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
frequently called by the name of a Church we in answer to the former of these doe give many instances p. 31 32. where a single Câ—â—â—regation Is called by the name of a Church not onely in 1 Cor. 14. which Mr. Herle acknowledgeth though with a perhaps but also in sundry other scriptures which here Mr. Rutherford quoteth Now let us heare his answer to this passage Wee seek no more saith he Answ Are we then agreed that in scripture language the word Church is sundry times given to a single Congregation If so then for this point the answer is not confuted but confirmed If it be called a Church which conveeneth for performance of spirituall duties as some of your places doe well prove ergo no assembly should have the name of Church but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments this now you cannâ—t affirm and it followeth not Answ If this follow not what needs it we never affirmed it and our purpose that the word Church is given in scripture to a single Congregation is sufficiently gained without it The Church spoken of Matth. 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments but to binde and loose the meeting 1 Cor. 5. is not for Word and Sacraments but to deliver to Satan the word Church Act. 14. 27. is not an assembly for Word and Sacraments but to hear how God hath opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles If to be received of the Church Act. 15. 4. be matter of Word and Sacraments let all judge If to send a decree of a Synod Act. 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for Word and Sacraments let the world judge Answ Reverend Sir keep to the point we never said that discipline and all other acts whether performed by a Church are Word and Sacraments and therefore there was no need to prove they are not and then to triumph as in a great victory The thing in question is this whether the name or word Church be given in scripture to a single Congregation and if this be proved as the instances given I hope do prove it sufficienly then it matters not what that particular spirituall Church action is for which they do meet For whether it be that they meet for Word and Sacraments alone or whether it be for the Word and Prayer alone and not at that time for Sacraments at all or whether it be for discipline or for any other Church duty yet still if they come together into one place be it for all or for any of these ends they are then a Congregation for what is a Congregation but a company so assembled in one place and so our tenet stands good and our purpose is gained For if they that come together into one place for Church actions and ends be called in scripture by the name of a Church then the word Church is given to a company that so came together and such a company being a Congregation it follows that the word Church is used for a Congregation What this Congregation doth when they are come together is not the question but if a Congregation coming together for Church duties be in Scripture called a Church we have our intent If the word Church be a meeting of persons assembled to one place for Spirituall duties sometimes for Word and Sacraments onely sometimes for acts of jurisdiction onely then is the word Church by our brethrens argument taken both for the Congregation and for the Elders of one or of divers Churches and so we have our intent Answ Let the antecedent be granted yet the consequence is denied For the word Church may be a meeting assembled sometimes for Word and Sacraments onely and sometimes for acts of jurisdiction only and I adde sometimes for the Word and Prayer only without exercise of jurisdiction or Sacrament and somtimes for some other act or acts then any of these that are named and yet for all this it may not be taken for the Elders alone of one Church and much lesse for the Elders of divers Churches the reason is because all these acts may be performed by the Congregation assembling sometimes for one of them and sometimes for another And therefore your intent is not yet attained who would have the word Church to be taken somtimes for the Congregation and sometimes for the Presbyters or Elders alone We desire our brethren to prove which they must if they oppose our principles that the word Church is never taken for the Eldership alore in all the word of God Answ Must we prove a negative and is that saying Affirmanti incumbit â—â—us probandi now become unreasonable unnecessary or of no force For my part I am still of the mind that he that affirms must in equity and reason prove what he affirms Besides for our selves we have this to say further that If we prove what we undertook we have done as much as can in reason be required of us though we do not prove this that Mr. Rutherford would impose upon us And what was that which we undertook to prove nothing in this place but onely this that the word Church is taken for a Congregation in other Scriptures besides 1 Cor. 14. and this we have performed and proved already Mr. Rutherford himself allowing some of our proofs for good And therefore having performed this point it is more then needs to be required of us to prove another also which we never undertook to prove as being quite besides our question which we were and still are desirous to keep close unto and not to wonder or be diverted from it by any means Whereas our brethren say a company gathered into one place which is nothing else but a Congregation are called by the name of a Church I answer