within it selfe Either therefore a Congregation with only three Elders is no politicke body of Christ or else it must have power of Church government within it selfe Besides if the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive be according to the entire essence of a Ministeriall Church be as compleat and perfect in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall Nationall or Catholike Church as our Author saith it is P. 307. It is then a marvell why such a Congregation having onely three Elders may not have power to Excommunicate Lastly his words are expresse Page 338. Where there are not many Churches consociated then Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation If therefore a Congregation have not above three Elders yet being not consociated with other Churches it may lawfully Excommunicate by his own grant For deciding questions that concerne many Churches if they decide them no further but onely as they concerne themselves this is no putting a private sickle in a common and publike Harvest but a medling with matters onely so farre as they doe concerne themselves Secondly he saith All appeales without warrant from Christs will we condemne as the abuse of Appeales to a Court which is known shall never be Page 425. Answ If appeales without warrant from Christ will be condemned why are wee not told what appeales they are that have the warrant of Christs will and what Appeales have not For such a generall word a◠this of the warrant of Christs will without some further and more particular explication doth leave the matter as darke as it was before If the meaning be that only such Appeales are unwarrantable as are made to a Court which is known shall never be and that all others are warrantable then it will follow that appeales to generall Councels and all other Courts except only from a generall Councell are warrantable for who doth certainely know that a generall Councell will never be And so by this meanes the Classes 〈◊〉 Synod and the Nationall Church are all deprived of supremacie and independencie of Iurisdiction as well as the Congregacion Thirdly he saith Antiochs appeale to a Synod 200 miles distant as our Brethren say was no Judaizing but that which Paul and the Apostles were guilty of as well as we Answ Whether Antioch and Jerusalem were 200 miles distant or no as we have never affirmed so much so I will not stand now to inquire But this I stand upon that no Scripture doth witnesse that Antioch did appeale to Jerusalem in the point of Iurisdiction about which our question doth lye if they did appeale to them for a Doctrinall decision or determination of the question that nothing hindereth our cause who do not deny such a Doctrinall power in Synods But their power of Iurisdiction is the thing that should be proved Lastly if this example of Antioch doe prove that there may bee and ought to bee appeales from Congregations to Synods though those Synods be 200 miles distant then that which wee said in the Answer is here confessed to be true viz. That according to our Brethrens Iudgement the state of the Church in point of Discipline is as defective and burdensome in the time of the Gospell as it was in the dayes of the old Testament For as then the supreame Iudicatory at Jerusalem was many miles distant from such as dwelt in the furthest parts of the Holy Land and specially from the Proselites that dwelt in other Countries so here our Author seemes to yeeld that in these dayes of the new Testament there must or may be appeales to Synods though they be 200 miles distant I hope then if others blame our way for making the Gospell as defective and improvident as the Law or more defective then it yet this our Brother will not do so but on the contrary will acknowledge for us and with us that the way which himselfe pleads for is more justly culpable in this respect Fourthly he saith Matters concerning many Churches must be handled by many Answ This may be granted in a safe sence without any prejudice at all unto our cause for we are well content that so farre as they concerne many they may be handled by many so that each Congregation may have liberty to deale in them so farre as they concerne themselves And thus you have all which Mr. Rutherford hath brought against that passage of ours wherein we say it is not our way but theirs that doth make the Gospell more defective then the Law instead whereof he is pleased to make us say that they doe Iudaize But for eleering their way from that which wee object against the same or for convincing out way to be guilty thereof as by some hath been objected which is the thing in question in the place by him alledged for ought I perceive there is nothing in the foure particulars of his answer that doth any thing availe to either of these for if a rash delivering of men to Satan have more evill in it then speedy ending of controversies hath good If appeales without warrant from Christs will be unlawfull If Antioch did appeale to a Synod 200 miles distant and if matters concerning many Churches must be ended by many which foure particulars are the whole substance of his answer what is there in all this for I would gladly apply his Answers to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the thing in question what is there I say in all this that 〈◊〉 convince our way to be more defective then the way under the old Testament Or that doth cleere the way of our Brethren from being truly culpable thereof Let all the evill that can be found in rash delivering men to Satan be extended to the utmost and let the rest of the foure particulars be granted doth all this sufficiently cleere it that the way which we plead for is more defective or the way of our Brethren more perfect and excellent then the way that was used under the Law If they do not amount to the cleering of this they do not come up to cleere the thing in question which for ought I perceive doth still remaine as it was notwithstanding all that our Brother here brings CHAP. X. Whether the necessity of Discipline be greater then of Sacraments and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise intirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none and whether a man may take on him the whole Ministery having no outward calling thereto and may not as well take on him one act of Baptizing or Ministring the Lords Supper THe next place where I find our Reverend Brother dealing with the Answer is in Page 453 454. Where disputing that there was a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem he saith it is Objected by us alledging the Answer Page 6. That if a Church in an Iland by Divine institution and so the first Congregation as Ierusalem which did meete in Solomons Porch had once an intire power of Iurisdiction
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
