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
to end their maâ—â—ers if they be able extempt them from being under the command of others Hoshoulders have right to governe and order their families if so be that they be able doth it follow therefore that Superiors in Church or civill state have no power to command housholders to do their duty herein but only to give counsell and advise Or if housholdere have such right doth it follow that therefore they are under no command in Church and Common-wealth I suppose it will not follow at all Or shall we say that Classes and Provinciall Synods have no right to end their own matters within themselves if a Nationall Synod have power to command them Or if they have such right shall we therefore say they are not under the command of the Nationall Synod and that the Nationall Synod hath no power over them but only by way of Counsell and advise Wee suppose Master Rutherford will not say so and yet he might as well say it as say as hee he doth that because Antioch hath right to â—nd her own matter if they be able therefore a Synod hath no power but only by way of Counsell and advise And though the Synod is to give Counsell and advise which was the other ground whereon the conclusier afore mentioned seemes to be built yet neither will Master Rutherford his conclusâ—on that the power of Synods is only by way of Counsell and advise follow from thence at all For who knoweth not that Counsell and advise may be administred and given by them who have also power to command Not every one indeed as may advise and Counsell may forth with command and enjoyne Neverthelesse Counsell and Command are not so repugnant but that they who may Command may also advise Paul had power to Command and enjoyne Phylâ—mon to do what was convenient and yet for loves sake would rather beseech him Philem. 8. 9. The Lord Iesus to doubt hath absolute authority to Command and yet we find him sometimes speaking to the Sons of men by way of Counsell or advise Revel 3. â—8 I Counsell thee to buy of me Gold that thou mayest he rich c. shall we now inferre from hence that the power of the Lord Iesus is only by way of Counsell aud advise and that his power cannot amount to the nature of a Command I suppose we would be afraid and abhorre to deduce such a consequence And therefore though a Synod may advise yet their power to Command which is more then meere Counsell and aduise is not from thence concluded to be Null And so much for Master Rutherford his second place wherein he deales against the answer CHAP. III. Of the Assembly Act. 15. Whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision and whether their rebuking of them do argue the Affirmative IN his page 388. He laies downe this as a 2d. Object viz. That there is no censuring of persons for Scandals and that meeting Act 15. Because there is nothing there but a Doctrinall declaration of the falshood of their opinion who taught the necessity of Circumcision and that all is done by way of Doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge not of Iurisdiction is cleere from the end of the meeting which was verse 2 6. To consider of that Question Consideration of Questions being the end of the Synod is a thing belonging to Doctrinall Power meerely And then he sâ—â—joyneth my name and in the Margent alledgeth the answer chap. 1. page 8. Ans Whereto I first of all returne this answer First that the thing here in Question being about the power of that meeting Acts 15. There is nothing in the place alledged by Master Rutherford that can warrant him to frame such an Objection under Master Tompsons name and mine as proceeding from us And the reason is because that meeting Acts 15 is not mentioned at all in the place by him alledged neither for that purpose which he sets down nor for any other much losse is the Objection ours in Terminis Now to frame an Objection and to alledge chapter and page for proofe that the Objection is ours when as neither page nor chapter aleadged do speake any thing at all of that matter what reason can be given for this I know not Neverthelesse because the matter contayned in the Objection doth not much differ from my apprehension and judgement and something in the answer elsewhere may possibly intimate such a thing though but briefly touched I will therefore consider of what he saith for removing the Objection as himselfe hath propounded the same It is false saith he that there is no censuring of persons here for it is more then evident that the publike Synodicall censure of rebuke is put upon those who held and urged the necessity of Circumcision and why not Excommunication also in case of obstinacy For the Synodicall censure of a publike Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different not specifically from excommunication both must proceed from ouâ— the same power So then the summe is the Synod had power of rebuking and therefore of Excommunication also Answ The Consequence is not cleere for who knoweth not that there may be power to rebuke where there is no power of Excommunication Is it not the expresse Law of God that every man shall plainly rebuke his Neighbour and not suffer sin upon him Levit. 19. 17 And are not our 〈◊〉 words as plaine if thy brother trespasle against thee rebuke him and if he repent forgive him Luke 17. 