such a company is only I suppose this is misprinted for is not onely called by the name of a Church for a company meeting for discipline only is a Church also Answ If a company gathered into one place which is a Congregation be called by the name of a Church this is as much as we desire for our tenent is herein expresly granted to be true If a company meeting for discipline onely be a Church also yet as long as the former is not denyed the adding of this other doth no hurt to us at all It is false that a company gathered into one place are nothing else but a Congregation Answ Bona verba quaso we had thought that as a company assembled is an assembly a company met is a meeting a company convocated a convocation so a company gathered together or congregated had been a Congregation But this is peremptorily now condemned as false yet let us hear why As you take the word Congregation for so your Congregation is an assembly of men and women meeting for Word and Sacraments with the Elders of the Church Answ And what if they meet for prayer also what if for the Word and Prayer without Sacraments for this or
Diocesans Triall Page 16. Then a must be granted that not only 3000 but a greater number even 50â—0 at least may heare the word at once And if so then 5000 members in the Church at Ierusalem will not prove plurality of Congregations in one Church forasmuch as here are 5000 people and yet no more Congregations but one But alas this is a great uncertainty for independant Congregations but this is to be proved first that 8000 Mr. Mather hath not added many other multitudes mentioned Acts 5. 14. 6. 17. did meete dayly in the Temple Second dayly or ordinarily from house to house Third to celebrate the Lords Supper dayly in the Temple and in every private house and there were need of many Scaffolds and Galleries to sit at one Table Fourth to make one Judicature c. Answ He that shall look upon the Answer Page 34 will plainely see that I have here spoken to both those places of Acts 5. 14. 6 1. Shewing that neither of them do prove a plurality of Congregations in this Church at Ierusalem but rather the contrary And therefore this Parenthesis which doth intimate that I have omitted to speake to these places must not be assented to but denyed But why must these foure particulars be proved I suppose he meanes because of that which is said Act. 2 46. They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple c. But this doth not cleere it that these foure particulars must needs be proved and the reason is First because Iudicature which is one of the particulars is not mentioned at all in that Scripture nor is it said by us that a dayly exercise thereof is necessary in every Church or in any Second the Lord Supper which is another of the particulars is not mentioned at all in that Text at leastwise not in those words or termes which Mr. Rutherford sets down much lesse is it said as he expresseth it that they did dayly celebrate the same both in the Temple and in every private house nor can the same for ought I know be proved by this or by any other Scripture nor was such a thing ever affirmed by us so farre as I know I suppose if they had celebrated it in the Temple alone or in some private house or houses alone that might have been sufficient without any necessity of celebrating the same in both places upon one day both in the Temple and in the houses too Nay it is a question whether the Lords Supper bee at all intended in this place though I doubt not but they observed that Ordinance and verse 42. may possibly teach so much But for the verse we are speaking of viz Verse 46 there is no necessity that the breaking of Bread there spoken of must needs be meant of that Ordinance Sure he was a judicious expositor who understands it otherwise Quod hic fractionem panis c. That is whereas some expound breaking of Bread in this place of the Lords Supper it seems to me to be farre from Lukes intention Calvin in Act. 2. 46. So then of Mr Rutherfords foure particulars which he saith we must prove there is not past the halfe of them that needs to be proved at all the two last being already removed And for a third which is of breaking of Bread dayly and ordinarily from house to house understand this breaking of Bread as Calvin doth of their civill repast and then it hurts not our cause at all though it be yeelded that they did dayly meet for such purpose in severall companies in their private houses for this they might do and bee no more but one Congregation There remaines therefore onely one that needs to be proved namely the first that they did dayly meete in the Temple and this may bee proved with case because the plain words of the Text do affirme it They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple so that yet we have found nothing that proves Ierusalem to be many Congregations in one Church Nay I conceive that one of these foure particulars viz. The first of their dayly meeting in the Temple doth apparently shew that how great soever the number was yet it was not exceeding the proportion of one Congregation which might come together in one place For the Temple was but one in all the City I meane there was but onely one individuall Temple and not many Temples which if there had been then our Brethren might possibly have said that they met distributively in sundry lesser companies but were to many too meete all in one Congregation for so they were wont to expound sundry other phrases used by the Holy Ghost to declare their comming