of Nice the first generall Councell of Constantinople with other Councels and Authors witnessing the same pag. 201 202. And in a third place he grants that all matters in the Church must be done with the peoples consent consentiente plebe alledging a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the same tenet Peaceable Plea p. 49. and in another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Cartwright affirming that this liberty is purchased by the blood of Christ Due Right Secondly pag. 464. All which do plainly shew that in his judgement the people have some 〈◊〉 or priviledge or right in Church matters yea as himself saith in this they have divinum jus Gods right And yet for all this the Apostles words do plainly forbid women to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. which very prohibition to women doth also secretly imply that men may have liberty to practise though women may not Now then if the people have liberty priviledge right to consent and act in Church matters yea to speak in the Church and yet women may not speak therein how can this stand which here M. Rutherford writes That if the people have any liberty this liberty must also be due to women If the Apostles words and our Brothers own doctrine in the places cited do stand his saying in the place we have now in hand cannot stand they being so contrary one to another Thirdly saith he What priviledge the people have in Ordination to conferre a ministery which they neither have formally nor virtually I know not Answ Neither formally nor virtually then hear your own words pag. 7. I deny not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of beleevers to supply the want of ordination of Pastors hic nunc this power is virtuall not formall c. Whereas in the place we have in hand the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed which things are not free from Interferring or strong appearance thereof Our words are not just the same which M. Rutherford sets downe a priviledge in ordination to conferre a Ministery but these are our words a liberty exercised about ordination c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exercised about ordination or any other Ordinance by way of consent thereto or desire thereof c. without any authoritative acting therein And if this liberty about ordination be such a fault then how shall he be justified who doth give to the people a greater matter then this liberty doth amount unto even a power to do that which shall stand for ordination it selfe which to do I conceive is more then to exercise some liberty about ordination And when the reader shall have considered these ensuing words of M Rutherford then let him be judge whether M. Rutherford do not give this power unto the people in some cases As a rose saith he caused to grow in winter by art is of that same nature with a rose produced in summer by nature though the manner of production be different so are they both true Pastors those who have no call but the peoples election and those who have ordination by Pastors p. 186. And in the page following he gives two reasons to prove that in some cases election by the people onely may stand for ordination 1. Because God is not necessarily tyed to succession of Pastors 2. Because where men are gifted for the work of the Ministery and there be no Pastors to be had the giving of the Holy Ghost is a signe of a calling of God who is not wanting to his own gracious intention though ordinary means faile Now if the people without Pastors may do that which shall stand for ordination and if their election do make a Minister in some cases this seems to be more then onely to exercise some liberty about ordination for as much as they may doe this latter and possibly no Minister be made thereby whereas in the other case a man is made a true Pastor and Minister as well as by ordination it selfe Marvell it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawfull and not the lesser that some liberty about ordination may not be allowed and yet that can be allowed which may stand for ordination it self and which makes a Ministerâ— as truly as ordination doth CHAP. XVIII Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in new-England NExt after this our reverend Author falls to scanning as he saith pag. 476. some Synodicall propositions of the Churches of New England as he calls them together with a Table of Church power which he calls the Table of New England But with favour of soworthy a man he doth greatly mistake the matter for neither was there any such Synod nor Synodicall propositions as he speaks of nor any such Table of New England as hee mentioneth There was indeed at Cambridge in the year 1643. a printed conference of some of the Elders of that Country where sundry points of Church judgement were privatly discoursed of and this was all But as the meeting was not any Synod as Synods are usually understood so neither were there any Synodicall propositions there agreed upon nor any table of propositions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of New England This I am able to testifie having been present at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end and sundry others of the Elders of these Churches can testifie the same upon the same ground And knowing full well the truth of what I heare relate I will not spend time in replying to what he hath written upon so manifest misinformation and mistake What information he goeth upon I know not per adventure some notes may have come to his view which one or other might gather at that conference for his own private use Peradventure some in their simplicity meaning no hurt many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Synoâ— and M. Rutherford might thereupon adventure to publish in print as here we see But however they mistake a Rose sure I am Synodicall propositions there were none 〈◊〉 any Synod at all not New England Table And therefore I think himselfe and others may do well and wisely hereafter to be informed by good and sufficient intelligence of such things as they publish to the world concerâ—ing the Churches in New England or else not to beleeve the same much lesse to divulge the same in print For what comfort can it be to any Christian to receive and publish to the world against a mans neighbâ—uâ— specially against whole Churches of Christ such reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth CHAP. XIX Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power and jurisdiction in generall Councells denyed by Mr. Rutherford whether therein he do not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies IN
A REPLY TO Mr. Rutherfurd OR A defence of the Answer to Reverend Mr. Herles Booke against the Independency of Churches VVherein such Objections and Answers as are returned to sundry passages in the said Answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd a godly and learned Brother of the Church of Scotland in his Booke Entituled The Due Right of Presbyters are examined and removed and the Answer justified and cleared By RICHARD MAâ—HER Teacher to the Church at Dorchester in New ENGLAND 1646. LONDON Printed for J. Rothwell and H. Allen at the Sun and Fountaine in Pauls Church-yard and the Crown in Popes-head Alley 1647 The Authors Preface to the Reader Christian Reader HAving published some yeares agoe a small Treatise in way of a brotherly Answer to reverend Master Herle I now present unto thy view a defence thereof against such objections and answers as have been returned to sundry passages therein by reverend and learned Master Rutherfurd In which undertaking it hath been farre from my intention to increase or uphold the differences that have appeared of late yeares in England amongst the servants of the Lord about matters of Church government For I had much rather bring Prayers and teares for the quenching of such fires then fewell or oyle for the increasing thereof neither shall the same I hope be any thing at all increased by what here I present now thy view At the least this I may say that I intended no such thing but the contrary even the promoting of truth and peace if it were the will of God so to blesse my desires and endeavors True it is I have taken the liberty to consider and try some things delivered by that reverend brother whom here I have to doe withall but this I trust cannot be justly offensive in as much as the Spirit of the Prophets is Subject to the Prophets 1 Cor. 14. 32. and the doctrine of the Apostle himselfe was examined by those noble Bereans whom the holy Ghost commendeth for searching the Scriptures daily whether those things were so Act. 17. 