3 Whereby it is evident that one particular person hath power by the Law of God and Christ to put a rebuke upon another if there be occasion for it But will it follow hereupon that one particular Christian hath power to Excommunicate another in case of Obstinacy I suppose Master Rutherford will not say so and yet unlesse this be said I know not how his Consequence can be made good that if a Synod may rebuke they may Excommunicate also I know indeed he saith the Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different from Excommunication and not specifically and that both must proceed from one and the same Power But this would require some proofe and should not nakedly be affirmed without any proofe at all For of it selfe it is not evident that where â—ver there is power to rebuke there is power of Excommunication also The contrary I suppose is evident from that which hath already been said from Levit. 19. 17. and Luke 17. 3. and from many other Scriptures and reasons which shew that one man alone hath power to rebuke who cannot for that be concluded to have any power of Excommunication I know the learned mâ—n is copious in proving from the words of verse 24. Certaine men went from us and have troubled you with words subverting your Soules c. That this Assembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way confute the false opinion and Doctrine of these teachers of
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
Mr. Tompsons name and mine and chap. 1. page 9. of the Answer He saith we there teach that there is a power of cleering truth dogmatically that ultimately where the controversy is ended but he saith we will have this Vltimate power not in a Synod only but also in a Congregation and then no answereth three things which there ensue Answ Our words are these by power of Decrees we understand power to cleere up the truth Dogmatically for the word translated Decrees is Dogmata in the Originall Act. 16. 4. And this power we confesse is in a Synod though not all in a Synod alone but also in the Presbyterie of a single Congregation Now these bring our words if therefore this Reverend Brother would overthrow our Tenent in this particular he should have proved that there is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a single Congregation to cleere up the truth Dogmatically this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach But this be neither proveth nor once attempteth to prove and therefore our Tenent herein doth yet stand good for any thing he hath said to the contrary And no marvell siâ—h the expresse words of the text do witnesse that every Bishop hath power and is boand by his Office and duty by sound Doctrinâ— both to exhort and convince gainsayets Tit. 1. 9. And accordingly the Presbitery of Antioch did labour to cleere up the truth in that controversy about Circumcision and had much disputation about it amongst themselves afore there was any speech of sending to Jerusalem for help Act. 15. 2. Which sheweth that they had power or right to have cleered the matter amongst themselves if ability had served or else this indeavour had been sinful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right So that for ought we yet soe the power that we speake of and which wee hold to bee in the Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord. But let us heare Master Rutherfords Answer First saith he they seeme to make this Dogmaticall power a Church power and the exercise thereof formally an act of Church government and so it must be Church power and Church government in the Synod as well as in the Congregation Answ Whence doth it seeme that we do so make it Are there any such words as here he sets down Or any words equivalent thereto Or doth the place make any mention of Church-power and Church government at all Or is there so much as one word that looketh that way If there be let our Brother say that we seeme to â—each as he doth report but if there be not we are sorry he should report us to teach oâ— seeme to teach that which to our remembrance we never said nor thought And sure it is we have expresly said the direct contrary in page 7 the Page next save one afore this which heere he is dealing against where wee have these words It seemeth to us say we that this power viz. By disquisition and disputation to cleere up the rule and then to command Obedience thereto is not properly a power and exercise of government and Jurisdiction but a power of Doctrine and so a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church These are our words in the Page afore alledged wherein we plainly expresse what the power of Synods seemeth unto us to be even the direct contrary to that which he saith we seeme to make it wee on the one side affirming and expressing that it seemes to us the power of a Synod is no power of government and Iurisdiction but a power of Doctrine And he on the other side reporting that we seeme to make the exercise of Dogmaticall power to be formally an act of Church-government and so to place Church-government in the Synod In which report we must needs say wee are plainly mis-reported His second answer is this The last period and Conclusion of the controversie cannot be both in the Congregation by right only and in the Synod by right only For two last powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate Iudicatures Answ This is very true but it toucheth not us