatise are set downe twice therein once in their proper place and againe after the page 484. Wherefore if any of these pages be quoted in this Reply as some of them are if the thing that is alleaged be not found in the page that is named looke for it in the other place of the booke where are the same figures and there you may finde it Courteous Reader study the truth in a way of Piety and peace Be zealous for it but lose not love to the Saints beware when the world is filled with disputes about discipline that thou be not drawne onely to erroneous opinions in maine matters of doctrine Be sure to practise and expresse the power of Godlinesse in humility of minde mortification of thy own corruption faith in the Lord Jesus and love to all his redeemed and be not by any meanes drawne away from these things which doe so mainly conduce to thy salvation Finally as the Holy Ghost saith Phil. 4. 8 9. whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are lovely pure and of good report if there be any vertue if there be any praise thinke on these things and doe them and the God of peace shall be with thee Improve I pray such interest as thou hast in God through the mediator by affording the help of thy Prayers for me who am Truly desirous of thy Salvation R. M. Decemb. 10. 1646. A Table of the Contents of the ensuing Treatise Chap. 1. OF Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales and whether by Mr Rutherford his doctrine in this point there must not be appeales to Generall Counsells whose power of Iurisdiction he doth not yet deny page 2. Chap. 2. Of the power of Synods to give advite and Counsell and whether from thence it doth follow that they have no power to command page 11. Chap. 3. Of the Assembly Acts. 15. whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision and whether their rebuking of them does argue the Affirmative page 15. Chap. 4. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods And of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto page 21. Chap. 5. Againe of that Assembly Acts. 15. whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and excommunication in Synods and whether preaching do prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church page 24. Chap. 6. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Ierusalem page 30. Chap. 7. Whether the lawfulnesse or necessity of Appeales doe prove a superiority of Iurisdiction in Synods over Congregations and of sundry sayings of our Author which seeme to interfere page 39. Chap. 8. Whether Antioch Acts. 15. had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had bin able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth do prove the contrary And of Supremacy of power in Congregations page 49. Chap. 9. Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall do make the Gospel more defective then the Law of Excommunication by a Church that hath onely three Elders and of doing things suddenly page 66. Chap. 10. Whether the necessity of discipline be greater then of Sacraments and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise entirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none and whether a man may take on him the whole Minestry having no outward calling thereto and may not as well take on him one act of baptising or ministring the Lords Supper page 75. Chap. 11. Whether the power of Iurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none and whether otherwise neighbouring Churches be not a losse And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power page 93 Chap. 12. Whether it be against the light of nature that the adverse party be Iudge and whether Mr Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach and whether this saying that parties may not be Iudges do make against entirenesse of power in a Congregation any more then in a Generall or Nationall Councell page 104. Chap. 13. Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Jerusalem were each of them more then one Congregation and of Mr. Baynes his judgement therein Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. and whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely or to all the people also page 112. Chap. 14. Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together in some place c. doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely page 123. Chap. 15. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem and the judgement of Mr Baynes whether that Church was many Congregations or one onely page 137. Chap. 16. Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation and whether Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the affirmative page 140. Chap. 17. Whether or no liberties are given by Christ to the people but women must exercise the same as well as men And of the peoples liberty about ordination or the calling of Ministers page 146. Chap. 18. Of Mr Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in New-England page 151. Chap. 19. Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power of Iurisdiction in generall Councels denied by Mr. Rutherford whether therein be doe not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the Iurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies page 153. Chap. 20. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all
societies to end in Monarchies whether would it not follow that the Government of Churches must so end as well as that Congregations must depend on the Government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion in government to other societies And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrewes who châ—se the seven Deacons Acts. 6. were two Congregations or one onely page 159. Chap. 21. Whether Congregations may be excommunicated by Classes and Synods by vertue of those words Mat. 18. Tell the Church as containing a rule and remedy for all offences or at the least a Church remedy for the offences of Churches and Church members And if yea whether it would not thereupon follow that a Nationall Church must have the benefit of this remedy as well as others and so have no independency of Iurisdiction within it selfe but be subject to the jurisdiction of Generall Counsels which yet Mr. Rutherford doth deny page 164. Chap. 22. When the supreame Magistrate is a professed enemy to Religion whether then it be likely and usuall that the greater part of the people are sincerely religious and whether when the greater part are enemies with their Magistrates it be then the duty of a few that are sincere to assemble in a Nationall Synod and there to enter into a Nationall Covenant and also to injoyne the same unto that greater part page 170. Chap. 23. Whether the word Church be not given to a single Congregation and whether a Congregation be a company or Church-meeting onely for word and Sacraments and not for any other spirituall duties and whether the divers duties 1. of word and sacraments 2. of discipline c. must needs argue divers Churches page 175. Chap. 24 Whether those children of Israell Numb 8. 10. who laid hands on the Levites were Elders by office and as so considered did lay on their hands And whether this Scripture do not prove that where there are no Elders to be had there some principall members though no Elders by office may impose hands on Church-Officers page 180 Chap. 25. Whether a Ministers calling consist in election or imposition of hands and whether of these is greater and whether is prior or posterior Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Acts. 6 2 3 4. Acts. 13. 1 2 3. doe prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbeterie and that such imposition of hands is not a consummatory rite or benedictory signe Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbyterie ordaine him before the people choose him and whether otherwise the people doe send a Minister to themselves And whether the people of God may not as well discerne a mans fitnesse to be ordained as his fitnesse to be elected page 196. Chap. 26. Whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands do prove that this action may not in any case be performed by Non-officers but must be performed onely by Presbyteries and whether the argument do not make as strongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates as to the Presbyteries and do not as well exclude the Presbyteries from medling therein as exclude the people page 206. To the Christian Reader IN the yeare 1643. there came forth a Treatise against Independency under the name of my Reverend and learned Brother Mr. Charles Herle the Pastor of Winwick in Lancashire This Treatise because it seemed to bee written with such a Candid and peaceable spirit as might witnesse for its Author that the thing he aymed at therein was meerly the disquisition of the Truth and because the Author thereof was many yeares agoe of my Reverend brother Mr. Tompsons acquaintance and mine therefore we thought it might not be in vaine if we should lovingly communicate to the learned Author such apprehensions of ours whereby wee were detained from concurring with his judgement in the principall Question disputed in the said Treatise And therefore in the latter end of the same yeare there came forth a small Script under our Name in way of a brotherly Answer to that his loving and learned Treatise Against this Answer Mr. Samuell Rutherford a learned writer of the Church of Scotland hath alledged and published many Objections Exceptions and Answers in his Booke entituled The due right of Presbyteries I may call them many because in that Treatise of his there are no lesse then 24 or 25 severall places wherein he bring up by name the said Answer disputing against sundry passages therein as if they were not sound which passages if they be indeed erronious and unsound are a great many to bee contained and found in so small a Work the whole Booke as it is now printed containing in it 30. leaves So that the leaves in the Booke are not much more then the places therein which this learned Writer doth object against which being considered I thought it therefore needfull to peruse and weigh as the Lord should helpe the severall places of his fore-mentioned Treatise wherein he deales against the said Answer And having so done I here present my apprehentions to publike view leaving the Prudent and judicious Reader to consider and judge whether this Reverend and learned Brother have sufficiently overthrowne or weak'ned the said Answer or whether the same doe not still remaine agreable to the rule of Truth notwithstanding his Objections against the same or such Answers as he doth returne to severall passages therein CHAP. I. Of Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales and whether by Mr. Rutherford his doctrine in this point there may not be Appeales to generall Councils whose power of Iuâ—isdiction he doth yet deny FIrst of all in his Page 315. for that is the first place wherein I find him medling with the Answer speaking of doubts concerning Math. 18. 17. Tell the Church In a 9 th Objection about that Scripture besides other particulers hee hath these words viz. There is no reason to appeale to a higher Iudicature because the inferiour may erre because all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre Presbyteries Provinciall Nationall the universall Councill of the Catholicke Church may erre And then for author of this part of the Objection hee subjoyneth my Name and Answer to Mr. Herle Cap. 2. pag. 13 14. Answ When hee is discoursing of doubts concerning that Scripture Math 18. Tell the Church I know no reason why hee should bring those words of mine at such a time or for such a purpose For though I doe acknowledge that I wrote the words which hee hath set downe or such like in the place by him alledged yet that they were brought by me for such purpose as hee doth report viz. For the cleering of Doubts concerning the meaning of Math. 18 17. that I doe utterly deny He that shall looke upon the Chapter and Pages alledged will find that I doe not there meddle at all
Circumcision but doth also rebuke them for another fault to wit their obtruding their false way upon the Soules and Consciences of others and for their wilfull and obstinate upholding that opinion and raysing a Schisme in the Church But if all this were granted his purpose were not gained thereby unlesse he would prove that which he doth but only affirme to wit That a Synodicall rebuke is not specifically different but only gradually from Excommunication and that both must proceed from the same power which yeâ— he hath not proved at all But saith he I argue thus If the Apostles do not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine in this Synod but also in Church way and by a Juridicall power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as subverters of Soules and Lyers then they doe not onely use a meere Doctrinall power in this Synod but also a Juridicall power but the former is true Ergo so is the latter Answ With favour of so learned a man I thinke this kind of arguâ—ng is but a begging of the thing in question and a proving of Idem per Idem For if the Synod did not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine but also by a Iuridicall power rebuke the Authors of it then it must needs be true indeed that they did not only use a Doctrinall power but also a Iuridicall power that is If they did so they did so if they did use such power they did use it But there still lyes the question whether they did so or no and whether they did use such power or not and this kind of arguing doth not cleere it all If we on the contrary should argue thus if this Assembly did not put forth any power of Iurisdiction or Discipline but only in a Doctrinall way conâ—ute a false Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it then they did onely put forth a Doctrinall power and not any power of Iurisdiction one of farre lesse abilities then our learned Author would soone espy the loosenesse of such reasoning at least himselfe we doubt not would soone espy it for sometimes we heare him say friend your Logick is naught page 177. And yet be it spoke without offence the Logick which himselfe doth here use is not so good as to be altogether without fault no not for the forme of it and therefore we do not see how any thing can be concluded thâ—reby But to leave this mistake and to consider of the matter it selfe If it were granted that this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way consute a false Doctrine but also rebuke the Authors thereof must it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a Iuâ—idicall way Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults but only in a way of â—â—â—â—ction and Discipline I suppose much needs not to be said for the cleering the truth to be otherwise For Master Rutherford himselfe confesses Page 394. That there is great odds to do one and the same action materially and to do the same formally and Page 393. That one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision Which being so it followeth thereupon that though this Synod to call it so Act. 15. Had a Doctrinall power yea and a power of rebuking these false teachers yet the thing that he from thence would inferre viz. Their power of rebuking in a Iuridicall way and their power of Excommunication these are neither of them proved thereby For if it should be said that though rebuking do not alwayes imply Iuridicall power yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke then the power here spoken of may be concluded thence to be in a Synod The Answer is that this will not helpe at all because this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient viz. The Synod for effecting or acting the same effect Now Master Rutherford confesseth pag. 393. That he doth not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of those Decrees from the efficient causes and gives that for his reason which to me is unanswerable to wit because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision And in the page next ensuing he confesseth also that actions have not by good Logick their totall specification from the efficient cause Which being so then though it were granted that any Synod may and that this Synod did performe this action of rebuking yet the thing in question to wit that the power of a Synod is a power of Iurisdiction and of Excommunication is not at all gained thereby At the least wise to end this passage this I may say that if this Reverend Brother will be true to his own Principles and not gainsay what himselfe hath already written he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from this argument of their power to rebuke nor yet from any other argument whatsoever and the reason is because he doth elsewhere confesse that Synods are not to Excommunicate any and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers but to remit the censuring of them to other Churches Commanding them to doe it His words as they are to be seene in his Page 413. are these viz. I could easily yeeld that there is no necessity of the Elicit acts of many parts of government such as Excommunication Ordination admitting of Heathens professing the Faith to Church-membership in Synods Provincicall Nationall or Oecumenicall but that Synods in the ease of neglect of Presbyterycall Churches Command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their duty and in this sence Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of Circumcision In which words we have two things concerning Excommunication to omit other particulars first that there is no necessity that Synods should Excommunicate any but only command the Churches to do their duty therein Secondly in particular concerning that Synod Acts 15. That they were to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbyteries of Antioch and Jerusalem in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders or Circumcision Which particulars being most true as I for my part so esteeme of them it followes thereupon that what Master Rutherford saith in this place we have now in hand is greatly weakned thereby For how both these can stand together that this Synod should have power not only to rebuke but to Excommunicate these false teachers and yet neither Provinciall Nationall nor Oecumenicall Synods to Excommunicate any nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers but to remit the censure to other Churches to whom it concerned commanding them to do it how these things I say can stand together I for my part am not able to understand CHAP. IIII. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods and of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto IN his Page 396. alledging