11. It is also true which our reverend brother saith in his Epistle to the Reader before his Peaceable Plea that there is great cause of sorrow that all the Lords people should not minde one thing and sing one song and joyne in one against the Children of Babel Neverthelesse this may be some comfort against this sorrow that by the providence of the Lord this diversity of opinions and disputes if it be Christianly carried as it may may occasion and produce in the issue the further clearing up of truth For as our author well observeth from the Collision of opinions resulteth truth and disputes as stricken flints cast fire for light Due Right of Presbyt Epistle to the Reader The desire and hope whereof together with the advice of such brethren as I consulted withall was that which chiefely prevailed with me for the publishing of this reply wherein the reader will finde sundry Scriptures and questions controverted in these times discussed and considered so farre as the nature of a Reply or defence did lead thereto and I hope some or other through Gods blessing may receive some profit thereby And if the humble Christian who desires to know and love and practise the truth shall receive any benefit or help for attaining these ends by meanes of this labour of mine it is that which I intended and aimed at and for which I desire that God alone may have the praise and glory If any shall still remaine otherwise minded yet in due time I hope God shall reveale even this unto them In the meane time diversity of apprehensions in these points ought not to bred any alienation of affection amongst those that are otherwise Orthodoxe and sincere It were a thousand pitties if it should For my part I cannot but approve what this reverend brother sometime professeth that he doth both love and dispute contradict and reverence at once Peaceable Plea Epist Yea he counts himselfe a debtor for love charity honour and all due respect in Christ Jesus and a seat and lodging in his heart and highest esteeme to all those that be godly lovers of the truth and sufferers for the truth against Prelacy though possibly they like not well of Presbyteriall government ibid. In answer whereto for I would be loth that such love should be lost upon us without due returne of the like I would for my part professe the like deare and due respect to all those that are qualifyed as here he doth describe of which sort I know there are many though possibly they may like better of the way that is called Presbyteriall then of the Congregationall For those that give apparent Testimonies that they are the Lord's and so that they must live together in heavens I know not why they should not love one another on earth what ever differences of apprehensions may for the present be found amongst them in some things As for bitternesse of spirit and tartnesse of contests I never thought that to be Gods way of promoting truth amongst brethren and therefore I have endevoured in this discourse to avoid the same For I beleeve there is more hope of doing good by solidity of argument with a spirit of meeknesse and love then by sharp and tart language the fruit of bitternesse of spirit wherein for the most part right of reason is wanting the passions being there most vehement and stirring where the intellectuals are most â—eeble and weake Now if any aske why this defence hath been so long deferred it being now two yeares and more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came forth such may be pleased to consider that New England being as 't is counted 3000 miles distant from old therefore many Books may be extant in England a long time afore we that are so remote can so much as heare any sound thereof and those few that come to our knowledge are commonly extant in England a matter of a yeares space afore and sometimes longer In which respect many things may be spoken and Printed against us whereto it cannot be expected that we should returne any speedy Answer And though it be now twelve moneths agoe or more since Master Rutherfurd his due right of Presbyt came to my hands yet at that time my few spare houres from my constant and ordinary employments were wholly taken up otherwise so that I could not attend this businesse any sooner which I desire may be accepted as a just apologie for the late coming forth of this Reply which as it may seeme late so it is more large then in some respect I could have desired by reason that I doe usually transcribe those words of Master Rutherfurd whereto I dâ—e apply my Answer which course I confesse I did not unwillingly in some respects chuse partly to save the Reader a labour of turning to the place in Master Rutherfurd which I am speaking too which else he must have done or
Circumcision but doth also rebuke them for another fault to wit their obtruding their false way upon the Soules and Consciences of others and for their wilfull and obstinate upholding that opinion and raysing a Schisme in the Church But if all this were granted his purpose were not gained thereby unlesse he would prove that which he doth but only affirme to wit That a Synodicall rebuke is not specifically different but only gradually from Excommunication and that both must proceed from the same power which yeâ— he hath not proved at all But saith he I argue thus If the Apostles do not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine in this Synod but also in Church way and by a Juridicall power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as subverters of Soules and Lyers then they doe not onely use a meere Doctrinall power in this Synod but also a Juridicall power but the former is true Ergo so is the latter Answ With favour of so learned a man I thinke this kind of arguâ—ng is but a begging of the thing in question and a proving of Idem per Idem For if the Synod did not only in a Doctrinall way refute a false Doctrine but also by a Iuridicall power rebuke the Authors of it then it must needs be true indeed that they did not only use a Doctrinall power but also a Iuridicall power that is If they did so they did so if they did use such power they did use it But there still lyes the question whether they did so or no and whether they did use such power or not and this kind of arguing doth not cleere it all If we on the contrary should argue thus if this Assembly did not put forth any power of Iurisdiction or Discipline but only in a Doctrinall way conâ—ute a false Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it then they did onely put forth a Doctrinall power and not any power of Iurisdiction one of farre lesse abilities then our learned Author would soone espy the loosenesse of such reasoning at least himselfe we doubt not would soone espy it for sometimes we heare him say friend your Logick is naught page 177. And yet be it spoke without offence the Logick which himselfe doth here use is not so good as to be altogether without fault no not for the forme of it and therefore we do not see how any thing can be concluded thâ—reby But to leave this mistake and to consider of the matter it selfe If it were granted that this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way consute a false Doctrine but also rebuke the Authors thereof must it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a Iuâ—idicall way Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults but only in a way of â—â—â—â—ction and Discipline I suppose much needs not to be said for the cleering the truth to be otherwise For Master Rutherford himselfe confesses Page 394. That there is great odds to do one and the same action materially and to do the same formally and Page 393. That one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision Which being so it followeth thereupon that though this Synod to call it so Act. 15. Had a Doctrinall power yea and a power of rebuking these false teachers yet the thing that he from thence would inferre viz. Their power of rebuking in a Iuridicall way and their power of Excommunication these are neither of them proved thereby For if it should be said that though rebuking do not alwayes imply Iuridicall power yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke then the power here spoken of may be concluded thence to be in a Synod The Answer is that this will not helpe at all because this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient viz. The Synod for effecting or acting the same effect Now Master Rutherford confesseth pag. 393. That he doth not fetch the specification of this rebuke and of those Decrees from the efficient causes and gives that for his reason which to me is unanswerable to wit because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision And in the page next ensuing he confesseth also that actions have not by good Logick their totall specification from the efficient cause Which being so then though it were granted that any Synod may and that this Synod did performe this action of rebuking yet the thing in question to wit that the power of a Synod is a power of Iurisdiction and of Excommunication is not at all gained thereby At the least wise to end this passage this I may say that if this Reverend Brother will be true to his own Principles and not gainsay what himselfe hath already written he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from this argument of their power to rebuke nor yet from any other argument whatsoever and the reason is because he doth elsewhere confesse that Synods are not to Excommunicate any and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers but to remit the censuring of them to other Churches Commanding them to doe it His words as they are to be seene in his Page 413. are these viz. I could easily yeeld that there is no necessity of the Elicit acts of many parts of government such as Excommunication Ordination admitting of Heathens professing the Faith to Church-membership in Synods Provincicall Nationall or Oecumenicall but that Synods in the ease of neglect of Presbyterycall Churches Command these particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their duty and in this sence Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders of Circumcision In which words we have two things concerning Excommunication to omit other particulars first that there is no necessity that Synods should Excommunicate any but only command the Churches to do their duty therein Secondly in particular concerning that Synod Acts 15. That they were to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbyteries of Antioch and Jerusalem in case of the obstinacy of these obtruders or Circumcision Which particulars being most true as I for my part so esteeme of them it followes thereupon that what Master Rutherford saith in this place we have now in hand is greatly weakned thereby For how both these can stand together that this Synod should have power not only to rebuke but to Excommunicate these false teachers and yet neither Provinciall Nationall nor Oecumenicall Synods to Excommunicate any nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate these false teachers but to remit the censure to other Churches to whom it concerned commanding them to do it how these things I say can stand together I for my part am not able to understand CHAP. IIII. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods and of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto IN his Page 396. alledging
of the greater necessity of Discipline then of Sacraments his words are these There is no such morall necessity of Sacraments as there is of the Ministery of the word and consequently of the use of the Keyes where a Scandalous person may infect the Lords flock for where vision ceaseth the people perish But it is never said where Baptisme ceaseth the people perish Pag. 455. Answ How shall we be sure that by vision Prov. 26. 18. Is meant Discipline Yea Discipline not in a large sense as comprehending generally all order and behaviour concerning a Church and outward duties therein but Discipline strictly taken for administration of censures for of this is one question how I say shall wee be sure that by vision is meant this Discipline The usuall Expositers Tremeliâ—â— and Junius 〈…〉 and others doe expound the same of the Preaching and dispensing of the word making no mention at all of Discipline as meant thereby And the 〈◊〉 branch of the verse He â—hat keepeth the Law is blessed doth â—hew that by vision in the former branch is mean the Law or Doctrine or word of God And if the Scripture do not sâ—y where Baptisme ceaseth the people perish yet neither doth it say where administratâ—on of Censures ceaseth the people perish and therefore no necessity of censures above Sacraments can be concluded hence Vncalled Ministers in case of necessity without Ordination or calling from a Presbytery may Preach and take on them the holy Ministery and exercise power of Jurisdiction because of the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation in a remote Iland requireth so Answ If they may do these things without Ordination as for my part I deny it not so that the election or consent of the Congregation be not wanâ—ing for that I suppose might be a good part of an outward calling then I demand whether one Minister alone may not thus do I meane whether one alone may not in the case proposed take on him the holy Ministery and Preach the word as a Minister If many may do it then I suppose there is no question but one may do it much rather And if so then I demand further wheâ—her such a single Minister may not also administer the Sacraments to such a Congregation I suppose it cannot be denyed for if he lawfully take on him the Ministery and Preach as a Minister what should hinder but he may also Baptize and minister the Lords Supper And if hee may thus doe then I demand lastly whether this single Minister may also administer Discipline and censures in that Congregation If he may then either the power of those censures must be in himselfe alone or in the Congregation also in himselfe alone it cannot be because censures must bee dispensed by a Church and one man alone cannot bee a Church If it be in the Congregation also then here is a power of Excommunication or other censures even in the people which is against our Brothers judgement If it be said that this single Minister as long as he wanâ—s other Ministers joyned with him may not administer censures or Discipline then it will follow that power of censures is not alwayes annexed to the Ministery as an inseparable adjunct thereof nor are Censures to be preferred before Sacraments as more necessary as our Brother would have it for as much as here is a Ministery and the administring of Sacraments the necessity of the soules of the Congregation requiring so and yet for all this not any power of censures at all Our Brother therefore may make his choyce whether hee will grant the power of the Keyes of Discipline to bee in the people or whether he will say the necessity of the soules in a Congregation doth require Sacraments more then Discipline For though these be both against himselfe yet upon the ground which himselfe doth here lay the one of the two is unavoidable But I hope no necessity in any of the most extraordinary case requireth that a Midwife may Baptize or that a private man remaining a private man may celebrate the Lords Supper to the Church without any calling from the Church Answ Concerning the Midwife I thinke the same that he doth And concerning the private man I also therein â—â—curre that without calling from the Church hee may not performe what here is spoken of But here I would make this Quare whether 〈◊〉 man that never was a Minister may not as well in an extraordinary case performe 〈◊〉 act of administring of Baptisme or the Lords Supper without any calling from the 〈◊〉 bytery or the Church unto whom the office of Ministery as take on him without any such calling the whole Ministery and so Preach and exercise the power of Iurisdiction as a Minister For as for the one of these our Brother expresly grants a man mâ—y lawfully take it on him without any such calling the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation in an Iland requiring so and if this necessity will warrant the one which is the whole and so the greater why will it not warrant the other which is but one act and so the lesser One would thinke one act of dispensing Baptisme or the Supper were a lesser matter then the whole Ministery and all the actions thereof And marvell it is that the necessity of the Soules of a Congregation should warrant this which is the greater and yet the same necessity should not be sufficient warrant for the lesser a mans calling being otherwise alike unto both that is having an outward calling to neither Himself doth sometimes reason thus If wee give to beleevers that are not in office one pastorall act wee may with the like weight of reason give them all Peaceable plea Page 272. Now if this reasoning be good from one Act to all why is no this as good from all to any one or to some one And why may we not in like maner argue thus If persons uncalled may without Ordination or calling take on them the whole Ministery why may not persons uncalled without Ordination or calling take on them to Baptize or Minister the Supper Not that I thinke such a practise to be lawfull but only I intend to make quaere about the validity of our Brothers kind of arguing Yea it is elsewhere his arguing that it persons not in office of Ministery may execute censures and Discipline they may then administer the Sacraments For saith he What hinders by this reason but they may also without Ministers Preaâ—h and administer the Sacraments Peaceable Plea Page 196. Yea saith he I sâ—e not but with a like warrant private men may administer the Sacraments Vbi Supra Page 196. This we see is his arguing elsewhere And yet in the place we have in hand he grants that persons uncalled may in case of necessity without Ordination or calling take on them the Ministery in generall and in particular may exercâ—se the power of Iurisdiction and yet for all this he sayes that no
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
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
alledged do abundantly and plainly prove the point in hand And therefore Mr. Rutherford should bear with us if we somtimes argue from examples of the Old Testament As for that which followeth where he saith But our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different as the officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Churches are different the answer is that I do not remember that we have spoken one word of this matter either one way or other nor doth he mention any place where we have spoken ought of these things And for the thing it selfe though many differences may be assigned between the Levites and Pastors of the New Testament and between the Jewish and Christian Churches yet I know no such difference between them but that in things which are of generall and common nature concerning them both in those we may lawfully argue from them and their times unto our selves and our times If Mr. Rutherford know we have given any such difference as will not suffer us thus to argue when he shall expresse the same we may consider further thereof Our brethren grant pag. 49. that it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands Answ And we have also in the same pag. 49. rendred the reason hereof viz. because Elders then were not wanting Why then did not our brothers ingenuity so farre prevaile with him as to mention this when he mentioned the other however yet this he may be pleased to observe that as we grant the thing he speaks of so themselves I think must grant also that it wanteth all example in the New Testament where ordinary Elders do Impose hands on ordinary Elders for my part I remember none nor do I remember that themselves have yet produced any These who laid on hands on the Levites Numb 8. were Elders and our brethren say it is like they were but 1. They did not as Elders 2. But as representing the people not as Elders Civill for that belonged to Aaron and his Sonnes Levit. 8. else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands there the Church may doe it Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiasticall Elders because what these which laid on hands did they did as from the Congregation For 1. these Levites were taken in stead of the first born of Israel and not instead of the first born of the Elders only Numb 3. 40 41. 2 They were presented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of Israel not of the Elders onely 3. When the multitude brought an oblation the Elders put their hands on the heads of the sacrifice Levit. 4. 15. instead of all the multitude Answ In relating this passage our meaning is exceedingly mistaken and both our meaning and our words represented farre amisse unto the reader the particulars which in this respect may be excepted against are such as these 1. That reporting us to say it is like they who laid on hands were Elders he there breaks off the speech and so suppresseth that which follows wherein we first of all do give an explication in what respect they might be said to be Elders viz. as being the chiefe and principall members of the Congregation and next of all we do adde that neverthelesse therein example doth prove the point if two things be considered which there we do expresse But both these particulars I mean both the explication and the addition or exception are wholly suppressed by Mr. Rutherford and so the concession It is like they were Elders is left standing alone by it selfe 2. He reports us to say they did it not as Elders civill for that belonged to Aaron and his Sons wherein he fathers on us a palpable errour of accounting Aaron and his sonnes to be Elders civill or magistrates which never came into our thoughts nay it was so farre from us that we plainly said the contrary in that very place to wit that they were Elders Ecclesiasticall Our words are these If they that is the children of Israel did it as Elders then either as Elders and governours ecclesiasticall or as civill governours but not the first for that charge belonged to Aaron and his sonnes Levit. 8. and these Levites now ordained In which words we plainly ascribe to Aaron and his sonnes the charge of Elders and Governours Ecclesiasticall but not of civill governours as Mr. Rutherford is pleased to report 3. In these words Else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands there the Church may do it our words are so miserably mangled that no tolerable sence can appeare for here is expressed an inference or consequence that must follow and yet no ground or antecedent at all from which it should follow which is to represent us to the world as men that were loesi cerebro For men that were in their right wits I conceive would scarcely ever argue in this fashion as here we are reported to do But our words are these If the second be said viz. that the children of Israel did lay on hands as civill governours then it will follow that civill magistrates though no Church-officers may Impose hands in Ordination of Church-officers and so the point is gained viz. that Church-officers may be ordained by those that are no Church-officers which we do further manifest in the following words in this manner If the magistrate may doe it then it will follow that a Church that hath no magistrate may perform this action by other the fittest instrumentâ— she hath For which we there give this ground for that this is not a work properly tyed to the magistrates office because then the Church in the Apostles times wanting magistrates could not have had officers the contrary whereof we say is manifest in the Scriptures Act. 14. 