conceive is very truly spoken and thereupon it followes that there was a supremacie of Iurisdiction in that Church of Antioch and no necessity of appealing from them to the Iurisdiction of others For â—ith the Synods are only to command the Churches to do their duty and to remit the censure of offenders to the Churches themselves to whom the offenders belong it plainly appeareth thereby where the supremacie of Iurisdiction doth lye The other place is in his Page 307. Where we have these words viz. The power of Jurisdiction ordinary intensive and quo ad essentiam Ecclesiae Ministerialis according to the intire essence of a Ministeriall Church is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall as in a Nationall Yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head Now if there be such perfect compleat power of Iurisdiction in a single Congregation I know not how there can be such necessity of Appeales from them to the Iurisdiction of others as he is pleading for nor how that supreame and independant power in Congregations can be denyed which here he disputeth against For let this compleat and perfect Power of Iurisdiction be acknowledged as due to such Churches and appeales from them to other Iurisdictions will be of small necessity or use I know indeed this Reverend Author sayeth in the Page last mentioned and within a few lines of the words which I have here alledged That a Congregation is so a part of the Presbytery that it hath not a whole intire compleat intensive power over its own members to Excommunicate them And therefore the consociated Churches must have a power over the members of a Congregation Which words I confesse seeme not well to agree with the former because in the one intire compleat intensive Power is denyed to a Congregation and in the other the Power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive is said to be as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as in the great Churches But it is not the latter words but the former which I do stand upon and by them as I conceive the supremacie of Congregations is established and the necessity of appeales from them to other Iurisdictions is cleerely takes away For if the Power of Iurisdiction be as intire perfect and compleat in the Congregation as in the greater Churches as our Brother expresly affirmes it to be I know not the reason why there must be appeales from the Iurisdiction of the Congregation unto the Iurisdiction of those other Churches If the Power spoken of were more imperfect and incompleat in the Congregation then it is in the other Churches then there might be more reason or â—ayrer pretence for those appeales but sith our Author confesseth it is no more intire compleat and perfect in these then in the Congregation but as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as it is in the other I am yet to seeke of a sufficient ground for the necessity of appeales from the Iurisdiction in a Congregation For is it reasonable to appeale from one Iudicatory to another and yet the power of Iurisdiction be as intire compleat and perfect in the former from which the appeale is made as in the latter to which the cause is brought by such appeale It seemes by such appeales we are not like to be much helper nor much to mend the matter above what it was before and therefore the usefulnesse and necessity thereof is still unclâ—â—â—â— I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversie Act. 15. When the Churches of Syria and Cicilia to their knowledge were troubled with the like question as verse 24. may cleere I doubt much if they had power to determine a question that so much concerned all the Churches Answ It is not cleere from verse 24. nor from any part of the Chapter as farre as I can find that Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with this question and if they had known it I see nothing therein but they might notwithstanding lawfully end the matter so farre as concerned themselves For when this question was started amongst them by such as came from Judea and taught this corrupt Doctrine at Antioch the text is very cleere verse 2 that they had much disputation amongst themselves to have ended the matter afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem which disputation is an argument that they had right to have ended it if ability had noâ— been wanting And as for our Brothers reason for the contrary taken from their knowledge that the other Churches of Syria and Cicilia were troubled with the like question there is not one word in the verse alledged to shew that Antioch had knowledge of any such matter nor is Syria and Cicilia once mentioned therein And though they be mentioned verse 23. Yet neither doth this verse declare that Antioch had any knowledge that this question had ever troubled those other Churches Say it be true that indeed they had been troubled therewith and that the Epistle from the Synod doth intimate no lesse this may prove that when the Epistle came to be read at Antioch then Antioch by this meanes might come to the knowledge thereof but all this doth not prove that Antioch knew so much afore And therefore they might endeavour to end the matter amongst themselves as not knowing for any thing our Author hath yet brought to the contrary that any other Churches besides themselves were troubled therewith But suppose they had known so much I see nothing in this to hinder but Antioch might lawfully cleere up the truth in the question and censure such of their Church as should obstinately hold and teach that false Doctrine notwithstanding their knowledge that others had been troubled with the like Doctrine and teachers Suppose a Christian family be troubled with lying Children or servants or such as are disobedient and undutifull in one kind or in another suppose they also knew that their neighbour families are troubled with the like shall this knowledge of theirs hinder the Parents or Masters in such a family from censuring or correcting these that are under their government according to their demerits If not why shall Antioch be hindered from censuring offending members of their Church only upon this ground because to their knowledge other Churches are troubled with the like offenders A City or Corporation is troubled with Drunkards with theeves or other vicious and lewd persons and knoweth that other Cities or Corporations are troubled with the like A Nationall Church as Scotland for example is troubled with obtruders of Ceremonies Service booke Episcopacie or other corruptions and knoweth that England or other Churches are troubled with the like shall Scotland now be hindered from removing these corruptions and the obtruders of them from amongst themselves only upon this ground because England to their knowledge is troubled with the like Or shall the Corporation â—ee hindered from
punishing theeves and such other malefactors only for this reason because to their knowledge other Corporations are troubled with the like lewd persons I suppose it is easie to see the insufficiency and invalidity of such Consequences And therefore if Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders as themselves were troubled withall this needs not to hinder but they may determine questions that arise amongst themselves and may censure such of their members as shall trouble the Church or Brethren therewith and obstinately persist in so doing This being considered withall that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compasse For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practise and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both doth endeavour the removall of these corruptions they do not hereby attempt and endeavour to remove them out of other Churches which might be an appearance of stretching their line beyond their compasse but out of their own Church and only so farre as concernes themselves and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further then their Power doth reach But he gives another reason why Antioch had not right to determine the question And this is taken from the strong party that was in Antioch against the truth which was such as that they opposed Paul and Barnabas concerning which he saith that when the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth as is cleere Act. 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they loose their jus their right to determine eatenus in so farre for Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for truth and therefore in this Appeales must be necessary Answ How is it cleere that the greatst part of the Church at Antioch was against the truth The text doth not say so much but only this that certain men which came from Iudea taught the Brethren and said except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved and that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them about the matter and that in the issue they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others should go up to Ierusalem about the question Thus much the Scripture witnesseth Act. 15. 1 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine at Antioch were the major or the minor part of the Church the text doth not expresse except we shall say that where a false Doctrine is taught by some and greatly opposed and disputed against by others there it must needs bee that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine which wee thinke is no good Consequence And therefore whereas our Author saith the greatest part of this Church was against the Truth and that so much is cleere from verse 2. I answer first that I do not perceive this cleerenesse neither from verse 2 nor from any other place of the Chapter Nextly suppose this were cleere this may argue that they wanted ability and light to end the matter but must it needs argue that they wanted right though they had been able Or shall we say that they who want ability to doe things as they should be done do therefore want right to â—â—alâ— in them at all I conceive it will not follow and the reason is because this right in Churches is Naturall or Connaturall to every Church and this want of ability is only accidentall and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church our Brother own words do testifie Page 341. Where he saith this viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that she have power of government also in so farre as she is a Church yea power of government upon this supposition is Naturall or rather connaturall And in Page 307 he saith as was alledged before That the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive Is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall or in a Nationall yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head And in Page 383. He saith That to a Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsciâ—ally in it derived from none but immediately from Iesus Christ And the like he saith of a Presbyteriall Church Now whether Antioch was a Congregationall Church as we hold or a Presbyteriall as is holden by this our Brother yet it is cleere by those words of his here alledged that being essentially a Church it had a politicall Church power intrinscically within it selfe yet a perfect and compleat power of Iurisdiction yea and such a power as was naturall or connaturall unto her as she was a Church But now the light of knowledge whereby they should be enabled well to use this power did not adde any power unto them which they had not before not did the want of it being but accidentall deprive them of that Power which was intrinscicall essentiall and connaturall unto them as they were a Church of Christ Onely this want did hinder their ability to expresse their power well but their right as being a thing Connaturall did still remaine Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civill Power which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking oâ—â—bo it the Church-power In one place he saith thus There is a two-fold power in a King one in a King as a King and this is a like in all and ordinary regall coactive whether the King be an Heathen a Turke or a sound believing Christian there is another power in a King as such a King either as a Propheticall King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King And of this latter he saith that it is not a new regall power but potestas execuliba a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power which he had before as a King Page 387. c. 388. â—ow why may it not be said in like sort there is in a Church two-fold Power one in a Church as it is a Church and this is a like in all true Churches of Christ whether the Church in this or that particular question have light to discerne and hold the truth or otherwise another in a Church as it is sound believing Church holding the truth in such or such question and this is but only a gracious ability to exercise the power which they had before not adding to them any new Power at all Againe in his Page 393. he hath these words Though the King were not a Christian Magistrate yet hath he a Kingly power to command men as Christians and it is by accident that he cannot in that state command Christian duties and service to Christ because he will not and cannot command those dutyes remaining ignorant of Christ
Congregation or the Congregation will be partiall and unjust or when the businesse is difficâ—ll and intricate then we may appeale from the Congregation else we may not These things I say doe not cleere the matter at all because still the question remaines who must be judge of these things whether the party appealing or the Congregation from whom or the Synod to whom the appeale is made and unlesse this be determined the things mentioned alledged by our Brother do afford us small help in the matter for the cleering of it And therefore what we said in the Answer doth still for ought I see remaine sound viz. That there must be some finall and supreame judgement that controversies may not by appeales after appeales be spun out in infinitum and to determine where that supremacie doth lye is the maine question which unlesse it be determined the usefulnesse of appeales may be granted and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seeke as before because that there ought to be appeales till you come to the highest is one thing and that a Synod and nâ—t the Congregation is the highest is another Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have sufficiently cleered it unto us that we may know where this supremacie doth lye I leave it to the Iudicious to consider CHAP. VIII Whether Antioch Act. 15. Had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had been able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth doe prove the contrary And of supremacy of power in Congregations BVt though our Author doe not cleere it to us where the supremacie doth lye yet in this pag 423 and 424. He useth an argument from the practise of the Church of Antioch Act. 15. And our own Doctrine concerning the same to prove that it doth not lye in the Congregation which argument we are willing to consider His words are those That supremacie of power should bee in a Congregation without any power of appealing I thinke our Brethren cannot teach For when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessity of keeping Moses Law they by Natures direction Act. 15. 2. Decree to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders as to an higher Judicature that there truth may be determined and then he addeth that Mr. Tompson and my selfe do teach that the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof alledging for this in the Margent the answer Chap. 4. Page 42. Ergo saith he they must acknowledge Appeales by Natures light warrantable as well as wee Answ That appeales are warrantable and warrantable by Natures light till we come to the supreame judicatorie this we deny not but have formerly yeelded no lesse But for that our Brother here aymes at viz. Appeales from a Congregationall Church as not being supreame to another Iudicatory this we conceive is not proved by the example of the Church of Antioch nor by any thing that we have written concerning the same And the reason it because Antioch had right and Authority to have ended the matter amongst themselves if ability had served thereto and their sending to Ierusalem for helpe may argue want of agreement or imperfection of light but argues no want of Authority or right within themselves For it is plain verse 2 that Antioch did endeavour to have ended the matter amongst themselves and had much disputation about it for that end afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem Now this endeavour doth argue their right for otherwise it had been sinfull as being a presuming to do that which did not belong to them This reason we have rendered afore in the place which our Author alledgeth and he doth not at all remove it and therefore we are still of the same mind as before that Antioch was not dependant upon the Iurisdiction of other Churches but had independant power within themselves as many may have who yet need the help of light from others for their direction in using their power Great Kings and Monarchs have received light from their Councellours without any impeacâ—ment of their independant power which they have in themselves and without any ascribing of that power to those their Counsellours As we said in the place alledged Antioch may send to Ierusalem for help and yet this sending neither prove right of Iurisdiction in them who are sent unto nor want of Iurisdiction in them who do send And therefore whereas our Brother saith Antioch because of the difficulty of the controversie had not light to judge thereof Ergo we must acknowledge Appeales to be warrantable We would rather argue thus Antioch wanted light Ergo Counsell and light is to be sought elsewhere and thus we conceive the inference will hold but to say Ergo there must be Appeales from the Congregation to others in matter of Iurisdiction this we conceive will not follow at all No more then it will follow Kings or other supreame civill Rulers must seek light and direction from their Counsellours Ergo there lyes an appeale from them to those Counsellours which Consequence none will maintain nor affirme If the Scriptures had said that Antioch did never attempt to â—nd that controversie as knowing that the ending thereof belonged not to them but to others or if it had said that the censuring of these obtruders of Circumcision had been performed by them of Jerusalem and not by them of Antioch as not belonging to Antioch but to them of Jerusalem then our Brother might have had some ground from Antioch to prove the necessity or warrantablenesse of appeales from Congregationall Churches to other Iudicatories but such no such thing is said we see not how this example can be any ground for the establishing of such appeales or the taking away from Congregationall Churches their power of Iurisdiction within themselves Especially wee see not how this our Brother can alledge the same for such a purpose considering what himselfe hath written elsewhere in this learned Treatise of his wherein he examines that answer of ours Two passages in his treatise I propound to consideration which seeme to me to make for that independant or supreame power in Congregations which here he is disputing against the one is that which we touched before in his Page 413. Where he saith that Synods in case of neglect of Presbyteriall Churches are to command the particular Churches whom it concerneth to do their dutie as in other particulars there named so in excommunication of offenders and further that the Synod Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem in case of the obstinaâ—ie of these obtruders of Circumcision Which I
