reason which doth shew that the Iewes and they are very unlike the Iewes having a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of Cruses and they having none were to shew our selves very irrationall or worse end why our Brother should put such a thing upon us we being no wayes guilty thereof we do not know But we desire that our reason may be applyed to our own conclusion to which we did and do apply it and not to this other expressed by our Brother which indeed is none of ours and then we are content that rationall and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there be any sufficient weight therein Which that they may more readily do I have here recollected the same into this short summe that they may briefly behold it with one view viz If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes and the Congregationall way hath the like If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes and the Congregationall way hath the like and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very farre remote from many of them and in the Congregationall way be more convenient and neere at hand then the Congregationall way is in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent But the first is true in all the particulars and therefore the second is true also Againe If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very remote from many of them and Synods among our Brethren are the same then the way of our Brethren is in some things as defective as the Iewes and in other things more defective then theirs But the first is true in all the particulars of it and therefore the second is true also Both the Assumptions in all the branches thereof I conceive are cleerely proved in the Answer in the Pages which our Brother doth alledge and whether the Consequence be good let the wise judge Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine shape let us now consider of Mr. Rutherfords answer thereto First saith he The speedinesse of ending controversies in a Congregation is badly comprised with the suddainnesse and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the decision of three Elders without so much as asking advise of any Classes of Elders and with deciding questions deepe and grave which concerneth many Churches which is a putting of a private sickle in a common and publicke harvest Answ If advise from other Churches may be had we never spake word for doing weighty matters without the same but in such cases it is both our practise and advise to make use thereof And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity or rashnesse toucheth not us whose opinion and practise is other wise As for suddainnesse I conceive if the same be sometimes accompanyed with temerity and rashnesse and so worthy to be blamed yet not alwayes for in the Reformation of the House of God in the dayes of Hezekiah it is said that the thing was done suddainly 2 Chron. 29. 36. Where suddainnesse doth not signifie any sinfull temerity or râ—shnesle But contrarily doth testifie Gods great goodnesle that had so prepared the people to so good a worke for this cause this suddainnesse was to Hezekiah and Gods people an occasion and ground of great joy and gladnesse which temerity could not have been And therefore suddainnesse and temerity must not alwayes be confounded and coupled together as if they were the same Though hasty delivering of men to Satan without due consideration be not good yet overlong delay of due proceeding against Delinquents is bad also for the Holy Ghost tels us because sentence against an evill worke is not executed speedily therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evill Eccl. 8. 11. For which cause execute judgement in the morning that is to say speedily is sometimes expresly required Jer. 21. 12. Which being spoken of justice to be executed by civill Authority doth hold by proportion and like reason in Ecclesiasticall censures for as much as speedinesle is a duty and delayes are daangerous in the one case as well as in the other Whereas our Author thinkes much that Excommunication should proceed upon the decision of three Elders as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more Elders then the three if God provide them fit men and the numerousnesse of the Congregation so require in which case our Author saith nothing to the contrary but they may have power to Excommunicate so if they have but three we know nothing in this but they may have power to Excommunicate notwithstanding since himselfe teacheth Due Right Page 61. That the Iewes had their Congregationall Churches as we have and had their meeting in their Synagogues not only for Doctrine but also for Discipline and Excommunication Which if it be so it seemes there might be Excommunication by as small a number as three unlesse it could appeare that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in it were a greater number then is here mentioned which is more then I do remember to be expressed in Scripture Yea and further he tels us That the inferiour Iudicatures in Israel had power of life and death Page 315. Now the Iudges in these inferiour Iudicatures though they must never be under that number of three yet they did not alwayes exceed the same for ought that doth appeare And if three Iudges had power of life and death why may not a Congregation with three Elders have power of Excommunication Moreover in his Page 454. He gives us these words for a Proposition That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of Church to exercise Jurisdiction over all its own members to which those words do also agree Page 287. viz. The power and right to Discipline is a propriety essentiall to a Church and is not removed from it till God remove the Candlesticke and the Church cease to be a visible Church And in Page 302. Hee affords us these words for an Assumption that a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church And hence the conclusion is obvious that a Congregation may exercise Iurisdiction over all it own members and in as much as a Congregation in which are but three Elders is a Congregation it followeth that a Congregation in which are but three Elders may exercise such Iurisdiction This conclusion our Author cannot deny in as much as it necessarily and directly followeth from Premises which are both his own Yea in his Page 302. Hâ— saith That this is a principle of Church policie that every politicke body of Christ hath power of Church government
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
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