13. Tit. 1. 5. This is our manner of arguing in the place alledged which is farre different from that which Mr. Rutherford reporteth as ours 4. Whereas he reports us to say Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiasticall Elders because what these which lay on hands did they did as from the Congregation in this he also reports us to speak quite besides our plain meaning and expresse words For whereas he so sets down this sentence as that the latter clause or branch therein is made the reason of the former the truth is this that these clauses in the answer have no dependance the one upon the other at all but the former hath another reason given for it which here is not mentioned and the latter which is here mentioned as the reason of the former is not so mentioned by us but for another end and purpose Touching the former of these two when we said that the children of Israel did not impose hands on the Levites as ecclesiasticall Elders the reason we give for this saying is this because that charge was onely belonging to Aaron
as we see that in some case one may be a Pastor without ordination whereupon it must needs follow either that one may be a Pastor without any authoritative calling or else that ordination is in effect but the same with imposition of hands and so there is no such difference between them as is pretended But so many Pastors send a Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never chuse him Answ Take your own words for answer pag. 496. We never read that in the Apostles Church a man was obtruded upon the people against their will and therefore Election by the people in the Apostolike Church as Act. 1. 26. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Rev. 2. 1 2. Act. 20. v. 28. must be our rule Any election without the peoples consent must be no Election for if it please not the whole multitude as Act. 6. 5. it is not a choise And in pag. 465. he tells us that all incorporations have power by the law of nature to chuse their own rulers and officers and that Christ hath provided the same in an eminant manner for his Church And therefore for this passage that many Pastor may send a Pastor to be Pastor to a Congregation though that Congregation never choose him we desire that he would take his own money for payment CHAP. XXV Whether a Ministers calling consist in Election or in Imposition of hands and whether of those is greater and whether is prior or posterior Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Act. 6. 2 3 4. Act. 13. 1 2 3. do prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbytery and that such imposition of hands is not a consumatory rite or benedictory signe Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbytery ordain him afore the People chuse him and whether otherwise the people doe send a Minster to themselves and whether the people of God may not aswell discern a mans fitnes to be ordained as his fitnes to be elected PAg 493. If the people may elect Officers then in some cases they may ordaine them also because Ordination is lesse then election and dependeth upon it as a necessary antecedent and it is nothing but a consummation of election or the admission of a person into the possession of that office whereto he had right before by election If then a single Congregation may elect which is the greater they may ordain which is the lesse And for this he alledgeth the Answer pag. 46 47. And then gives answer thereto in these words Ordination is the more and Election the lesser for Ordination is an act authoritative of the Presbytery 1. Tim. 4. 14. Answ Take Ordination as we take it for Imposition of hands on a Church officer and then we think it is lesse then Election as being but a Rite or Ceremony used at a Ministers entrance into his Office but not at all of the essence thereof Nor are we alone or the first that have so thought For to omit others he that wrote the book called the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus affirmeth pag. 114. That it is no essentiall but a ceremoniall part of Ordination which may be sufficiently made without it and saith that Angelus de Clavasio Peter Martyr and others both Papists and Protestants affirm the same And in pag. 116. he saith it is an act of service or Ministery not of Authority and no more then an externall complement or Ceremony alledging Dr. Ames others for the same tenent But now election is more then a ceremony that may be omitted Mr. Rutherford himself being judge for in his pag. 496. He tells us that in the Apostolike Churches a Minister was never obtruded upon the people against their will but that they still had the election of their Ministers and this he saith must be our rule so that any election without the peoples consent must be no election for if it please not the whole multitude it is not a choise And in p. 202. he tells us out of Chrysostome that all Election of Pastors is null without the consent of the people Whereby it seems that Election is something essentiall and so consequently more then imposition of hands which is but a Rite or Ceremony which may be absent and yet a man have all the essentialls of a Minister notwithstanding As for 1 Tim. 4. 14. the imposition of hands of the Presbytery there spoken of I conceive could not be any act of superior authority but onely an approbatory signe or rite which might be used by inferiours towards your superiours For Timothy being an Evangelist how could any ordinary Presbytery have authority over him or give office or authority to him Besides it is not said that Timothy received his gift by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery but by the Prophesie and by the laying on of Pauls hands and with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery Now between those two phrases by the laying on of hands and with the same there is great difference the one importing some cause or authority or power the other importing no more but an approbatory rite or a signe used in a solemne commending of one to God by Prayers Altare Damascen pag. 161. of which more is to be seen in the plea for the Churches in New England part of the second chap. 12. quest 2 4. For ought I see the Authors might argue thus The people may ordaine Ergo they may preach and baptise for all the three are Presbyteriall acts given to men in Office Answ We read in Mornay de Ecclesia chap. â— that of old time it was an argument rise in the Church he may baptise he may administer the Lords supper Ergo he may lay on hands but such arguing as Mr Rutherford useth they may lay on hands ergo they may baptise this we remember not that we have read in any authors except in him Nor doe we think the consequence the same inasmuch as in the one the argument proceeds from the greater to the lesse and in the other from the lesse to the greater and yet affirmatively in both Thus the argument is understood by the forenamed author of the unbishoping of Timothy and Tytus who in pag. 100. speaking of these words of Mornay layes down the argument thus He can baptise he can consecrate and administer the Lords supper which are the greater and more honorable actions Ergo he may lay on hands which is the lesse and this kind of arguing for my part I think to be good but for that of Mr. Rutherfords I see no more consequence therein then if one should say he that may doe the lesser may doe the greater also in which I see no strength of consequence at all Pag. 493 494. Whereas some say Act. 6. 3 4 5. Election of seven men to be Deacons goeth before Ordination or Imposition of hands v. 6. Answ Election of the people goeth before Ordination in the