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
and that is a Church and hath the essence of a Church to which agree the essentiall notes of a Church now Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are essentiall notes of a visible Church Page 302. Second a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church Page 302. Third where consociation is not Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation Page 338. Fourth that in such cases viz. When a Church is in an Iland it selfe alone they have the word Preached and entire power of Discipline whole and entire within themselves to Excommunicate Scandalous persons is not extraordinary Page 454. Fift it floweth coâ—naturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of a Church to exercise Iurisdiction over all its owne members ibid. Sixt neither doth a Congregation transgresse any rules of Christ at all when it exerciseth entire Power of censures within it selfe whereas there be no consociated Churches to share with it in that power ibid. Seaventh a Congregation is capable of entire Iurisdiction because it is a Church Ibid. Such sayings as these himselfe hath delivered in the pages and places here cited and in the words and termes here expressed and therefore from these he cannot cleere himselfe And if from these the entirenesse of Iurisdiction in a Church that hath neighbours may justly be deduced as I conceive it may and have above manifested it will then but little availe him to wash his hands from the stayne of that other absurd saying afore mentioned which no man that I know do charge him withall For as long as these other sayings do stand unrecalled so long wee have cleere grounds from himselfe and his own words for entirenesse of Iurisdiction in every Congregationall Church and so for the weakening of his cause and for the strengthening of our own A power to governe well and according to the rule of the Word added to an other power to governe well and according to the Word is an auxiliary power and no way destructive to that power to which it is added Indeed a power to governe well added to a power of male-administration in a Congregation is destructive of that power and reason it should bee so because Christ never gave any such power of male-administration to a Congregation Answ Here our Brother speakes of two cases first of a Power of governing well added to a power of governing well Second of a power of governing well added to a power of governing ill but besides these there is a third case which had need to bee considered also viz. A power of governing ill added to a power of governing well which may be the case when the power of Classis is added to a Congregation for it is not impossible but the Congregation may be in the right and the Classis in the wrong Now what shall be said or done in this â—ase Shall the Congregation now have the free exercise of its power or shall it not To say yea would satisfie the minds of many if the Congregation themselves may be judge that they are in the right or if it were determined who must judge thereof And to say no and that the power must still be in this erring Classis were to subject righteousnesse to wickednesse and truth to falshood and I conceive our Brother will not maintain such power in a compound or Presbytery or Classis For in Page 335. speaking of this very case and the greater Presbytery is wrong in their voicing and the Elders of a Congregationall Church are right and have the best in judging of a case before them he plainly affirmeth That the power which in this case the Presbytery exerciseth is not of Christ and that de jure the power of the greater Presbytery in this case ought to be swallowed up of the voices of the Elders of a Congregation though they be fewer in number Now if this be so then the thing in question is still as uncertain as before and still wee are to seeke where the power of censures or Iurisdiction doth finally reside For in the one place our Brother tels us Christ never gave power of male-administration to a Congregation and in the other he tels us the like of a Classis or great Presbytery and that Christ hath given no power to any Church to erre By which sayings we are left at great uncertainty for still the question will be whether the Congregation doth erre or no and so whether the Classis do erre or no and unlesse it be determined who must judge of this we are still but where wee were and no neerer an issue then before This indeed is most true and must be so acknowledged that though the Lord Almighty have given a power unto Societies whether they bee families Common-wealths or Churches and have made sundry of them subordinate to none other the like Societies in the exercise of their power but to have supremacy of power within themselves yet he hath also given them just and holy rules in his word for the directing of them in the use of this Power from which rules it is not lawfull for them to swerve or go astray but if they do it will be sin unto them and he will surely require it of them But now between these two the power it selfe and the abuse or right use of the power we must carefully distinguish for though abuse of their power bee not given of God from whom comes nothing but good yet the power it selfe being good is given of him and is so to be acknowledged And though abuse of their power do justly deserve at his hands that they should be deprived of the power it selfe yeâ— God doth not alwayes forthwith deale with men according to their deserts herein but many times continues still to them their power though they have abused the same much lesse doth he allow others to deprive them of this power because of every abuse theroâ— witnesse among others the examples of the Pagan Princes in the Apostles times who through their ignorance infidelity pride and other sins could not but in great measure abuse their authority and yet the Holy Ghost commands the Christians to be subject and obedient thereunto Rom. 13. 1 2. c. T it 3. 1. Not to obey them indeed in doing evill at their commands for in such case they must obey God rather then man as Act 5. 29. Yet still they must be subject to the powers either actively or paâ—â—ively even then when the powers were sinfully abused Even so if a family shall abuse their power it doth not follow that other families may lawfully for this cause take away their power from them Or if a Corporation shall so offend it will not follow that other Corporations may deprive them of their power And if it be so in Commonwealths and families why may wee not say the same of Churches Or how will it follow if a Church shall abuse their power
then that much people that beleeved might so assemble much more For if there be no impossibility but a company that is greater may so assemble I suppose the same cannot bee denyed of a company that is lesser Againe to say this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved is directly to gainsay himselfe who in Page 460 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word Sacraments and Church censures because such a Congregation he saith could not conveniently exceed one thousand whereas the much people must bee much in comparison of thousands of Jewes who rejected Christ for that otherwise it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort for which end it is mentioned and brought If it be said the whole Church be lesse then the people that beleeved then it followes that some of those beleevers were not of the Church and so what himselfe hath written Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand For in Page 125 hee saith That the Seale of Baptisme and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church and by this are all the Citizens and domesticks in-Churched and received into a visible Church And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely professe Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiasticall power valid for that effect and Page 251. he saith a visible profession of the truth and Doctrine of golinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible Church and every member of the visible Church Now if these things be so then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptisme and profession which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof And they were all members of the Church then the Church was not a lesser company then they Nor can hee say it was a greater company for the reasons mentioned before And if it was neither a greater company nor a lesser was it not then the same And if it was the same then how can this stand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand where hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved It seemes to me that which way soever he shall take his own pen will be witnesse against himselfe for in the place wee have in hand hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved and in another place hee tels us that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word Sacraments c. And yet in a third place hee tels us that in effect it was not greater inasmuch as all Baptized professing beleevers hee saith are of the Church Further when the Text speakes of the whole Church comming together in some place let the wise judge whether it be a good Exposition to say by the whole is not meant the whole but only a part Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place but part in one place and part in another the whole being distributed into severall parts and those parts into severall places So that the whole Church comming together into some place must have this meaning the whole came not together in any place but part in one place and part in another which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text which should be handled with reverence But he brings a reason for this Exposition and that is this Because else we must say that at any one Assembly all the Prophets and teachers did Prophesy at Corinth for the Text saith he is convinced of all he is judged of all whereas the consequence should bee absurd it should bee a longsome and wearisome meeting Page 465. Answ And if they Prophesyed not all in one Assemâ—ly but divers how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all It will not bee easie to conceive how it could be they Prophesying in such a way for the unbeleever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblyes at once but in one onely And therefore those words he is convinced of all he is judged of all will lay as much absurdity upon his Exposition of the words as upon ours or rather a great deale more For as for ours there is no absurdity therein at all for asmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time when the unbeleever was present and not that all must Prophesy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it But the Text doth not so say nor any Interpreter that I have met withall Sure I am Beza saith the expresse contrary for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophesy one by one c. He hath this note Non eodem sane die sed ternis c. That is indeed not all upon one day which is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition but three at every moeing having their turne to speak till all had spoken by course Interpreters say they met in divers Assemblies Page 465. Answ Let those Interpreters be named and there words set down and then by Gods help we shall consider of what they say and of the grounds and reasons thereof in the meane time to say that interpreters say it and yet neither to tell us the reasons nor the words of those Interpreters nor so much as the names of any of them how should this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehensions in the point True it is in another place c. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophesy one by one hee there tels us that Diodatus understands it that they might Prophecy by course and in divers or sundry Assemblies And Essius saith he saith the same to wit that these Prophets were to Prophesy in divers Assemblies Answ For Diodatus I have him not at hand and therefore I cannot peruse the place But for Estius this I may say that he neither saith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verse alledged nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter as farre as I can observe and I have read and perused him on purpose to see what were to be found in him But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for yet I find sundry places wherein he seemes to me to affirme the contrary for instance Commenting upon the verse alledged hee hath these words as the sence which he most preferres viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures c. That is If not only one Prophet but sundry yea all do speake in the Assembly in order it will come to passe that those all may also learne and receive exhortation there being never a one of them who is not also a hearer Wherein we see he speaks not
Prophets when they Prophecied were to have the rest of the Prophets to bee 〈◊〉 to heare and Iudge of that which was delivered let the Prophets speake two or three and the rest judge verse 29. and the spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets verse 32. The former of which sayings Mr. Rutherford himselfe doth understand of a Colledge Prophets having a power Dogmaticall of judging and censuring the Doctrine of the Prophets delivered What they speake saith he Page 467. Is to bee judged and put under censure for the whole Colledge must judge for which he alledgeth verse 29. And a little after this is not a Power of judging which every Christian hath for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Piscator doth relate to the Prophets who are to judge but as ◠take it a Propheticall judging which may warrant the Iuridicall power of a Presbytery c. By all which it plainely appeareth that when the Prophets did Prophesy the other Prophets were to bee present to heare and judge of the Doctrines delivered and if so how can it bee that they Prophesyed in severall Congregations at the same time For had it been so they could not have judged of one anothers Doctrine which they could not heare being themselves at that time imployed in speaking in some other place And therefore it seemes more likely that they met in one Congregation where they might all Prophesy first one and then another some at one time and some at another and so all of them might also heare and learne and judge of the Doctrine delivered by others CHAP. XV. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem and the judgement of Mr. Baynes Whether that Church was many Congregations or one onely PAg 470. Having suggested sundry things to prove that Ephesus was many Congregations and yet but one Church hee concludes this viz. upon these considerations I leave to our reverend Brethren their judgement if Mr. Mather and Mr. Thompson say right we doe not thinke they were more in number at Ephesus then in Corinth and Jerusalem where the Christians met all in one place Answ The exception then which in this place is taken against Mr. Thompson and me is for this that we doe not thinke the Christians at Ephesus to be more in number then at Jerusalem and Corinth Concerning which I will not say much but onely this that as we have onely delivered what we think in this matter without determining or asserting any thing peremptorily so we shall readily imbrace the contrary when good grounds shall be shewed for the same which though we doe not yet perceive to be performed in all that Mr. Rutherford hath said yet I will not here spend time in examining the same because I do not count this point of so much importance concerning the principall thing in question For whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem or whether it were otherwise there is no great matter in this as touching the maine question For if all of them were such Churches as might usually meet together in one Congregation as I conceive they were it matters not much which of them was most in number But doth not M. Rutherford prove that the one Church at Ephesus was more then one Congregation I confesse he hath sundry things in the precedent pages which he intendeth that way But in asmuch as they doe not concerne M. Tompson and me in particular nor are by him applyed against any passage in the answer I will therefore passe them over more briefly my purpose being chiefly to consider of such particulars wherein he takes exception against the Answer Only thus much I would advertise the Reader that a good part of that which Mr. Rutherf brings to prove many Congregations in one Church at Ephesus hath been answered long agoe by Mr. Baynes in his Diocesans triall pag. 5. which I the rather Commend to Mr. Rutherfords consideration because he counts him a man of worth calling him worthy Baynes And for the help of such Readers as cannot readily come to the book it self I will here transcribe a few lines out of the same worthy Baynes as they are to be found in his Dioces triall p. 5 6. viz. The Church of Ephesus was but one flock First it is likely that it was of no other forme then the other Sir Ierusalem Antioch and Corinth which he had before shewed to be each of them one Congregation Secondly it was but one flock that which Presbyters might joyntly feed they had no Diocesan Paster If Presbyters onely then none but Parishonall Churches in and about Ephesus theremay be many flocks but God ordained none but such as may wholely meet with those who have the care of feeding and governing of them Peter indeed 1 Pet. 5. 2. calleth all those he writteth unto one flock but that is in regard either of the mysticall estate of the faithfull or in respect of the common nature which is in all Churches one and the same but properly and in externall adunation one flock is but one Congregation Thirdly Parishes according to the adverse opinion were not then divided Neither doth the long and fruitfull labours of the Apostle argue that there should bee Parish Churches in Diocesan wise added but a great number of Sister Churches But when it is said that all Asia did heare the meaning is that from hand to hand it did runne through Asia so as Churches were planted every where even where Paul came not as at Collosse there might be many Churches in Asia and many converted by Peter and others fruitfull labours without subordination of Churches CHAP. XVI Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation and whether Acts 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the Affirmative THE Answer having in pag. 5. alledged Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30 31. to prove that the Church at Antioch was no more then might be gathered together into one place Mr. Rutherford in Answer hereto saith p. 472 473. That the place Acts 14. 27. is the representative Church and that he beleeveth the Assembling of the multitude Acts 15. vers 30. must be taken distributively Answ This answer of Mr. Rutherfords to the former place was removed long ago by worthy Mr. Baynes who also understands the latter place as we doe and not as Mr. Rutherford For in his Dioces triall maintaining this position that the Churches instituted by the Apostles were onely such as might meet in one Congregation ordinarily and giving this very place and instance of the Church of Antioch for one of his grounds for confirming the said position p. 5. Hee comes imediately thereupon to answer an objection which is the very same that here Mr. Rutherford brings to the former place viz. that the Church mentioned in that place was the Ministers or representative Church for the removing whereof Mr. Baynes returneth 4. things 1. that the word Church is never so
