A REPLY TO Mr. Rutherfurd OR A defence of the Answer to Reverend Mr. Herles Booke against the Independency of Churches VVherein such Objections and Answers as are returned to sundry passages in the said Answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd a godly and learned Brother of the Church of Scotland in his Booke Entituled The Due Right of Presbyters are examined and removed and the Answer justified and cleared By RICHARD MAâ—HER Teacher to the Church at Dorchester in New ENGLAND 1646. LONDON Printed for J. Rothwell and H. Allen at the Sun and Fountaine in Pauls Church-yard and the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1647 The Authors Preface to the Reader Christian Reader HAving published some yeares agoe a small Treatise in way of a brotherly Answer to reverend Master Herle I now present unto thy view a defence thereof against such objections and answers as have been returned to sundry passages therein by reverend and learned Master Rutherfurd In which undertaking it hath been farre from my intention to increase or uphold the differences that have appeared of late yeares in England amongst the servants of the Lord about matters of Church government For I had much rather bring Prayers and teares for the quenching of such fires then fewell or oyle for the increasing thereof neither shall the same I hope be any thing at all increased by what here I present now thy view At the least this I may say that I intended no such thing but the contrary even the promoting of truth and peace if it were the will of God so to blesse my desires and endeavors True it is I have taken the liberty to consider and try some things delivered by that reverend brother whom here I have to doe withall but this I trust cannot be justly offensive in as much as the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 32. and the doctrine of the Apostle himselfe was examined by those noble Bereans whom the holy Ghost commendeth for searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 17. 11. It is also true which our reverend brother saith in his Epistle to the Reader before his Peaceable Plea that there is great cause of sorrow that all the Lords people should not minde one thing and sing one song and joyne in one against the Children of Babel Neverthelesse this may be some comfort against this sorrow that by the providence of the Lord this diversity of opinions and disputes if it be Christianly carried as it may may occasion and produce in the issue the further clearing up of truth For as our author well observeth from the Collision of opinions resulteth truth and disputes as stricken flints cast fire for light Due Right of Presbyt Epistle to the Reader The desire and hope whereof together with the advice of such brethren as I consulted withall was that which chiefely prevailed with me for the publishing of this reply wherein the reader will finde sundry Scriptures and questions controverted in these times discussed and considered so farre as the nature of a Reply or defence did lead thereto and I hope some or other through Gods blessing may receive some profit thereby And if the humble Christian who desires to know and love and practise the truth shall receive any benefit or help for attaining these ends by meanes of this labour of mine it is that which I intended and aimed at and for which I desire that God alone may have the praise and glory If any shall still remaine otherwise minded yet in due time I hope God shall reveale even this unto them In the meane time diversity of apprehensions in these points ought not to bred any alienation of affection amongst those that are otherwise Orthodoxe and sincere It were a thousand pitties if it should For my part I cannot but approve what this reverend brother sometime professeth that he doth both love and dispute contradict and reverence at once Peaceable Plea Epist Yea he counts himselfe a debtor for love charity honour and all due respect in Christ Jesus and a seat and lodging in his heart and highest esteeme to all those that be godly lovers of the truth and sufferers for the truth against Prelacy though possibly they like not well of Presbyteriall government ibid. In answer whereto for I would be loth that such love should be lost upon us without due returne of the like I would for my part professe the like deare and due respect to all those that are qualifyed as here he doth describe of which sort I know there are many though possibly they may like better of the way that is called Presbyteriall then of the Congregationall For those that give apparent Testimonies that they are the Lord's and so that they must live together in heavens I know not why they should not love one another on earth what ever differences of apprehensions may for the present be found amongst them in some things As for bitternesse of spirit and tartnesse of contests I never thought that to be Gods way of promoting truth amongst brethren and therefore I have endevoured in this discourse to avoid the same For I beleeve there is more hope of doing good by solidity of argument with a spirit of meeknesse and love then by sharp and tart language the fruit of bitternesse of spirit wherein for the most part right of reason is wanting the passions being there most vehement and stirring where the intellectuals are most â—eeble and weake Now if any aske why this defence hath been so long deferred it being now two yeares and more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came forth such may be pleased to consider that New England being as 't is counted 3000 miles distant from old therefore many Books may be extant