understand this Church remedy as that for all this the nationall Church must not partake thereof so as to be censured and excommunicated by any Church above it why may not others understand it so as that Synods and Classes yea and Congregations too be exempted from the jurisdiction of Churches For my part I know no reason but if the Congregation be lyable to the censure of Classes and Synods by this Scripture because our Saviours remedy is a Church remedy by the same reason the Classes and Synods must be lyable to censure also yea and the nationall Church likewise because this reason is applyable to all these as well as to the Congregation So that this notion of a Church remedy doth not help his cause at all nor hurt ours any more then it hurts himself If this reasoning be good it is a Church remedy therefore the Congregationall Church must be lyable to censure for their offences then this reasoning is as good it is a Church remedy therefore the Classes Synods yea and the nationall Church must be lyable to censure for their offences but this latter at least for the nationall Church our brother speaks against and therefore he may not presse nor urge the former If he or other shall say that this Scripture contains a remedy even for a nationall Church then it will follow that the jurisdiction of a nationall Church is not independent but depends upon the Oecumenicall but this our brother cannot say unlesse he will gainsay himself because he hath already said the contrary and seriously protested it wâ—â—h a verily that verily be cannot see what power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell onely a meer doctrinall power in all the power that he can see in such a Councell pag. 482. So that let him hold to what he hath thus seriously protested and this rule of Christ affords no remedy by way of censure for the scandalls of a nationall Church Besides if the jurisdiction of a generall Councell be established by our Saviour in this or other Scriptures then it will not only follow that the independent jurisdiction of nationall Churches yea and much more of Classes and Synods is overthâ—â—wn which I suppose our brethren will not grant but moreover it will follow that Christ hath not sufficiently provided Church remedies for redressing scandalâ—s of Church members the reason of the consequence is because all other jurisdictions being subordinate one to anâ—ther and all of them under the jurisdiction of the generall Councell which alone is supream there may therefore in all of them be appeals from the inferiour to the higher judicatories till at the last â—atters and causes be transmitted from them all to the generall Councell and so by this means matters shall or may never be ended nor scandalls remedied till a generall Councell shall effect the same which generall Councels all know are rare and difficult to be attain◠〈◊〉 and therefore there were small sufficiency in our Saviours remedy if matters may or must depend till generall Councels shall be assembled for the hearing and determining thereof and may not be ended sconer Therefore we cannot see that this rule nor any other establisheth the jurisdiction of generall Couâ—cels and then nationall Churches can have no benefit of our Saviours remedy of Telling the Church no more then the Churches which are congregationall and so whether is the saying universally true that where there may be offence committed there our Saviours remedy of Telling the Church may be applyed for the redresse thereof nor doth this saying hold being narrowed according to Mr. Rutherfords minde who would have it understood onely of a Church remedy for the offences of Church members For we see there may be offences in Churches according to our brethrens judgement which cannot be redressed by the help and remedy of this rule CHAP. XXII When the supream magistrate is a professed curing 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 enjoyn the same unto that greater part PAG 483. We say that if the magistrate be an enemy to Religion may not the Church without him conveen and renew a Covenant with God Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompsons answer p. 29. that if the supream magistrate be an enemy to Religion it is not like but most or many of the people will be of the same minde Regis ad exemplum totus and then the 〈◊〉 in the land with not be able to beare the name of the land or nation but of a small part thereof not can it be well contained how they should assemble in a nationall Synod for that or any other purpose when the magistrate is a professed enemy nor doth God require it at their hands Answ The question between Mr. Hefle and us as it is spoken to by us in this passage is still about the meaning of our Saviours words Tell the Church which will plainly appear to him that shall look upon Mr. Herles Treatise and our Answer and compare them together And though we speak somthing of the Churches renewing a a Covenant with God when the magistrate is an enemy to Religion yet the question lyes not meerly so and no further but first this Church is called the Land or the whole Church therein or the whole number of Beleevers Secondly The thing inquired into concerning this Church is whether they have not power to enjoyn a solemn renewall of the Covenant In answer whereto we first of all say that in case the magistrate be an enemy to Religion the beleevers in the land are not like to be so many as that they should bear the name of the land or nation but of a small part therein Second that in such case it is not like they can have such liberty as safely to meet in such great assemblies as nationall Synods and hereupon we conclude that renewing of Covenant and enjoyning the same in national Synods being not in the power of som few beleevers in a land is not then required at their hands This being said for clearing the scope and summe of that passage in the answer let us now hear what Mr. Rutherford saith thereto This saith he is a weak answer Answ Sat magistrabiter would it not do well first to disprove and confute and then to censure rather then to censure first But if it be so weak it will be more easie to overthrow it let us hear therefore why it is so weak The Christians under Nero were not like their Prince and it s not like but sincere Christians will be sincere Christians and professe truth even when the magistrate is an enemy Answ And what of this doth this strongly overthrow that saying which was censured