Mr. Tompsons name and mine and chap. 1. page 9. of the Answer He saith we there teach that there is a power of cleering truth dogmatically that ultimately where the controversy is ended but he saith we will have this Vltimate power not in a Synod only but also in a Congregation and then no answereth three things which there ensue Answ Our words are these by power of Decrees we understand power to cleere up the truth Dogmatically for the word translated Decrees is Dogmata in the Originall Act. 16. 4. And this power we confesse is in a Synod though not all in a Synod alone but also in the Presbyterie of a single Congregation Now these bring our words if therefore this Reverend Brother would overthrow our Tenent in this particular he should have proved that there is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a single Congregation to cleere up the truth Dogmatically this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach But this be neither proveth nor once attempteth to prove and therefore our Tenent herein doth yet stand good for any thing he hath said to the contrary And no marvell siâ—h the expresse words of the text do witnesse that every Bishop hath power and is boand by his Office and duty by sound Doctrinâ— both to exhort and convince gainsayets Tit. 1. 9. And accordingly the Presbitery of Antioch did labour to cleere up the truth in that controversy about Circumcision and had much disputation about it amongst themselves afore there was any speech of sending to Jerusalem for help Act. 15. 2. Which sheweth that they had power or right to have cleered the matter amongst themselves if ability had served or else this indeavour had been sinful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right So that for ought we yet soe the power that we speake of and which wee hold to bee in the Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord. But let us heare Master Rutherfords Answer First saith he they seeme to make this Dogmaticall power a Church power and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church government and so it must be Church power and Church government in the Synod as well as in the Congregation Answ Whence doth it seeme that we do so make it Are there any such words as here he sets down Or any words equivalent thereto Or doth the place make any mention of Church-power and Church government at all Or is there so much as one word that looketh that way If there be let our Brother say that we seeme to â—each as he doth report but if there be not we are sorry he should report us to teach oâ— seeme to teach that which to our remembrance we never said nor thought And sure it is we have expresly said the direct contrary in page 7 the Page next save one afore this which heere he is dealing against where wee have these words It seemeth to us say we that this power viz. By disquisition and disputation to cleere up the rule and then to command Obedience thereto is not properly a power and exercise of government and Jurisdiction but a power of Doctrine and so a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church These are our words in the Page afore alledged wherein we plainly expresse what the power of Synods seemeth unto us to be even the direct contrary to that which he saith we seeme to make it wee on the one side affirming and expressing that it seemes to us the power of a Synod is no power of government and Iurisdiction but a power of Doctrine And he on the other side reporting that we seeme to make the exercise of Dogmaticall power to be formally an act of Church-government and so to place Church-government in the Synod In which report we must needs say wee are plainly mis-reported His second answer is this The last period and Conclusion of the controversie cannot be both in the Congregation by right only and in the Synod by right only For two last powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate Iudicatures Answ This is very true but it toucheth not us at all For we never said the last period of the controversie is both in the Congregation only and in the Synod onely If we have so said let the place be produced where we have said it for the place by him alledged doth afford us no such thing nor any place else that we know of All that the place affords concerning this point is only this that there is a power of cleering the truth Dogmatically in a Synod though not in a Synod only but also in the Presbytery of a single Congregation And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not deny But whether this power be last in the Synod or in the Congregationall Presbytery of this we do not speaks at all much lesse do we say as he doth apprehend and report that this power is both last in the Synod and last in the Congregation too Wherefore our defence in this particular must needs be this that what here he confuteth to be outs is such a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens nor for ought we know did never enter into our thoughts Thirdly he saith If a controversie concerne many Congregations as this doth Act. 15. I see not how a Congregation except they transgresse their line can finally determine it Answ Neither doth this touch us except we had said that a Congregation may finally determine controversies which concerne many Churches which yet we have not said As for that controversie Act. 15. It is plaine from verse 2 that Antioch did endeavour to have ended it amongst themselves so far as they were troubled therewith For some teaching that corrupt Doctrine amongst them they had much disputation about the point afore they determined to send out for helpe elsewhere Now to what end was thus much disputation if they had no right to determine the matter might they not better have spared their paines Or did they not transgresse their line in attempting what they did attempt Sure it seemes they did if they had not right to determine the matter But for our part sith we do not find them in the least reproved by the Holy Ghost for this attempt therfore we cannot but think they did well therein And thereupon it followeth that if Antioch was a Congregationall Church as it seemes to us it was from Act. 14. 27. either this controversie did trouble no Church but Antioch only or else when a controversie or corrupt opinion doth trouble many Churches one of them may lawfully determine and end it so farre at it concernes themselves CHAP. V. Againe of that Assembly Act. 15. Whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and Excommunication in Synods and whether Preaching doe prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church THe new place where I find him excepting
Synod we are not to be blamed though we give not a Synod that name Answ Pag. 1. The most that we have yeelded in this point is this that for the name we will not contend and that if a Synod may be called a Church then sith they have Power by disputation to cleere up the rule they are rather a Teaching then a governing Church Answer Pag. 1. 7. This is all we have said and we desire our words may not be stretched beyond our intent and scope therein But let us heare what our Brother would hence inferre I inferre saith he that Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches as our brethren of New-England and the forenamed Authors teach is an Ordinance of Christ that can be performed in no single Congregation on earth for a Doctrinall Cannon of one Congregation can lay any Ecclesiasticall tye upon many Churches Ergo by this reason our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Jewish Synagogues Answ When he saith the Brethren of New-England and the Authors of the Answer do teach a Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches and aledgeth for proofe in his Margent Answ 7. to 32. q. 9. 14. page 43 44. and Answer to Mr. Herle Chap. 4. Pag. 40. 41 with favour of so learned a man wee must returne this Answer that neither of the palces alledged will make good his purpose in as much as neither of them doth make any mention at all of the thing which he reports them to teach viz. Such Synodicall teaching as gives out Decrees tying many Churches Let the places be viewed and the thing will be found as I say And therefore how they can be said to teach that which they neither teach nor mention doth surmount my ability to conceive If the Reader would know what it is that is taught in the places it is no more but this that in some Cases it is requisite that Churches should seeke for light and Counsell and advice from other Churches as Antioch did send unto Ierusalem in a Question which they wanted ability to determine amongst themselves and that there ought to be Synods and that we thinke that meeting Act 15. might be such an one The first of these is taught in the formâ—â— of the places and the other in the other But for giving out Synodicall Decrees tying many Churches this same be it within the power of Synods or otherwise is 〈◊〉 taught at all in either of the places except wee shall say which we thinke were unreasonable that there can be no Synods nor consulting of other Churches for light and Counsell and advice but there must be in those other Churches so consulted withall a power to give out binding Decrees yea Decrees that shall bind or tye many Churches We thinke this latter doth no wayes necessarily follow upon the former and therefore though the places alledged do speake to the former yet the latter which this Author reports them to teach they do not teach at all Secondly I Answer further that if such a Doctrine were indeed taught in the places by him alledged or any other yet the inference which he would thence bring in That then our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Iewish Synagogues Thâ—s same doth not follow at all and the reason is because the Synagogues were dependant on the Supreame Synedrion not only for light and Counsell no nor only for Doctrinall Cannons or Decrees but also for Iurisdiction and Discipline that Synodrion being their supreame Court to whose sentence they were all bound under paine of Death to submit as is cleere Deut. 17. 11 12. And therefore if it were granted which yet we do not see proved that Synods may give out Decrees and Doctrinall Cannons that shall tye many Churches it doth not follow that our Congregations shall therefore be dependant as were the Iewish Synagogues except it were also proved that they must depend upon Synods in point of Iurisdiction and Discipline as well as in point of Doctrine yea and so depend as that the sentence of those Synods must be obeyed under paine of death Sure the Synagogues and every member of them were in this sort dependant upon the Supreame Synedrion but we hope 〈◊〉 Reverend brother will not say that Congregations must in this sort be dependant upon Synods At the least wise this we hope he will not deny that every member of a Church is bound to depend upon the Pastor of that Church in point of Doctrine and yet it will not follow that he must depend upon one Pastor alone in point of Iurisdiction and Dâ—scipline And the reason is because Doctrine may be dispenced by one Pastor alone but Discipline must be dispenced by a Church which one Pastor alone cannot be And therefore if Congregations were to be dependant upon Synods in point of Doctrine it would not follow that they must bee dependant in point of Iurisdiction and Discipline Thirdly saith he It is a begging of the question to make Ierusalem the Supreame Church and the Synagogues dependant Churches because it it was lawfull only at Ierusalem to Sacrafice for I hold that Ierusalem was a dependant Church no lesse then the smallest Synagogues in all their Trybes And so he proceedeth largely to shew that sacrificing at Ierusalem did not make Ierusalem Supreame Answ It this were even so as is pleaded yet that which we have said of the compleatnesse of the Synagogues and of their dependancie is not at all removed thereby and the reason is because we do not make the Synagogues dependant nor Ierusalem supreame meerely upon this ground because Ierusalem alone was the place of Sacrificing but this is the ground upon which chiefly we go that at Ierusalem was the Synedrion upon whom all Israell must depend for judgement and from whose sentence there was no appeale which ground wee still thinke doth prove both the incomplearnesse of the Synagogues and the supremacie of the Synedrion and the contrary to this must be cleered if our Tenent in this matter be removed True it is we thinke it some argument of the Synagogues incompleatnesse and imperfection that they were not permitted to enjoy all the Ordinances which were of ordinary use but the supremacie of Ierusalem we do not place in this only that there was the place for Sacrifice but in this withall that the supreame Iudicatory was there upon which all Israell must depend and from the which there must be no appeale And yet this supremacie we do not place in Ierusalem considered a part from the Synedrion but in the Synedrion it selfe And therefore whereas he saith Pag. 415. That we might as well conclude that all the Cities and Incorporations of England are dependant upon London inasmuch as the Parliament useth there to sit I conceive the comparison doth not sute because as we do not place the supremacie in London or in Westminster considered apart from the Parliament but in the Parliament which useth
Congregation or the Congregation will be partiall and unjust or when the businesse is difficâ—ll and intricate then we may appeale from the Congregation else we may not These things I say doe not cleere the matter at all because still the question remaines who must be judge of these things whether the party appealing or the Congregation from whom or the Synod to whom the appeale is made and unlesse this be determined the things mentioned alledged by our Brother do afford us small help in the matter for the cleering of it And therefore what we said in the Answer doth still for ought I see remaine sound viz. That there must be some finall and supreame judgement that controversies may not by appeales after appeales be spun out in infinitum and to determine where that supremacie doth lye is the maine question which unlesse it be determined the usefulnesse of appeales may be granted and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seeke as before because that there ought to be appeales till you come to the highest is one thing and that a Synod and nâ—t the Congregation is the highest is another Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have sufficiently cleered it unto us that we may know where this supremacie doth lye I leave it to the Iudicious to consider CHAP. VIII Whether Antioch Act. 15. Had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had been able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth doe prove the contrary And of supremacy of power in Congregations BVt though our Author doe not cleere it to us where the supremacie doth lye yet in this pag 423 and 424. He useth an argument from the practise of the Church of Antioch Act. 15. And our own Doctrine concerning the same to prove that it doth not lye in the Congregation which argument we are willing to consider His words are those That supremacie of power should bee in a Congregation without any power of appealing I thinke our Brethren cannot teach For when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessity of keeping Moses Law they by Natures direction Act. 15. 