have taken things upon my report upon trust and partly that my candid and faire dealing with the Author whom I have to doe withall might the better appeare For when a mans words are not kept but forsaken and others substituted in their place his minde and meaning may soone be mistaken and represented amisse unto the Reader Which is a practise that I have often seene but never approved and therefore I have not used it For I would be loth to wrong any man specially a man of such worth as I take Master Rutherfurd to be by imputing to him what he doth not teach nor deliver and for this cause it is that I have usually transcribed and expressed his owne words and by this meanes my booke is growne to the greater bulk One thing more I would advertise the Reader of and then I shall quickly have done the figures from 185 and so forward noting the number of the Pages in Master Rutherfurd his Treatise are set downe twice therein once in their proper place and againe after the page 484. Wherefore if any of these pages be quoted in this Reply as some of them are if the thing that is alleaged be not found in the page that is named looke for it in the other place of the booke where are the same figures and there you may finde it Courteous Reader study the truth in a way of Piety and peace Be zealous for it but lose not love to the Saints beware when the world is filled with disputes about discipline that thou be not drawne onely to erroneous opinions in maine matters of doctrine Be sure to practise and expresse the power of Godlinesse in humility of minde mortification of thy own corruption faith in the Lord Jesus and love to all his redeemed and be not by any meanes drawne away from these things which doe so mainly conduce to thy salvation Finally as the Holy Ghost saith Phil. 4. 8 9. whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are lovely pure and of good report if there be any vertue if there be any praise thinke on these things and doe them and the God of peace shall be with thee Improve I pray such interest as thou hast in God through the mediator by affording the help of thy Prayers for me who am Truly desirous of thy Salvation R. M. Decemb. 10. 1646. A Table of the Contents of the ensuing Treatise Chap. 1. OF Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales and whether by Mr Rutherford his doctrine in this point there must not be appeales to Generall Counsells whose power of Iurisdiction he doth not yet deny page 2. Chap. 2. Of the power of Synods to give advite and Counsell and whether from thence it doth follow that they have no power to command page 11. Chap. 3. Of the Assembly Acts. 15. whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision and whether their rebuking of them does argue the Affirmative page 15. Chap. 4. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods And of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto page 21. Chap. 5. Againe of that Assembly Acts. 15. whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and excommunication in Synods and whether preaching do prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church page 24. Chap. 6. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Ierusalem page 30. Chap. 7. Whether the lawfulnesse or necessity of Appeales doe prove a superiority of Iurisdiction in Synods over Congregations and of sundry sayings of our Author which seeme to interfere page 39. Chap. 8. Whether Antioch Acts. 15. had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had bin able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth do prove the contrary And of Supremacy of power in Congregations page 49. Chap. 9. Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall do make the Gospel more defective then the Law of Excommunication by a Church that hath onely three Elders and of doing things suddenly page 66. Chap. 10. Whether the necessity of discipline be greater then of Sacraments and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise entirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none and whether a man may take on him the whole Minestry having no outward calling thereto and may not as well take on him one act of baptising or ministring the Lords Supper page 75. Chap. 11. Whether the power of Iurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none and whether otherwise neighbouring Churches be not a losse And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power page 93 Chap. 12. Whether it be against the light of nature that the adverse party be Iudge and whether Mr Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach and whether this saying that parties may not be Iudges do make against entirenesse of power in a Congregation any more then in a Generall or Nationall Councell page 104. Chap. 13. Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Jerusalem were each of them more then one Congregation and of Mr. Baynes his judgement therein Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. and whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely or to all the people also page 112. Chap. 14. Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together in some place c. doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely page 123. Chap. 15. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem and the judgement of Mr Baynes whether that Church was many Congregations or one onely page 137. Chap. 16. Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation and whether Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the affirmative page 140. Chap. 17. Whether or no liberties are given by Christ to the people but women must exercise the same as well as men And of the peoples liberty about ordination or the calling of Ministers page 146. Chap. 18. Of Mr Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in New-England page 151. Chap. 19. Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power of Iurisdiction in generall Councels denied by Mr. Rutherford whether therein be doe not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the Iurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies page 153. Chap. 20. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all
with that Scripture either for one purpose or another and therefore cannot be truly said to have used the words alledged in way of cleering Doubts concerning the same And albeit in another place cap. 3. pag. 22. et sequ I doe purposely speake to that Scripture yet in that place there is no mention at all of the words by him alledged nor of any such like and where such words are to be found there that Scripture is not mentioned at all Now who knoweth not that a man may be much wronged when the words which hee hath spoken are taken and applyed to such a purpose for which he did never bring them nor intend them But to let this passe let us heare what our Reverend Author saith against the words alledged in his Answer The cause of Appeales saith he is not because inferiour Iudicatures may erre for so wee might appeale from all Iudicatures even from a generall Councill for it may erre Pag. 315. lin ult Answ Is not this the very same that was said in the Answer Pag. 13 14. The pages which hee here undertakes to answer is it not there said As for Classicaticall Provinciall and Nationall Synods there is none of these but those Cases of deficiency and possibility of Partiality may befall the best of them and therefore if for these causes the single Congregations may not be indepâ—ndant but there may be Appeales from them the Synods being subject to the like there may bee liberty of Appeales from them also For as the Congregations may be partiall and erre so we suppose it will not be denyed but the Classis may erre the Provinciall Synod may erre the Nationall may erre yea generall Councils may erre and so by this reason not Synods nor generall Councils may have entirenesse of Jurisdiction but there may be liberty of Appeales from them also These are our words in those very Pages which here Mr. Rutherford pretends to Answer and disprove or confute But in stead of a Confutation we see we have nothing but a plaine Confession or affirmation of his owne that the thing is even so as was affirmed by us before Now why hee should make a show of taking away or weak'ning that which we had said and then in stead of accomplishing what he undertakes to doe no more but onely to say the same thing againe which wee had said before what reason I say he had for this I know not but plaine it is that for the particular in hand the Answer which he pretends to weaken is not yet weakned at all but rather strengthned and confirmed by his apparent yeelding the Cause and affirming the same that was before affirmed by us But saith hee Pag. 316. The true cause viz. of Appealing to higher Courts is 1. Because they doe not so frequently erre 2. They are not so inclined and disposed to erre for many eyes see more then one and doe more seldome miscarry in taking up the right Object 3. Because wee conceive more equality and lesse partiality in higher Courts Answ These three Reasons seeme much what the same or to hang one upon another for therefore they doe more seldome erre because they are not so disposed and inclined to erre and they are not so inclined because they are more in number and because there is in them more equality and lesse partiality So that upon the matter it is but one reason viz. because though they may erre yet not so frequently and likely as the Congregation Yet be they three Reasons or be they but one let us consider what force there is in this saâ—ing to take away entirenesse of Iurisdiction from a Congregation and to establish the necessity of appealing from the same unto a Synod for this is the thing that should be cleared First of all it may be a question whether Synods doe more seldome erre then the Presbyteries of Congregations And the reason of the doubt is because the Promise of the presence of Châ—â—st is not made meerly to multitude or greatnesse of number but if they bee but two or three gathered together in his Name his Promise is that hee will be present in the midst of them Math. 18. 20. Now the Promise of his presence being to so small a number gathered together in his Name why may not a Congregation and its Presbyterie being so gathered though they be a lesser number then Synods and Councels yet bee partakers of the benefit of this Promise for the preserving of them from Error as well as those greater Assemblies 〈…〉 not but in multitude of Counsellers there is safety nor doe I doubt but Synods and Councilâ— gathered together in the Name of Christ may expect the perâ—â—â—â—ance of this Promise of our Saviours presence But the thing I doubt of is this whether a Congregationall Church of Saints furnished with an able and â—aithfull Presbyterie for of such onely doe I speake may not by vertue of this Promise bee as frequently preserved froâ— Error as those greater Assemblies of Synods and Councils Posito that the Synods and Counciâ—ls did as frequently come together as the Congregation doth For otherwise I grant the Synods meeting more seldome may erre more seldome but let the Comparison be equall in respect of the time of Assembling and comming together and then I doubt whether Synods 〈◊〉 preserved from Error any oftener then the fore-mentioned lesser Assemblies It is well knowne what Nâ—zianzen said of Synods or Councils in his time viz. That hee had never seene good and happie end of any of them and that evils were not so much redressed as increased thereby Epist ad Procopâ—um Quae Est numere 42. Referr Whitak De Concill Q. 1. cap. 3. True it is Nazianzen lived as Dr. Whiâ—â—â— observeth Pessimis turbulentissimia Ecclesiae Temporibus in very corrupt and troublesome Titues when by reason that Valens the Emperour was averse from the Truth Hâ—retickes much prevailed and Corruptions greatly increased and this might make the good man something more to dislike all Councils then there was cause Neverthelesse his words doe apparently witnesse that in his time Synods and Councils did not seldome erre but very often so that hee for his part had never seene good that had come by any of them Then which saying I suppose one would not speake more hardly of a particular Congregation and its Presbyterie and therefore by this testimony of his my doubt is increased whether the matter be in 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherford doth say viz. That Synods and Councils doe Rariùs erraâ—â— more seldome erre then such a particular Congregation as here I am speaking of But suppose it were so as hee doth affirme and I will not deny it onely as I said I doubt of it yet I doe not see what great matter hee can gaine thereby for the furthering of his purpose that there must be liberty of Appeales from particular Congregations unto Classes and Synods as unto higher Courts For if this be the reason 〈◊〉
Excommunication in the case proposed and therefore I see not how it can be sufficient to prove such a power in a Synod for which purpose Master Rutherford brings it Of necessity for ought that I see one of these must be said either that this Assembly have no power to rebuke the man but must suffer his sin to be upon him though God be dishonoured and others endangered thereby or else it must be said they have power to Excommunicate him as well as to rebuke him neither of which I conceive can safely be said or if neither of these can be said it must then follow that their may be power to rebuke even in an Assembly of many persons a Politicall Society and yet the same Assembly have no power at all to Excommunicate the persons so rebuked and so this learned Brothers arguing is answered Likewise I suppose it will not be denyed but one Congregation if need so require may rebuke and reprove another Congregation though neither of them be Superiour to other but both of them equall and Independant of each other in regard of subjection Mr. Rutherf confesseth p. 294. That Congregations and Churches may admonish and rebuke each other And sure it is that Scripture Cant. 8. 8. We have a little sister what shall we do for her Doth shew that Churches ought to take care one for the good of another And if they must take care and consult for one another there is the like reason that they should reprove and admonish one another as need shall require Now when one Church doth so practise towards another it cannot be denyed but here are the same things which Mr. Rutherford speakes of First a Rebuking Second a rebuking performed by many Third a rebuking performed by a Politicall Society and Body But can any man inferre from hence that the Church thus rebuking another Church hath power to Excommunicate that other Church I suppose none will affirme it And if this may not be affirmed I do not see how rebuking performed by many even by a whole Synod can be any sufficient ground to prove that the Synod hath power to Excommunicate The Apostles and Elders saith our Author are not considered here as meerely Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching for why then should they not be formally a Church Assembly if they be an Assembly meeting for Preaching the word Pag. 411. 412. Answ When the text Acts 15 doth mention sometimes the Multitude verse 12. Sometimes the Brethren verse 23. Sometimes the whole Church verse 22. Besides the Apostles and Elders we know no absurdity in it if one should say here was formally a Church and a Church Assembly in which Church-assembly the Apostles and Elders were teachers and Preachers though they alone were not the Church Yet though wee thinke heere was a Church and a Church-assembly wee do not thinke Mr. Rutherford reason doth prove them so to be For Paul and Sâ—las were Preachers of the word in the Prison at Philippi Act 16. And at Marâ—hill and the Market-place at Athens Act. 17. And yet we thinke it hard to inferre thence that these Assemblies were formally Churches Yea but saith our Author the exercise of the Keyes of knowledge in the hearing of a multitude is essentially an act of Preaching of the Word Page 412. Answ This is very true indeed an act of Preaching the word it must needs bee the word Preaching being taken in its utmost Latitude But is not unavoidably and alwayes a Church-act or an act that infallibly proves the Assembly where such an act is performed to be formally a Church This is the thing that should have been cleered or else the thing is not cleered But this our Reverend Author doth not cleere at all and the contrary is very plaine from sundry instances in the Acts where the Apostles did exercise the Key of knowledge in the hearing of multitudes in sundry places where yet for all this there was not forthwith any Church and therfore whereas he saith The Apostles and Elders are not considered in this Assembly as Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching because then the Assembly should have been formally a Church We rather thinke they that shall consider it will find that the Apostles did and other Elders in these dayes may put forth the act of teaching and Preaching in some Assemblies suppose Assemblies of Turkes and Indians and yet the Assemblies not thereby proved to be Churches CHAP. VI. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Jerusalem NExt of all in his Page 414 in a 16 th Objection in this and the former Page he saith thus Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes no compleat Church because all the Ordinances of God cannot be performed in the Synagogue and therefore were the Jewes commanded only at Ierusalem and in no other place to keepe the Passeover and to offer Offerings and Sacrifices which were ordinary worship but there is not any worshiper Sacred Ordinance saith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames of Preaching Praying Sacraments c. prescribed which is not to be observed in every Congregation of the new Testament and then he subjoyneth Mr. Tompsons Name and mine and in his Margent cites the Answer Page 12 13. And further saith in the Objection That others say because there was a representative worship of Sacrificing of all the twelve Tribes at Ierusalem therefore all the Synagogues were dependant Churches and Ierusalem the Supreame and highest Church Answ To leave what is alledged aâ— Objected by others and to consider only of that which concernes our selves Because the Synagogues in Israel were dependant on the great Synedrion at Ierusalem therefore some would inferre that Congregations in these dayes must be dependant on the Iurisdiction of Synods To this Argument we are endeavouring to give answer in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford where we shew that the Synagogues might be dependant and not compleat Churches because the Sacred Ordinances of God which were of ordinary use could not be performed in them but Congregations in these dayes compleat and intire as having liberty to enjoy the use of all the Ordinances within themselves for both which particulars we alledge the testimony and words of Dr. Ames The summe is thus much If the Synagogues could not enjoy all the Ordinances within themselves and our Congregations may then though the Synogogues were dependant on the Synedrion at Jerusalem it will not follow that Congregations in these dayes must be dependant on Synods This is the 〈◊〉 of that which is said in the answer in the place which Mr. Rutherford alledges Now what answer doth he returne to this passage Truly none at all that I can find None will you say How can that be Doth he not propound it in his 16 th Objection as that which he undertakes to answer I confesse he doth so but neverthelesse all that he hath set down for