in England a long time afore we that are so remote can so much as heare any sound thereof and those few that come to our knowledge are commonly extant in England a matter of a yeares space afore and sometimes longer In which respect many things may be spoken and Printed against us whereto it cannot be expected that we should returne any speedy Answer And though it be now twelve moneths agoe or more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came to my hands yet at that time my few spare houres from my constant and ordinary employments were wholly taken up otherwise so that I could not attend this businesse any sooner which I desire may be accepted as a just apologie for the late coming forth of this Reply which as it may seeme late so it is more large then in some respect I could have desired by reason that I doe usually transcribe those words of Master Rutherfurd whereto I dâ—e apply my Answer which course I confesse I did not unwillingly in some respects chuse partly to save the Reader a labour of turning to the place in Master Rutherfurd which I am speaking too which else he must have done or
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
or unâ—it thing that the whole Church at Corinth should come together in one place then they did not so come together but the first is true Ergo the second is true also In which kind of reasoning such is our weaknesse we thinke neither part of the argument to be free from just exception For as we wholly deny the Assumption so we also thinke there is no sufficient strength of consequence in the maine Proposition forasmuch as sundry things were practised in that Church which were no wayes fit not meet to be practised and which the Apostle doth therefore reprove and seekes the redresse of the same witnesse their Factions and divisions Chap. 1. 3. Their neglecting Church censures against the incestuous person and on the contrary being puffed up Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels Chap. 6. their abuses in Prayer and Prophesying their women uncovered and their men covered Chap. 11. their abuses in the Lords Supper when they so came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken Chap. 11. Now as it were an unsufficient kind of arguing to say these things were unfit and unmeet and therefore that Church did not so practise even so Mr. Rutherford his arguing seemes to be no better who would prove they did come together in one place because the Apostle as he thinks did count such comming together unmeet For if it were granted that such a comming had been unmeet yet it doth not follow but such might bee their practise notwithstanding and therefore as hee counts our apprehension in this matter to be weak so I leave it to himself and others to consider whether in this consequence It was not meet they should all come together in one place Ergo they did it not be very strong I desire here not to be mistaken for I do not grant that their comming together in one place was unmeet nor that the Apostle doth reprove them for the same I have already said the contrary in denying the Assumption afore mentioned which I do still deny But the thing I intend is to consider the strength of Mr. Rutherford his reasoning and for that cause to apply it to the thing in question which I still desire to keepe close unto if it may be Now the thing in question being this whether the Church at Corinth were so many at that they could nor meet together in one Assembly but had many Congregations and all but one Church and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative and bringing this reason for it taken from the Congruity of meeting all together I therefore thought meet to weigh the strength of this reason which I do not perceive to be in any wise convincing but supposing the Apostle had counted such meetings inconvenient and unmeet yet this reason as I conceive is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpose that their number was such as that they could not all possibly meet in one place for they might possibly do that which were unmeet to be done in this particular as well as they did in many other things But in this particular I do not thinke they did any thing absurd or unmeet at all and therefore for further answer to this reason I would say that the Apostle doth not say the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it to wit in that the whole Church did convene and come together but in speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened this latter being incongruous and absurd indeed for the Infidels comming into the Church Assembly and hearing them so speake might thinke them madde as the Apostle sayes but for assembling all in one place I know no madnesse that was in that nor shew thereof nor do I yet beleeve that the Apostle doth place the absurdity there For though Mr. Rutherford bee a worthy man and learned yet such a thing as this had need of some further proofe then his bare word If a Church should meet distributively in divers Assemblies and being so met should speake with strange Tongues I demand whether this manner of speaking do prove such a way of meeting absurd I suppose he will say no because it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apostolike Churches did use And if so then suppose they should so speake with strange Tongues when they meet collectively all in one Assembly how can this manner of speaking conclude the absurdity of such kind of meeting any more then it did in the other For my part though such kind of speaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it yet I conceive assembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby then assembling distributively in many Hee that is the Apostle presupposeth that the whole Church should come to one place in divers Assemblies and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face c. Answ If the Prophets were met in divers Assemblies at once I marvell how the unbeleever should be convinced and judged of them all for I hope one singular and individuall unbeleever was not present in divers Assemblies at once nor convinced and judged as here he is said to be by those Prophets from whose Assembly he was absent Eitheâ— therefore the Prophets were all met in one Assembly and not in divers or else it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all For sure the unbeleever could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved that did ordinarily meet in one place the Text saith no such thing and that is to be proved and not taken as granted Answ Suppose it were true that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved this doth nothing prejudice our cause for as much as our Question is not about the whole much people that beleeved but about the whole Church If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place we have what we desire and require no more As for the whole much people that beleeved whether this be the same with the former or no wee shall have no need to prove or take for granted that these did in like manner come together for as much as our question in the termes of it is not about these but about the other But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved Shall we say the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved Or shall wee say it is not so much I conceive it must be one of these or else it must be the same If it be said it is more then still we have our desire if not more then we demand For if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved were neverthelesse not so great but they might and did assemble in one Congregation
his page 482. alledging Mr. Tompson and me pag. 16 17. Hee reports us to say that though some have appealed as Luther and Cranmer from the Pope to a generall Councell yet not from a Congregation to a generall Councell Answ As he one of these pages hath nothing at all concerning this matter and therefore might well have been spared so neither of them both doth make any mention of Luther either of one purpose or other and therefore it is some marvaile why he should be mentioned as thus spoken of by us who do not speak of him at all so much as one word for any purpose whatsoever Nor do the rest of the words of appealing from a Congregation to a generall Councell agree with ours as we have set them downe in the 16. page alledged and therefore that our mind and meaning may appeare let me relate our own words which are these How this example sc of Cramners appealing to Councell related by Mr. Fox doth suit the present question we do not understand for his appeale was not from a particular Congregation but from the Pope nor was it from a Synod but to the next generall Councell which from that day to this hath not yet been assembled nor called If we must hold a necessity of appeales to such a Iudicatory as Cranmer appealed unto then the supremacy of Synods provinciall and nationall is utterly taken away These are our words in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford now what doth he answer thereto In matters doctrinall saith he some as Luther and others have justly appealed from Congregation to a generall Councell though Luther and Cranmer did it not Answ Say it be true that Cranmer did it not yet for Luther how can it be that he should be an instance both of such as did it not and of such as did it for Luther and others have justly done it and yet Luther and Cranmer are two of them that did it not these are sayings which seem not to agree Againe if Luther did so appeale why is no proof alledged for Confirmation of what here is affirmed which if there had been we might have considered thereof But sith there is not we may be allowed to forbeare assent till that which is here nakedly affirmed be further strengthened by some proofe or other to make it good Lastly if Luther or others have justly appealed from a Congregation to a generall Councell then why will it not be lawfull for others upon like occasion to do the like And if so then as we argued in the answer the supremacy of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries is utterly taken away and so by this meanes causes and controversies may still be depending and never come to be determined so long as this world shall endure which whether it be agreeable to the wisdome of Christ and good of his people let the wise judge Though verily I professe I cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell there may be some meerly doctrinall power if such a Councell could be had and that is all Answ For my part I am altogether of the same minde But here I have a quere or two to propose to our reverend Brothers serious consideration first of all how this passage doth agree with that which himself hath written pag. 387. where he saith It may be made good that a power Dogmaticall is not different in nature from a power of Jurisdiction and that we read not of any society which hath power to meet to make lawes and decrees which have not power also to back their decrees with punishment Yea he saith further that if the Jewish Synodry might meet to declare judicially what was Gods law in point of conscience and what not farre more may they punish contraveners of the law For Anomothetick power in a society which is the greater power and is in