at all For we never said the last period of the controversie is both in the Congregation only and in the Synod onely If we have so said let the place be produced where we have said it for the place by him alledged doth afford us no such thing nor any place else that we know of All that the place affords concerning this point is only this that there is a power of cleering the truth Dogmatically in a Synod though not in a Synod only but also in the Presbytery of a single Congregation And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not deny But whether this power be last in the Synod or in the Congregationall Presbytery of this we do not speaks at all much lesse do we say as he doth apprehend and report that this power is both last in the Synod and last in the Congregation too Wherefore our defence in this particular must needs be this that what here he confuteth to be outs is such a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens nor for ought we know did never enter into our thoughts Thirdly he saith If a controversie concerne many Congregations as this doth Act. 15. I see not how a Congregation except they transgresse their line can finally determine it Answ Neither doth this touch us except we had said that a Congregation may finally determine controversies which concerne many Churches which yet we have not said As for that controversie Act. 15. It is plaine from verse 2 that Antioch did endeavour to have ended it amongst themselves so far as they were troubled therewith For some teaching that corrupt Doctrine amongst them they had much disputation about the point afore they determined to send out for helpe elsewhere Now to what end was thus much disputation if they had no right to determine the matter might they not better have spared their paines Or did they not transgresse their line in attempting what they did attempt Sure it seemes they did if they had not right to determine the matter But for our part sith we do not find them in the least reproved by the Holy Ghost for this attempt therfore we cannot but think they did well therein And thereupon it followeth that if Antioch was a Congregationall Church as it seemes to us it was from Act. 14. 27. either this controversie did trouble no Church but Antioch only or else when a controversie or corrupt opinion doth trouble many Churches one of them may lawfully determine and end it so farre at it concernes themselves CHAP. V. Againe of that Assembly Act. 15. Whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and Excommunication in Synods and whether Preaching doe prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church THe new place where I find him excepting
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
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
reason which doth shew that the Iewes and they are very unlike the Iewes having a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of Cruses and they having none were to shew our selves very irrationall or worse end why our Brother should put such a thing upon us we being no wayes guilty thereof we do not know But we desire that our reason may be applyed to our own conclusion to which we did and do apply it and not to this other expressed by our Brother which indeed is none of ours and then we are content that rationall and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there be any sufficient weight therein Which that they may more readily do I have here recollected the same into this short summe that they may briefly behold it with one view viz If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes and the Congregationall way hath the like If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes and the Congregationall way hath the like and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very farre remote from many of them and in the Congregationall way be more convenient and neere at hand then the Congregationall way is in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent But the first is true in all the particulars and therefore the second is true also Againe If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very remote from many of them and Synods among our Brethren are the same then the way of our Brethren is in some things as defective as the Iewes and in other things more defective then theirs But the first is true in all the particulars of it and therefore the second is true also Both the Assumptions in all the branches thereof I conceive are cleerely proved in the Answer in the Pages which our Brother doth alledge and whether the Consequence be good let the wise judge Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine shape let us now consider of Mr. Rutherfords answer thereto First saith he The speedinesse of ending controversies in a Congregation is badly comprised with the suddainnesse and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the decision of three Elders without so much as asking advise of any Classes of Elders and with deciding questions deepe and grave which concerneth many Churches which is a putting of a private sickle in a common and publicke harvest Answ If advise from other Churches may be had we never spake word for doing weighty matters without the same but in such cases it is both our practise and advise to make use thereof And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity or rashnesse toucheth not us whose opinion and practise is other wise As for suddainnesse I conceive if the same be sometimes accompanyed with temerity and rashnesse and so worthy to be blamed yet not alwayes for in the Reformation of the House of God in the dayes of Hezekiah it is said that the thing was done suddainly 2 Chron. 