Synod we are not to be blamed though we give not a Synod that name Answ Pag. 1. The most that we have yeelded in this point is this that for the name we will not contend and that if a Synod may be called a Church then sith they have Power by disputation to cleere up the rule they are rather a Teaching then a governing Church Answer Pag. 1. 7. This is all we have said and we desire our words may not be stretched beyond our intent and scope therein But let us heare what our Brother would hence inferre I inferre saith he that Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches as our brethren of New-England and the forenamed Authors teach is an Ordinance of Christ that can be performed in no single Congregation on earth for a Doctrinall Cannon of one Congregation can lay any Ecclesiasticall tye upon many Churches Ergo by this reason our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Jewish Synagogues Answ When he saith the Brethren of New-England and the Authors of the Answer do teach a Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches and aledgeth for proofe in his Margent Answ 7. to 32. q. 9. 14. page 43 44. and Answer to Mr. Herle Chap. 4. Pag. 40. 41 with favour of so learned a man wee must returne this Answer that neither of the palces alledged will make good his purpose in as much as neither of them doth make any mention at all of the thing which he reports them to teach viz. Such Synodicall teaching as gives out Decrees tying many Churches Let the places be viewed and the thing will be found as I say And therefore how they can be said to teach that which they neither teach nor mention doth surmount my ability to conceive If the Reader would know what it is that is taught in the places it is no more but this that in some Cases it is requisite that Churches should seeke for light and Counsell and advice from other Churches as Antioch did send unto Ierusalem in a Question which they wanted ability to determine amongst themselves and that there ought to be Synods and that we thinke that meeting Act 15. might be such an one The first of these is taught in the formâ—â— of the places and the other in the other But for giving out Synodicall Decrees tying many Churches this same be it within the power of Synods or otherwise is 〈◊〉 taught at all in either of the places except wee shall say which we thinke were unreasonable that there can be no Synods nor consulting of other Churches for light and Counsell and advice but there must be in those other Churches so consulted withall a power to give out binding Decrees yea Decrees that shall bind or tye many Churches We thinke this latter doth no wayes necessarily follow upon the former and therefore though the places alledged do speake to the former yet the latter which this Author reports them to teach they do not teach at all Secondly I Answer further that if such a Doctrine were indeed taught in the places by him alledged or any other yet the inference which he would thence bring in That then our Congregations shall be dependant as were the Iewish Synagogues Thâ—s same doth not follow at all and the reason is because the Synagogues were dependant on the Supreame Synedrion not only for light and Counsell no nor only for Doctrinall Cannons or Decrees but also for Iurisdiction and Discipline that Synodrion being their supreame Court to whose sentence they were all bound under paine of Death to submit as is cleere Deut. 17. 11 12. And therefore if it were granted which yet we do not see proved that Synods may give out Decrees and Doctrinall Cannons that shall tye many Churches it doth not follow that our Congregations shall therefore be dependant as were the Iewish Synagogues except it were also proved that they must depend upon Synods in point of Iurisdiction and Discipline as well as in point of Doctrine yea and so depend as that the sentence of those Synods must be obeyed under paine of death Sure the Synagogues and every member of them were in this sort dependant upon the Supreame Synedrion but we hope 〈◊〉 Reverend brother will not say that Congregations must in this sort be dependant upon Synods At the least wise this we hope he will not deny that every member of a Church is bound to depend upon the Pastor of that Church in point of Doctrine and yet it will not follow that he must depend upon one Pastor alone in point of Iurisdiction and Dâ—scipline And the reason is because Doctrine may be dispenced by one Pastor alone but Discipline must be dispenced by a Church which one Pastor alone cannot be And therefore if Congregations were to be dependant upon Synods in point of Doctrine it would not follow that they must bee dependant in point of Iurisdiction and Discipline Thirdly saith he It is a begging of the question to make Ierusalem the Supreame Church and the Synagogues dependant Churches because it it was lawfull only at Ierusalem to Sacrafice for I hold that Ierusalem was a dependant Church no lesse then the smallest Synagogues in all their Trybes And so he proceedeth largely to shew that sacrificing at Ierusalem did not make Ierusalem Supreame Answ It this were even so as is pleaded yet that which we have said of the compleatnesse of the Synagogues and of their dependancie is not at all removed thereby and the reason is because we do not make the Synagogues dependant nor Ierusalem supreame meerely upon this ground because Ierusalem alone was the place of Sacrificing but this is the ground upon which chiefly we go that at Ierusalem was the Synedrion upon whom all Israell must depend for judgement and from whose sentence there was no appeale which ground wee still thinke doth prove both the incomplearnesse of the Synagogues and the supremacie of the Synedrion and the contrary to this must be cleered if our Tenent in this matter be removed True it is we thinke it some argument of the Synagogues incompleatnesse and imperfection that they were not permitted to enjoy all the Ordinances which were of ordinary use but the supremacie of Ierusalem we do not place in this only that there was the place for Sacrifice but in this withall that the supreame Iudicatory was there upon which all Israell must depend and from the which there must be no appeale And yet this supremacie we do not place in Ierusalem considered a part from the Synedrion but in the Synedrion it selfe And therefore whereas he saith Pag. 415. That we might as well conclude that all the Cities and Incorporations of England are dependant upon London inasmuch as the Parliament useth there to sit I conceive the comparison doth not sute because as we do not place the supremacie in London or in Westminster considered apart from the Parliament but in the Parliament which useth
and cleered which here our Brother doth not but on the contrary denies the same Furthermore if there be no independency of policie within a Congregation a Classicall Provinciall or Nationall Church As here our Brother affirmeth then what shall become of that which he tels us elsewhere viz. Page 483. That that remedie of our Saviour Tell the Church is not needfull in any Church above a Nationall For sure if there be no independencie of policie in any of the lesser Churches nor yet in the Nationall Church one would thinke that of our Saviour should be needfull in some Church above the Nationall Or if it be nor needfull in any Church above Nationall then one would thinke there should be some indepencie of policie in the Nationall Church or in some of the former For my part I know not how this difficulty will be expedited I meane how both these sayings of our Brother can stand good except we shall say that which I suppose he will not say viz. That independencie of policie is no where And yet I cannot see but this must be said if both the other sayings stand good For if independencie of policie be neither in the Nationall Church nor in any Church above it nor in any Church below it I know not where we shall have it Againe if there be no independencie of policie in any of the Churches afore named what shall we say to that passage where our Brother doth verily professe That he cannot see what power of Jurisdiction to censure Scandals can be in a generall Councell affirming further that there might be some meerly Doctrinall power if such a Councell could be had and that is all Pag 482. For if there be no Independencie of policie in any Church below a generall Councell one would thinke there should be in the generall Councill some power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals yea and an independant power too Or if there be not such power in the generall Councill nor yet in the Nationall Church nor in any Church below the Nationall we must then say there is no independant Power of Iurisdiction to censure Scandals in any Church upon earth Which latter if it be not owned as I conceive our Brother will noâ— I know not how the other two can both stand Though appeales be warranted both in Church and State by the light of Nature yet appeales to Exotique and forraigne Judicatures is not warranted by any such light but rather the contrary Answ Let this be granted also and are we ever a whit neerer to the point then before Is this good arguing appeales to exotique Indicatures are not warrantable Ergo a Synod and not the Congregation is the supreame Iudicature Is this Consequence strong and cleere If it be not how is our Tenent removed If our Brother intend it not for a removall thereof why is it brought in for answer to an Objection proposed by himselfe as ours Further let this sentence be compared with the former immediately preceding and more difficulties still arise For in this he tels us we see That appeales to forraigne Judicatures are not warrantable And in the other he tels us as wee heard afore That there is no independencie of policie within a Congregation a Classicall Provinciall or Nationall Church Now to find how these things do agree I am at a losse for if there bee no independencie of policie in the Congregation nor the other Churches mentioned I should have thought it might have been lawfull to have appealed from them to others For why may there not bee appeales from them in whom no independenâ—ie of Policie is seated Yet now we are restrained from such appeales for that all other Iudicatures are accounted forraigne and Exotique So that of two sentences the one immediately following upon the other the former tels us there is no independencie of policie in any of the Churches mentioned which are Domesticque and neere and the other tels us that other Churches are so Exotique and forraigne that appeales to them are unwarrantable and what to say for the reconciling of these things I must confesse I find not I grant it is true Appeales to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures are not warrantable But why are we not certified what Iudicatures are to be accounted Exotique and Forraigne For here I conceive lyes the pinch of the question and unlesse this be determined the thing in question is still left at uncertainty For as in civill states there are many Cities and Townes which have independent power within themselves as Geneva Strasburgh Zuricke Basill and many others and Appeales from any of these though to the City or Town next adjoyning would be to a Iudicature Exotique or forraigne so some are apt to conceive the like of Congregationall Churches And therefore it had need to be cleered that Appeales from such Churches is not to Exotique and forraigne Iudicatures for if this be not cleered the unlawfulnesse of Appeales to forraigne and exotique Powers may be granted and the question will remaine uncleered Church Appeales though warranted by the light of Nature yet it is supposed they be rationall and grounded on good reason as that either the matter belong not to the Congregation or then it bee certain or morally presumed the Congregation will be partiall or unjust or the businesse bee difficill and intricate and if appeales be groundlesse and unjust neither Christ nor Natures light doth warrant them Yea in such case the supremacie from which no man can lawfully appeale lyeth sometime in the Congregation sometime in the Classicall Presbytery so as it is unlawfull to appeale for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus Answ The short summe is thus much that appeales are then lawfull when there is just ground and reason for them otherwise they are unlawfull Now first of all how doth this prove for we would still keep to the point the necessity of that Consequence whereof we speak afore viz. That if appeales be lawfull then there is a supremacie of Synoâ—s over Congregations I conceive it is not proved hereby all but contrarily appeales may be granted lawfull when there is just reason and ground for them and yet the supremacie of Synods over Congregations is still uncleâ—red Nextly it still remaines a question who must be judge of the reasonablenesse of the Appeale and of those cases that are put to shew when they are reasonable viz. That the matter belongs not to the Congregation and the rest that are named and unlesse it be cleered to whom it belongs to judge these things we are still left at uncertainty in the maine matter viz. In whom the supremacie doth lye from whom we may not appeale For to say as our Reverend Author doth That in some case the supremacie from which no man can lawfully appeale lyeth in the Congregation and sometimes it doth not Appeales when they are grounded upon good reason are warrantable else they are not when the matter belongs not to the
doth acknowledge it followeth unavoidably thereupon that all Congregationall Churches such as have neighbours and such as have none may exercise such entirenesse of Iurisdiction sith the essence of a Church doth agree unto them all Vnlesse he will deny the essence of a Church to a Congregation which hath neighbours which hee freely yeeldeth to a Congregation which is alone he must grant entirenesse of Iurisdiction unto them both because he grants it to the one upon this reason that the essence of a Church doth agree thereunto which reason if it agree to both how can iâ— be avoided but entirenesse of Iurisdiction must be in both And how can it be affirmed or imagined that a Congregation having the essence of a Church afore and have neighbours should lose this essence of a Church when neighbours are added to it A family having the essence of a family now it is alone doth not lose this essence by meanes of other families added Nor doth a City that is such as it is alone lose the essence of a City by the accesse of other Cities and the same might be said of a Corporation a Province a Kingdome or any other society whatsoever And that it should be otherwise with a Congregationall Church that it should lose the essence of a Church as other neighbours Churches do arise doth seeme very strange and unreasonable And let the essence of a Church be still retayned by such a Congregation as I conceive it must and then intirenesse of Iurisdiction must not be denyed to such a Congregation sith it doth flow connaturally from every Church to which the essence of a Church doth agree If there bee no more consociated with that Church that is by accident and an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence As a Master of a family is to educate his children in the feare of God but if God take all his children from him by death he doth not transgresse the ordinary rule of educating his children in the feare of God as he hath none Answ If this comparison doe suit the present purpose and case in hand then this Master of a family is a Congregation and these his children are the members of other Congregations And so as a Master of a family needs not to educate his children in Gods feare when they are all taken from him by death so a Congregation needs not to governe the members of other Congregation as there are no other Congregation extant but it selfe is left alone in an Iland In which kind of arguing sundry things may be excepted against As firâ—â— of all that there should be such power in a Congregation as in a Master of a family over his own children which needs a good deale of proofe afore it may be yeelded in as much as the power of the one is plainly and plentifully taught in the Scripture as Eph. 4. 6. Col. 3. Deut. 6. 