the fountaine must presuppose in the society 〈◊〉 lesser power which is to punish Anomothetick power ministeriall cannot want a power of censuring So that whereto in the place we have in hand he saith there may be in a generall Councell some 〈◊〉 doctrinall power without any power of jurisdiction to censure in this other place he saith these powers do not differ in nature nor can the former be without the latter but doth alwayes presuppose the same as that which is lesser and which it cannot want Now how these things do agree I am not able to understand next of all how doth this passage we have in hand agree with that which is written p. 308 309. Where he saith it is by accident and not through want of inate and intrinsecall power that the court of a Catholick Councell can not in an ordinary and constant way exercise the power which Christ hath given to her and what that power is he expresseth in two or three lines proceeding viz. A power of jurisdiction to Excommunicate and relax from Excommunication even nationall Churches If the Lord should be pleased to give the Christian Churches a generall Councell this day might lawfully in a jurisdictiall way declare the faction of the Romish pretended Catholicks to be mysticall Babylon which in Excommunication in the essence and substance of the act And againe This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a generall Councell And in page 304. He tells in that a power of jurisdiction though he call it extraordinary and remote and which is but rarely to be put forth in acts is given to the Catholick visible Presbytery of the whole Catholick visible Church In all which places he plainly affirmeth there is a power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls in a generall Councell which in the place we have in hand he doth as plainly deny Thirdly if there be no power of jurisdiction to censure scandals in a generall Councell then how shall it appeare that there is such power of Jurisdiction in the Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries which are farre lesse Yea and that there is in these Presbyteries a power Independent and Supreame without appeale to any other For such power there must be in some of them if there be any power of jurisdiction in them at all sith we are told there is no power of jurisdiction in the generall Councell to appeale unto Now how shall it appeare that any such Independent supream power of jurisdiction is given to any of those Presbyteries where are the texts of Scripture that speak of such power For our parts we know of none but do still think that this power is placed by Christ in a single Congregation and its Presbytery and are the rather strengthened in this apprehension for that the reason which is wont to be given against the Congregations power and wherein our Brethren are wont to place their greatest strength sc that appeals are juris naturalis and that defects in the parts are to be supplyed
that time what if they meet for the admission of members also or for censuring delinquents Can Mr. Rutherford prove that either of us I mean either Mr. Tompson or my self or indeed any man else of that judgement which he opposeth have denyed an assembly meeting for such ends as these to be a Congregation I suppose he cannot And therefore it was not well done to impute unto us such a sence of the word Congregation as we never spake nor thought of and then to say It is false that a company gathered into one place is a Congregation as that word is taken by us I appeale to the judgement of our reverend brethren if the Church Matth. 18. assembled to to bind and loose if the Church assembled 1 Corin. 5. to deliver to Satan and sundry others are there named to the like purpose be a Congregationall Church assembled for Word and Sacraments Answ If the Word and Sacraments be not mentioned in the places alledged but other actions and duties must it needs follow that the Churches spoken of in these places did assemble for Word and Sacraments may not one and the same Church assemble for diverse ends and actions yea possibly for diverse upon one day At the least wise it cannot be denyed but at severall times of assembling a Church may attend to diverse duties and actions and yet still be one and the same Congregation or Church at one time which they were at another Or otherwise we must say which were a very unwise saying that a Church meeting for diverse actions to be performed upon one day as the Word Prayer Psalms Sacraments c. is not the same Church is one of these actions that it was in another but is one Church when they are at Prayer another when they are singing Psalms another when they are in exercise of the Word or Sacraments c. Or if they meet one day for Word and Sacraments and another day for Word and Prayer without Sacraments that nâ—w they are diverse Churches and not the same upon one of these dayes that they were upon another the nature and kind of their Church being altered according to the severall duties wherein they are exercised This arguing I suppose Mr. Rutherford would not own for good and yet for ought I see it is no worse but the very same with that which himself doth here use who because the Church mentioned Matth. 18. 1 Corinth 5. and other places by him named is said to meet for discipline or other duties would thereupon have it thought that the Church mentioned in those places was not a Church that did ever meet for Word and Sacraments but was some other Church of another kinde which arguing may be good if these which I have here above expressed be good but otherwise I conceive it cannot stand CHAP. XXIV Whether those children of Israel 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 not Elders by Office may impose hands on Church Officers THe children of Israel which were not the Church officers laid hands on the Levites Numb 8. 