1 the substance of their calling consisted not in this laying on of hands but in some thing else and what should that be but their election by the people 2. If it was nothing but a signe of praying over then then why is a consummatory rite and a benedictory signe gainsaid and opposed For what great difference is there between a sign of prayer and a benedictory signe And how shall he be reconciled with himself that saith it was nothing but such a sign of praying and yet will not yeeld that it was onely a benedictory signe And for the other particular where he saith this laying on of hands was enjoyed to Timothy as a ministeriall act if by ministeriall act he mean an act that could be lawfully performed by none but onely by a Minister then I desire some proof that this was so enjoyned to Timothy That it was enjoyned to him I grant but that it was so enjoyned needs some better proof then a bare and naked affâ—rmation specially sith many things were enjoyned to Timothy in those examples which were and are justly applyable to all Christians Furthermore suppose it were true that Imposition of hands were enjoyned to Timothy as a ministeriall act how doth this reach to make good the thing in question what should hinder but the peoples election might contain the substance of a Ministers calling notwithstanding or how doth it therfore follow that Imposition of hands was not a consummatory rite or benedictory signe but somthing more Is there any such necessary consequence here that the one of these must needs follow upon the other For my part I see it not nor see any thing to the contrary but if Imposition of hands were such a ministeriall act as he saith it is yet it might still be meerly a consummatory rite or benedictory signe and the substance of the calling consist still in the peoples Election Himself doth say as we hear even now that Imposition of hands Act. 6. though here he call it a ministeriall act was nothing but a signe of praying over the Deacons And therefore these two to be a ministeriall act and yet to be nothing but a signe of prayer or benedictory sign which to me are the same are not so inconsistent by his own doctrine but that they may well stand together And himself doth also hold that the laying on of hands mentioned Numb 8. 10. was a ministeriall act and that they who did it performed the same as Ecclesiasticall Elders and yet I hope he will not deny that the substance of the Levites calling was in the immediate designement and appointment of the Lord and not in the performance of this laying on of hands And therefore it follows that if laying on of hands were granted to be a ministeriall act yet still it may be meerly a benedictory signe and the substance or essence of the Ministers calling not consist in it but in some thing else A miniâ—â—eriall calling standeth in an authoritative sending Rom. 10. 15. and I see not well how the people do send a Minister to themselves Answ But it is not easie to see how they choose a man for a Minister to themselves being sent unto them by God And if God doe furnish a man with gifts and an holy propensity of minde to the work in generall and to such or such a people in particular and make way by his providence thereto then who can deny but such a man is sent of God unto that people And then if that people observing Gods sending of him in this sâ—â—t do hereupon elect and choose him and promise to be obedient to him in the Lord what is there now wanting to the substance and offence of such a mans calling to such a people and yet the man is not sent by them to themselves but sent by God and received and chose by them Parcus understands this sending Rom. 10. of Gods sending and so doth Piscator and who not And to understand it otherwise would be to condemne the Prophets and Apostles who were not sent by men at all and yet did truely answer this scripture in that they were sent of God True it is ordinary Ministers are not sent of God in such an extraordinary way as the Prophets and Apostles were but in an ordinary way and by ordinary means which way and means if they doe observe they also may be truly said to be sent of God unto the people But peradventure our brother means that the people may not lawfully choose a man for minister unto themselves except he be first sent unto them in an authoritative way by some other men and that otherwise he is not sent unto them of God which if it were true then it would follow that the Apostles and Prophets as I said were not sent of God for plain it is that men sent them not It would also hereupon be requisite to be cleared that some men besides the Church have authority to send Ministers to the Church and who these men are that have such authority had need to be cleared also which I for my part think will not be done in hast And till this be done I know no reason but I may still retain this apprehension that men who are qualified according to the rule of the word and duly elected and chosen to some office of the Ministery by Gods people are truly sent of God unto that people The people have not either formally or by grant of Christ virtually the keyes committed to them how then can they give the keyes to Pastors Answ Yet in p. 7. He tells us that he denyes not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of beleevers to supply the want of ordination of Pastors