together True say they they come together but how Not collectively all of them together in one place they were too many for that but they came together distributively some of them in one place and some in another and so they think they have answered sufficiently But now to this of their meeting together in the Temple they cannot answer so for then there should have been sundry Temples in which they might have met distributed into sundry companies but there being no more Temples but one and the Text affirming plainly that they all met with one accord in the Temple it must needs be that they met collectively all of them together in one and the same place and hence it followeth that they were not so many but still they might be one Congregation as well as one Church So that of the foure particulars which he saith we must prove some wee see need not to be proved at all and the first of them which we can prove with case doth make much for the weakning of his cause and for the strengthening of ours Yea Mr. Mather will have the whole containing as one independant Congregation Act. 6. 1 2 3 4. And the many Myriads or thousands of beleeving Jewes Acts 21. 21 22 23. To meete as one Congregation Answ When in the Answer I speake of these places the word Independant was not there used by me at all but only is here added by himselfe for what cause himselfe can best tell But for the matter I conceive the thing which I there delivered is cleere from the Texts themselves that the multitude of those Iewes did assemble and come together in one place for as for one of the places Act. 6. It is expresly there said that the Apostles called the multitude together to propose unto them the choice of Deacons verse 2 and bad them look out from amongst themselves seaven Men qualifyed as the Apostles do there describe verse 3. whereupon it is said that the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seaven who are there named verse 5. and presented them unto the Apostles that they might lay their hands on them verse 6. Which plainely shewes that the whose multitude how many soever they were yet were not so many but they might all assemble in one place to
for so weak If sincere Christians be sincere Christians when the magistrate is an enemy suppose as bad as Nero doth it follow thereupon that in such times the sincere Christians will be so many in number as to bear the names of the land or nation where they are for there lyes the question and that it is not like to be otherwise I suppose no man can justly affirm it For were they so many in England in the dayes of Queen Mary were they so many in Scotland in the dayes of popish Princes afore the reformation Are they so many in Spain in Italy in Turkey at this day doth not the Scripture say that when Rehoboam forsook the Lord all Israel did the same with him 2 Chron. 12. 1. And that Ieroboam did not only sinne but made Israel to sinne and that when a ruler hearkneth to lyes all his servants are wicked Prov. 29. vers 12. which sayings and many more that might be alledged besides common experience do abundantly witnesse that when the supream magistrate is an enemy to religion often times if not alwayes sincere beleevers in those dayes are the smaller part of that land If M. Rutherford can prove this apprehension weak he must then prove the contradictory to be true viz. that when the supream magistrate is an enemy to religion it is not like that many of the people will be of the magistrates mind but contrarily the greatest part of the land will be sincere beleevers though the magistrate be an enemy And when he hath confirmed this position which strong and convincing proofes he may then more freely take his liberty to condemne the other for weak In the mean time I think it were weaknesse in us to depart from this apprehension without some better grounds then yet are given to discover the weaknesse of it 2. Saith he If your meaning be it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a nationall assembly when the magistrate is an enemy because it is not safe for feare of persecution then you say nothing to the argument because the argument is drawn from a duty Answ Are those things duties which are in nature impossible If not how is it a duty of a few beleevers in a land for when the magistrate is a professed enemy I doe still conceive the beleevers in that land to be but few a small part of the land how is it a duty I say for these few beleevers in a land to assemble in a nationall Synod and there to enjoyn a nationall Covenant to be entered into not onely by themselves which are but a few in comparison but also by the rest of the land which are farre the greater number If this be a duty it is more then I yet understand Suppose it be their duty to enter into covenant with God for their own part Suppose also it were the duty of others to doe the like yet when the greater part will not so doe but are enemies to the truth of God like their magistrates is it neverthelesse a duty of this smaller number to assemble in a nationall Synod and there to enjoyne a solemn Covenant to be taken by the land I mean not onely by themselves but also by others who are farre more in number then they do they fall short of their duty if they do not thus assemble and impose the Covenant In the dayes of Ieroboam when the generality of the land walked after his wicked commandement Hos 5. 11. who made Israel to sin yet then there were some in Israel who retained their integrity and set their hearts to seek the Lord who also for that end came to Ierusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God of their Fathers 2 Chron. 