10. therefore when a Church hath no Elders the people may conferre Ordination and it is not to be tyed to the Presbyters only And for this be alledgeth the answer pag. 46. And then he addeth that other of our brethren say Ordination is but accidentall to a Ministers calling and may be wanting if the people shall chuse in defect of Elders pag. 491. Answ This latter clause should not have been added as deserving a confutation except our brother would confute himself for as we heard afore himself doth plainly affirm pag. 186 187. That both are true Pastors those who have no call but the peoples election and those who have Ordination by Pastors and that election by the people only may stand for Ordination where there be no Pastors at all which if it be so why should the same thing in effect when it is holden by others be here inserted in an objection as worthy to be spoken against when himself doth cast the very same It is marvell that our reverend brother should thus go on in representing our words and mind amisse for as here he sets down the objection under our name some of our words are changed and altered others being substituted in their place some are wholly suppressed as if there had been none such and others are added as 〈◊〉 which never came from us Of the first sort are those of the peoples conferring Ordination wheras our words are not so but that the people may impose or lay on hands Now between these two himself pag. 492. doth make a great difference even as much as between the authoritative calling of a Minister and a rite annexed to that calling and further saith that though he think imposition of handâ— not so essentiall perhaps at that a Minister can be no Minister without it yet of Ordination he thinks otherwise And if he make so great a difference between Imposition of handâ— and Ordination why should our words be forsaken which import the lesser matter in his judgement and those other which he accounts do import much more be substituted in the room was this to burden our opinion or apprehension with a greater odium then our words in his own judgement will beare or was it to make his confutation of us more easie then it would have been if our own words had been retained and kept what ever was the cause hereof we cannot but think it had been better if it had been otherwise For omitting and suppressing some words of ours which was the second particular I alledge those of the time and places where Elders cannot coâ—veniently be borrowed from any other Church the whole passage is this viz. by which scripture to wit Num. 8. 10. thus much is manifest that when a Châ—rch hath no Elders But the first Elders themselves are to be ordained and this at such times and in such places where Elders cannot conveniently be borrowed from any other Churches in such case Imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by some principall men of the Congregation although they be not Elders by Office In which place these words at such times â—nd in such places c. though they contain a great part of the case wherein we think Imposition of hands may be performed by non-Elders yet they are wholy concealed by Mr. Rutherford as if there had been none such for what purpose himselfe best knows But this is apparent that by his concealment or omission the way is made more easie and the ground more ratiâ—nâ—ll for that passage of his in the following page where he saith What if there be no Elders in a single Congregation it will not follow therefore the people are to lay on hands except saith he there were
no Elders in the land or nationall Church to lay on hands Now had our words been delivered and set down by him as they came from us this speech and passage of his would have been uselesse and apparently brought in without cause For to what purpose should he bring in this exception saying Except there be no Elders in the land c. when our selves had prevented him in this by putting such an exception expresly into the prohibition which we deduce and gather from that scripture of Numb 8. 10. Sure this had not needed but might have been spared if our words had been fully related But by this omission and concealement his own speech hath more appearance of ground and reason in it then otherwise it would have had and our apprehension doth not appear to his reader as indeed it is nor as himself received it from us in that our answer Which we have reason to take somwhat unkindly from him and the rather because it is not only once but twise at the least that we have thus expressed our selves in that answer once in the words which I have here above repeated and transcribed and again in pag. 49. where speaking again of this same scripture Numb 8. v. 10. We say thus that we have shewed from that scripture that if there be no Elders as at the first nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches then imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by others Neverthelesse though we have thus expressed our selves once and a second time yet M. Rutherford doth not once give notice hereof unto his reader for ought that I can find but still passing by these words of borrowing Elders from other Churches doth take advantage of the want thereof which indeed are not wanting in our Churches which he deals against but twise at the least are plainly expressed therein and would not have been wanting in this passage which here he sets down as ours if