or some other acts of the keyes simply necessary hic nunc and this power saith he is virtuall not formall Now to say they have this power neither formally nor virtually and yet to say they have this power virtually though not formally what is it but an apparent contradiction But suppose it were true that the people had not this power either formally or virtually yet Mr. Ball and Mr. Baiâ—s afore him doe tell us that ministerially they may give what they never had viz. As ministring to him who hath power and virtue of deriving its as a man not 〈◊〉 a peny of his own may give an 100 l. if the King make him his Almoner Thus the Church deriveth aâ— taking the person whom Christ describeth and out of power will â—ave placed in this or that office in his Church The power of the imperiall dignity is not in the electoâ— of the Emperours nor the power of that office and authority whereunto a Minister is elected in the Church who chuseth him to that office Ball Tryall of Separat pag. 239 240. Pag. 494 495. People may as the sheep of Christ discern his voice Joh. 10. and so have a power of election of their own Pastors nor doth this
against the Answer it in his Pag. 410. Where he proposeth an Object to this effect to wit Paul exercised the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians and might have Preached to Indians and did to scoffing Athenians yea Paul by this power Dogmaticall rebuked the Athenians Act. 17. 22. Yet Paul had no power to Excommunicate the Athenians And then he subjoyneth my name and cites in the Margent the 43 and 44 pages of the Answer Answ This Objection being taken from Pauls rebuking the Athenians our Brother had no reason to propose it under Mr. Tompsons 〈◊〉 and mine for as much as in all that discourse of ours the Athenians to my remembâ—ance are not so much as once mentioned sure in the Pages by him alledged there is no mention of the Athenians at all And therefore why this Objection should bee proposed and reported by him as ours wee doe not know Which I doe not say 〈◊〉 though I thought the objection so weake as though the Authors of it may not well owne it For from whosoever the Objection came for ought that I yet perceive there is good weight therein For which cause and because in one of those Pages wee have delivered something concerning a Ministers power to Preach to Pagans in generall though nothing concerning the Atheniâ—ns in particular as hee reporteth therefore I am willing to consider what Mr. Rutherforâ— saith for the satisfying of the objection proposed as not willing to passe by any thing without consideration wherein our selves may seeme to be concerned or aymed at I deny not saith he but there is a great oddes betwixt a concionall rebuking by way of Preaching which may be and is alwayes performed by one and a juridicall rebuking by a power Jurididicall of the Keyes which is performed only by a Church society Answ If all this were granted you the Objection is not satisfied nor his purpose gained thereby For the cleering whereof it is good to consider the thing in Question and how this Objection comes in and whereto it tends and then we may better descerne how the objection is removed by Mr. Rutherfords answer The thing in question is whether a Synod have power of Iurisidiction and Excommunication Mr. Rutherford his scope in that place is to prove the Affirmative and therefore for a dozen or 14 Pages together hee hath these words in the top of every lease The power of a Synod a power of Jurisdiction and his medium to prove this Tenent is this Because a Synod hath Power to rebuke Whereupon ensueth the Objection that Paul might rebuke the Athenians and yet might not Excommunicate them and therefore enough a Synod may rebuke it followes not that they may Excommunicate This is the order of the Dispute as is plainly to bee seeme by pâ—â—â—sing the place And now comes in the Answer which Mr. Rutherford gives to the objection to wit That there is a great odds betwixt a Concionall rebuking and a Juridicall the one being performed by one and the other by many Which Answer I conceive is not sufficient because this Difference may hee granted and many more may be added if hee please and yet the thing in question not gained nor the Objection removed at all For what though a Concionall rebuking be performed by one and a Iuridicall by many Yet still it remaineth cleare that there may bee rebuking where there is no Iurisdiction and therefore though a Synod may rebuke it followes not that they may Excommunicate nor have power of Iurisdiction If our Brother would have satisfied the Objection he should not have satisfyed himselfe with alledging the difference mentioned betweene a Concionall rebuking and a Iuridicall or Synodicall but should have proved that there cannot be any Concionall rebuking at all at least wise not any rebuking of Athenians who are not subject to Excommunication and if this had been proved the Objection had been fully removed But this he hath not proved at all nor once attempted to prove it but plainly yeelds the contrary and therefore for ought I see the Objection remayneth in its strength and so the strength of his argument removed thereby who would prove the Synod power of Iurisdiction from their power of rebuking But let as heare what he answereth in the words ensuing It cannot be denyed saith he but the rebuking of men because they subverted Soules verse 24. Is not a meere Concionall rebuking which may be performed by one First it is a rebuking verse 24. Second it is a rebuking performed by many by a whole Synod 6. 