2. Decree to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders as to an higher Judicature that there truth may be determined and then he addeth that Mr. Tompson and my selfe do teach that the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof alledging for this in the Margent the answer Chap. 4. Page 42. Ergo saith he they must acknowledge Appeales by Natures light warrantable as well as wee Answ That appeales are warrantable and warrantable by Natures light till we come to the supreame judicatorie this we deny not but have formerly yeelded no lesse But for that our Brother here aymes at viz. Appeales from a Congregationall Church as not being supreame to another Iudicatory this we conceive is not proved by the example of the Church of Antioch nor by any thing that we have written concerning the same And the reason it because Antioch had right and Authority to have ended the matter amongst themselves if ability had served thereto and their sending to Ierusalem for helpe may argue want of agreement or imperfection of light but argues no want of Authority or right within themselves For it is plain verse 2 that Antioch did endeavour to have ended the matter amongst themselves and had much disputation about it for that end afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem Now this endeavour doth argue their right for otherwise it had been sinfull as being a presuming to do that which did not belong to them This reason we have rendered afore in the place which our Author alledgeth and he doth not at all remove it and therefore we are still of the same mind as before that Antioch was not dependant upon the Iurisdiction of other Churches but had independant power within themselves as many may have who yet need the help of light from others for their direction in using their power Great Kings and Monarchs have received light from their Councellours without any impeacâ—ment of their independant power which they have in themselves and without any ascribing of that power to those their Counsellours As we said in the place alledged Antioch may send to Ierusalem for help and yet this sending neither prove right of Iurisdiction in them who are sent unto nor want of Iurisdiction in them who do send And therefore whereas our Brother saith Antioch because of the difficulty of the controversie had not light to judge thereof Ergo we must acknowledge Appeales to be warrantable We would rather argue thus Antioch wanted light Ergo Counsell and light is to be sought elsewhere and thus we conceive the inference will hold but to say Ergo there must be Appeales from the Congregation to others in matter of Iurisdiction this we conceive will not follow at all No more then it will follow Kings or other supreame civill Rulers must seek light and direction from their Counsellours Ergo there lyes an appeale from them to those Counsellours which Consequence none will maintain nor affirme If the Scriptures had said that Antioch did never attempt to â—nd that controversie as knowing that the ending thereof belonged not to them but to others or if it had said that the censuring of these obtruders of Circumcision had been performed by them of Jerusalem and not by them of Antioch as not belonging to Antioch but to them of Jerusalem then our Brother might have had some ground from Antioch to prove the necessity or warrantablenesse of appeales from Congregationall Churches to other Iudicatories but such no such thing is said we see not how this example can be any ground for the establishing of such appeales or the taking away from Congregationall Churches their power of Iurisdiction within themselves Especially wee see not how this our Brother can alledge the same for such a purpose considering what himselfe hath written elsewhere in this learned Treatise of his wherein he examines that answer of ours Two passages in his treatise I propound to consideration which seeme to me to make for that independant or supreame power in Congregations which here he is disputing against the one is that which we touched before in his Page 413. Where he saith that Synods in case of neglect of Presbyteriall Churches are to command the particular Churches whom it concerneth to do their dutie as in other particulars there named so in excommunication of offenders and further that the Synod Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem in case of the obstinaâ—ie of these obtruders of Circumcision Which I
conceive is very truly spoken and thereupon it followes that there was a supremacie of Iurisdiction in that Church of Antioch and no necessity of appealing from them to the Iurisdiction of others For â—ith the Synods are only to command the Churches to do their duty and to remit the censure of offenders to the Churches themselves to whom the offenders belong it plainly appeareth thereby where the supremacie of Iurisdiction doth lye The other place is in his Page 307. Where we have these words viz. The power of Jurisdiction ordinary intensive and quo ad essentiam Ecclesiae Ministerialis according to the intire essence of a Ministeriall Church is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall as in a Nationall Yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head Now if there be such perfect compleat power of Iurisdiction in a single Congregation I know not how there can be such necessity of Appeales from them to the Iurisdiction of others as he is pleading for nor how that supreame and independant power in Congregations can be denyed which here he disputeth against For let this compleat and perfect Power of Iurisdiction be acknowledged as due to such Churches and appeales from them to other Iurisdictions will be of small necessity or use I know indeed this Reverend Author sayeth in the Page last mentioned and within a few lines of the words which I have here alledged That a Congregation is so a part of the Presbytery that it hath not a whole intire compleat intensive power over its own members to Excommunicate them And therefore the consociated Churches must have a power over the members of a Congregation Which words I confesse seeme not well to agree with the former because in the one intire compleat intensive Power is denyed to a Congregation and in the other the Power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive is said to be as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as in the great Churches But it is not the latter words but the former which I do stand upon and by them as I conceive the supremacie of Congregations is established and the necessity of appeales from them to other Iurisdictions is cleerely takes away For if the Power of Iurisdiction be as intire perfect and compleat in the Congregation as in the greater Churches as our Brother expresly affirmes it to be I know not the reason why there must be appeales from the Iurisdiction of the Congregation unto the Iurisdiction of those other Churches If the Power spoken of were more imperfect and incompleat in the Congregation then it is in the other Churches then there might be more reason or â—ayrer pretence for those appeales but sith our Author confesseth it is no more intire compleat and perfect in these then in the Congregation but as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as it is in the other I am yet to seeke of a sufficient ground for the necessity of appeales from the Iurisdiction in a Congregation For is it reasonable to appeale from one Iudicatory to another and yet the power of Iurisdiction be as intire compleat and perfect in the former from which the appeale is made as in the latter to which the cause is brought by such appeale It seemes by such appeales we are not like to be much helper nor much to mend the matter above what it was before and therefore the usefulnesse and necessity thereof is still unclâ—â—â—â— I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversie Act. 15. When the Churches of Syria and Cicilia to their knowledge were troubled with the like question as verse 24. may cleere I doubt much if they had power to determine a question that so much concerned all the Churches Answ It is not cleere from verse 24. nor from any part of the Chapter as farre as I can find that Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with this question and if they had known it I see nothing therein but they might notwithstanding lawfully end the matter so farre as concerned themselves For when this question was started amongst them by such as came from Judea and taught this corrupt Doctrine at Antioch the text is very cleere verse 2 that they had much disputation amongst themselves to have ended the matter afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem which disputation is an argument that they had right to have ended it if ability had noâ— been wanting And as for our Brothers reason for the contrary taken from their knowledge that the other Churches of Syria and Cicilia were troubled with the like question there is not one word in the verse alledged to shew that Antioch had knowledge of any such matter nor is Syria and Cicilia once mentioned therein And though they be mentioned verse 23. Yet neither doth this verse declare that Antioch had any knowledge that this question had ever troubled those other Churches Say it be true that indeed they had been troubled therewith and that the Epistle from the Synod doth intimate no lesse this may prove that when the Epistle came to be read at Antioch then Antioch by this meanes might come to the knowledge thereof but all this doth not prove that Antioch knew so much afore And therefore they might endeavour to end the matter amongst themselves as not knowing for any thing our Author hath yet brought to the contrary that any other Churches besides themselves were troubled therewith But suppose they had known so much I see nothing in this to hinder but Antioch might lawfully cleere up the truth in the question and censure such of their Church as should obstinately hold and teach that false Doctrine notwithstanding their knowledge that others had been troubled with the like Doctrine and teachers Suppose a Christian family be troubled with lying Children or servants or such as are disobedient and undutifull in one kind or in another suppose they also knew that their neighbour families are troubled with the like shall this knowledge of theirs hinder the Parents or Masters in such a family from censuring or correcting these that are under their government according to their demerits If not why shall Antioch be hindered from censuring offending members of their Church only upon this ground because to their knowledge other Churches are troubled with the like offenders A City or Corporation is troubled with Drunkards with theeves or other vicious and lewd persons and knoweth that other Cities or Corporations are troubled with the like A Nationall Church as Scotland for example is troubled with obtruders of Ceremonies Service booke Episcopacie or other corruptions and knoweth that England or other Churches are troubled with the like shall Scotland now be hindered from removing these corruptions and the obtruders of them from amongst themselves only upon this ground because England to their knowledge is troubled with the like Or shall the Corporation â—ee hindered from
punishing theeves and such other malefactors only for this reason because to their knowledge other Corporations are troubled with the like lewd persons I suppose it is easie to see the insufficiency and invalidity of such Consequences And therefore if Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders as themselves were troubled withall this needs not to hinder but they may determine questions that arise amongst themselves and may censure such of their members as shall trouble the Church or Brethren therewith and obstinately persist in so doing This being considered withall that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compasse For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practise and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both doth endeavour the removall of these corruptions they do not hereby attempt and endeavour to remove them out of other Churches which might be an appearance of stretching their line beyond their compasse but out of their own Church and only so farre as concernes themselves and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further then their Power doth reach But he gives another reason why Antioch had not right to determine the question And this is taken from the strong party that was in Antioch against the truth which was such as that they opposed Paul and Barnabas concerning which he saith that when the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth as is cleere Act. 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they loose their jus their right to determine eatenus in so farre for Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for truth and therefore in this Appeales must be necessary Answ How is it cleere that the greatst part of the Church at Antioch was against the truth The text doth not say so much but only this that certain men which came from Iudea taught the Brethren and said except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved and that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them about the matter and that in the issue they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others should go up to Ierusalem about the question Thus much the Scripture witnesseth Act. 15. 1 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine at Antioch were the major or the minor part of the Church the text doth not expresse except we shall say that where a false Doctrine is taught by some and greatly opposed and disputed against by others there it must needs bee that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine which wee thinke is no good Consequence And therefore whereas our Author saith the greatest part of this Church was against the Truth and that so much is cleere from verse 2. I answer first that I do not perceive this cleerenesse neither from verse 2 nor from any other place of the Chapter Nextly suppose this were cleere this may argue that they wanted ability and light to end the matter but must it needs argue that they wanted right though they had been able Or shall we say that they who want ability to doe things as they should be done do therefore want right to â—â—alâ— in them at all I conceive it will not follow and the reason is because this right in Churches is Naturall or Connaturall to every Church and this want of ability is only accidentall and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church our Brother own words do testifie Page 341. Where he saith this viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that she have power of government also in so farre as she is a Church yea power of government upon this supposition is Naturall or rather connaturall And in Page 307 he saith as was alledged before That the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive Is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall or in a Nationall yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head And in Page 383. He saith That to a Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsciâ—ally in it derived from none but immediately from Iesus Christ And the like he saith of a Presbyteriall Church Now whether Antioch was a Congregationall Church as we hold or a Presbyteriall as is holden by this our Brother yet it is cleere by those words of his here alledged that being essentially a Church it had a politicall Church power intrinscically within it selfe yet a perfect and compleat power of Iurisdiction yea and such a power as was naturall or connaturall unto her as she was a Church But now the light of knowledge whereby they should be enabled well to use this power did not adde any power unto them which they had not before not did the want of it being but accidentall deprive them of that Power which was intrinscicall essentiall and connaturall unto them as they were a Church of Christ Onely this want did hinder their ability to expresse their power well but their right as being a thing Connaturall did still remaine Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civill Power which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking oâ—â—bo it the Church-power In one place he saith thus There is a two-fold power in a King one in a King as a King and this is a like in all and ordinary regall coactive whether the King be an Heathen a Turke or a sound believing Christian there is another power in a King as such a King either as a Propheticall King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King And of this latter he saith that it is not a new regall power but potestas execuliba a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power which he had before as a King Page 387. c. 388. â—ow why may it not be said in like sort there is in a Church two-fold Power one in a Church as it is a Church and this is a like in all true Churches of Christ whether the Church in this or that particular question have light to discerne and hold the truth or otherwise another in a Church as it is sound believing Church holding the truth in such or such question and this is but only a gracious ability to exercise the power which they had before not adding to them any new Power at all Againe in his Page 393. he hath these words Though the King were not a Christian Magistrate yet hath he a Kingly power to command men as Christians and it is by accident that he cannot in that state command Christian duties and service to Christ because he will not and cannot command those dutyes remaining ignorant of Christ