make good what our brethren say that therefore they may judge of a ministers fitnes Answ That which we say in this Answ pag. 51. There must be some ability to discerne whether men be qualified according to the rule afore they ought to be elected and chosen into office and the people of God have so much ability as is of necessity required afore there be preceeding unto ordination Wherein it is plain that our arguing is from the peoples ability to discern of mens fitnes afore they be elected to their like ability to discern of their fitnesse afore they be ordained They who have so much as to discern who are fit to be ordained but the people of God may have the former Ergo they may have the latter Now what saith Mr. Rutherford hereunto The assumption he denyes not but in plain words grants it saying they may as Christs sheep Joh. 10. discern Christs voyce and so have a power of election of their own Pastors It must then be the consequence that must be denyed or the conclusion must be yeelded what then brings he to overthrow the consequence Nothing but this that there is a two fold knowledge one of Christians not denyed to women and beleeving children who cannot lay on hands nor ordain Miâ—isters as the Presbytery doth But what the other knowledge is he doth not plainly tell except any thing may be gathered from the words following where he saith But for trying of Ministers if they be the sonnes of the Prophets apt to teach able to convince the subtill hereticks and gainsayers and to put them to silence there must be in a constituted Church a Colledge of Pastors and Prophets to try the Prophets with a Presbyteriall cognizance Answ But if Mr. Rutherford would have spoken to the point he should have given some reason why the people may discern a mans fitnes for election and yet not discern his fitnes for ordination for this is the consequence of our argument which he denyes But in all that is here said about a two fold knowledge one of Christians and the other of some body else what is there in all this that hath so much as the least shew of overthrowing or weakning the conseqence suâ—e nothing at all that I can finde For as for that which is intimated that Christians have not so much knowledge as to try Ministers whether they be apt to teach c. this makes nothing to the point in hand that they can discern whether a man be fit to be elected but not discern whether he be fit to be ordained but if it have any strength in it at all it is as much against the ability of the people which he expressely grants as against that which he would deny as much against their ability of discerning his fitnes for ordination And therefore how this should overthrow the one and not the other I do not know for to any mans understanding it makes no more against the one then against the other but either against both which he will not grant or else against neither which I conceive is the very truth To argue in this sort they have not ability to convince 〈◊〉 Hereticks Ergo they may not chuse their Ministers this Mr. Rutherford will not own for he plainly grants they may chuse and therefore how can this arguing be good they want abâ—lity to convince Hereticks Ergo they may not impose hands in ordination How the one kinds of reasoning can be better then the other I do not know except we would say some may be lawfully elected and chosen to the ministery who cannot lawfully be ordained but this I suppose cannot be said with truth CHAP. XXVI Whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands do prove that the action may not in any case be performed by non-officers but must be performed onely by Presbyters and whether the argument do not make as strongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates as to the Presbyters and do not as well exclude the Presbyters from medling therein as exclude the People THere is onely one place more where I finde Mr. Rutherford excepting against the answer and that is in his pag. 497. where alledging the answer pag. 59. which I conceive is misprinted for pag. 49. He sets down these words as ours viz. If people may not meddle with ordination because it is proper to Timothy and Titus this may prove that they were Bishops who did ordaine Elders there alone which Ministers may not doe there for these Epistles are not written to them as Bishops alone nor as Elders alone but as to a mixt state including the People Answ The order of the dispute is this Reverend Mr. Herle arguing for ordination of officers by a consociated Eldership and not by a single Congregation with or without a Pastor brings this reason for his judgement viz. Rules of direction how to proceed in ordination and the Epistles where those rules are laid down are not written to the Churches or Congregations but to Timothy and Titus In answer whereunto we spoke to this purpose that if this be a sufficient reason to prove that the people may not in any case meddle with Ordination then by as good reason it will follow that Ordination belongs not to the Presbytery or Synod but onely to one man as the Prelates would have it the reason we give is because Timothy and Titus were each of them but onely one man And we there further say that we doe approve the answer given to this kinde of reasoning by the refuter of Dr. Downâ—â—s sermon at Lâ—â—beth who shews that what was written in those Epistles was not onely written for Timothy and Titus but for other Ministers also and also in some sort for all the Saints and that therefore there is no more reason to appropriate those rules onely to the use of Presbyteries and Synods then only to the use of Prelates Now what saith Mr. Rutherford to this Some parcell of these 〈◊〉 are written saith he to Timothy and Titus as Evangeliâ—ts Something 's are written to them as Christians and finaditer objective all is written for the Churches good but the bulk of the Epistles is written to them as Elders and especially 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. for these and the like they were to doe with the Presbytery as is cleare 1 Tim. 4. 