22. Third it is performed by a politicall Society Answ And what of all this May it not neverthelesse be denyed that this rebuking was any other then in a Doctrinall way Be it granted that it was a rebuking and a rebuking performed by many and if were granted by a Politicall Society too must it needs follow that therefore it was Iuridicall or in way of Iurisdiction I see no necessity of such Consequence Nay Master Rutherford himselfe doth confesse as we heard afore in his Page 393. That the specification of this rebuke must not be fetched from the efficient causes because one Apostle might himselfe alone have rebuked these obtruders of Circumcision If therefore it were granted that many persons a whole Synod a Politicall Society or what ever else he will call them were the efficient causes of this rebuke yet all this is too little to prove that the rebuke was Iuridicall unlesse the specification of it must be fetched from the efficient causes which Master Rutherford himselfe disclaymes Moreover I would put this Case suppose a Pagan or a Christian of another Nation and Kingdome shall come into a Church Assembly whether the Assembly be a Congregationall Church or a Synod and in the Assembly shall openly and Scandalously misbehave himselfe in one kind or other to the dishonour of God and grieving of the godly and the danger of corrupting others that shall behold such bad example I would gladly know whether this Assembly be it Synod or other may not lawfully rebuke this Scandalous practice and behaviour and if they may whether it would follow therupon that they may also lawfully Excommunicate the man if his sin and impenitency shall deserve the same If it be said they may I would know quo jure And who gave them such Authority to Excommunicate Pagans or men of another Nation being only there present at that time occasionally And if they may not so proceed against such a person then the answer to Master Rutherfords alledgements in the Case we have in hand is ready and plaine For as he alledgeth First here is a rebuking Second a rebuking of many even a whole Synod Third of a Politicall Society and Body even so the same may be said in this Case in all the particulars For first here is a rebuking Second rebuking of many Third by a Politicall Society and body and yet all this is too little to prove a power of Iurisdiction and
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
understand this Church remedy as that for all this the nationall Church must not partake thereof so as to be censured and excommunicated by any Church above it why may not others understand it so as that Synods and Classes yea and Congregations too be exempted from the jurisdiction of Churches For my part I know no reason but if the Congregation be lyable to the censure of Classes and Synods by this Scripture because our Saviours remedy is a Church remedy by the same reason the Classes and Synods must be lyable to censure also yea and the nationall Church likewise because this reason is applyable to all these as well as to the Congregation So that this notion of a Church remedy doth not help his cause at all nor hurt ours any more then it hurts himself If this reasoning be good it is a Church remedy therefore the Congregationall Church must be lyable to censure for their offences then this reasoning is as good it is a Church remedy therefore the Classes Synods yea and the nationall Church must be lyable to censure for their offences but this latter at least for the nationall Church our brother speaks against and therefore he may not presse nor urge the former If he or other shall say that this Scripture contains a remedy even for a nationall Church then it will follow that the jurisdiction of a nationall Church is not independent but depends upon the Oecumenicall but this our brother cannot say unlesse he will gainsay himself because he hath already said the contrary and seriously protested it wâ—â—h a verily that verily be cannot see what power of jurisdiction to censure scandalls can be in a generall Councell onely a meer doctrinall power in all the power that he can see in such a Councell pag. 482. So that let him hold to what he hath thus seriously protested and this rule of Christ affords no remedy by way of censure for the scandalls of a nationall Church Besides if the jurisdiction of a generall Councell be established by our Saviour in this or other Scriptures then it will not only follow that the independent jurisdiction of nationall Churches yea and much more of Classes and Synods is overthâ—â—wn which I suppose our brethren will not grant but moreover it will follow that Christ hath not sufficiently provided Church remedies for redressing scandalâ—s of Church members the reason of the consequence is because all other jurisdictions being subordinate one to anâ—ther and all of them under the jurisdiction of the generall Councell which alone is supream there may therefore in all of them be appeals from the inferiour to the higher judicatories till at the last â—atters and causes be transmitted from them all to the generall Councell and so by this means matters shall or