even as a King ignorant of necessary civill dutyes cannot command them not because he wanteth Kingly power to command these civill things for undeniably he is a Iudge in civill things but because he hath not knowledge of them And may we not say in like sort though a Church want the knowledge of the truth in some particular question yet they have a Church power to determine such questions to command obedience therein and it is by accident they cannot in that state determine rightly because they will not being ignorant of the truth therein not because they want Church-power to determine such matters but because they have not the knowledge of them Againe a little after in the same P. he tels us That Christianity addeth no new fatherly power to a Father over his Children nor giveth a new husband right to the husband once an Heathen over his wife for an heathen Father is as essentially a Father over his Children as a Christian Father and an heathen husband an heathen master c. are all as essentially Husband Masters c. as are the Christian husbands masters c. And may we not as well say soundnesse of knowledge in such or such a particular question addeth no new Church power to a Christian Church over their own members nor giveth a new Church right over them which they had not before for a Church that wanteth such knowledge is as essentially a Church invested with Church power over her members as is another Church For ought I perceive the cases are alike and if soundnesse of knowledge do not give to a Church their Church-right in this or that question how can want of that knowledge deprive them of that right Sure one would thinke the whole substance of Christianity might do as much for the adding of Kingly right Fatherly right Husband right c. As soundnesse of knowledge in some one particular question for the adding of Church right that the want of all Christianity should be as available for taking away the Kingly right the Fatherly right c. As the want of knowledge in one particular point for the taking away of Church-right and sith we have our Brothers own testimony cleer and full for the one it seems to me the cases are so parallel and proportionable that the other is unavoidable I meane thus sith in the one case the whole substance of Christianity doth not give power nor the want thereof take away the same by our Brothers own teaching I know not how in the other case soundnesse of knowledge in one particular question should give power or right want of such knowledge take away the same And so for Antioch in particular if it were as our Brother supposeth that the greater part of them did hold against the truth in that question about Circumcision I see not how this could deprive them of their Church right which they had before As for our Brothers reason that Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for the truth This saying I confesse is very true but doth not suffice for the purpose for which hee brings it viz. To prove that Antioch being ignorant of the truth in that question about Circumcision or holding against the truth therein did thereby lose their Church right to determine For if this reason be good then a man may conclude against that power in heathen Kings Parents and Husbands to governe their Subjects children and Wives which our Brother as we heard afore hath granted and taught For suppose that Antioch were ignorant of the truth in that particular is it not cleere that the Kings Parents and Husbands mentioned are ignorant of the truth in many more matters And it Antioch do hereupon loose their right because Christ hath given no power to determine against the truth but for the truth how will it be avoided but by the same reason â—he Kings and the others mentioned must likewise lose their right to governe their own subjects and families For the Lord gives no right I hope to Pagans against the truth no more then he doth unto Churches And therfore if the reason be valid and strong in the one case and for the purpose for which our Brother brings it it seemes to be as strong in the other case also which shall be contrary to what our Brother himselfe doth teach In a word Churches and Antioch in particular have right to determine questions and they ought to determine only according to the truth They have formally a right to determine and when their determinations are according to truth then they will â—ind Vi matâ—â—iâ— which else they will not They have right to determine in fore Humano and if their determinations be for matter agreeable to truth they will be ratifyed in foro Divâ—â—o but not else Now our Brothers arguing doth seeme to confound these two and because of the latter which is freely granted he would conclude against the former which we thinke is not good reasoning but on the contrary do still thinke that though Churches ought to give out no determinations but such as are agreeable to truth and that otherwise their determinations in respect of the matter of them will not bind before God yet for all this they may have right formally and in Foro humano to judge and to determine of such things Moreover if this were granted for true that Antioch when they are against the truth do lose their right to determine Controversies yet we are not hereby much neerer to an issue unlesse it be determined withall who must be judge whether they be against the truth or no and the reason is because if they be not against the truth but for it then I hope it will be granted that they doo not lose their right at all The question therefore still remaines who hath this Ministeriall Power to Iudge whether this or that Church Antioch or any other be against the truth or for it and unlesse this be cleered we are but where we were before But to draw towards an end of this passage about the Church of Antioch whether they had right to determine Controversies when ability failed or whether they did when lose that right I will here transcribe a few words of our Brother as I find them in his second 331. Page Wherein he either cleerely yeeldeth the cause and saith the same that we do or I am much mistaken The words are these There is a difference between ability to judge and right or power to judge A presbyteriall Church and he disputeth in six Pages together to prove Antioch such a one Page 470. 471. c. sequ may have right jus and Ecclesiasticâ—ll law to judge of a point to the judging whereof they want ability therefore de facto it belongeth to an higher Synod where more learned men are though de jure the Presbytery may judge it These words I wish to be well considered For
whereas in the place we have been speaking of he saith Antioch the greater part of them being against the truth did lose their jus their right to determine for which as wee have heard he gives this reason because Christ hath given no right and power to determine against the truth but for it yet now wee see he grants distinction between ability and right and saith a Presbyteriall Church may still retaine this latter of their right even then when they want the other of ability Which two sayings whether they do perfectly agree and whether in the latter of them he do not plainly come up to us against whom he hath been disputing in the former I leaue it to the wise in heart and especially to himselfe to consider For for my part I must confesse that these two sayings A Presbyteriall Church as Antioch may have right jus to judge a point to the judging whereof they may want ability and Antioch a Presbyteriall Church wanting ability did thereby lose their right or jus to determine the point these two I say are such sayings as are not easie for me to reconcile Lastly if it be said our Brother doth not deny unto Antioch or a Church in error all power simply to determine but only to determine tali mode that is to determine against the truth for his words are they lose their jus their right eatenus in so far I answer he hath such a word indeed as eatenus in so farre but if any shall say he meant no more in this dispute but only that such a Church hath no right to determine against the truth I conceive that he that shall so say shall therein impute some fault unto our Brother even the fault of wresting Mr. Tompsons Tenent and mine and suggesting against us unto his Reader as if we had held such a thing as we never wrote nor thought For it is plain that our Brother in his Pag. 424. is disputing against us For he saith that we teach the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof And sets down Master Tompsons name and mine as the men that so teach in Answer Page 42. And a few lines after he saith I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the Controversie Act. 15. And then hee gives two reasons for the contrary So that it is manifest that he intends this dispute against us Now what have we said in this matter Have we delivered any such thing that Antioch had right to determine against the truth Let the Answer be viewed in the place which he alledgeth viz. Page 42. And I am sure no such grosse Tenent will be there found no nor any where else in our writing That which we have said is this that Antioch had right to have determined the matter if ability had served thereto but for right to determine against the truth we never spake one word that soundeth that way Our Brother therefore intending this dispute against us and plainly expressing so much and our Tenent being no other then as I have said it must therefore needs follow that his intendment is that Antioch had no right to determine that matter But for right to determine against the truth he cannot confute such a Tenent as ours we never having delivered any such thing but he must withall be culpable of manifest mistaking and mis-reporting of us to the World and we are and must be slow to believe that a man of such worth would willingly do us such wrong It remains therefore that right to determine and not right to determine against the truth is the thing which he opposâ—tâ— as ours and therefore it is that in this sence and meaning I have here applyed my answer The 〈…〉 thus much That Antioch had right to determine against the 〈…〉 that may soone be conâ—uted but the Tenent is none of ours That 〈…〉 to determine is indeed our Tenent and whether this be conâ—uted 〈…〉 let the wise and Iudicious consider CHAP. IX Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe make the Gospell more difficultive then the Law Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders and of doing things sudainly IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr Tâ—mpson and me and alledging Page 17 18. of the Answer He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales upon appeales from a Congregation to a Classis then to a Synod then to a Nationall Assembly then to an Oecâ—â—â—â—nicke Councell and this way while the world endureth causes are never determined and Synods cannot alwayes be had even as in Ierusalem the supreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Proselites as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia Act. 8. And from the remoteâ—â— parts of the Holy Land but God hath provided better for us in the new Testament where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controversie And then Page 425. He subjoyneth his Answer Answ Though I deny not but some of the things here alledged are written by us in the Paâ—â—â— namâ—d yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expresseth viz. To shew that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much Iudaize that I do utterly deny For the places being viewed will plainly witnesse that wee bring the things alledged for another end viz. To shew whether the way that is called Independencie do make the people as some have thought of it more defective and improvident then their Law For this being objected against that way wee in answer thereto do shew by sundry particulars that it is not that way that is justly culpable in this respect but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these dayes in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent and on the other side the way of our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the condition of the Iewes So that not Iudayzing but making our condition more defective then the Iewes is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren Nor do I see how our Brother in his Answer doth free their Doctrine and way from being justly culpable in this respect If we had intended the thing which he reporteth we would never have used such a reason as he truly reportâ— us to use viz. That by appeales upon appeales causes according to our Brethrens way may be so protracted as never to be determined nor ended For this reason hath neither strength nor colour of strength for such a purpose as he saith we bring it for inasmuch as it is well known that the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes among them And therefore to say that our Brethren do Iudaize and then to give that for a
respect of its end Now if this be all the necessity that is in Discipline how is Discipline more necessary then Sacraments For may not as much bee said of them as here is said of Discipline Are not Sacraments necessary to the well-being of the Church as being commanded in the word as well as Discipline is And serving for excellent ends as well as Discipline doth I suppose it will nâ—â— be denyed and therefore the necessity of Discipline above Sacraments doth not yet appeare Especially if that be considered 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 Sacraments 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 adâ—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 Sacraments First that intire power of Discipline in a Congregation that wants neighbours is not extraordinary Second that there is no such morall necessity 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 Congregations 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 compasse of the question of the ordinary rule of Church-government Independencie of Churches P. 2. plainly confessing that the case is extraordinary whereas Mr. Rutherford 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 Excommunicate 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 it s very being and subsistance 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 orâ—â—â—ary shall we then say that if the case â—e otherwise so that a Church be not alone but have neighbours entirenesse of power in such a case is extraordinary It seemes aâ— must â—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 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—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 hinder 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 extraordinary though in a Church that is alone it be ordinary besides that such a saying 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 usuall 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 inevitably 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 continually 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 other 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 away from such a Congregation the essence of a Church which it had before I conceive none will so say And if every Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church may exercise entire Iurisdiction over all its own members as our Brother