7. Deut. 21. And many other places But I desire one cleere place of Scripture in all the Book of God either old Testament or new to shew the like power in a Congregationall Church over the members of other Churches Againe when a Master of a family hath all his children taken from him by death he hath then no children of his own to governe but wants a Congregationall Church is left alone in an Iland the Presbytery of that Congregation is left alone but have still the members of that Congregation whom they may and ought to guide and governe in the feare of God which is another particular wherein the comparison failes But though the similitude as Mr. Rutherford hath laid it down doth not confirme his purpose yet I conceive it may be so framed and applyed as that it may well serve for the weekning thereof thus A Master of a family having when that family is alone entire power to governe his family in the feare of God when other families do arise that become neighbours neere adjoyning he is not by this meanes deprived of the power which he had before but still retaines the same entire and compleate as formerly it was even so the Presbytery of a Congregationall Church having when that Congregation is alone entire power of Iurisdiction over its own members is not when neighbour Congregation do arise deprived by this meanes of the power which it had before but still retaines the same entire as formerly it was Againe though when God takes away a mans children by death he is no longer bound to educate and governe those children in the feare of God yet as long as his children live with him in his family it is not the sitting down of other families neere by him that can take away this power from him or discharge him of this duty even so though when members of a Congregation be taken away by death or otherwise the Congregation or its Presbytery doth no longer stand charged or bound with the oversight and government of such members yet as long as they live in the Congregation it is not the arising of other Congregations neere to them that can free them from the power wherewith they were invested nor from the duty wherewith they were formerly charged towards such members Thus the comparison runs even and we see our Brothers cause is not a little disadvantaged thereby But as he hath laid it down it doth so apparantly faile that I do not perceive how it can afford him any helpe at all This argument supposeth that the Congregation hath no power of Excommunication at all either compleat or incompleate as the Midwife hath no power to Baptize either compleate or incompleate Answ Suppose a Congregation have an incompleate power when they have neighbours how shall it appeare that when they are alone their power is now compleat Or how will it be avoided but by the like reason one Elder alone may Excommunicate in case there be no other Elders to joyne with him For plain it is that one Elder when their is a full Presbytery or Classis hath an incompleate power though not a compleat And yet I hope this incompleat power in one Elder when there are other Elders joyned with him will not warrant him to exercise a power compleat when he is alone because such a power must be exercised by a Church with one Elder alone cannot be And if one Elder having an incompleat power when he is joyned with others may not exercise a compleat power when he is alone how will the incompleat power of a Congregation when they have neighbours suppose that in such case their power were indeed incompleate how will this I say warrâ—nt that Congregation when they are alone to exercise a compleat power For ought I see the compleat power of the Congregation is no more warranted upon this ground then the like power of one Elder upon the same ground the cases being alike in both Neither doth a Congregation transgresse any rule of Christ at all when it exerciseth entire power of censures within
many may not It seemes to be inconvenient and haâ—d to affirme either of these and yet the one or the other seemes unavoidable by this that Mr. Rutherford here teacheth For let it be granted that a Congregation that is alone yea a generall Councell yea a Nationall Councell also may be Iudges in their own cause and that no light of Nature is against the same and yet many Congregations may not be so but then the light of Nature will be against it let these things I say be granted which are all of them granted and taught by Mr. Rutherford and then I desire to know how the inconveniences mentioned can be avoided I meane how it can be avoided but either some men or Church Assemblies may lawfully do that which is against the very light of Nature or else that the light of Nature is changed when many Congregations do arise from that which it was when there was but one Yea the difficulty and intricaâ—y in this way is yet more if it be well considered For first of all when a Congregation is alone it is yeelded that it is not against Natures light for them to bee Iudges in their own cause Secondly when many Congregations do arise now it is said it is against such light that they should so be Iudges Yet thirdly when these Congregations do gather into a Nationall Councell then this light of Nature will allow them to be Iudges as in the first case of a single Congregation that is alone And the same is also said of the generall Councell so that here is strange varying and changing of the light of Nature and of that which is against it lawfull or unlawfull thereby And when good reason and ground is given for the cleering of these things we shall then consider further thereof and see more then yet we do In the meane time taking what is granted that no light of Nature forbids a Congregation when it is alone to have entirenesse of Iurisdiction within it selfe nor forbids the same to the generall or Nationall Councels I thinke it may thence be inferred that the like must be allowed to Congregationall Churches that have neighbours and that entirenesse of Iurisdiction in these is no more against the light of Nature then in the other For to say that one Congregation may have this entirenesse of Iurisdiction and the light of Nature alloweâ— it and others may not but the light of Nature forbids it yea to say first the light of Nature allowes it and then it forbids it and then it allowes it againe these are such abstruse and intricate things yea so apparantly incongruous and inconsistent that it passeth my understanding to perceive how they can stand together CHAP. XIII Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Ierusalem were each of them more then one Congregation and of Mr. Baynes his Iudgement therein Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. And whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely or to all the people also IT is a wonder to me saith our Author Page 457. That Thessalonica was but one Congregation yet the Apostle ascribeth to them that which is a note to worthy Baynes of the unmerous multitude of the Church of Jerusalem from whence went the word of Ged to all the World 1 Thes 1. 8. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not onely in Macedonia and Achaia but in every place your Faith to God-ward is spread abroad Answ All this doth not hinder but Thessalonica might be one Congregation though perhaps a great one For that the word did sound out from them to others and their Faith to Godward was spread abroad what is there in all this to prove they were many Congregations in one Church And for Mr. Baynes whom our Author worthily counts a worthy man there is nothing in him that will serve Mr. Rutherford his purpose but much that makes for the contrary For it is well known in his Diocesans Triall he maintaines at large that Churches by the appointment of Chrâ—st are Congregationall and denyes that one Congregation may be one Church and in the particular instances of the Church at Jerusalem at Coâ—iâ—th at Ephesus at Antioch and others he holds the very same that we do and the direct contrary to that which Mr. Rutherford stands for And therefore whereas he wonders that Thessalonica should bee one Congregation considering what the Apostle saith of them and what Mr. Baynes hath said of Jerusalem I may more justly wonder that he should once mention Mr. Baynes in this cause For if ever there was man in this world that denyâ—d many Congregations to be one Church and allowed onely such Churches to be instituted of Christ as may meete ordinarily in one Congregation this Mr. Baynes was one of them and therefore a wonder it is to me that Mr. Rutherford should thinke to have help from him in this question But let us consider what it is that Mr Baynes doth say of the Church at Ierusalem Why this which the Apostle affirmeth of the Thessalonians Mr. Baynes doth make a note of the numerous multitude of the Church at Ierusalem But doth hee make it a note of many Congregations in one Church at Ierusalem If he do this were something to the purpose I grant But I hope Mr. Rutherford will not so report of Mr. Baynes For it is plaine Mr. Bayneâ— doth not so speake but expresly saith the direct contrary and therefore what ever numerous multitude might be in that Church and what ever might be a note of such multitude except Mr. Baynes had said that the multitude was such as made many Congregations and yet all but one Church which he never said but the contrary there is no help to be had from Mr. Baynes in this businesse For who knoweth not that there might be a numerous multitude and yet but one Congregation Sure in Mr. Baynes his judgement it might be so and therefore though hee grant a numerous multitude in this Church at Jerusalem yet Mr. Rutherford purpose for many Congregations in Thessalâ—nica and yet all but one Church is not gained nor at all holpen thereby Which will better appeare if Mr. Baynes his Argumentation in the place which I conceive Mr. Rutherford aymes at be considered in Page 3. of his Diocesans Tryall he propounds an Argument of theirs who would have many Congregations to be one Church taken from the example of the ancient Churches of Rome and Alexandria laid down in these words If the multitude of Christians did in Ierusalem so increase within a little time that they exceeded the proportion of one Congregation how much more likely is it that Christians in Rome and Alexandria did so increase in 200 yeares that they could not keepe in one particular Assembly But the first is true Ergo also the latter Now when he cames to answer this Argument Pag. 18 19. What doth he then say First of all he saith The Proposition is not of necessary
consequence for there were saith he very extraordinary reasons of that which was effected in Ierusalem And so he proceeds to mention 5 or 6. reasons in particular of which one is this which it may be Mr. Rutherford hath an eye unto that the state of this Church was such as that it was to send out light to all others a common aursery to the World And therefore if the thing were granted that in Jerusalem there was a numerous multitude yea such a multitude as could not be contained in one Congregation yet saith he It doth not follow from this particular to the so great increasing of these Churches to wit of Rome and Alexandria in tract of time And even so may I say it doth not follow to the so great increasing of the Church of the Thessalonians there being such extraordinary reasons for that which was effected in Ierusalem as neither Rome nor Alexandria nor yet Thessalonica could alledge the same And this is his Answer to the Proposition But for the Assumption where Mr. Rutherford his help must chiefly lye to wit that the multitude of Christians in Ierusalem did exceed the proportion of one Congregation this Mr. Baynes doth expresly deny not to mention saith he That we do deny the Assumption Therefore the Proposition being by Mr. Baynes not yeelded and the Assumption expresly denyed I see not how Master Rutherford can have any help to his cause from either of both He denyes not he saith What Mr. Tompson and I do say that 5000 may meet to hear the word many thousands were gathered together Luke 12 to heare Christ Answ If this be not denyed then suppose there were 5000 or more in the Church at Ierusalem it doth not follow therefore that that Church was many Congregations and so our purpose is gained But we he saith Leave out the inconveniences of thronging so all at once for they trod one upon another Second Christ Preached not to all those thousands at once for it is expresly said verse 1. Hee began to say to his Disciples so Christ refusing to Preach to such a disorderly confluence of people who could not heare and his Doctrine being all for his Disciples the very Sermon being Preached to his Disciples onely evidenceth to me that Christ condemneth a numerous multitude to heare at once Answ The Question is not about the conveniency or inconveniency of such excessively great Assemblies but whether there be an impossibility in Nature and reason that so many as are said to bee in the Church at Ierusalem should assemble and come together in one Congregation for this is sometimes said for the proving of sundry Congregations in that one Church Now if this be not impossible then the plurality of Congregations in that one Church cannot bee concluded by those great multitudes that were therein And that it is not impossible for such great multitudes to come together in one Congregation the Scripture alledged Luke 12 doth witnesse If they trod one upon another that might argue the Assembly was very great and that they were very desirous to bee neere unto our Saviour for their better hearing but doth not at all prove that such multitudes are so great as that they cannot possibly be spoke unto and heare in one Congregation And therefore whereas our Brother saith Christ preached not to all those thousands at once and that he refused to Preach to such a disorderly confluence of People With favour of so worthy a man I thinke the truth is otherwise For though he began to speak to his Disciples verse 1. And exhorted them against worldly carefulnesse verse 22. Yet others who were not Disciples were present and did also heare his Sermon Witnesse that in verse 13. Where it is said that one of the company interrupting our Saviour as it seemes demands of him that hee would speake to his Brother about dividing the Inheritance to whom our Saviour makes answer verse 14. Which plainly â—hewes that all the pâ—esent company were not Disciples Yea whereas it is said that hereupon our Saviour spake to them of bewaring and taking heed of Coveteousnesse verse 15. And spâ—ke a Parable to them of a certain rich man verse 16. And after this said to his Disciples verse 22. Take â—o thought for your life what you shall eate c. It appeareth hereby that these persons spoken to afterward verse 15 16 c. Were not the Disciples who were spoken to afterward verse 22. But were some other people besides And what can be more plaine then that in verse 54. where it is expresly said that Christ spake unto the people rebuking them for their hypocrisie that could discerne the face of the Skye and of the Earth but could not discerne that time And he said also to the people saith the Text doth it not plainly appeare hereby that as Myriads of people were gathered together ver 1 So our Saviour spake the word unto those people I suppose the thing is manifest and that therefore our Brothers words cannot stand when he saith That Christ Preached not to that confluence of people but refused so to do his Doctrine being all for his Disciples For we see the Holy Ghost witnesseth that hee spake not onely to his Disciples but to the people also Chemnitiâ—s hath these words Negâ—ri non potest â—n hac satis prolixi concione c. It cannot bee denyed that Christ in this long Sermon of his directed his speech first to his Disciples second to his friends Third to one of the company Fourth to Peter demanding a question Fift to all the multitude and it seemes the Evâ—ngelist was willing as it were to reckon up these severall parts or members of the Sermon Harmon chap. 110. And the Refuter of Dr. Downams Sermon saith The mention of many thousands in Jerusalem doth not make the number such as by no meanes could meete together in the publike worship of God seeing it is apparent Luke 12. 1. that the people which assembled unto Christ and partake his ' Doctrine were also many Myriads and albeit he began at the first to speake to his Disciples verse 1. Yet afterward he spake to all the people assembled ver 13. 15. 54. Reply P. 2. P. 90. Wherefore though our Brother say Christ spake not to these multitudes of people but to his Disciples onely yet sith wee have the â—ext it selfe and the judgement of two Divines of chiefe note expresly witnessing the contrary therefore we cannot assent to him herein Whereas Chrysostome saith 5000 did heare his voyce at once in one Congregation by meanes of Scaffolds and Galleries and Mr. Mather is willing to yeeld 8120 were all assembled in one place to heare the word and that all the multitude of Converts at Ierusalem were together in Solomons Porch Acts 5 12. I grant 3000 could heare at once but alas c Page 458. Answ If Chrysostomes testimony be of any weight or Mr. Baynes his testimony by whom Chrysostome is alledged