11. v. 16. But I doe not remember that these few that were sincere in worship did ever come together in a nationall assembly in Israel to renew the Covenant with God and to enjoyn the same to that great multitude of the backslyding Israelites nor that such a duty was required of them nor that they are blamed by 〈◊〉 Lord nor any of his Prophets for the neglect thereof And the case we have in stand is the same If you mean that because the Princes power is against the Synodicall meeting this is nothing against the power of the Synods that Christ hath given to his Church Answ We mean as we have said that those few beleevers in a land being overpowered with the Prince and People that are enemies therefore this assembling of those few in a nationall Synod and there enjoyning a nationall Covenant is now not in their power and so not required at their hands If your meaning be that it is not lawfull to them to conveen in a nationall Synod to renew a Covenant with God against the supreame magistrates will I hope you minde no such thing Answ If it be our meaning how can it be hoped that we do not mind it Can our â—â—â—â—ing be one thing and our mind another But for his satisfaction and resolution 〈◊〉 plain answer is this that we neither had mind nor meaning to medle at all with that question whether Churches may assemble in nationall Synods against the supreame magistrates will For we did not think that Mr. Herles treatise did lead us thereunto 〈…〉 such a matter Nor am I willing at this time to turn aside to the same but to keep close to my scope and ayme which is to consider of Mr. Rutherford his exceptions against the answer And therefore for his discourse which here he fals upon maintaining at large against malignants and namely against Tho Fuller that the reformation begun in Scotland and prosecuted in England against the Kings will is lawfulâ— and warrantable by the wordâ— this discourse I say being altogether concerning others and not us I will therefore passe it over and come to that wherein our selves are concerned CHAP. XXIII Whether the word Church be not given to a single Congregation and whether a Congregation be a Company or Church meeting only for Word and Sacraments and not for any other spirituall duties and whether the divers duties 1. of Word and Sacraments 2. Of Discipline c. must needs argue divers Churches PAG 489. The name Church 1 Cor. 14. 4 5 35. 27 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts as Act. 14. 27. and 11. 26. and 15. 4. 22. 30. and 1 Cor. 11. 18 20 22 23 3 John 6. which places do abundantly shew that a company gathered together in one place is called by the name of a Church as Centhera Rom. 16. 1. which could not contain many Congregations being but the part of Corinth And for this passage he alledgeth the answer pag. 32. Answ Mr. Herle having said that the Scripture never useth the word Church for a single Congregation unlesse happily 1 Cor. 14. and that many Congregations in one Province or City are
with that Scripture either for one purpose or another and therefore cannot be truly said to have used the words alledged in way of cleering Doubts concerning the same And albeit in another place cap. 3. pag. 22. et sequ I doe purposely speake to that Scripture yet in that place there is no mention at all of the words by him alledged nor of any such like and where such words are to be found there that Scripture is not mentioned at all Now who knoweth not that a man may be much wronged when the words which hee hath spoken are taken and applyed to such a purpose for which he did never bring them nor intend them But to let this passe let us heare what our Reverend Author saith against the words alledged in his Answer The cause of Appeales saith he is not because inferiour Iudicatures may erre for so wee might appeale from all Iudicatures even from a generall Councill for it may erre Pag. 315. lin ult Answ Is not this the very same that was said in the Answer Pag. 13 14. The pages which hee here undertakes to answer is it not there said As for Classicaticall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases of deficiency and possibility of Partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations may not be indepâ—ndant but there may be Appeales from them the Synods being subject to the like there may bee liberty of Appeales from them also For as the Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denyed but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre yea generall Councils may erre and so by this reason not Synods nor generall Councils may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction but there may be liberty of Appeales from them also These are our words in those very Pages which here Mr. Rutherford pretends to Answer and disprove or confute But in stead of a Confutation we see we have nothing but a plaine Confession or affirmation of his owne that the thing is even so as was affirmed by us before Now why hee should make a show of taking away or weak'ning that which we had said and then in stead of accomplishing what he undertakes to doe no more but onely to say the same thing againe which wee had said before what reason I say he had for this I know not but plaine it is that for the particular in hand the Answer which he pretends to weaken is not yet weakned at all but rather strengthned and confirmed by his apparent yeelding the Cause