Iudge and party too in the cause there can be no Ceremony or Type in this Next of all I alledge the words of the same Reverend Author in his Page 10 Which is also alledged in the forementioned place of the Answer Where the words are these What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother but the whole Congregation What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part Shall we thinke the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale here That the offended party be not against all equity the sole and finall Judge of the offence In which places wee see it is plaine yet this Reverend Author counts it against the very light of Nature that the adverse party should bee Iudge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the party offended should bee sole and finall Iudge of the offence And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should say that none of them do so teach Yea it is the more marvellous inasmuch as both these places of Mr. Herle are expresly mentioned in that very page of the Answer which here Mr. Rutherford is disputing against And therefore it he had not remembred that himselfe had read the same in Mr Herle as like enough he had yet finding the same alledged by us in that Scripture of ouâ—s it is marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to search and see whether the thing were so or no afore he had denyed the same Whereas on the contrary whether he searched or searched not this we see that he roundly affirmes that none of them do so teach to which saying I know not how to assent our eyes having so plainly seene and read the direct contrary Yea and further it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should thus write considering not only what hath been already said but also what himselfe hath written elsewhere I will mention a few of his own sayings and then himselfe shall be â—udge whether the thing we have now in hand was by him adviseâ—ly and well spoken In his Peâ—ceable Plea Page 218 he hath these words When the Graecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church the Hebrew Church cannot complaine to the Graecian Church for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the same Treatise where he saith If one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an Assembly where there is more light and greater Authority as the weaker may fly to the stronger Now let himselfe be judge whether in these testimonies compared he do not teach that it is against the Law of Nature that parties should be Iudgeâ— and that therefore men may appeale from them Againe those words Page 27 of the same Book are so plaine as that nothing can be more These words saith he what soever yee bind on earth c. Must be meant only of the Apostles and of the Church verse 18. Yea and it must exclude Peter and his offending Brother suppose they were both beleevers because parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges Lasâ—ly those words are expresse in his Due Right of Presbytery in his see â—nd P. 338 339. Where hee writes thus If according to the Law of Nature and Nations no man can be Iudge in his own cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one Congregation when they are a party to the caused person Naturall but the former is reason Nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter In the Assumption of which Sylogisme he plainly affirmes that it is reason Nature and the Law of Nations that no man may be judge in his own cause and by all this I suppose tâ— is manifest that the thing which he saith none of them do teach is expresly and plainly taught by some of them and among others even by himselfe who therefore ought not to have denyed the same nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulnesse in so doing And if so great an oversight be found in him I hope himself may thereby be intreated to be tender of agravating matters against us or others at leastwise not so farre to agravate them as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold for a mans owne infirmities should make him more equitable and favourable towards others And Christian Readers may be warned hereby not hastily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written afore they have duly examined and tryed the same whether the things bee so or not for wee see through forgetfulnesse or otherwise hee may greatly mistake himselfe and misse of the truth and give forth such sayings and expressions for truth as are in no sort to be maintained but recalled though neverthelesse he is otherwise a man of great worth and so ever to be acknowledged We teach that it is not Congruous to the wisdome of Christ nor to the light of Nature that Christ should have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts so many thousand Congregations who may rather crie then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onely ordinary Iudges in their own cause Answ These qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges are such as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now Now indeed it is said 1. That all Congregations being so many thousand 2. May not be the only ordinary Iudges in their own cause but it would bee against the wisdome of Christ and light of Nature if it should so be Yet formerly it was delivered absolutely and simply that it is against the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges without any such modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf gives to help the matter withall Neverthelesse by qualifying the thing in this sort it seemes thereby to bee still granted that though so many thousand Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in their own cause but the light of Nature will be against it yet for some Congregations and at some times the thing may be allowed well enough else why is the thing denyed only to so many Congregations and ordinarily if it be not thereby implyed that some Congregations and at some times may thus practise Now hereupon the question groweth whether some at some times may bee allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature though all may not or whether the light of Nature bee changed when there comes to be many Congregations and be not the same that it was before when there was no more Congregations but one whether I say some new light of Nature do arise with the rise of new Congregations so that when they are many it would be against this light for them thus to bee Iudges though it was not so when there was but one or whether we must say the light of Nature remaining in the same one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto but
many may not It seemes to be inconvenient and haâ—d to affirme either of these and yet the one or the other seemes unavoidable by this that Mr. Rutherford here teacheth For let it be granted that a Congregation that is alone yea a generall Councell yea a Nationall Councell also may be Iudges in their own cause and that no light of Nature is against the same and yet many Congregations may not be so but then the light of Nature will be against it let these things I say be granted which are all of them granted and taught by Mr. Rutherford and then I desire to know how the inconveniences mentioned can be avoided I meane how it can be avoided but either some men or Church Assemblies may lawfully do that which is against the very light of Nature or else that the light of Nature is changed when many Congregations do arise from that which it was when there was but one Yea the difficulty and intricaâ—y in this way is yet more if it be well considered For first of all when a Congregation is alone it is yeelded that it is not against Natures light for them to bee Iudges in their own cause Secondly when many Congregations do arise now it is said it is against such light that they should so be Iudges Yet thirdly when these Congregations do gather into a Nationall Councell then this light of Nature will allow them to be Iudges as in the first case of a single Congregation that is alone And the same is also said of the generall Councell so that here is strange varying and changing of the light of Nature and of that which is against it lawfull or unlawfull thereby And when good reason and ground is given for the cleering of these things we shall then consider further thereof and see more then yet we do In the meane time taking what is granted that no light of Nature forbids a Congregation when it is alone to have entirenesse of Iurisdiction within it selfe nor forbids the same to the generall or Nationall Councels I thinke it may thence be inferred that the like must be allowed to Congregationall Churches that have neighbours and that entirenesse of Iurisdiction in these is no more against the light of Nature then in the other For to say that one Congregation may have this entirenesse of Iurisdiction and the light of Nature alloweâ— it and others may not but the light of Nature forbids it yea to say first the light of Nature allowes it and then it forbids it and then it allowes it againe these are such abstruse and intricate things yea so apparantly incongruous and inconsistent that it passeth my understanding to perceive how they can stand together CHAP. XIII Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Ierusalem were each of them more then one Congregation and of Mr. Baynes his Iudgement therein Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. And whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely or to all the people also IT is a wonder to me saith our Author Page 457. That Thessalonica was but one Congregation yet the Apostle ascribeth to them that which is a note to worthy Baynes of the unmerous multitude of the Church of Jerusalem from whence went the word of Ged to all the World 1 Thes 1. 8. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not onely in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place your Faith to God-ward is spread abroad Answ All this doth not hinder but Thessalonica might be one Congregation though perhaps a great one For that the word did sound out from them to others and their Faith to Godward was spread abroad what is there in all this to prove they were many Congregations in one Church And for Mr. Baynes whom our Author worthily counts a worthy man there is nothing in him that will serve Mr. Rutherford his purpose but much that makes for the contrary For it is well known in his Diocesans Triall he maintaines at large that Churches by the appointment of Chrâ—st are Congregationall and denyes that one Congregation may be one Church and in the particular instances of the Church at Jerusalem at Coâ—iâ—th at Ephesus at Antioch and others he holds the very same that we do and the direct contrary to that which Mr. Rutherford stands for And therefore whereas he wonders that Thessalonica should bee one Congregation considering what the Apostle saith of them and what Mr. Baynes hath said of Jerusalem I may more justly wonder that he should once mention Mr. Baynes in this cause For if ever there was man in this world that denyâ—d many Congregations to be one Church and allowed onely such Churches to be instituted of Christ as may meete ordinarily in one Congregation this Mr. Baynes was one of them and therefore a wonder it is to me that Mr. Rutherford should thinke to have help from him in this question But let us consider what it is that Mr Baynes doth say of the Church at Ierusalem Why this which the Apostle affirmeth of the Thessalonians Mr. Baynes doth make a note of the numerous multitude of the Church at Ierusalem But doth hee make it a note of many Congregations in one Church at Ierusalem If he do this were something to the purpose I grant But I hope Mr. Rutherford will not so report of Mr. Baynes For it is plaine Mr. Bayneâ— doth not so speake but expresly saith the direct contrary and therefore what ever numerous multitude might be in that Church and what ever might be a note of such multitude except Mr. Baynes had said that the multitude was such as made many Congregations and yet all but one Church which he never said but the contrary there is no help to be had from Mr. Baynes in this businesse For who knoweth not that there might be a numerous multitude and yet but one Congregation Sure in Mr. Baynes his judgement it might be so and therefore though hee grant a numerous multitude in this Church at Jerusalem yet Mr. Rutherford purpose for many Congregations in Thessalâ—nica and yet all but one Church is not gained nor at all holpen thereby Which will better appeare if Mr. Baynes his Argumentation in the place which I conceive Mr. Rutherford aymes at be considered in Page 3. of his Diocesans Tryall he propounds an Argument of theirs who would have many Congregations to be one Church taken from the example of the ancient Churches of Rome and Alexandria laid down in these words If the multitude of Christians did in Ierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proportion of one Congregation how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 yeares that they could not keepe in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Now when he cames to answer this Argument Pag. 18 19. What doth he then say First of all he saith The Proposition is not of necessary
heare matters proposed to them to consider thereof and upon liking to put them in execution as in other things so in this particular of making election of Officers as there they are Recorded to have done And as for the other place Act. 21. though it be a Question whether those many thousand Iewes that beleeved were all members of that one Church at Jerusalem yet it cannot be any question whether they might come together in one place sith Iames and the Elders do expresly there say unto Paul the multitude must needs come together for they will heare that thou art come Nor can we say they might come together onely distributively in sundry companies but not all in one place for the end of their comming together will not beare that exposition which end was that they might see and heare Paul and try what satisfaction he would give them in the matter whereof they were informed of him that he taught the Iewes to forsake Moses and to omit Circumcision and other Iewish customes These things they were informed to have been taught by him amongst the Gentiles and hearing that he was come to the City they must needs come together to heare what he would say to the matter and how hee would cleere himselfe Now if this was the end of their comming together it must needs be that their comming was altogether unto one place and not in severall companies for this could not answer their end inasmuch as Paul being but one person it was not possible they could see him nor heare him in sundry places at once and therefore they might as well have staid at home and not have come together at all as come together in such sort Plaine it is therefore that the multitude spoken of in these two Scripures were not so many but they might meete in one Congregation Which point as something hath been said in the Answer P. 34 35. For the cleering of it so I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. Rutherford his dealing concerning these Scriptures For though he make mention of them in this place as we see and of that apprehension of mine concerning those Scriptures yet he doth not at all remove the grounds which were given for that apprehension in the Answer but doth wholly passe them by in silence Now taking occasion to speak of the Scriptures and relating what my apprehension was concerning the same and yet saying nothing at all to the gronnds whereon that apprehension was built it seemes hereby to bee implyed that indeed he had nothing in readinesse to object against the same So that I may still conceive of those Scriptures as I did before for any thing yet brought to induce me to be of another mind As for that which next followes certainly the Apostles practice must be our rule and then 500 or 1000 being so farre beneath 10 or 8000 may well seeme a number for fewnesse not competent and what shall wee then thinke of 7 only or 10. Answ The answer is that the Apostles practise doth not at all condemn ours though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers but sometimes more and sometimes lesse for was it not so in that Primative Apostolike Church Is it not plain that that Church was for number farre lesser at the first then afterward when they grew to 4000 or more and yet after this they grew to be fewer againe when Persecution scattered them all abroad except the Apostles Act. 8. 1. And therefore if 10 or 8000 being once the number in that Church be a rule condemning out Churches as being for fewnesse not competent when they are beneath that number how will it be avoided but by the same reason the practise of that Church at one time shall be a rule for the condemning of it self at another time For sure it is their number was not at all times alike but sometimes more and sometimes lesse as in the Sea it is not alwayes full tyde but sometimes low ebbe nor is the Moone alwayes at full but sometimes at the Change Nay if the Apostles practise must be our rule then inasmuch as their Churches had not alwayes the like numbers of members in them but sometimes the number was greater and sometimes lesser it will follow therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not alwayes to bee the same but though greater numbers be lawfull yet the lawfulnesse of lesser numbers may not be denyed CHAP. XIV Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church came together in some place c. Doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely PAge 464. I cannot but thinke that weake which Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompson say Answer Page 37. the place 1 Cor. 14. 23. That speaketh of the whole Church comming together to one place doth unavoidably prove that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into severall Congregations but altogether in one Congregation and it is plaine that though they had variety of teachers and Prophets yet they all used to come together to one place Answ If that which wee say be weake it is more easie for one of such ability and strength as Mr. Rutherford to overthrow the same Yet it is not words that will suffice but weight of reason that must availe thereto Let us heare therefore his Answer to this passage which he thinkes and censures to be so weake The place saith he 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together c. Deth evince the contrary For the Apostle doth there reason ab absurdo from a great incongruity it were incongruous saith he and ridiculous that the whole Church of Corinth and all their guifted men speaking with Tongues so that they could not be understood by Infidels should all Convene in one place and speake with divers Tongues For the unlearned and unbeleevers would say they were madde therefore hee presupposeth that the whole Church should not all come to one place but that they should so come to one place in divers Assemblies Answ And is it true indeed that this place doth evince the contrary viz. That the Church at Corinth did not all meet in one Congregation How shall we be assured that such a thing is evinced by the place For as for the reason given c. That the Apostle dâ—th there reason ab absurdo or from great incongruity this doth not prove the thing at all partly because they might practise something that were not meete but had incongruity in it and partly and more especially because the Apostle doth not lay the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it viz. In the convening of the whole Church in one place but in their speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened and come together Touching the former of these Mr. Rutherford reasoneth to this effect If it were an incongruous