Diocesans Triall Page 16. Then a must be granted that not only 3000 but a greater number even 50â—0 at least may heare the word at once And if so then 5000 members in the Church at Ierusalem will not prove plurality of Congregations in one Church forasmuch as here are 5000 people and yet no more Congregations but one But alas this is a great uncertainty for independant Congregations but this is to be proved first that 8000 Mr. Mather hath not added many other multitudes mentioned Acts 5. 14. 6. 17. did meete dayly in the Temple Second dayly or ordinarily from house to house Third to celebrate the Lords Supper dayly in the Temple and in every private house and there were need of many Scaffolds and Galleries to sit at one Table Fourth to make one Judicature c. Answ He that shall look upon the Answer Page 34 will plainely see that I have here spoken to both those places of Acts 5. 14. 6 1. Shewing that neither of them do prove a plurality of Congregations in this Church at Ierusalem but rather the contrary And therefore this Parenthesis which doth intimate that I have omitted to speake to these places must not be assented to but denyed But why must these foure particulars be proved I suppose he meanes because of that which is said Act. 2 46. They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple c. But this doth not cleere it that these foure particulars must needs be proved and the reason is First because Iudicature which is one of the particulars is not mentioned at all in that Scripture nor is it said by us that a dayly exercise thereof is necessary in every Church or in any Second the Lord Supper which is another of the particulars is not mentioned at all in that Text at leastwise not in those words or termes which Mr. Rutherford sets down much lesse is it said as he expresseth it that they did dayly celebrate the same both in the Temple and in every private house nor can the same for ought I know be proved by this or by any other Scripture nor was such a thing ever affirmed by us so farre as I know I suppose if they had celebrated it in the Temple alone or in some private house or houses alone that might have been sufficient without any necessity of celebrating the same in both places upon one day both in the Temple and in the houses too Nay it is a question whether the Lords Supper bee at all intended in this place though I doubt not but they observed that Ordinance and verse 42. may possibly teach so much But for the verse we are speaking of viz Verse 46 there is no necessity that the breaking of Bread there spoken of must needs be meant of that Ordinance Sure he was a judicious expositor who understands it otherwise Quod hic fractionem panis c. That is whereas some expound breaking of Bread in this place of the Lords Supper it seems to me to be farre from Lukes intention Calvin in Act. 2. 46. So then of Mr Rutherfords foure particulars which he saith we must prove there is not past the halfe of them that needs to be proved at all the two last being already removed And for a third which is of breaking of Bread dayly and ordinarily from house to house understand this breaking of Bread as Calvin doth of their civill repast and then it hurts not our cause at all though it be yeelded that they did dayly meet for such purpose in severall companies in their private houses for this they might do and bee no more but one Congregation There remaines therefore onely one that needs to be proved namely the first that they did dayly meete in the Temple and this may bee proved with case because the plain words of the Text do affirme it They continued dayly with one accord in the Temple so that yet we have found nothing that proves Ierusalem to be many Congregations in one Church Nay I conceive that one of these foure particulars viz. The first of their dayly meeting in the Temple doth apparently shew that how great soever the number was yet it was not exceeding the proportion of one Congregation which might come together in one place For the Temple was but one in all the City I meane there was but onely one individuall Temple and not many Temples which if there had been then our Brethren might possibly have said that they met distributively in sundry lesser companies but were to many too meete all in one Congregation for so they were wont to expound sundry other phrases used by the Holy Ghost to declare their comming together True say they they come together but how Not collectively all of them together in one place they were too many for that but they came together distributively some of them in one place and some in another and so they think they have answered sufficiently But now to this of their meeting together in the Temple they cannot answer so for then there should have been sundry Temples in which they might have met distributed into sundry companies but there being no more Temples but one and the Text affirming plainly that they all met with one accord in the Temple it must needs be that they met collectively all of them together in one and the same place and hence it followeth that they were not so many but still they might be one Congregation as well as one Church So that of the foure particulars which he saith we must prove some wee see need not to be proved at all and the first of them which we can prove with case doth make much for the weakning of his cause and for the strengthening of ours Yea Mr. Mather will have the whole containing as one independant Congregation Act. 6. 1 2 3 4. And the many Myriads or thousands of beleeving Jewes Acts 21. 21 22 23. To meete as one Congregation Answ When in the Answer I speake of these places the word Independant was not there used by me at all but only is here added by himselfe for what cause himselfe can best tell But for the matter I conceive the thing which I there delivered is cleere from the Texts themselves that the multitude of those Iewes did assemble and come together in one place for as for one of the places Act. 6. It is expresly there said that the Apostles called the multitude together to propose unto them the choice of Deacons verse 2 and bad them look out from amongst themselves seaven Men qualifyed as the Apostles do there describe verse 3. whereupon it is said that the saying pleased the whole multitude and they chose seaven who are there named verse 5. and presented them unto the Apostles that they might lay their hands on them verse 6. Which plainely shewes that the whose multitude how many soever they were yet were not so many but they might all assemble in one place to
heare matters proposed to them to consider thereof and upon liking to put them in execution as in other things so in this particular of making election of Officers as there they are Recorded to have done And as for the other place Act. 21. though it be a Question whether those many thousand Iewes that beleeved were all members of that one Church at Jerusalem yet it cannot be any question whether they might come together in one place sith Iames and the Elders do expresly there say unto Paul the multitude must needs come together for they will heare that thou art come Nor can we say they might come together onely distributively in sundry companies but not all in one place for the end of their comming together will not beare that exposition which end was that they might see and heare Paul and try what satisfaction he would give them in the matter whereof they were informed of him that he taught the Iewes to forsake Moses and to omit Circumcision and other Iewish customes These things they were informed to have been taught by him amongst the Gentiles and hearing that he was come to the City they must needs come together to heare what he would say to the matter and how hee would cleere himselfe Now if this was the end of their comming together it must needs be that their comming was altogether unto one place and not in severall companies for this could not answer their end inasmuch as Paul being but one person it was not possible they could see him nor heare him in sundry places at once and therefore they might as well have staid at home and not have come together at all as come together in such sort Plaine it is therefore that the multitude spoken of in these two Scripures were not so many but they might meete in one Congregation Which point as something hath been said in the Answer P. 34 35. For the cleering of it so I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. Rutherford his dealing concerning these Scriptures For though he make mention of them in this place as we see and of that apprehension of mine concerning those Scriptures yet he doth not at all remove the grounds which were given for that apprehension in the Answer but doth wholly passe them by in silence Now taking occasion to speak of the Scriptures and relating what my apprehension was concerning the same and yet saying nothing at all to the gronnds whereon that apprehension was built it seemes hereby to bee implyed that indeed he had nothing in readinesse to object against the same So that I may still conceive of those Scriptures as I did before for any thing yet brought to induce me to be of another mind As for that which next followes certainly the Apostles practice must be our rule and then 500 or 1000 being so farre beneath 10 or 8000 may well seeme a number for fewnesse not competent and what shall wee then thinke of 7 only or 10. Answ The answer is that the Apostles practise doth not at all condemn ours though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers but sometimes more and sometimes lesse for was it not so in that Primative Apostolike Church Is it not plain that that Church was for number farre lesser at the first then afterward when they grew to 4000 or more and yet after this they grew to be fewer againe when Persecution scattered them all abroad except the Apostles Act. 8. 1. And therefore if 10 or 8000 being once the number in that Church be a rule condemning out Churches as being for fewnesse not competent when they are beneath that number how will it be avoided but by the same reason the practise of that Church at one time shall be a rule for the condemning of it self at another time For sure it is their number was not at all times alike but sometimes more and sometimes lesse as in the Sea it is not alwayes full tyde but sometimes low ebbe nor is the Moone alwayes at full but sometimes at the Change Nay if the Apostles practise must be our rule then inasmuch as their Churches had not alwayes the like numbers of members in them but sometimes the number was greater and sometimes lesser it will follow therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not alwayes to bee the same but though greater numbers be lawfull yet the lawfulnesse of lesser numbers may not be denyed CHAP. XIV Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church came together in some place c. Doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely PAge 464. I cannot but thinke that weake which Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompson say Answer Page 37. the place 1 Cor. 14. 23. That speaketh of the whole Church comming together to one place doth unavoidably prove that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into severall Congregations but altogether in one Congregation and it is plaine that though they had variety of teachers and Prophets yet they all used to come together to one place Answ If that which wee say be weake it is more easie for one of such ability and strength as Mr. Rutherford to overthrow the same Yet it is not words that will suffice but weight of reason that must availe thereto Let us heare therefore his Answer to this passage which he thinkes and censures to be so weake The place saith he 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together c. Deth evince the contrary For the Apostle doth there reason ab absurdo from a great incongruity it were incongruous saith he and ridiculous that the whole Church of Corinth and all their guifted men speaking with Tongues so that they could not be understood by Infidels should all Convene in one place and speake with divers Tongues For the unlearned and unbeleevers would say they were madde therefore hee presupposeth that the whole Church should not all come to one place but that they should so come to one place in divers Assemblies Answ And is it true indeed that this place doth evince the contrary viz. That the Church at Corinth did not all meet in one Congregation How shall we be assured that such a thing is evinced by the place For as for the reason given c. That the Apostle dâ—th there reason ab absurdo or from great incongruity this doth not prove the thing at all partly because they might practise something that were not meete but had incongruity in it and partly and more especially because the Apostle doth not lay the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it viz. In the convening of the whole Church in one place but in their speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened and come together Touching the former of these Mr. Rutherford reasoneth to this effect If it were an incongruous
or unâ—it thing that the whole Church at Corinth should come together in one place then they did not so come together but the first is true Ergo the second is true also In which kind of reasoning such is our weaknesse we thinke neither part of the argument to be free from just exception For as we wholly deny the Assumption so we also thinke there is no sufficient strength of consequence in the maine Proposition forasmuch as sundry things were practised in that Church which were no wayes fit not meet to be practised and which the Apostle doth therefore reprove and seekes the redresse of the same witnesse their Factions and divisions Chap. 1. 3. Their neglecting Church censures against the incestuous person and on the contrary being puffed up Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels Chap. 6. their abuses in Prayer and Prophesying their women uncovered and their men covered Chap. 11. their abuses in the Lords Supper when they so came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken Chap. 11. Now as it were an unsufficient kind of arguing to say these things were unfit and unmeet and therefore that Church did not so practise even so Mr. Rutherford his arguing seemes to be no better who would prove they did come together in one place because the Apostle as he thinks did count such comming together unmeet For if it were granted that such a comming had been unmeet yet it doth not follow but such might bee their practise notwithstanding and therefore as hee counts our apprehension in this matter to be weak so I leave it to himself and others to consider whether in this consequence It was not meet they should all come together in one place Ergo they did it not be very strong I desire here not to be mistaken for I do not grant that their comming together in one place was unmeet nor that the Apostle doth reprove them for the same I have already said the contrary in denying the Assumption afore mentioned which I do still deny But the thing I intend is to consider the strength of Mr. Rutherford his reasoning and for that cause to apply it to the thing in question which I still desire to keepe close unto if it may be Now the thing in question being this whether the Church at Corinth were so many at that they could nor meet together in one Assembly but had many Congregations and all but one Church and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative and bringing this reason for it taken from the Congruity of meeting all together I therefore thought meet to weigh the strength of this reason which I do not perceive to be in any wise convincing but supposing the Apostle had counted such meetings inconvenient and unmeet yet this reason as I conceive is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpose that their number was such as that they could not all possibly meet in one place for they might possibly do that which were unmeet to be done in this particular as well as they did in many other things But in this particular I do not thinke they did any thing absurd or unmeet at all and therefore for further answer to this reason I would say that the Apostle doth not say the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it to wit in that the whole Church did convene and come together but in speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened this latter being incongruous and absurd indeed for the Infidels comming into the Church Assembly and hearing them so speake might thinke them madde as the Apostle sayes but for assembling all in one place I know no madnesse that was in that nor shew thereof nor do I yet beleeve that the Apostle doth place the absurdity there For though Mr. Rutherford bee a worthy man and learned yet such a thing as this had need of some further proofe then his bare word If a Church should meet distributively in divers Assemblies and being so met should speake with strange Tongues I demand whether this manner of speaking do prove such a way of meeting absurd I suppose he will say no because it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apostolike Churches did use And if so then suppose they should so speake with strange Tongues when they meet collectively all in one Assembly how can this manner of speaking conclude the absurdity of such kind of meeting any more then it did in the other For my part though such kind of speaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it yet I conceive assembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby then assembling distributively in many Hee that is the Apostle presupposeth that the whole Church should come to one place in divers Assemblies and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face c. Answ If the Prophets were met in divers Assemblies at once I marvell how the unbeleever should be convinced and judged of them all for I hope one singular and individuall unbeleever was not present in divers Assemblies at once nor convinced and judged as here he is said to be by those Prophets from whose Assembly he was absent Eitheâ— therefore the Prophets were all met in one Assembly and not in divers or else it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all For sure the unbeleever could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved that did ordinarily meet in one place the Text saith no such thing and that is to be proved and not taken as granted Answ Suppose it were true that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved this doth nothing prejudice our cause for as much as our Question is not about the whole much people that beleeved but about the whole Church If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place we have what we desire and require no more As for the whole much people that beleeved whether this be the same with the former or no wee shall have no need to prove or take for granted that these did in like manner come together for as much as our question in the termes of it is not about these but about the other But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved Shall we say the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved Or shall wee say it is not so much I conceive it must be one of these or else it must be the same If it be said it is more then still we have our desire if not more then we demand For if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved were neverthelesse not so great but they might and did assemble in one Congregation
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