may never be ended nor scandalls remedied till a generall Councell shall effect the same which generall Councels all know are rare and difficult to be attain◠〈◊〉 and therefore there were small sufficiency in our Saviours remedy if matters may or must depend till generall Councels shall be assembled for the hearing and determining thereof and may not be ended sconer Therefore we cannot see that this rule nor any other establisheth the jurisdiction of generall Couâ—cels and then nationall Churches can have no benefit of our Saviours remedy of Telling the Church no more then the Churches which are congregationall and so whether is the saying universally true that where there may be offence committed there our Saviours remedy of Telling the Church may be applyed for the redresse thereof nor doth this saying hold being narrowed according to Mr. Rutherfords minde who would have it understood onely of a Church remedy for the offences of Church members For we see there may be offences in Churches according to our brethrens judgement which cannot be redressed by the help and remedy of this rule CHAP. XXII When the supream magistrate is a professed curing to Religion whether then it be likely and usuall that the greater part of the people are sincerely religious and whether when the greater part are enemies with their magistrates it be then the duty of a few that are sincere to assemble in a nationall Synod and there to enter into a nationall Covenant and also to enjoyn the same unto that greater part PAG 483. We say that if the magistrate be an enemy to Religion may not the Church without him conveen and renew a Covenant with God Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompsons answer p. 29. that if the supream magistrate be an enemy to Religion it is not like but most or many of the people will be of the same minde Regis ad exemplum totus and then the 〈◊〉 in the land with not be able to beare the name of the land or nation but of a small part thereof not can it be well contained how they should assemble in a nationall Synod for that or any other purpose when the magistrate is a professed enemy nor doth God require it at their hands Answ The question between Mr. Hefle and us as it is spoken to by us in this passage is still about the meaning of our Saviours words Tell the Church which will plainly appear to him that shall look upon Mr. Herles Treatise and our Answer and compare them together And though we speak somthing of the Churches renewing a a Covenant with God when the magistrate is an enemy to Religion yet the question lyes not meerly so and no further but first this Church is called the Land or the whole Church therein or the whole number of Beleevers Secondly The thing inquired into concerning this Church is whether they have not power to enjoyn a solemn renewall of the Covenant In answer whereto we first of all say that in case the magistrate be an enemy to Religion the beleevers in the land are not like to be so many as that they should bear the name of the land or nation but of a small part therein Second that in such case it is not like they can have such liberty as safely to meet in such great assemblies as nationall Synods and hereupon we conclude that renewing of Covenant and enjoyning the same in national Synods being not in the power of som few beleevers in a land is not then required at their hands This being said for clearing the scope and summe of that passage in the answer let us now hear what Mr. Rutherford saith thereto This saith he is a weak answer Answ Sat magistrabiter would it not do well first to disprove and confute and then to censure rather then to censure first But if it be so weak it will be more easie to overthrow it let us hear therefore why it is so weak The Christians under Nero were not like their Prince and it s not like but sincere Christians will be sincere Christians and professe truth even when the magistrate is an enemy Answ And what of this doth this strongly overthrow that saying which was censured
for so weak If sincere Christians be sincere Christians when the magistrate is an enemy suppose as bad as Nero doth it follow thereupon that in such times the sincere Christians will be so many in number as to bear the names of the land or nation where they are for there lyes the question and that it is not like to be otherwise I suppose no man can justly affirm it For were they so many in England in the dayes of Queen Mary were they so many in Scotland in the dayes of popish Princes afore the reformation Are they so many in Spain in Italy in Turkey at this day doth not the Scripture say that when Rehoboam forsook the Lord all Israel did the same with him 2 Chron. 12. 