or unâ—it thing that the whole Church at Corinth should come together in one place then they did not so come together but the first is true Ergo the second is true also In which kind of reasoning such is our weaknesse we thinke neither part of the argument to be free from just exception For as we wholly deny the Assumption so we also thinke there is no sufficient strength of consequence in the maine Proposition forasmuch as sundry things were practised in that Church which were no wayes fit not meet to be practised and which the Apostle doth therefore reprove and seekes the redresse of the same witnesse their Factions and divisions Chap. 1. 3. Their neglecting Church censures against the incestuous person and on the contrary being puffed up Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels Chap. 6. their abuses in Prayer and Prophesying their women uncovered and their men covered Chap. 11. their abuses in the Lords Supper when they so came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken Chap. 11. Now as it were an unsufficient kind of arguing to say these things were unfit and unmeet and therefore that Church did not so practise even so Mr. Rutherford his arguing seemes to be no better who would prove they did come together in one place because the Apostle as he thinks did count such comming together unmeet For if it were granted that such a comming had been unmeet yet it doth not follow but such might bee their practise notwithstanding and therefore as hee counts our apprehension in this matter to be weak so I leave it to himself and others to consider whether in this consequence It was not meet they should all come together in one place Ergo they did it not be very strong I desire here not to be mistaken for I do not grant that their comming together in one place was unmeet nor that the Apostle doth reprove them for the same I have already said the contrary in denying the Assumption afore mentioned which I do still deny But the thing I intend is to consider the strength of Mr. Rutherford his reasoning and for that cause to apply it to the thing in question which I still desire to keepe close unto if it may be Now the thing in question being this whether the Church at Corinth were so many at that they could nor meet together in one Assembly but had many Congregations and all but one Church and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative and bringing this reason for it taken from the Congruity of meeting all together I therefore thought meet to weigh the strength of this reason which I do not perceive to be in any wise convincing but supposing the Apostle had counted such meetings inconvenient and unmeet yet this reason as I conceive is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpose that their number was such as that they could not all possibly meet in one place for they might possibly do that which were unmeet to be done in this particular as well as they did in many other things But in this particular I do not thinke they did any thing absurd or unmeet at all and therefore for further answer to this reason I would say that the Apostle doth not say the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it to wit in that the whole Church did convene and come together but in speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened this latter being incongruous and absurd indeed for the Infidels comming into the Church Assembly and hearing them so speake might thinke them madde as the Apostle sayes but for assembling all in one place I know no madnesse that was in that nor shew thereof nor do I yet beleeve that the Apostle doth place the absurdity there For though Mr. Rutherford bee a worthy man and learned yet such a thing as this had need of some further proofe then his bare word If a Church should meet distributively in divers Assemblies and being so met should speake with strange Tongues I demand whether this manner of speaking do prove such a way of meeting absurd I suppose he will say no because it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apostolike Churches did use And if so then suppose they should so speake with strange Tongues when they meet collectively all in one Assembly how can this manner of speaking conclude the absurdity of such kind of meeting any more then it did in the other For my part though such kind of speaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it yet I conceive assembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby then assembling distributively in many Hee that is the Apostle presupposeth that the whole Church should come to one place in divers Assemblies and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face c. Answ If the Prophets were met in divers Assemblies at once I marvell how the unbeleever should be convinced and judged of them all for I hope one singular and individuall unbeleever was not present in divers Assemblies at once nor convinced and judged as here he is said to be by those Prophets from whose Assembly he was absent Eitheâ— therefore the Prophets were all met in one Assembly and not in divers or else it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all For sure the unbeleever could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved that did ordinarily meet in one place the Text saith no such thing and that is to be proved and not taken as granted Answ Suppose it were true that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved this doth nothing prejudice our cause for as much as our Question is not about the whole much people that beleeved but about the whole Church If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place we have what we desire and require no more As for the whole much people that beleeved whether this be the same with the former or no wee shall have no need to prove or take for granted that these did in like manner come together for as much as our question in the termes of it is not about these but about the other But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved Shall we say the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved Or shall wee say it is not so much I conceive it must be one of these or else it must be the same If it be said it is more then still we have our desire if not more then we demand For if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved were neverthelesse not so great but they might and did assemble in one Congregation
one word of Prophesying in divers Assemblies at the same time but that they were so to Prophesy that all of them were to be hearers and learners as well as speakers Which doth plainly imply that there must be many Prophets in one Assembly at once Againe upon verse â—9 he hath these words as the sense of the place Quamvis forte multi suit in Ecclesiae vestra Prophetae c. That is Although perhaps there be many Prophets in your Church yet it will be sufficient if two or three do speake at one meeting and for others it shall be their duty to judge that is to say to examine and try whether these things be true and sound which are spoken by them that speake Wherein he plainly shewes his judgement to be that at one meeting they were to have many Prophets present of whom two or three onely were to speake and the rest to try and examine what was spoken And to the same purpose he speakes upon verse 32. Which he counts to be the same with that of judging verse 29. Further these words verse 23. Of the whole Church comming together into one place he expounds thus Alicujus loci totus populus fidelis That is all the faithfull or beleeving people of a place which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who will not have the whole Church to be the whole much people that beleeved Finally speaking of those words verse 24. if all Prophesy he hath these words Nec omnes inteligit absoluté c. That is the Apostle understands not all absolutely but to this sense to wit if all that speake in the Assembly of the Church do Prophesy that is if Prophets only do speake and they that have the gift of Tongues do hold their peace Which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who understands the Text so that they were all to Prophesie at one time and because at one meeting there were but two or three to Prophesie which two or three hee thinkes could not be all hee will therefore have it that they were distributed into severall Assemblies and so did Prophesie all at once though onely two or three at one meeting For which interpretation though he alledgeth Estius yet Estius wee see affords him no help at all Whereupon I have marvelled why Estius should be alledged sometimes thinking with my selfe whether his name might not bee mis-Printed by the Printer instead of some other man sometimes thinking whether Mr. Rutherford his memory might not faile him in this particular having read the thing in some other Author and supposing it had been in Estius But what ever might be the reason of this mistake he that shall examine Estius will not find in him any help at all for Mr. Rutherfords cause in this particular but the contrary The Text saith expresly verse 29 that at one time they Prophesied but two or three Answer This is a mistake also for the words are let the Prophets speake two or three and let the other judge Now let them do so doth not shew their practise but their duty not what they did but what they should have done The Text saith if there be no interpreter let him that hath an unknown Tongue keepe silence in the Church verse 20. And let your Women keepe silence in the Churches verse 34. Now shall any man say that these Texts do expresly prove that it was the manner of their Women and of their men that had unknown Tongues to keepe silence I suppose no man can say it the words being not a report of what their practise was but a rule of direction to shew them how they ought to practise And so wee say of the case in hand But let it be supposed that it was not onely their duty but also their practise to Prophesie at one meeting but onely two or three what can Master Rutherford gaine heereby His words following do tell us where hee saith If two onely Prophesyed at one Assembly as this Text will warrant cleerely Answ Not so the Text allowes three which is more then two onely But go on and let us heare the consequence Then how doth this whole Church consisting of all the beleevers at Corinth as is supposed by our Brethren convince the Infidell so as it may beare this sence he is convinced of all he is judged of all Can two Prophets be all Prophets Answ Though wee suppose the whole Church consisted of all the Beleevers at Corinth yet that the whole Church did convince the the Infidell this wee never said nor supposed at all For wee supposed and so do still that hee was to bee convinced onely by the Prophets besides whom there were many others that were of the Church But for his demand Whether two Prophets can bee all Prophets The answer is that though two bee not all where there are more then two yet if there bee no more there it is otherwise and so where there are but two or three that doe Prophesie at one meeting there hee that is convinced by those two or three may bee said to bee convinced of all that is of all that doe Prophesie This sence of the place must needs bee received else how shall the Apostles words bee reconciled and stand together For as in one verse hee requireth that the Prophets speake two or three at one meeting and the rest to Iudge verse 29. And in another verse affirmeth that the Infidell in the case there proposed is judged of all verse 24. So hee doth not onely suppose in the very same verse that they did all Prophesie if all Prophesie saith hee and there come in one that beleeveth not c. But moreover in verse 31. Hee expresly and plainely allowes them thus to Prophesie Yee may all Prophesie saith hee one by one that all may learne and all may bee comforted Which places compared doe evince the sence of the words heere given and doe plainely shew that what hee saith verse 24. Of the Infidell being convinced of all and judged of all may bee truely made good if hee bee convinced of all and Iudged of all that Prophesyed at that meeting though their number that so Prophesyed were no more but two or three And therefore whereas hee concludes Surely for my part I thinke it must unavoidably bee said that they Prophesyed distributively and in severall Congregations The Answer is that this needs not to bee said at all but may bee avoided with â—ase and the contrary may bee safely held to wit that they Proâ—â—â—cied collectively and in one Congregation For first they did so Prophesy that one that beleeved not and one unlearned might come in amongst them when they were Prophesying and by that meanes might bee convinced of all and judged of all verse 24. Which might well bee done if they Prophesyed all in one Congregation but otherwise it could not for as much as one unbeleever could not bee present in severall Congregations at once Secondly they were so to Prophesie that the
Prophets when they Prophecied were to have the rest of the Prophets to bee 〈◊〉 to heare and Iudge of that which was delivered let the Prophets speake two or three and the rest judge verse 29. and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets verse 32. The former of which sayings Mr. Rutherford himselfe doth understand of a Colledge Prophets having a power Dogmaticall of judging and censuring the Doctrine of the Prophets delivered What they speake saith he Page 467. Is to bee judged and put under censure for the whole Colledge must judge for which he alledgeth verse 29. And a little after this is not a Power of judging which every Christian hath for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Piscator doth relate to the Prophets who are to judge but as ◠take it a Propheticall judging which may warrant the Iuridicall power of a Presbytery c. By all which it plainely appeareth that when the Prophets did Prophesy the other Prophets were to bee present to heare and judge of the Doctrines delivered and if so how can it bee that they Prophesyed in severall Congregations at the same time For had it been so they could not have judged of one anothers Doctrine which they could not heare being themselves at that time imployed in speaking in some other place And therefore it seemes more likely that they met in one Congregation where they might all Prophesy first one and then another some at one time and some at another and so all of them might also heare and learne and judge of the Doctrine delivered by others CHAP. XV. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem and the judgement of Mr. Baynes Whether that Church was many Congregations or one onely PAg 470. Having suggested sundry things to prove that Ephesus was many Congregations and yet but one Church hee concludes this viz. upon these considerations I leave to our reverend Brethren their judgement if Mr. Mather and Mr. Thompson say right we doe not thinke they were more in number at Ephesus then in Corinth and Jerusalem where the Christians met all in one place Answ The exception then which in this place is taken against Mr. Thompson and me is for this that we doe not thinke the Christians at Ephesus to be more in number then at Jerusalem and Corinth Concerning which I will not say much but onely this that as we have onely delivered what we think in this matter without determining or asserting any thing peremptorily so we shall readily imbrace the contrary when good grounds shall be shewed for the same which though we doe not yet perceive to be performed in all that Mr. Rutherford hath said yet I will not here spend time in examining the same because I do not count this point of so much importance concerning the principall thing in question For whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem or whether it were otherwise there is no great matter in this as touching the maine question For if all of them were such Churches as might usually meet together in one Congregation as I conceive they were it matters not much which of them was most in number But doth not M. Rutherford prove that the one Church at Ephesus was more then one Congregation I confesse he hath sundry things in the precedent pages which he intendeth that way But in asmuch as they doe not concerne M. Tompson and me in particular nor are by him applyed against any passage in the answer I will therefore passe them over more briefly my purpose being chiefly to consider of such particulars wherein he takes exception against the Answer Only thus much I would advertise the Reader that a good part of that which Mr. Rutherf brings to prove many Congregations in one Church at Ephesus hath been answered long agoe by Mr. Baynes in his Diocesans triall pag. 5. which I the rather Commend to Mr. Rutherfords consideration because he counts him a man of worth calling him worthy Baynes And for the help of such Readers as cannot readily come to the book it self I will here transcribe a few lines out of the same worthy Baynes as they are to be found in his Dioces triall p. 5 6. viz. The Church of Ephesus was but one flock First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Sir Ierusalem Antioch and Corinth which he had before shewed to be each of them one Congregation Secondly it was but one flock that which Presbyters might joyntly feed they had no Diocesan Paster If Presbyters onely then none but Parishonall Churches in and about Ephesus theremay be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholely meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5. 2. calleth all those he writteth unto one flock but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all Churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flock is but one Congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostle argue that there should bee Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added but a great number of Sister Churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Collosse there might be many Churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labours without subordination of Churches CHAP. XVI Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation and whether Acts 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the Affirmative THE Answer having in pag. 5. alledged Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30 31. to prove that the Church at Antioch was no more then might be gathered together into one place Mr. Rutherford in Answer hereto saith p. 472 473. That the place Acts 14. 27. is the representative Church and that he beleeveth the Assembling of the multitude Acts 15. vers 30. must be taken distributively Answ This answer of Mr. Rutherfords to the former place was removed long ago by worthy Mr. Baynes who also understands the latter place as we doe and not as Mr. Rutherford For in his Dioces triall maintaining this position that the Churches instituted by the Apostles were onely such as might meet in one Congregation ordinarily and giving this very place and instance of the Church of Antioch for one of his grounds for confirming the said position p. 5. Hee comes imediately thereupon to answer an objection which is the very same that here Mr. Rutherford brings to the former place viz. that the Church mentioned in that place was the Ministers or representative Church for the removing whereof Mr. Baynes returneth 4. things 1. that the word Church is never so