29. 36. Where suddainnesse doth not signifie any sinfull temerity or râ—shnesle But contrarily doth testifie Gods great goodnesle that had so prepared the people to so good a worke for this cause this suddainnesse was to Hezekiah and Gods people an occasion and ground of great joy and gladnesse which temerity could not have been And therefore suddainnesse and temerity must not alwayes be confounded and coupled together as if they were the same Though hasty delivering of men to Satan without due consideration be not good yet overlong delay of due proceeding against Delinquents is bad also for the Holy Ghost tels us because sentence against an evill worke is not executed speedily therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evill Eccl. 8. 11. For which cause execute judgement in the morning that is to say speedily is sometimes expresly required Jer. 21. 12. Which being spoken of justice to be executed by civill Authority doth hold by proportion and like reason in Ecclesiasticall censures for as much as speedinesle is a duty and delayes are daangerous in the one case as well as in the other Whereas our Author thinkes much that Excommunication should proceed upon the decision of three Elders as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more Elders then the three if God provide them fit men and the numerousnesse of the Congregation so require in which case our Author saith nothing to the contrary but they may have power to Excommunicate so if they have but three we know nothing in this but they may have power to Excommunicate notwithstanding since himselfe teacheth Due Right Page 61. That the Iewes had their Congregationall Churches as we have and had their meeting in their Synagogues not only for Doctrine but also for Discipline and Excommunication Which if it be so it seemes there might be Excommunication by as small a number as three unlesse it could appeare that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in it were a greater number then is here mentioned which is more then I do remember to be expressed in Scripture Yea and further he tels us That the inferiour Iudicatures in Israel had power of life and death Page 315. Now the Iudges in these inferiour Iudicatures though they must never be under that number of three yet they did not alwayes exceed the same for ought that doth appeare And if three Iudges had power of life and death why may not a Congregation with three Elders have power of Excommunication Moreover in his Page 454. He gives us these words for a Proposition That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of Church to exercise Jurisdiction over all its own members to which those words do also agree Page 287. viz. The power and right to Discipline is a propriety essentiall to a Church and is not removed from it till God remove the Candlesticke and the Church cease to be a visible Church And in Page 302. Hee affords us these words for an Assumption that a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church And hence the conclusion is obvious that a Congregation may exercise Iurisdiction over all it own members and in as much as a Congregation in which are but three Elders is a Congregation it followeth that a Congregation in which are but three Elders may exercise such Iurisdiction This conclusion our Author cannot deny in as much as it necessarily and directly followeth from Premises which are both his own Yea in his Page 302. Hâ— saith That this is a principle of Church policie that every politicke body of Christ hath power of Church government
it self whereas there be no consociated â—hurches to share with it in that power Answ This I grant is very true and I desire it may not be recalled but may still stand as here it is expresly given to us and then I desire to know what rule of Christ is transgressed if an other Congregation I meane a Congregation that hath neighbours do exercise the like power For my part I know no such rule nor any good reason but if that the one Congregation may so practise the other Congregation may do the like and that the grounds at least some of them which will warrant the one will also suffice to warrant the other Neverthelesse when any rule of Christ shal be produced that doth restraine a Congregation that hath neighbours of this entire power which is so freely and plainly granted to the Congregation that is alone I shall then grant that the former must have lesse liberty to exercise this power then is here granted to the latter In the meane time that which here is yeelded to the one doth amongst other things induce me to thinke that the same ought to be granted to the other and so that entirenesse of power is in them both A Congregation viz. which is alone is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church Answ How will it then be avoided but a Congregation which hath neighbours or a Congregation which was alone and now hath neighbours added to it how will it be avoided I say but such a Congregation as this is also capable of entire Iurisdiction