read in one assembly and another in another whereof in the present case there is not so much as the least hint And if we would imagine such a matter for which there is small reason yet since it is Iudas and Silas by whom this Epistle was sent and who were to tell the same things by mouth and who also upon the delivering of the Epistle exhorted the breathren of Antioch with many words as is cleare vers 22 23 27 32. Iudas and Silaâ— I say being but two men could not be present and speak and act these things in many assemblies at once but must of necessity be both in one assembly or at the most in two but the text makes no mention of their being in two but plainly enough intimates the contrary that they were both together and yet where they were present there was the multitude gathered together to receive the Epistle by their hands and to heare the report and word of exhortation at their mouth Unlesse therefore we will imagine that Iudas and Silas could be present and act in many assemblies at once there is no reason to think this multitude among whom they were present and acted to be many Congregations or assemblies And therefore for his conclusion pag. 475 476. That the mentioning of one multitude in the singular number Acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one single Congregation at Antioch The answer is that we doe not lay the force of our reason in the mentioning of the multitude in the singular number and therefore it can not thus be satisfied or put off for our words are these The whole multitude of them were gathered together at the return of Paul and Barnabas from the Synod at Jerusalem to heare the Epistle read which was sent from that Synod Answer p. 50. wherein it is easie to perceive that we lay the force of our reason not in this that the Church is called a multitude in the singular number but in this that the whole multitude were gathered together for such an end as there is expressed and this we still conceive may prove the point For a Church which is such a multitude as is gathered together for the receiving of one Epistle which was sent unto them all and which is gathered together to heare the Epistle read and also to heare the same things by mouth the men from whose mouth they must so heare and from whose hands they must so receive being no more but two such a Church as this can be no more but one Congregation or Assembly Now Antioch was such a Church and therefore was no more but one Congregation If this conclusion be not granted some way must be devised how many severall assemblies might all be receivers and hearers of one and the same Epistle at the same time there being but one coppy of the Epistle as also how they might at one time heare the same things declared to them by mouth when there was but two men to declare the same And when such a way is found out we may then further consider thereof But in the mean time the grounds and reasons alledged doth induce me to think that Antioch where those things were thus done was indeed but one Congregation CHAP. XVII Whether no liberties are given by Christ to the People but women must exercise the same as well as men and of the peoples liberty about Ordination or the Calling of Ministers IN the answer p. 8. we have these words viz. Governing properly so called we acknowledge not in any but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12. vers 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. If that word be ascribed to the people it must be understood in a more improper sense for that which impropriety of speech were more fitly called liberty or priviledge and yet this liberty when it is exercised about Ordination Deposition Excommunication c. is of the whole body communiter or in generall but not of all and every member in particular as you conceive us to hold for women and children are members and yet are not to act in such matters the one being debarred by their sex and the other for want of understanding and discretion This passage Mr. Rutherford having related though with some variation in his pag. 476 in answer thereto he saith thus p. 477. If there be no governing power in women nor any act at all in Excommunication you loose many arguments that you bring 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in Excommunication 1. Because Paul writeth to all 2. All were to mourne 3. All were to forbeare the company of the Excommunicated then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth not to women and women were not to mourne for the scandall nor to forbeare his company Answ If Mr. Tompson and I doe being such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. why is not the place quoted where we doe bring them I suppose there is no such place at all that can be produced and therefore I desire so much favour that what we never said may not be imputed to us nor divulged abroad as ours If others doe bring such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. they that bring them are able to speake for themselves and to give account of their own arguments but I know no reason that doth require that we should be drawn to defend such arguments as we never used nor that doth allow our Reverend Brother to report such arguments as ours which having never been used by us I counted it therefore an impertinent digression to spend time in the defence of them The priviledge saith he being a part of liberty purchased by Christs body it must be due to 〈…〉 for the liberty wherewith Christ hath made women free cannot be taken away 〈…〉 of God from their sex except in Christ Iesus there be a difference between Iew and Gentile male and female Answ That which is in the people we say in propriety of speech is more â—itly called liberty or priviledge but of liberty purchased by Christs body or blood we make no mention at all and therefore our Brother might have spared speech thereof But it is true indeed that the people can have no liberty but women also may exercise the 〈…〉 else their liberty purchased for them by Christ is taken away It seems he so conceives but then I desire to know how his own doctrine elsewhere and the Apostlâ—s wâ—â—ds can stand together for in one place he saith that Acts 14. 23. Proveth that Elders ordaine Elder with lifting up of the hands of the people and this saith he is 〈…〉 doctrine Due Right p. 190. and in another place he saith The people have Gods right to choose Ministers for so the word prescribeth for which in his margent he alledgeth 〈◊〉 severall texts of Scripture Acts 15. 22. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Acts 6. 4. Acts 14. 23. and in his text alledgeth Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Origen Chrysostome the Councell
and holden by the whole this reason we see is now removed and utterly taken away forasmuch as all power of jurisdiction is denyed to the generall Councell which is the inevitable Now if there be no power of jurisdiction within the generall Councell then there can be no appeals to such a Councell for such an end and if no appeales to that Councell then the rule doth not alwayes hold that there must be appeals from the lesser assemblies to the greater and if this do not alwayes hold then there may be independent power of jurisdiction in a Congregation without appeals from the same though it be a lesser assembly then the Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries and thus our purpose is gained For how can it be avoided except this power of jurisdiction yea supream or independent power which is denyed to the generall Councell could be proved to be in the Classes Synods or nationall Presbyteries which we think cannot be done Indeed to say on the one side that 〈◊〉 is no independent power in the Congregation and to say on the other side that there is no power at all of jurisdiction in generall Councells this doth inevitably lay a necessity of such Independent power in these intermediat assemblies of the Classicall Provinciall and nationall Presbyteries except we shall say there is no such power at all appointed by Christ in any Church assemblies on earth Now if such independent power be given to the Presbyteries mentioned as it needs must if it be neither in the generall Councell nor in the single Congregations then I desire to know upon what scripture or scritures such power in the said Presbyteries is grounded and built and whether the said power belong unto them all or only unto some of them and which they be and why not to the rest as well yea why not to the single Congregation nor yet to the generall Councell as well as to any of them When this quaere is answered and the answer sufficiently proved by scripture then we shall see more reason for the jurisdiction of such assemblies over the particular Congregations then yet we have seen In the mean time this quaere with the rest I leave to our Brethrens consideration CHAP. XX. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in Monarchies whether it would not thence follow that the government of Churches must so end as well as that Congregations must depend on the government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a Communion in government to other societies And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews who chose the seven Deacons Act. 6. were two Congregations or one onely PAG 482. If Churches must be dependent on Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on earth for which he alledgeth the answ pag. 20. and then subjoyneth his answer thus I see this said without any approbation Churches depend on many above them for unity but what consquence in this Erg◠they depend upon one visible Monarch It is an unjust consequence Answ With favour of so worthy a man he greatly wrongs our words and thereby wrongs the reader by leaving out those words wherein the plainenesse and strength of our argumentation lyes Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progresse of the dispute in that script of ours and to set down our words there used because as Mr. Rutherford hath set them down the strength of consequence is suppressed from the Readers knowledge and so indeed his answer is made easie but the naked truth lyes thus Our reverend Brother to whose Treatise we return answer in that small piece of ours having said that communion and assistance in government is taught by the very light of nature to all societies whatsoever whether Commonwealths or Armies Universities or Navies he presently addeth by way of prevention Not that therefore this government of Churches should as those end in a Monarchy upon earth In answer whereto besides other things we have these words pag. 21. If Churches must be dependent on the government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever then we see not how it will be avoided but by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchie on earth if it were once cleared that the light of nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end so there is as good reason for this as for the other Which last words if it were once proved c. Mr. Rutherford wholy leaves out and suppresseth and so makes his own answer more easie But I desire so much favour which I think is but reasonable that he that will undertake to answer our writing would represent our words and arguing as it is and no otherwise and then I am content that the same may come under tryall Now our arguing is this If Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this reason because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever then by the like reason let it be once proved which is by Mr. Herle affirmed that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in a Monarchy and it will thereupon follow that Churches must likewise end in the same manner If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other societies the same must be observed in the government of Churches I think it will then follow that if the light of nature teach other societies to end in a Monarchy on earth the government of Churches must do so also This is our manner of arguing in which the consequence is the same with that which our Brethren think so strong viz. that because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government therefore there must be in the Churches a government of Synods If any say the consequence is not alike necessary in both cases because the ground doth not hold alike in both for the light of nature doth not teach all societies on earth to end in a Monarchie as it doth teach a communion and assistance in government The answer in that we have plainly said the same in the place of the Answerer alledgeth viz. p. 20 21. But the main question lyes not there whether other societies do end in Monarchies for though the reverend author whom we there doe answer do seem so to judge yet we have there plainly declared that we conceive of that matter otherwise but here doth lye the main question viz. Suppose it were granted that light of nature doth teach all societies to end in a Monarchy on earth whether would it not then follow that Churches must also so end And that this is the thing in question wil plainly appear to any that shall peruse the place And to this question our answer is that the consequence for
arise offences between Congregations there must be a Church of Synods above Congregations and those Synods must judge and redresse those offences to this we there answer that all offences do not fall within the compasse of this rule and remedy tell the Church and so no dependency of Congregation upon the jurisdiction of Synods can be sufficiently proved by this text First of all we instance in the offences of nationall Churches of which we suppose our Brother will not say that they fall within the compasse of our Saviours rule Tell the Church for then the independency of nationall Churches and nationall Synods is overthrown as well as the Congregations which we suppose he will not grant and yet it cannot be avoided if his reason for the dependency of Congregations upon Synods do stand firm And next of all we instance in the offences of Turks and Indians and other heathens who may offend Christians and yet are not to be complained of to the Church the Apostle expressely teaching the contrary 1 Col. 5. This being the scope of that passage in the answer which here Mr. Rutherford excepteth against let us now hear what it is which he saith thereto Because saith he ordinary communion faileth when you go higher then a nationall Church and Christs way supposeth art ordinary communion as is cleare If thy brother offend c therefore I deny that this remedy is needfull in any Church above a nationall Church Answ 1. If this remedy be not needfull in any Church above a nationall then the rule doth not universally hold true that the remedy complaint to the Church must be as large as the malady offence and so our purpose is gained For our purpose in that place is to prove this very thing by this same instance of the offence of a nationall Church wherein Mr. Rutherford we see doth come over to us and affirms the same that we do To what end therefore was it to make shew of removing or weakening what he had said sith when it comes to the issue he plainly concurs with us For by this means our tenent is not confuted but confirmed with his attest thereto 2. Though here he saith this remedy is not needfull in any Church above a nationall yet I am mistaken if elsewhere he speak not otherwise For in pag. 311. prepounding this objection viz. Christ here speâ—keth of a present and constant removall of scandalls A Catholike councell of the whole visible Church is farre of and cannot be had he returneth this for answer thereto That Christ saith he speaketh of a present and constant remedy only and of no remedy against the scandall of whole Churches is denyed He speaketh of all remedyes to gain any offenders persons or Churches And in pag. 322. he saith Christ giveth an instance only in an offending brother but the doctrine is for the curing of an offending Church also and for all persons to be gained Thou hast gained thy Brother and saith he we are to gain Churches as we are not to offend Churches 1 Cor. 10. 32. Again in his second pag. 332. speaking of five sâ—rts of Synods of which he cals the fifth the generall and Oecuminick Councell he saith that all these differ not in essence but in degrees and what word of God as Matth 18. 16 17. proves the lawfulnes of one is for the lawfulnesse of all the five sorts of Synods Lastly nothing can be more plain then those words pag. 39. This of our Saviour Tell the Church is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to a Catholike Councell The same is also to be seen in the Peaceable Plea p. 86. In all which sayings he plainly understands the text we have in hand to speak of a remedy for all that are to be gained yea a remedy for the offences of all persons and Churches that may give offence which Churches he saith may do and expresly affirms that it is to be applyed to generall Councels and that necessarily and how these things do agree with the place in hind where he saith he denyes the remedie is needfull in any Church above a nationall let the wise and himself judge For for my part except there be some difference between necessary and needfull the sayings to me do seem inconsistent one affirming the place is necessarily to be applyed to all Churches and Courts of Christ even to generall Councells and the other denying that the remedy there mentioned is needfull in any Church above a nationall 2. Christs remedy saith he is a Church remedy for offences among the brethren and members of the visible Church And Indians are nomembers of the visible Church and so being without they cannot be judged 1 Cor. 5. 12. Answ That Indians cannot be judged by the Church is very true but nothing against us for the very same that here is said by Mr. Rutherford was said by us before in the place which himself doth alledge where we also brought the very same text of Scripture which himself doth bring Now why should these things be brought as a confutation of us which are nothing but a reception of that which we had delivered afore as our own judgement May not his reader be induced hereby to think that we had spoken otherwise But to let this passe If Indians cannot be judged by the Church then still our purpose is gained for by this it appeareth that an offence may be committed where Christs remedy Tell the Church may not be applyed for the redresse thereof and so that universall proposition Christs remedy is as large as the maladie and where an offence may be committed there to tell the Church is the remedy for the redresse of the same which our brethren do lay as the foundation on which to build the jurisdiction of Classes and Synods the universality I say of this proposition is utterly overthrown by this instance of Indians and so that scripture Matth. 18. appears to be too weak a bottome to bear the building which our brethren would erect upon it Nor is the matter much amended by that which our brother here brings for the helping and clearing of it That Christs remedy is a Church remedy for offences among brethren members of the visible Church For let this be granted as I know none that denies it yet still the question remains what is that Church to which our Saviour here gives power to remove and redresse scandals by excommunicating the offenders we conceive this Church is only the particular Congregation and its Presbytery and our brethren think it is also the Classes and Synods but this apprehension of theirs is not confirmed by saying our Saviours remedy is a Church remedy for offences amongst members of the Church inasmuch as the members of a nationall Church as such are members of the visible Church in our brethrens judgement and yet our brother holds here is nor remedy prescribed for a delinquent nationall Church And if he can so
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