used 2. He argues by analogy from that Acts 11. where Peter gives account before the whole Church even the Church of the faithfull and therefore in like sort Paul and Barnabas might report before the whole Church of the faithfull what things God had done by them 3. Saith he they made relation to that Church which had sent them forth with Prayer and Imposition of Hands and this Church stood of all those who assembled to the publicke service and worship of God which is cleere Acts 13. 2. 4. His fourth particular is this other place of Acts 15. vers 30. where saith he the people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together to consider of Decrees sent them by the Apostles from Ierusalem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In all which we cleerly perceive the judgement of this worthy man to be the same with us and as clearly against Mr. Rutherford as can be expressed which being so and his judgement being delivered upon such reasons as seem to me weighty and which Mr. Rutherford doth not remove I therefore see no sufficient reason to think otherwise of the Church of Antioch then formerly For as for M. Rutherford his reason to prove the place Acts 14. 27. to be meant of a representative Church viz. That they met for a matter of Discipline at least for a matter that concerned all the Churches to wit to know how God had opened the doore of saith unto the Gentiles The answer is that this doth not evince the thing 1. Because rehearsing how God had opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles being neither admission of Members nor of Officers nor any matter of censure nor any thing else but onely a meer declaration of the gracious workings of the Lord cannot be any matter of Discipline as I conceive 2. Suppose it were a meeting for matter of Discipline must it needs be a meeting for Elders alone without the presence of the faithfull Will Mr. Rutherford deny it to be lâ—wfull for any to be present at matters of Discipline but onely the Elders I suppose he will not deny it at all sure I am he hath heretofore written otherwayes Peaceable Plea p. 49. Where he granteth that all matters of Discipline must be done with the peoples consent and alledgeth about 19. or 20. Divines old and new for the same Tenet Now if matters of Discipline must be done with the peoples consent then the people must be present thereat For else they give their consent blindefold And if they must be present at such matters then suppose the matter mentioned in the Scripture we have in hand had been of that nature yet the Church that was gathered together about the same needed not to be a representative Church of Elders alone as Mr. Rutherford would have it but might consist of the people also who by his own grant may be lawfully present at such matters 3. Be it a matter of Discipline or a matter that concerned all the Churches or what else Mr. Rutherford will have it It is plain that Paul and Barnabas when they were at Ierusalem did declare such matters as here they do declare at Antioch not onely to the Apostles and Elders whom he perhaps would make a representative Church but also to a Church besides them I mean besides the Apostles and Elders for so it is said Acts 15. 4. That at Ierusâ—lem they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and Elders and declared all things that God had done with them and vers 12. they declared to the multitude what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them Now if they declared these things at Ierusalem not onely to the Apostles and Elders as to a representative Church but to the Church of the Faithfull also as the Text saith they did what reason can be rendred that the Church which was gathered together at Antioch should be onely a representative Church And that the people there were not present For my part I see no reason for it but that they might declare these things to the Brethren aâ— Antioch as well as to the Brethren at Ierusalem and as well to a representative Church at Ierusalem as to a representative Church at Antioch And therefore sith it is apparent that at Ierusalem they declared these things to a Church which consisted of others besides Apostles and Elders the Church at Antioch to whom they declared the same things might be also a Church of the like kinde and not a representative Church as our Brother conceives it to be 4. The nature of the thing which they doe declare to this Church was such as that it was fit enough for the people to be acquainted therewith which the text mentions in two clauses first more generally all that God had done with them Secondly more specially how he had opened the doore of Faith to the Gentiles Now suppose the people had nothing to do in matters of Judicature by way of power therein yet to be informed of other peoples conversion and how God blessed the labors of the Apostles to that end which are the things they declared to this Church these are no such matters but the people may bee acquainted therewith for their comfort and that God might have praises from them all and therefore the Church to whom Paul and Barnabas declared these things needs not to be understood of the Elders alone but may well enough be a Church consisting also of ordinary Christians 5. Paul thought it not unmeet to make known to all the Corinthians the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia 2 Cor. 9. 1 2. and declareth to them of Macedonia the forwardnesse of the Corinthians in the grace of liberality 2 Cor. 9. 2. shewing the good that came hereby in that the example of Gods grace in some provoked many others to the like 2 Cor. 9. 2. your zeale saith he hath provoked very many and likewise in that by this meanes there redounded many thanksgivings unto God vers 12 13. And if upon these and other good causes he did thus practice towards the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia I know no good reason why he and Barnabas should deal otherwise with the Christians at Antioch and conceale from them the gracious workings of God by their Ministery amongst the Gentiles and make known the same onely to a representative Church of Elders As for our Brothers answer to the other Scripture Act. 15. 30. That the assembling of the multitude there spoken of must be taken distributively I conceive the text will not beare that exposition for the words are that they gathered the multitude together then delivered the Epistle Now if this multitude was gathered together not in one assembly but diverse how could the Epistle being but one be delivered to them all Can one Epistle be delivered to sundry or severall assemblies at one time I suppose it is not possible except we shall imagine there be sundry Coppies one to be
of Nice the first generall Councell of Constantinople with other Councels and Authors witnessing the same pag. 201 202. And in a third place he grants that all matters in the Church must be done with the peoples consent consentiente plebe alledging a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the same tenet Peaceable Plea p. 49. and in another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Cartwright affirming that this liberty is purchased by the blood of Christ Due Right Secondly pag. 464. All which do plainly shew that in his judgement the people have some 〈◊〉 or priviledge or right in Church matters yea as himself saith in this they have divinum jus Gods right And yet for all this the Apostles words do plainly forbid women to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. which very prohibition to women doth also secretly imply that men may have liberty to practise though women may not Now then if the people have liberty priviledge right to consent and act in Church matters yea to speak in the Church and yet women may not speak therein how can this stand which here M. Rutherford writes That if the people have any liberty this liberty must also be due to women If the Apostles words and our Brothers own doctrine in the places cited do stand his saying in the place we have now in hand cannot stand they being so contrary one to another Thirdly saith he What priviledge the people have in Ordination to conferre a ministery which they neither have formally nor virtually I know not Answ Neither formally nor virtually then hear your own words pag. 7. I deny not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of beleevers to supply the want of ordination of Pastors hic nunc this power is virtuall not formall c. Whereas in the place we have in hand the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed which things are not free from Interferring or strong appearance thereof Our words are not just the same which M. Rutherford sets downe a priviledge in ordination to conferre a Ministery but these are our words a liberty exercised about ordination c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exercised about ordination or any other Ordinance by way of consent thereto or desire thereof c. without any authoritative acting therein And if this liberty about ordination be such a fault then how shall he be justified who doth give to the people a greater matter then this liberty doth amount unto even a power to do that which shall stand for ordination it selfe which to do I conceive is more then to exercise some liberty about ordination And when the reader shall have considered these ensuing words of M Rutherford then let him be judge whether M. Rutherford do not give this power unto the people in some cases As a rose saith he caused to grow in winter by art is of that same nature with a rose produced in summer by nature though the manner of production be different so are they both true Pastors those who have no call but the peoples election and those who have ordination by Pastors p. 186. And in the page following he gives two reasons to prove that in some cases election by the people onely may stand for ordination 1. Because God is not necessarily tyed to succession of Pastors 2. Because where men are gifted for the work of the Ministery and there be no Pastors to be had the giving of the Holy Ghost is a signe of a calling of God who is not wanting to his own gracious intention though ordinary means faile Now if the people without Pastors may do that which shall stand for ordination and if their election do make a Minister in some cases this seems to be more then onely to exercise some liberty about ordination for as much as they may doe this latter and possibly no Minister be made thereby whereas in the other case a man is made a true Pastor and Minister as well as by ordination it selfe Marvell it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawfull and not the lesser that some liberty about ordination may not be allowed and yet that can be allowed which may stand for ordination it self and which makes a Ministerâ— as truly as ordination doth CHAP. XVIII Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in new-England NExt after this our reverend Author falls to scanning as he saith pag. 476. some Synodicall propositions of the Churches of New England as he calls them together with a Table of Church power which he calls the Table of New England But with favour of soworthy a man he doth greatly mistake the matter for neither was there any such Synod nor Synodicall propositions as he speaks of nor any such Table of New England as hee mentioneth There was indeed at Cambridge in the year 1643. a printed conference of some of the Elders of that Country where sundry points of Church judgement were privatly discoursed of and this was all But as the meeting was not any Synod as Synods are usually understood so neither were there any Synodicall propositions there agreed upon nor any table of propositions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of New England This I am able to testifie having been present at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end and sundry others of the Elders of these Churches can testifie the same upon the same ground And knowing full well the truth of what I heare relate I will not spend time in replying to what he hath written upon so manifest misinformation and mistake What information he goeth upon I know not per adventure some notes may have come to his view which one or other might gather at that conference for his own private use Peradventure some in their simplicity meaning no hurt many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Synoâ— and M. Rutherford might thereupon adventure to publish in print as here we see But however they mistake a Rose sure I am Synodicall propositions there were none 〈◊〉 any Synod at all not New England Table And therefore I think himselfe and others may do well and wisely hereafter to be informed by good and sufficient intelligence of such things as they publish to the world concerâ—ing the Churches in New England or else not to beleeve the same much lesse to divulge the same in print For what comfort can it be to any Christian to receive and publish to the world against a mans neighbâ—uâ— specially against whole Churches of Christ such reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth CHAP. XIX Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power and jurisdiction in generall Councells denyed by Mr. Rutherford whether therein he do not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies IN