himself had not concealed and suppressed the same Now to leave out those words of ours which we have plainly expressed two severall times at the least and then to make advantage for himselfe against us for want thereof whether this be not such measure as we have cause to take unkindly let himself and others consider The third particular of adding words which never came from us I will briefly passe over because it is of lesse moment as not so much misrepresenting our meaning yet I conceive those words it by Ordination is not to be tyed to the Presbytery alone which here are presented to the Reader as ours are not at all to be found in our writing but I will not insist on this but come to consider of his answer There is not saith he a place in all the word of God where people conserâ—e Ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received Imposition of bands from the Children of Israel Answ We have given a reason why no such scripture can be expected in the New Testament viz. because in those times Elders were not wanting for there were the Apostles and Apostolike men who were Elders in all Churches and say we we do willingly grant that where Elders are not wanting Imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders Ans p. 49. Now for our brethren to require of us an example of Imposition of hands performed without Elders in the Apostles times in which times there were Elders to be had this we think to be unreasonable first it is our opinion that when Elders are to be had Imposition of hands is not to be performed without those Elders but by them Moreover if it be such a disparagement to our cause that the scripture of the New Testament affords no example of Imposition of hands by the people how will Mr. Rutherford free his own way from another objection which we think as sore and weighty against the same as this which they think of so much weight against us The objection I mean is this that there is not any place in all the scripture of the New Testament where ordinary Pastors or Elders Imposed hands on ordinary Pastors or Elders but all the examples in scripture concerning this matter are such where either the persons Imposing or the persons on whom hands were Imposed or both were officers of extraordinary note and degree such as now are not extant in the Church but are ceased long again Not that I deny but an argument may be taken from those examples for Imposition of hands in these dayes but the thing I stand upon is this that no example can be given from scripture directly parallel to the way which our brethren in these dayes do practise and allow but some dissonancy will be found therein from their way as well and perhaps as much as from the way of Imposition of hands performed by the people in some cases let them tell us of Act. 6. v. 6. and 14. 23. and 1. Tim. 5. 22. and we answer the persons imposing hands in those places were Apostles and Evangelists such as our brethren are not nor do so account themselves Let them name Act. 13. 3. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. and we answer the persons on whom hands were there laid were the like even Apostles and Evangelists whatever the imposers were and therefore neither will these places perfectly suit the case So that if we could give no example in the New Testament of Imposition of hands performed in some cases by the people we think Mr. Rutherford and out brethren of his way might be favourable to us for their own sake Yet for the justification of our way and for further answer to this passage of Mr. Rutherford we have this to say further that an example in the Old Testament of a practise not abolished in the New as ceremoniall typicall or of some peculiar reason specially concerning those times and peoples but of morall equity and reason such an example we think a sufficient warrant unto us for the like practise upon the like occasion in these dayes This I thinke Mr Rutherford must acknowledge for else he shall loose many arguments which he frequently useth in this Treatise from the example of Asa Hezekiah Josiah and others in the Old Testament for the proving of things to be practised in the New And else himself and we all shall loose the argument for Pedobaptisme which is taken from Circumcision Yea and which is more if it were not thus the Apostles arguing would not be strong who do frequently argue from the examples of the Old Testament to confirm and prove truth and vertue and to reprove and to condemn the contraâ—y in the New to instance in no more but 1 Cor. 9. 10. 2. Heb. 3. 24. which examples together with that saying Rom. 15. 4. Whatsoever was written in former time was written for our learning and many more that might be
as we see that in some case one may be a Pastor without ordination whereupon it must needs follow either that one may be a Pastor without any authoritative calling or else that ordination is in effect but the same with imposition of hands and so there is no such difference between them as is pretended But so many Pastors send a Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never chuse him Answ Take your own words for answer pag. 496. We never read that in the Apostles Church a man was obtruded upon the people against their will and therefore Election by the people in the Apostolike Church as Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Rev. 2. 1 2. Act. 20. v. 28. must be our rule Any election without the peoples consent must be no Election for if it please not the whole multitude as Act. 6. 