frequently called by the name of a Church we in answer to the former of these doe give many instances p. 31 32. where a single Câ—â—â—regation Is called by the name of a Church not onely in 1 Cor. 14. which Mr. Herle acknowledgeth though with a perhaps but also in sundry other scriptures which here Mr. Rutherford quoteth Now let us heare his answer to this passage Wee seek no more saith he Answ Are we then agreed that in scripture language the word Church is sundry times given to a single Congregation If so then for this point the answer is not confuted but confirmed If it be called a Church which conveeneth for performance of spirituall duties as some of your places doe well prove ergo no assembly should have the name of Church but such as assemble for Word and Sacraments this now you cannâ—t affirm and it followeth not Answ If this follow not what needs it we never affirmed it and our purpose that the word Church is given in scripture to a single Congregation is sufficiently gained without it The Church spoken of Matth. 18. is not assembled to Word and Sacraments but to binde and loose the meeting 1 Cor. 5. is not for Word and Sacraments but to deliver to Satan the word Church Act. 14. 27. is not an assembly for Word and Sacraments but to hear how God hath opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles If to be received of the Church Act. 15. 4. be matter of Word and Sacraments let all judge If to send a decree of a Synod Act. 15. 22. be the act of a Church assembled for Word and Sacraments let the world judge Answ Reverend Sir keep to the point we never said that discipline and all other acts whether performed by a Church are Word and Sacraments and therefore there was no need to prove they are not and then to triumph as in a great victory The thing in question is this whether the name or word Church be given in scripture to a single Congregation and if this be proved as the instances given I hope do prove it sufficienly then it matters not what that particular spirituall Church action is for which they do meet For whether it be that they meet for Word and Sacraments alone or whether it be for the Word and Prayer alone and not at that time for Sacraments at all or whether it be for discipline or for any other Church duty yet still if they come together into one place be it for all or for any of these ends they are then a Congregation for what is a Congregation but a company so assembled in one place and so our tenet stands good and our purpose is gained For if they that come together into one place for Church actions and ends be called in scripture by the name of a Church then the word Church is given to a company that so came together and such a company being a Congregation it follows that the word Church is used for a Congregation What this Congregation doth when they are come together is not the question but if a Congregation coming together for Church duties be in Scripture called a Church we have our intent If the word Church be a meeting of persons assembled to one place for Spirituall duties sometimes for Word and Sacraments onely sometimes for acts of jurisdiction onely then is the word Church by our brethrens argument taken both for the Congregation and for the Elders of one or of divers Churches and so we have our intent Answ Let the antecedent be granted yet the consequence is denied For the word Church may be a meeting assembled sometimes for Word and Sacraments onely and sometimes for acts of jurisdiction only and I adde sometimes for the Word and Prayer only without exercise of jurisdiction or Sacrament and somtimes for some other act or acts then any of these that are named and yet for all this it may not be taken for the Elders alone of one Church and much lesse for the Elders of divers Churches the reason is because all these acts may be performed by the Congregation assembling sometimes for one of them and sometimes for another And therefore your intent is not yet attained who would have the word Church to be taken somtimes for the Congregation and sometimes for the Presbyters or Elders alone We desire our brethren to prove which they must if they oppose our principles that the word Church is never taken for the Eldership alore in all the word of God Answ Must we prove a negative and is that saying Affirmanti incumbit â—â—us probandi now become unreasonable unnecessary or of no force For my part I am still of the mind that he that affirms must in equity and reason prove what he affirms Besides for our selves we have this to say further that If we prove what we undertook we have done as much as can in reason be required of us though we do not prove this that Mr. Rutherford would impose upon us And what was that which we undertook to prove nothing in this place but onely this that the word Church is taken for a Congregation in other Scriptures besides 1 Cor. 14. and this we have performed and proved already Mr. Rutherford himself allowing some of our proofs for good And therefore having performed this point it is more then needs to be required of us to prove another also which we never undertook to prove as being quite besides our question which we were and still are desirous to keep close unto and not to wonder or be diverted from it by any means Whereas our brethren say a company gathered into one place which is nothing else but a Congregation are called by the name of a Church I answer such a company is only I suppose this is misprinted for is not onely called by the name of a Church for a company meeting for discipline only is a Church also Answ If a company gathered into one place which is a Congregation be called by the name of a Church this is as much as we desire for our tenent is herein expresly granted to be true If a company meeting for discipline onely be a Church also yet as long as the former is not denyed the adding of this other doth no hurt to us at all It is false that a company gathered into one place are nothing else but a Congregation Answ Bona verba quaso we had thought that as a company assembled is an assembly a company met is a meeting a company convocated a convocation so a company gathered together or congregated had been a Congregation But this is peremptorily now condemned as false yet let us hear why As you take the word Congregation for so your Congregation is an assembly of men and women meeting for Word and Sacraments with the Elders of the Church Answ And what if they meet for prayer also what if for the Word and Prayer without Sacraments for this or
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
and his sonnes and those Levites now ordained which reason Mr. Rutherford never mentions but mentions another speech as our reason which was delivered by us for another purpose The like measure doth he afford to us in the second branch of the sentence by him expressed For whereas we give two reasons of the main thing in question that this example of the children of Israel imposing hands on the Levites doth prove that in some cases non-officers may impose hands upon Church officers the one because what these children of Israel did they did it not as Elders the other that what they did they did it not for themselves alone but for all the Congregation Mr. Rutherford applies not these two reasons to the thing in question as they were applyed by us but instead thereof makes one of them to be a reason of the other which was no part of our meaning nor could justly be gathered from our words This being said for clearing this passage of ours from his manifold mistakes let us now heare his answer Pag. 49â— These who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders because the Elders were a part of the first borne who by office were Elders and in whose stead the Levites were assumed Numb 3. 40 41. Answ If the Elders were but a part of the first born then how could all the first born be Elders by office or if all the first born were by office Elders then how could the Elders be but a part of the first born These things seem not to be here But be it so that the Elders were a part of the first born as here is affirmed how doth this prove that they who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders Is there any necessary or clear consequence in such a proposition For my part I see it not but on the contrary I suppose it is certaine that the Elders might be part or all of the first born and yet they who did the work of imposing hands might neither impose as Elders nor of necessity be Elders Though in the sense expressed in the answer I will not deny but there might be Elders that is chiefe and principall members of the Congregation But if this were granted in the sense expressed must it needs follow that they imposed hands as Elders and as Elders by office too Can a man sustain no relation but all his actions must be actions of that relation Cannot a man be an husband or a parent c. but his actions of plowing sowing c. must needs be performed by him as he is a husband or parent Cannot a minister pray in his family instruct his children or receive the bread and wine in the Lords supper in the Congregation but all these things must be performed by him as a Minister I suppose that none will say that this doth follow and if not then suppose that these who imposed hands were Elders how doth it follow that when they imposed hands they did impose as Elders Else the Church of Israel being a constituted Church before this time wanted officers which is against all truth Answ Else else what let the antecedent or ground of this inference be taken from the words preceding or from any of them and whence else to take it I cannot tell and no necessity of consequence I think will appear The words preceding are no more but these These who laid on hands did it as a worke peculiar to the Elders because the Elders were a part of the first born who by office were Elders and in whose steed the Levites were assumed and then comes in this inference else the Church of Israel wanted officers Now how this must needs follow upon any or all of those preceding I see not Not that I deny the truth of all those preceding words for of some of them I think otherwise but supposing that were all true which is more then doth yet appeare yet here is that which I am doubtfull in whether this inference must needs follow upon the same For ought I see the Church of Israel might have officers and yet the particulars here mentioned not be all true but some of them false notwithstanding At least wise if they were true yet the reason here used would not inferre so much For to consider a little of the particulars The Church of Israel had officers ergo the Elders were a part of the first born which is one of the particulars The Church of Israel had officers ergo the first born were Elders by office which is another The Church of Israel had officers Ergo the Levites were assumed instead of the first born which is another of them is there any necessity of consequence in any of these For my part I see it not but suppose they were in themselves true yet the medium here used doth not proove them so to be And for that which is the first and as I conceive the cheif to wit that these who imposed hands did it as a work peculiar to Elders must this needs be granted if it be granted that the Church of Israel was not without officers I see no necessity of granting this neither but the contrary to me seems possible enough that thee might be officers afore this time in that Church and yet what was now done by them who imposed hands not be done by them as Elders by office but as prime and principall members of the Congregation For the clearing whereof a little further we may observe that they who imposed hands on the Levites are not here called Elders nor rulers nor officers nor first born nor any such like but the term whereby they are expressed is this the children of Israel The children of Israel saith the Lord shall put their hands upon the Levites Numb 8. 10. Now this term being used in the 9. verse imediately preceding and in the 11. vers imediately following yet in neither of both can it be meant of Elders and officers alone but in both verses is undoubtedly meant of all the body of the Congregation and therefore if the context and circumstances of the place be regarded these children of Israel who imposed hands on the Levites v. 10. cannot in that act be considered under the notâ—on of officers Sure it is when the verse before tells us that the whole assembly of the children of Israel must be gathered together and the verse following tells us that Aaron must offer the Levites for an offering of the children of Israel in neither of these can the children of Israel be understand of the officers alone but the whole Congregation is meant hereby in both verses reason therefore requires that this tenth verse standing in the midst between the other two the word children of Israel being used therein should be taken in the same sense in this verse in which it is taken in the verse before and in the verse that comes after Nay and further he that shall
there to sit so we place not the supremacie amongst the Iewes in Ierusalem considered apart from the Synedrion but in the Synedrion it selfe which was there seated But because our Reverend brother in the latter end of this 16 th Objection bringeth in this particular of Ierusalems supremacie by reason of the Sacrifices with Others say therefore I conceive he intends not us therein but some body else and therefore I will proceed to the next wherein our selves are concerned CHAP. VII Whether the lawfulnesse or necessity of Appeales doe prove a superiority of Iurisdiction in Synods over Congregations and of sundry sayings of our Author which seeme to interfere IN his page 422. he propounds a 19 th Objection to this effect If the Government of consociated Churches be warranted by the light of Nature then this light of Nature being common to us in civill as in Ecclesiasticall causes it will follow that every City governed with rulers within it selfe must be subordinate to a Classe of many Cities and that Classe to a Nationall meeting of all the Cities and the Nationall government to be a Catholike or Oecumenicke civill Court And because by the same light of Nature there must bee some finall and supreame Iudgement of controversies least Appeales should be spun out in infinitum it must be proved that this supremacie lyeth not in a Congregation And in the Margent he citeth Mr. Tompson and my selfe in page 16 and page 10 of the Answer as Authors of this last bassis in the Oâ—ectjection Answ It is true that in one of those pages alledged we speake to the like purpose as here is reported For we there suppose it to be cleere by the light of Nature that there must be some finall and supreame judgement of Causes and that unlesse it be determined where that supremacie doth lye which we account the very thing in question we say the usefulnesse and necessity of Appeales may be granted and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seeke as before because that there ought to be appeales til you come to the highest is one thing and that a Synod and not a Congregation is the highest is another To this purpose we have written in one of those Pages the summe whereof is this much that though the usefulnesse of Appeales till you come to the highest be granted yet the supremacie of Synods over Congregations in matter of Iudicature is not concluded thereby Now what doth our Reverend Brother returne in his Answer Doth he prove the contrary to what is here affirmed by us Doth he cleere it sufficiently that if it bee once granted that there must be Appeales till you come to the highest then the supremacie of Synods over Congregations must inevitably follow I conceive the necessity of this consequence had need to be cleered if that which we have said be sufficiently answered But doth our Brother cleere this Or doth he so much as once attempt the cleering thereof Surely to speake freely what I find I find nothing that looketh that way and therfore cannot but wonder why our opinion should be alledged in this Objection and so his Reader be led into expectation of some sufficient Answer thereto and then the answer which he returnes to be taken up in other matters our opinion proposed in the Objection being wholly in his Answer left untouched If that saying of ours be not sound why doth he not returne some answer If it be sound and good why doth he make an Objection of it and so breed an apprehension in weake Readers of its unsoundnesse and put them in hope of a confutation when no such thing is performed I leave it to the wise in heart to consider what this doth argue Neverthelesse let us consider of what he doth returne for Answer Page 423. First he saith Appeales being warranted by the Counsell which Iethro gave to Moses cannot but be naturall Answ Suppose this be so what can there be concluded hence that makes against us cannot appeales be Naturall but the supremacie of Synods over Congregations must needs follow If there must be an highest must it needs be yeelded that the Synod and not the Congregation is that highest I conceive this needs not to be yeelded at all and therefore though Appeales be Naturall I see not what is gained thereby Againe he saith God hath appointed that the supremacie should lye within the bounds of every free Monarchy or State so that there can be no Appeale to any Oecumenicall or Catholike civill Church for that is against the independant power that God hath given to States Answ Let this be granted also and are we not still where we were before Is there in this any thing at all that doth make for the removall of our opinion as himselfe hath see it down in his Objection We may truly say we see it not No nor in that which doth follow viz. But in the Church it is farre otherwise for God hath appoynted no vissible Monarchy in his Church nor no such independency of policie within a Congregation Classicall Provinciall or Nationall Church Answ For that which is said of a visible Monarchy in the Church I confesse it is true God hath appointed none such But for the rest of these words sith they containe an expresse denyall of the supremacie of all Ecclesiasticall Iudicatures except it be the generall Councell I would gladly know how our Tenent afore expressed is disproved or how the necessity of that Consequence afore mentioned is at all cleered hereby If there be no independencie of policie in Congregations nor yet in any Synods excâ—pt it be the Oecumenicall doth this prove that the supremacie doth lye in Synods and not in the Congregation Nothing lesse for how can our Brother prove that it lyes in the one and not in the other by saying as here he doth that indeed it lyes in neither Or how is that Consequence made good that if there must be appeales till we come to the highest then the Synod is the highest How is this I say made good by affirming that neither the Congregation nor the Synod is the highest For my part I must confesse it passeth my understanding to conceive how the denying of a thing should be the proving and cleering thereof And yet except this be admitted I know not how our apprehension in the matter we have in hand is at all disproved For whereas we say Appeales may be granted and yet the supremacie of Synods over Congregations will not follow Mr. Rutherford for the disproving of what wee apprehend herein doth bring nothing in the place wee have in hand but only this that the Supremacie doth neither lye in the Congregation nor in the Synod Which is no disproving of us all except as I said that the denying of a thing may suffice for the confirming and cleering thereof For I conceive if we be disproved the supremacie of Synods must be proved