and holden by the whole this reason we see is now removed and utterly taken away forasmuch as all power of jurisdiction is denyed to the generall Councell which is the inevitable Now if there be no power of jurisdiction within the generall Councell then there can be no appeals to such a Councell for such an end and if no appeales to that Councell then the rule doth not alwayes hold that there must be appeals from the lesser assemblies to the greater and if this do not alwayes hold then there may be independent power of jurisdiction in a Congregation without appeals from the same though it be a lesser assembly then the Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries and thus our purpose is gained For how can it be avoided except this power of jurisdiction yea supream or independent power which is denyed to the generall Councell could be proved to be in the Classes Synods or nationall Presbyteries which we think cannot be done Indeed to say on the one side that 〈◊〉 is no independent power in the Congregation and to say on the other side that there is no power at all of jurisdiction in generall Councells this doth inevitably lay a necessity of such Independent power in these intermediat assemblies of the Classicall Provinciall and nationall Presbyteries except we shall say there is no such power at all appointed by Christ in any Church assemblies on earth Now if such independent power be given to the Presbyteries mentioned as it needs must if it be neither in the generall Councell nor in the single Congregations then I desire to know upon what scripture or scritures such power in the said Presbyteries is grounded and built and whether the said power belong unto them all or only unto some of them and which they be and why not to the rest as well yea why not to the single Congregation nor yet to the generall Councell as well as to any of them When this quaere is answered and the answer sufficiently proved by scripture then we shall see more reason for the jurisdiction of such assemblies over the particular Congregations then yet we have seen In the mean time this quaere with the rest I leave to our Brethrens consideration CHAP. XX. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in Monarchies whether it would not thence follow that the government of Churches must so end as well as that Congregations must depend on the government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a Communion in government to other societies And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews who chose the seven Deacons Act. 6. were two Congregations or one onely PAG 482. If Churches must be dependent on Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on earth for which he alledgeth the answ pag. 20. and then subjoyneth his answer thus I see this said without any approbation Churches depend on many above them for unity but what consquence in this Erg◠they depend upon one visible Monarch It is an unjust consequence Answ With favour of so worthy a man he greatly wrongs our words and thereby wrongs the reader by leaving out those words wherein the plainenesse and strength of our argumentation lyes Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progresse of the dispute in that script of ours and to set down our words there used because as Mr. Rutherford hath set them down the strength of consequence is suppressed from the Readers knowledge and so indeed his answer is made easie but the naked truth lyes thus Our reverend Brother to whose Treatise we return answer in that small piece of ours having said that communion and assistance in government is taught by the very light of nature to all societies whatsoever whether Commonwealths or Armies Universities or Navies he presently addeth by way of prevention Not that therefore this government of Churches should as those end in a Monarchy upon earth In answer whereto besides other things we have these words pag. 21. If Churches must be dependent on the government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever then we see not how it will be avoided but by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchie on earth if it were once cleared that the light of nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end so there is as good reason for this as for the other Which last words if it were once proved c. Mr. Rutherford wholy leaves out and suppresseth and so makes his own answer more easie But I desire so much favour which I think is but reasonable that he that will undertake to answer our writing would represent our words and arguing as it is and no otherwise and then I am content that the same may come under tryall Now our arguing is this If Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this reason because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever then by the like reason let it be once proved which is by Mr. Herle affirmed that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in a Monarchy and it will thereupon follow that Churches must likewise end in the same manner If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other societies the same must be observed in the government of Churches I think it will then follow that if the light of nature teach other societies to end in a Monarchy on earth the government of Churches must do so also This is our manner of arguing in which the consequence is the same with that which our Brethren think so strong viz. that because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government therefore there must be in the Churches a government of Synods If any say the consequence is not alike necessary in both cases because the ground doth not hold alike in both for the light of nature doth not teach all societies on earth to end in a Monarchie as it doth teach a communion and assistance in government The answer in that we have plainly said the same in the place of the Answerer alledgeth viz. p. 20 21. But the main question lyes not there whether other societies do end in Monarchies for though the reverend author whom we there doe answer do seem so to judge yet we have there plainly declared that we conceive of that matter otherwise but here doth lye the main question viz. Suppose it were granted that light of nature doth teach all societies to end in a Monarchy on earth whether would it not then follow that Churches must also so end And that this is the thing in question wil plainly appear to any that shall peruse the place And to this question our answer is that the consequence for
no Elders in the land or nationall Church to lay on hands Now had our words been delivered and set down by him as they came from us this speech and passage of his would have been uselesse and apparently brought in without cause For to what purpose should he bring in this exception saying Except there be no Elders in the land c. when our selves had prevented him in this by putting such an exception expresly into the prohibition which we deduce and gather from that scripture of Numb 8. 10. Sure this had not needed but might have been spared if our words had been fully related But by this omission and concealement his own speech hath more appearance of ground and reason in it then otherwise it would have had and our apprehension doth not appear to his reader as indeed it is nor as himself received it from us in that our answer Which we have reason to take somwhat unkindly from him and the rather because it is not only once but twise at the least that we have thus expressed our selves in that answer once in the words which I have here above repeated and transcribed and again in pag. 49. where speaking again of this same scripture Numb 8. v. 10. We say thus that we have shewed from that scripture that if there be no Elders as at the first nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches then imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by others Neverthelesse though we have thus expressed our selves once and a second time yet M. Rutherford doth not once give notice hereof unto his reader for ought that I can find but still passing by these words of borrowing Elders from other Churches doth take advantage of the want thereof which indeed are not wanting in our Churches which he deals against but twise at the least are plainly expressed therein and would not have been wanting in this passage which here he sets down as ours if himself had not concealed and suppressed the same Now to leave out those words of ours which we have plainly expressed two severall times at the least and then to make advantage for himselfe against us for want thereof whether this be not such measure as we have cause to take unkindly let himself and others consider The third particular of adding words which never came from us I will briefly passe over because it is of lesse moment as not so much misrepresenting our meaning yet I conceive those words it by Ordination is not to be tyed to the Presbytery alone which here are presented to the Reader as ours are not at all to be found in our writing but I will not insist on this but come to consider of his answer There is not saith he a place in all the word of God where people conserâ—e Ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received Imposition of bands from the Children of Israel Answ We have given a reason why no such scripture can be expected in the New Testament viz. because in those times Elders were not wanting for there were the Apostles and Apostolike men who were Elders in all Churches and say we we do willingly grant that where Elders are not wanting Imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders Ans p. 49. Now for our brethren to require of us an example of Imposition of hands performed without Elders in the Apostles times in which times there were Elders to be had this we think to be unreasonable first it is our opinion that when Elders are to be had Imposition of hands is not to be performed without those Elders but by them Moreover if it be such a disparagement to our cause that the scripture of the New Testament affords no example of Imposition of hands by the people how will Mr. Rutherford free his own way from another objection which we think as sore and weighty against the same as this which they think of so much weight against us The objection I mean is this that there is not any place in all the scripture of the New Testament where ordinary Pastors or Elders Imposed hands on ordinary Pastors or Elders but all the examples in scripture concerning this matter are such where either the persons Imposing or the persons on whom hands were Imposed or both were officers of extraordinary note and degree such as now are not extant in the Church but are ceased long again Not that I deny but an argument may be taken from those examples for Imposition of hands in these dayes but the thing I stand upon is this that no example can be given from scripture directly parallel to the way which our brethren in these dayes do practise and allow but some dissonancy will be found therein from their way as well and perhaps as much as from the way of Imposition of hands performed by the people in some cases let them tell us of Act. 6. v. 6. and 14. 23. and 1. Tim. 5. 22. and we answer the persons imposing hands in those places were Apostles and Evangelists such as our brethren are not nor do so account themselves Let them name Act. 13. 3. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. and we answer the persons on whom hands were there laid were the like even Apostles and Evangelists whatever the imposers were and therefore neither will these places perfectly suit the case So that if we could give no example in the New Testament of Imposition of hands performed in some cases by the people we think Mr. Rutherford and out brethren of his way might be favourable to us for their own sake Yet for the justification of our way and for further answer to this passage of Mr. Rutherford we have this to say further that an example in the Old Testament of a practise not abolished in the New as ceremoniall typicall or of some peculiar reason specially concerning those times and peoples but of morall equity and reason such an example we think a sufficient warrant unto us for the like practise upon the like occasion in these dayes This I thinke Mr Rutherford must acknowledge for else he shall loose many arguments which he frequently useth in this Treatise from the example of Asa Hezekiah Josiah and others in the Old Testament for the proving of things to be practised in the New And else himself and we all shall loose the argument for Pedobaptisme which is taken from Circumcision Yea and which is more if it were not thus the Apostles arguing would not be strong who do frequently argue from the examples of the Old Testament to confirm and prove truth and vertue and to reprove and to condemn the contraâ—y in the New to instance in no more but 1 Cor. 9. 10. 2. Heb. 3. 24. which examples together with that saying Rom. 15. 4. Whatsoever was written in former time was written for our learning and many more that might be
as we see that in some case one may be a Pastor without ordination whereupon it must needs follow either that one may be a Pastor without any authoritative calling or else that ordination is in effect but the same with imposition of hands and so there is no such difference between them as is pretended But so many Pastors send a Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never chuse him Answ Take your own words for answer pag. 496. We never read that in the Apostles Church a man was obtruded upon the people against their will and therefore Election by the people in the Apostolike Church as Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Rev. 2. 1 2. Act. 20. v. 28. must be our rule Any election without the peoples consent must be no Election for if it please not the whole multitude as Act. 6. 5. it is not a choise And in pag. 465. he tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to chuse their own rulers and officers and that Christ hath provided the same in an eminant manner for his Church And therefore for this passage that many Pastor may send a Pastor to be Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never choose him we desire that he would take his own money for payment CHAP. XXV Whether a Ministers calling consist in Election or in Imposition of hands and whether of those is greater and whether is prior or posterior Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Act. 13. 1 2 3. do prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbytery and that such imposition of hands is not a consumatory rite or benedictory signe Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbytery ordain him afore the People chuse him and whether otherwise the people doe send a Minster to themselves and whether the people of God may not aswell discern a mans fitnes to be ordained as his fitnes to be elected PAg 493. If the people may elect Officers then in some cases they may ordaine them also because Ordination is lesse then election and dependeth upon it as a necessary antecedent and it is nothing but a consummation of election or the admission of a person into the possession of that office whereto he had right before by election If then a single Congregation may elect which is the greater they may ordain which is the lesse And for this he alledgeth the Answer pag. 46 47. And then gives answer thereto in these words Ordination is the more and Election the lesser for Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Answ Take Ordination as we take it for Imposition of hands on a Church officer and then we think it is lesse then Election as being but a Rite or Ceremony used at a Ministers entrance into his Office but not at all of the essence thereof Nor are we alone or the first that have so thought For to omit others he that wrote the book called the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus affirmeth pag. 114. That it is no essentiall but a ceremoniall part of Ordination which may be sufficiently made without it and saith that Angelus de Clavasio Peter Martyr and others both Papists and Protestants affirm the same And in pag. 116. he saith it is an act of service or Ministery not of Authority and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony alledging Dr. Ames others for the same tenent But now election is more then a ceremony that may be omitted Mr. Rutherford himself being judge for in his pag. 496. He tells us that in the Apostolike Churches a Minister was never obtruded upon the people against their will but that they still had the election of their Ministers and this he saith must be our rule so that any election without the peoples consent must be no election for if it please not the whole multitude it is not a choise And in p. 202. he tells us out of Chrysostome that all Election of Pastors is null without the consent of the people Whereby it seems that Election is something essentiall and so consequently more then imposition of hands which is but a Rite or Ceremony which may be absent and yet a man have all the essentialls of a Minister notwithstanding As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. the imposition of hands of the Presbytery there spoken of I conceive could not be any act of superior authority but onely an approbatory signe or rite which might be used by inferiours towards your superiours For Timothy being an Evangelist how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him or give office or authority to him Besides it is not said that Timothy received his gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but by the Prophesie and by the laying on of Pauls hands and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery Now between those two phrases by the laying on of hands and with the same there is great difference the one importing some cause or authority or power the other importing no more but an approbatory rite or a signe used in a solemne commending of one to God by Prayers Altare Damascen pag. 161. of which more is to be seen in the plea for the Churches in New England part of the second chap. 12. quest 2 4. For ought I see the Authors might argue thus The people may ordaine Ergo they may preach and baptise for all the three are Presbyteriall acts given to men in Office Answ We read in Mornay de Ecclesia chap. â— that of old time it was an argument rise in the Church he may baptise he may administer the Lords supper Ergo he may lay on hands but such arguing as Mr Rutherford useth they may lay on hands ergo they may baptise this we remember not that we have read in any authors except in him Nor doe we think the consequence the same inasmuch as in the one the argument proceeds from the greater to the lesse and in the other from the lesse to the greater and yet affirmatively in both Thus the argument is understood by the forenamed author of the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus who in pag. 100. speaking of these words of Mornay layes down the argument thus He can baptise he can consecrate and administer the Lords supper which are the greater and more honorable actions Ergo he may lay on hands which is the lesse and this kind of arguing for my part I think to be good but for that of Mr. Rutherfords I see no more consequence therein then if one should say he that may doe the lesser may doe the greater also in which I see no strength of consequence at all Pag. 493 494. Whereas some say Act. 6. 3 4 5. Election of seven men to be Deacons goeth before Ordination or Imposition of hands v. 6. Answ Election of the people goeth before Ordination in the