1. And that Ieroboam did not only sinne but made Israel to sinne and that when a ruler hearkneth to lyes all his servants are wicked Prov. 29. vers 12. which sayings and many more that might be alledged besides common experience do abundantly witnesse that when the supream magistrate is an enemy to religion often times if not alwayes sincere beleevers in those dayes are the smaller part of that land If M. Rutherford can prove this apprehension weak he must then prove the contradictory to be true viz. that when the supream magistrate is an enemy to religion it is not like that many of the people will be of the magistrates mind but contrarily the greatest part of the land will be sincere beleevers though the magistrate be an enemy And when he hath confirmed this position which strong and convincing proofes he may then more freely take his liberty to condemne the other for weak In the mean time I think it were weaknesse in us to depart from this apprehension without some better grounds then yet are given to discover the weaknesse of it 2. Saith he If your meaning be it cannot be conceived how they should assemble in a nationall assembly when the magistrate is an enemy because it is not safe for feare of persecution then you say nothing to the argument because the argument is drawn from a duty Answ Are those things duties which are in nature impossible If not how is it a duty of a few beleevers in a land for when the magistrate is a professed enemy I doe still conceive the beleevers in that land to be but few a small part of the land how is it a duty I say for these few beleevers in a land to assemble in a nationall Synod and there to enjoyn a nationall Covenant to be entered into not onely by themselves which are but a few in comparison but also by the rest of the land which are farre the greater number If this be a duty it is more then I yet understand Suppose it be their duty to enter into covenant with God for their own part Suppose also it were the duty of others to doe the like yet when the greater part will not so doe but are enemies to the truth of God like their magistrates is it neverthelesse a duty of this smaller number to assemble in a nationall Synod and there to enjoyne a solemn Covenant to be taken by the land I mean not onely by themselves but also by others who are farre more in number then they do they fall short of their duty if they do not thus assemble and impose the Covenant In the dayes of Ieroboam when the generality of the land walked after his wicked commandement Hos 5. 11. who made Israel to sin yet then there were some in Israel who retained their integrity and set their hearts to seek the Lord who also for that end came to Ierusalem to sacrifice to the Lord God of their Fathers 2 Chron. 11. v. 16. But I doe not remember that these few that were sincere in worship did ever come together in a nationall assembly in Israel to renew the Covenant with God and to enjoyn the same to that great multitude of the backslyding Israelites nor that such a duty was required of them nor that they are blamed by 〈◊〉 Lord nor any of his Prophets for the neglect thereof And the case we have in stand is the same If you mean that because the Princes power is against the Synodicall meeting this is nothing against the power of the Synods that Christ hath given to his Church Answ We mean as we have said that those few beleevers in a land being overpowered with the Prince and People that are enemies therefore this assembling of those few in a nationall Synod and there enjoyning a nationall Covenant is now not in their power and so not required at their hands If your meaning be that it is not lawfull to them to conveen in a nationall Synod to renew a Covenant with God against the supreame magistrates will I hope you minde no such thing Answ If it be our meaning how can it be hoped that we do not mind it Can our â—â—â—â—ing be one thing and our mind another But for his satisfaction and resolution 〈◊〉 plain answer is this that we neither had mind nor meaning to medle at all with that question whether Churches may assemble in nationall Synods against the supreame magistrates will For we did not think that Mr. Herles treatise did lead us thereunto 〈…〉 such a matter Nor am I willing at this time to turn aside to the same but to keep close to my scope and ayme which is to consider of Mr. Rutherford his exceptions against the answer And therefore for his discourse which here he fals upon maintaining at large against malignants and namely against Tho Fuller that the reformation begun in Scotland and prosecuted in England against the Kings will is lawfulâ— and warrantable by the wordâ— this discourse I say being altogether concerning others and not us I will therefore passe it over and come to that wherein our selves are concerned CHAP. XXIII Whether the word Church be not given to a single Congregation and whether a Congregation be a Company or Church meeting only for Word and Sacraments and not for any other spirituall duties and whether the divers duties 1. of Word and Sacraments 2. Of Discipline c. must needs argue divers Churches PAG 489. The name Church 1 Cor. 14. 4 5 35. 27 28. is plainly given to that company that did assemble and come together for performance of spirituall duties and for the exercise of spirituall gifts as Act. 14. 27. and 11. 26. and 15. 4. 22. 30. and 1 Cor. 11. 18 20 22 23 3 John 6. which places do abundantly shew that a company gathered together in one place is called by the name of a Church as Centhera Rom. 16. 1. which could not contain many Congregations being but the part of Corinth And for this passage he alledgeth the answer pag. 32. Answ Mr. Herle having said that the Scripture never useth the word Church for a single Congregation unlesse happily 1 Cor. 14. and that many Congregations in one Province or City are
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
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
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