and affirming the same that was before affirmed by us But saith hee Pag. 316. The true cause viz. of Appealing to higher Courts is 1. Because they doe not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many eyes see more then one and doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right Object 3. Because wee conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Answ These three Reasons seeme much what the same or to hang one upon another for therefore they doe more seldome erre because they are not so disposed and inclined to erre and they are not so inclined because they are more in number and because there is in them more equality and lesse partiality So that upon the matter it is but one reason viz. because though they may erre yet not so frequently and likely as the Congregation Yet be they three Reasons or be they but one let us consider what force there is in this saâ—ing to take away entirenesse of Iurisdiction from a Congregation and to establish the necessity of appealing from the same unto a Synod for this is the thing that should be cleared First of all it may be a question whether Synods doe more seldome erre then the Presbyteries of Congregations And the reason of the doubt is because the Promise of the presence of Châ—â—st is not made meerly to multitude or greatnesse of number but if they bee but two or three gathered together in his Name his Promise is that hee will be present in the midst of them Math. 18. 20. Now the Promise of his presence being to so small a number gathered together in his Name why may not a Congregation and its Presbyterie being so gathered though they be a lesser number then Synods and Councels yet bee partakers of the benefit of this Promise for the preserving of them from Error as well as those greater Assemblies 〈…〉 not but in multitude of Counsellers there is safety nor doe I doubt but Synods and Councilâ— gathered together in the Name of Christ may expect the perâ—â—â—â—ance of this Promise of our Saviours presence But the thing I doubt of is this whether a Congregationall Church of Saints furnished with an able and â—aithfull Presbyterie for of such onely doe I speake may not by vertue of this Promise bee as frequently preserved froâ— Error as those greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils Posito that the Synods and Counciâ—ls did as frequently come together as the Congregation doth For otherwise I grant the Synods meeting more seldome may erre more seldome but let the Comparison be equall in respect of the time of Assembling and comming together and then I doubt whether Synods 〈◊〉 preserved from Error any oftener then the fore-mentioned lesser Assemblies It is well knowne what Nâ—zianzen said of Synods or Councils in his time viz. That hee had never seene good and happie end of any of them and that evils were not so much redressed as increased thereby Epist ad Procopâ—um Quae Est numere 42. Referr Whitak De Concill Q. 1. cap. 3. True it is Nazianzen lived as Dr. Whiâ—â—â— observeth Pessimis turbulentissimia Ecclesiae Temporibus in very corrupt and troublesome Titues when by reason that Valens the Emperour was averse from the Truth Hâ—retickes much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increased and this might make the good man something more to dislike all Councils then there was cause Neverthelesse his words doe apparently witnesse that in his time Synods and Councils did not seldome erre but very often so that hee for his part had never seene good that had come by any of them Then which saying I suppose one would not speake more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbyterie and therefore by this testimony of his my doubt is increased whether the matter be in 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford doth say viz. That Synods and Councils doe Rariùs erraâ—â— more seldome erre then such a particular Congregation as here I am speaking of But suppose it were so as hee doth affirme and I will not deny it onely as I said I doubt of it yet I doe not see what great matter hee can gaine thereby for the furthering of his purpose that there must be liberty of Appeales from particular Congregations unto Classes and Synods as unto higher Courts For if this be the reason 〈◊〉
to end their maâ—â—ers if they be able extempt them from being under the command of others Hoshoulders have right to governe and order their families if so be that they be able doth it follow therefore that Superiors in Church or civill state have no power to command housholders to do their duty herein but only to give counsell and advise Or if housholdere have such right doth it follow that therefore they are under no command in Church and Common-wealth I suppose it will not follow at all Or shall we say that Classes and Provinciall Synods have no right to end their own matters within themselves if a Nationall Synod have power to command them Or if they have such right shall we therefore say they are not under the command of the Nationall Synod and that the Nationall Synod hath no power over them but only by way of Counsell and advise Wee suppose Master Rutherford will not say so and yet he might as well say it as say as hee he doth that because Antioch hath right to â—nd her own matter if they be able therefore a Synod hath no power but only by way of Counsell and advise And though the Synod is to give Counsell and advise which was the other ground whereon the conclusier afore mentioned seemes to be built yet neither will Master Rutherford his conclusâ—on that the power of Synods is only by way of Counsell and advise follow from thence at all For who knoweth not that Counsell and advise may be administred and given by them who have also power to command Not every one indeed as may advise and Counsell may forth with command and enjoyne Neverthelesse Counsell and Command are not so repugnant but that they who may Command may also advise Paul had power to Command and enjoyne Phylâ—mon to do what was convenient and yet for loves sake would rather beseech him Philem. 