5. it is not a choise And in pag. 465. he tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to chuse their own rulers and officers and that Christ hath provided the same in an eminant manner for his Church And therefore for this passage that many Pastor may send a Pastor to be Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never choose him we desire that he would take his own money for payment CHAP. XXV Whether a Ministers calling consist in Election or in Imposition of hands and whether of those is greater and whether is prior or posterior Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Act. 13. 1 2 3. do prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbytery and that such imposition of hands is not a consumatory rite or benedictory signe Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbytery ordain him afore the People chuse him and whether otherwise the people doe send a Minster to themselves and whether the people of God may not aswell discern a mans fitnes to be ordained as his fitnes to be elected PAg 493. If the people may elect Officers then in some cases they may ordaine them also because Ordination is lesse then election and dependeth upon it as a necessary antecedent and it is nothing but a consummation of election or the admission of a person into the possession of that office whereto he had right before by election If then a single Congregation may elect which is the greater they may ordain which is the lesse And for this he alledgeth the Answer pag. 46 47. And then gives answer thereto in these words Ordination is the more and Election the lesser for Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Answ Take Ordination as we take it for Imposition of hands on a Church officer and then we think it is lesse then Election as being but a Rite or Ceremony used at a Ministers entrance into his Office but not at all of the essence thereof Nor are we alone or the first that have so thought For to omit others he that wrote the book called the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus affirmeth pag. 114. That it is no essentiall but a ceremoniall part of Ordination which may be sufficiently made without it and saith that Angelus de Clavasio Peter Martyr and others both Papists and Protestants affirm the same And in pag. 116. he saith it is an act of service or Ministery not of Authority and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony alledging Dr. Ames others for the same tenent But now election is more then a ceremony that may be omitted Mr. Rutherford himself being judge for in his pag. 496. He tells us that in the Apostolike Churches a Minister was never obtruded upon the people against their will but that they still had the election of their Ministers and this he saith must be our rule so that any election without the peoples consent must be no election for if it please not the whole multitude it is not a choise And in p. 202. he tells us out of Chrysostome that all Election of Pastors is null without the consent of the people Whereby it seems that Election is something essentiall and so consequently more then imposition of hands which is but a Rite or Ceremony which may be absent and yet a man have all the essentialls of a Minister notwithstanding As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. the imposition of hands of the Presbytery there spoken of I conceive could not be any act of superior authority but onely an approbatory signe or rite which might be used by inferiours towards your superiours For Timothy being an Evangelist how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him or give office or authority to him Besides it is not said that Timothy received his gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but by the Prophesie and by the laying on of Pauls hands and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery Now between those two phrases by the laying on of hands and with the same there is great difference the one importing some cause or authority or power the other importing no more but an approbatory rite or a signe used in a solemne commending of one to God by Prayers Altare Damascen pag. 161. of which more is to be seen in the plea for the Churches in New England part of the second chap. 12. quest 2 4. For ought I see the Authors might argue thus The people may ordaine Ergo they may preach and baptise for all the three are Presbyteriall acts given to men in Office Answ We read in Mornay de Ecclesia chap. â— that of old time it was an argument rise in the Church he may baptise he may administer the Lords supper Ergo he may lay on hands but such arguing as Mr Rutherford useth they may lay on hands ergo they may baptise this we remember not that we have read in any authors except in him Nor doe we think the consequence the same inasmuch as in the one the argument proceeds from the greater to the lesse and in the other from the lesse to the greater and yet affirmatively in both Thus the argument is understood by the forenamed author of the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus who in pag. 100. speaking of these words of Mornay layes down the argument thus He can baptise he can consecrate and administer the Lords supper which are the greater and more honorable actions Ergo he may lay on hands which is the lesse and this kind of arguing for my part I think to be good but for that of Mr. Rutherfords I see no more consequence therein then if one should say he that may doe the lesser may doe the greater also in which I see no strength of consequence at all Pag. 493 494. Whereas some say Act. 6. 3 4 5. Election of seven men to be Deacons goeth before Ordination or Imposition of hands v. 6. Answ Election of the people goeth before Ordination in the