such Appeales because such Assemblies doe more seldome erre because many eyes doe see more and doe more seldome miscary in taking up the right object Then it will follow that the greatest Assemblies in as much as they have the most eyes doe of all others most seldome erre and so to them there must bee the most Appeales For the learned Author well knowes à quatenùs ad Omniâ— valet consequentia And so by this meanes the true cause and reason of Appeales lying according to Mr. Rutherford his apprehension in the rarenesse and seldomnesse of erring in such Assemblies to whom appeales are made and the cause of this seldomnesse of Erring lying in the multitude and great number of eyes in such Assemblies it must needs thereupon follow that Vniversall or generall Councils as having in them the most eyes are the Assemblies that doe most seldome erre and so unâ—o them there must be most Appeales Which if it be granâ—ed the Classicall 〈◊〉 and Nationall Synods are all by this meanes deprived and striâ—t of 〈◊〉 of â—â—â—â—diction as well as the particular Congregations the Synods by 〈◊〉 to generall Councils as to those that doe raâ—iùs câ—rare aswell as the 〈…〉 appeales unto the Synods And so thera must be no entirenesse of 〈…〉 onely in the generall Councils but from all other Synods there must 〈◊〉 liberty of Appeales aswell as from the Congregation This Consequence for ought I see doth unavoidably follow upon that which Mr. Rutherford lay undowne as the cause of Appealing from a particular Congregation and so ouâ— Brethren by this meanes have spun a fine thred drawing forth a Conclusion which is every what as prejudiciall to their owne Cause as to ours If any aske why may not this Consequence be owned Why may wee not say there must bee liberty of Appeales from all Synods and Presbyteries except onely the generall Councill The Answer is thâ—t wee may not so say because then Causes would be too long depending aâ—ore they could come to issue yea perhaps would never come to issue as long as this world shall endure For by this Rule they may by Appeales upon appeales be protracted untill they be brought to a generall Councill to be determined there Now as there hath not beene any such Councill for many Ages by-past so it is very uncertaine when there will be one assembled whether ever or never whilst this world stands But wee thinke Christ Jesus hath provided better for his Church then so and hath not appointed such a necessitie of Appeales upon appeales but that Causes may bee determined afore any generall Councill can be assembled Besides if such Assemblies might be frequently attained yet it is not yet cleered that when they are assembled they have any power of Iurisdiction at all but onely a Doctrinall power to cleare up the Rule the power of Iurisdiction remaining in some other Assembly Sure it is Mr. Rutherford thus teacheth expresly for his words are these Verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to Censure scandals can be in a generall Councill there may bee some meerly Doctrinall power if such a Councill could be had and that is all Due Right c. pag. 482. and in the end of the same Page and beginning of the next speaking of those words Math. 18. Tell the Church hee saith thus Because ordinary Communion faileth when you goe higher then a Nationall Church and Christ's way supposeth an ordinary Communion therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a Nationall Church By which sayings it appeareth that he counts Christs remedy to Censure Scandals not needfull in a generall Councill yea and hee seriously professeth that hee cannot see that such a Councill if it could bee had hath any power of Iurisdiction at all to censure Scandals Which being so it must needs follow that Scandals must be censured and Causes ended somewhere else afore they can come 〈◊〉 such end to a generall Councill And if this bee so then how can that stand which here hee affirmeth that the true cause of Appealing to Synods in this because they doe rariùs errare more seldome Erre then the particuler Congregation and having many eyes doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right object For this Cause is most properly appliable to the generall Councill unto whom notwithstanding hee denies any power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals and if they hâ—ve no such Power there can bee no Appeales to them for such purpose and end And how these things can stand togetâ—er That the true cause of Appeales to such or such Assemlies doth he in this that they doe more seldome erre as having many eyes and yet that to generall Councils there should be no Appeales at all as having no power of Iurisdiction though of all others this Cause be most properly â—ound in them I for my part doe confesse I doe not understand If any shall say that as Mr. Rutheâ—ford doth make that which I have mentioned the true cause of Appeales so hee doth also hold a Power of Iurisdiction even in generall Councils and shall therefore doubt whether I doe truly report him 〈◊〉 touch the contrary I would wish no more favour of such a one but to peruse the places which I have here above alledged and then I hope hee will â—nd the words to bee no otherwise but as I have set them downe I know indeed there are some places in him which doe looke another way as that where hee saith It is by accident and not through want of inuatâ— and intrinsecall power that the Court of a Catholick Councill can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise that Power which now we are speaking of Due Right page 308. And a little after hee saith He seeth nothing to prove that a generall Councill hath not power to Excommunicate a Nationall Church Yea and further that if there were a generall Councill at this dâ—y they might lawfully in a Iuridicall way so are his words doe that to the faction of Romish pretended Catholicks which hee saith is Excommunication in the essence and substance of thâ— Act. And in the Page next ensuing he saith This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a Catholick Councill These Places I confesse doe seeme to me not very well to agree with the either afore alledged For in the one he plainly affirmes there is in generall Councils power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandaâ—s and in the other hee doth as plainly deny the same But it is the former places and not these latter which I doe stand upon in which former as I conceive him to hold the truth so for ought I see that which hee saith in this place wee have in hand about the true cause of Appealing from Congregations to Synods is much infirmed thereby For how can that be taken to be the true cause of Appeales which is most
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