For can it be denyed but such a Congregation is a Church as well as the other Sure if Mr. Rutherford his Doctrine elsewhere delivered do stand good this cannot be denyed at all For in his Page 301 he saith That is a Church and hath the essence of a Church to which agree the essentiall notes of a visible Church and Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments saith he are essentiall notes of a visible Church Which if it bee so then a Congregation that hath neighbours is a visible Church and hath the essence of a Church because Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments are cleerely found in such a Congregation And if such a Congregation be a Church then by his own Doctrine in this place which we have in hand such a Congregation is capable of entire Iurisdiction For thus I argue from his own words Every Congregation which is a Church is capable of entire Iurisdiction But a Congregation which hath neighbours is a Church Therefore a Congregation which hath neighbours is capable of entire Iurisdiction The conclusion is that which we stand for and it makes directly against our Brother and yet I see not how he can avoyd it because both the premises are his own For the Proposition is plaine from the words we have in hand vâ—z A Congregation is capable of entire Jurisdiction because it is a Church Now if this be the reason why it is capable thereof then looke to what Congregation this reason doth agree every such Congregation must be so capable For our Author well knoweth that à quatenus ad omnia consequentia And for the Assumption the same is confirmed by his words Page 302 Where he makes that to be a Church and to have the essence of a Church to which the Preaching of the word and administration of the Sacraments do agree And these agreeing to a Congregation that hath neighbours it followeth that a Congregation that hath neighbours is a Church Vnlesse hee will deny to a Congregation that hath neighbours power of Preaching the word and administring the Sacraments which I am perswaded he will not deny at all it will unavoidably follow from his own ground that such a Congregation is a visible Church And if such a Congregation be a visible Church then by his own ground also such a Congregation must be capable of entire Iurisdiction which conclusion if it bee granted we desire no more for it is the thing that we hold A woman in no case is capable of administring Baptisme or the Lords Supper except she were extraordinarily and immediately inspired to bee a Prophetesse but for the exercise of entire power of Jurisdiction by a Congregation in a remote Iland I hope it hath no such need of immediate inspiration Answ Nor do wee thinke otherwise but that we may keepe to the points and bring up the dispute to the thing in questio if such a Congregation having no such inspiration may notwithstanding lawfully exercise intire power of Iurisdiction within themselves and that upon this reason because they now are alone which if they had neighbours were not lawfull for them to do then let it be well considered whether by the like reason in the like extraordinary case Baptisme and the Lords Supper may not be administred the one of them by a woman and both of them by such as are no Ministers For as in one case the plea to make it lawfull is this because such a Congregation hath no neighbours so in the other the plea is because the Congregation hath no Ministers nor perhaps there are no men at hand And if the one which at other times were unlawfull yet in such an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence may be lawfully done though there be no immediate inspiration to warrant the same why doth there need such immediate inspiration to warrant the other the extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence being alike in both I desire I may not be mistaken in this passage for I doe not affirme nor ever did that the dispensation of Discipline and of Sacraments in the cases mentioned are both alike unlawfull or else both alike lawfull The Answer will not witnesse that I have so affirmed neither yet this present discourse tâ— much lesse do I hold that Sacraments may be dispensed by women or by men that are not Ministers All that I have said in this matter is thus much that it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in such extraordinary cases as want of neighbours to transgresse and violate ordinary rules least some body do thence inferre that Sacraments may be dispensed by women or men that are no Ministers in case that Ministers or men be wanting This I have said indeed as being tender and afraid to open a dore too far for liberty of transgressing ordinary rules and conceiving that keeping close to those rules is the safest way If any man be more bold and dare open the dore further then I dare adventure to do and thinke he can easily shut the same againe to stop the inconveniencies and ill consequents which I feare may thence ensue I shall leave him to his discretion and the guidance of God therein onely craving thus much for my selfe that no more may be imputed to me nor reported of me in this or other matters then indeed I have affirmed or expressed Concerning his second reason
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
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
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