14. Answ This Scripture 1 Tim. 4. doth shew that Timothy had a gift given him by Prophesie with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery but how doth it hence appear that not only Timothy but Titus also was to dothings with the Presbytery Titus is not at all mentioned in that Scripture And as for Timothy Scripture tells what the Presbytery did to him but what he must doe with the Presbytery it tells us nothing at all Again if the bulk of the Epistles be written to them as Elders and the Churches be no otherwise concerned therein but only finaliter and objectively the Epistles being written for their good then what shall be the meaning and reason of these words in the conclusion of the Epistle to Titus and of the latter to Timothy where it is said grace be with you and grace be with you all doth it not plainly appear hereby that more then Elders even all the Saints in those places are written unto in those Epistles Thirdly if there be rules in the Epistles that doe belong to Elders alone yet sith it is confessed and may not be denyed that other things therein doe concern all Christians how shall we be assured that such passages as concern â—aying on of hands are of the former sort and not of the latter For to say it is so and it is clear we think doth not clear it at all unlesse some further proofe be added Lastly if all this were granted which here is said by Mr. Rutherford yet for ought I see our answer is not removed thereby but still stands fair and good For in that place of the answer alledged we say two things 1. That these rules about ordination in Timothy and Titus may with as fair a colour be appropriated to one man as to Presbyteries and Synods 2. That the Epistles and the rules therein are not to be appropriated to Bishops alone or Ministers alone but are indeed of generall concernment for all the Christians Now neither of these two is discovered by Mr. Rutherford For as for the former of them he saith nothing thereto at all and the latter he doth in a manner grant not only by saying that all here is written for the Churches good but also by saying that somethings are written to Timothy and Titus as Christians which is in effect the same that we had said before And how our answer can be disproved or satisfied either by saying nothing at all thereto or by saying the same that we had said before I leave it to the Judicious reader to consider FINIS
necessity will warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church Which two sayings for ought I perceive do not agree For in the one it is affirmed that if they may exercise Discipline and censures they may by the like reason administer Sacraments and the other saith they may exercise Discipline and censures and yet may not administer Sacraments and yet both the sayings are expressed by the same Authors Pen. CHAP. XI 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 bee not a losse And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power THe next place where I find Mr. Rutherford dealing with the Answer is in his Page 455. Where he brings in these words under Mr. Tompsons name and mine viz. If the power of Jurisdiction flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of a Church and a Congregation be essentially a Church then this power agreeth to all Churches whether consociated or not consociated and without respect of what neighbours they have whether many or few whether any or none Second a Congregation it selfe alone cannot have sole power of Iurisdiction and then be deprived of it when God sendeth neighbours for then neighbouring Churches which are given for help should be given for losse the contrary whereof Ames saith no. Doe Synods saith he Constitute a new forme of a Churâ—h Thus farre Mr. Rutherford who in his Margent alledgeth Mr. Tompson and me 16. Pag. 4 5. Answ In one of these Pages of the Answer viz. P. 5. there is nothing at all to be found that looks toward such a purpose as our Brother hath in hand and therefore this Page should not have been here alledged The words of Dr. Ames are more imperfectly cited by our Brother then they were alledged in the Answer For the Answer alledgeth them thus out of Medull Theol. Lib. 1. Chapter 3. Sect 27. That the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of a Church nor ought by any meanes to take away or impayer that liberty and power which Christ hath given to his Churches sith it serveth only for the directing and furthering of the same Wherâ—as our Brother expresseth only those first words that Synods do not constitute a new forme of a Church but all the rest wherein the chiefe strength of Dr. Ames his testimony doth lye them he doth wholly omit and leave out He also leaves out the assent which is given by Mr. Paget to this testimony of Dr. Ames which assent as it is expressed in his defence P. 107. in these words This we do willingly grant is also in the â—ame words alledged by the Answer in P. 4. But this is wholly passed over by Mr. Rutherford in silence Now two such men as these being alledged in the Answer as plainly affirming that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods must neither tollere nor minuere take away not impaire or diminish the liberty or power of Churches but only serve for the directing and furthering of the same And the one of them being the chiefe Patron of the power of Classes and Synods It is some marvell to me that no word of Answer is vouchsafed to them by Mr. Rutherford but that their words are thus passed by with silence and the name of one of them not so much as mentioned How ever this is cleere that he that gainsayes the Answer in this passage hath not only the Answer but also the Reverend Author here mentioned to be against him But let us come to consider of Mr. Rutherford his Answer which he subjoyneth in these words viz. Power of Iurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Congregation in an Iland ergo a totall and compleat power of Iurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Church or Congregation consociated it followeth no wayes Answ I desire the reason may be laid down according to our true meaning therein and in its full strength and then the former part thereof must not only speak of power of Iurisdiction flowing from the essence of a Church that want neighbours but of entire power for thereof is the question and in the latter part the termes must no be a Church consociated but a Church that hath neighbours Now if entire power and Iurisdiction do flow from the essence of a Church and therefore this essence of a Church being found in a Congregation that wants neighbours this entirenesse of power muâ—t thereupon be granted to such a Congregation I then demand why the like entirenesse of power must not be granted as well to a Congregation that hath neighbours sith the essence of a Church is found in this Congregation as well as in the other For ought I see either the essence of a Church must be denyed to a Congregation that hath neighbours or else it will follow that entirenesse of power must be granted to such a Congregation Risibility and power of reason flowing immediately and necessarily from the essence of a man and power to defend it selfe and purge out excrements flowing in like sort from the essence of a humane body and power to governe it self with family government flowing in like sort from the essence of a family therefore we must not grant these powers to be entire in such a man such a body or such a family as is alone and deny the same to one that hath neighbours but must grant them alike unto all because this power flowes from their very essence which is as truly found in such as have neighbours as it is in those that are alone And the like may be said in other cases And why it should be otherwise in a Congregationall Church that the power of the Iurisdiction flowing from the essence of such a Church should therefore be entire in such a Congregation as is alone in an Iland and yet not entire in a Congregation that hath neighbours though this Congregation hath the essence of a Church as well as the other why these Congregations I say should thus greatly differ in their power and yet be alike in their essence from whence their power doth flow for my part I yet do not understand the reason Nor doth that satisfy which Mr. Rutherford here alledgeth That one Pastor in a Congregation hath as a Pastor power to rebuke sin and to administer the Sacraments and yet when three Pastors are added to help him he hath not the sole power of rebuking sin and the sole and entire power to administer the Sacraments but these three Pastors have power with him This I conceive doth not help the matter at all For though it be true that these three Pastors being added to the first have each of them the like power as the first had yet the power of the