8. 9. The Lord Iesus to doubt hath absolute authority to Command and yet we find him sometimes speaking to the Sons of men by way of Counsell or advise Revel 3. â—8 I Counsell thee to buy of me Gold that thou mayest he rich c. shall we now inferre from hence that the power of the Lord Iesus is only by way of Counsell aud advise and that his power cannot amount to the nature of a Command I suppose we would be afraid and abhorre to deduce such a consequence And therefore though a Synod may advise yet their power to Command which is more then meere Counsell and aduise is not from thence concluded to be Null And so much for Master Rutherford his second place wherein he deales against the answer CHAP. III. Of the Assembly Act. 15. Whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision and whether their rebuking of them do argue the Affirmative IN his page 388. He laies downe this as a 2d. Object viz. That there is no censuring of persons for Scandals and that meeting Act 15. Because there is nothing there but a Doctrinall declaration of the falshood of their opinion who taught the necessity of Circumcision and that all is done by way of Doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge not of Iurisdiction is cleere from the end of the meeting which was verse 2 6. To consider of that Question Consideration of Questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to Doctrinall Power meerely And then he sâ—â—joyneth my name and in the Margent alledgeth the answer chap. 1. page 8. Ans Whereto I first of all returne this answer First that the thing here in Question being about the power of that meeting Acts 15. There is nothing in the place alledged by Master Rutherford that can warrant him to frame such an Objection under Master Tompsons name and mine as proceeding from us And the reason is because that meeting Acts 15 is not mentioned at all in the place by him alledged neither for that purpose which he sets down nor for any other much losse is the Objection ours in Terminis Now to frame an Objection and to alledge chapter and page for proofe that the Objection is ours when as neither page nor chapter aleadged do speake any thing at all of that matter what reason can be given for this I know not Neverthelesse because the matter contayned in the Objection doth not much differ from my apprehension and judgement and something in the answer elsewhere may possibly intimate such a thing though but briefly touched I will therefore consider of what he saith for removing the Objection as himselfe hath propounded the same It is false saith he that there is no censuring of persons here for it is more then evident that the publike Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessity of Circumcision and why not Excommunication also in case of obstinacy For the Synodicall censure of a publike Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different not specifically from excommunication both must proceed from ouâ— the same power So then the summe is the Synod had power of rebuking and therefore of Excommunication also Answ The Consequence is not cleere for who knoweth not that there may be power to rebuke where there is no power of Excommunication Is it not the expresse Law of God that every man shall plainly rebuke his Neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19. 17 And are not our 〈◊〉 words as plaine if thy brother trespasle against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him Luke 17. 3 Whereby it is evident that one particular person hath power by the Law of God and Christ to put a rebuke upon another if there be occasion for it But will it follow hereupon that one particular Christian hath power to Excommunicate another in case of Obstinacy I suppose Master Rutherford will not say so and yet unlesse this be said I know not how his Consequence can be made good that if a Synod may rebuke they may Excommunicate also I know indeed he saith the Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different from Excommunication and not specifically and that both must proceed from one and the same Power But this would require some proofe and should not nakedly be affirmed without any proofe at all For of it selfe it is not evident that where â—ver there is power to rebuke there is power of Excommunication also The contrary I suppose is evident from that which hath already been said from Levit. 19. 17. and Luke 17. 3. and from many other Scriptures and reasons which shew that one man alone hath power to rebuke who cannot for that be concluded to have any power of Excommunication I know the learned mâ—n is copious in proving from the words of verse 24. Certaine men went from us and have troubled you with words subverting your Soules c. That this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way confute the false opinion and Doctrine of these teachers of
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
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