whereas in the place we have been speaking of he saith Antioch the greater part of them being against the truth did lose their jus their right to determine for which as wee have heard he gives this reason because Christ hath given no right and power to determine against the truth but for it yet now wee see he grants distinction between ability and right and saith a Presbyteriall Church may still retaine this latter of their right even then when they want the other of ability Which two sayings whether they do perfectly agree and whether in the latter of them he do not plainly come up to us against whom he hath been disputing in the former I leaue it to the wise in heart and especially to himselfe to consider For for my part I must confesse that these two sayings A Presbyteriall Church as Antioch may have right jus to judge a point to the judging whereof they may want ability and Antioch a Presbyteriall Church wanting ability did thereby lose their right or jus to determine the point these two I say are such sayings as are not easie for me to reconcile Lastly if it be said our Brother doth not deny unto Antioch or a Church in error all power simply to determine but only to determine tali mode that is to determine against the truth for his words are they lose their jus their right eatenus in so far I answer he hath such a word indeed as eatenus in so farre but if any shall say he meant no more in this dispute but only that such a Church hath no right to determine against the truth I conceive that he that shall so say shall therein impute some fault unto our Brother even the fault of wresting Mr. Tompsons Tenent and mine and suggesting against us unto his Reader as if we had held such a thing as we never wrote nor thought For it is plain that our Brother in his Pag. 424. is disputing against us For he saith that we teach the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof And sets down Master Tompsons name and mine as the men that so teach in Answer Page 42. And a few lines after he saith I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the Controversie Act. 15. And then hee gives two reasons for the contrary So that it is manifest that he intends this dispute against us Now what have we said in this matter Have we delivered any such thing that Antioch had right to determine against the truth Let the Answer be viewed in the place which he alledgeth viz. Page 42. And I am sure no such grosse Tenent will be there found no nor any where else in our writing That which we have said is this that Antioch had right to have determined the matter if ability had served thereto but for right to determine against the truth we never spake one word that soundeth that way Our Brother therefore intending this dispute against us and plainly expressing so much and our Tenent being no other then as I have said it must therefore needs follow that his intendment is that Antioch had no right to determine that matter But for right to determine against the truth he cannot confute such a Tenent as ours we never having delivered any such thing but he must withall be culpable of manifest mistaking and mis-reporting of us to the World and we are and must be slow to believe that a man of such worth would willingly do us such wrong It remains therefore that right to determine and not right to determine against the truth is the thing which he opposâ—tâ— as ours and therefore it is that in this sence and meaning I have here applyed my answer The 〈…〉 thus much That Antioch had right to determine against the 〈…〉 that may soone be conâ—uted but the Tenent is none of ours That 〈…〉 to determine is indeed our Tenent and whether this be conâ—uted 〈…〉 let the wise and Iudicious consider CHAP. IX Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe make the Gospell more difficultive then the Law Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders and of doing things sudainly IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr Tâ—mpson and me and alledging Page 17 18. of the Answer He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales upon appeales from a Congregation to a Classis then to a Synod then to a Nationall Assembly then to an Oecâ—â—â—â—nicke Councell and this way while the world endureth causes are never determined and Synods cannot alwayes be had even as in Ierusalem the supreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Proselites as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia Act. 8. And from the remoteâ—â— parts of the Holy Land but God hath provided better for us in the new Testament where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controversie And then Page 425. He subjoyneth his Answer Answ Though I deny not but some of the things here alledged are written by us in the Paâ—â—â— namâ—d yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expresseth viz. To shew that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much Iudaize that I do utterly deny For the places being viewed will plainly witnesse that wee bring the things alledged for another end viz. To shew whether the way that is called Independencie do make the people as some have thought of it more defective and improvident then their Law For this being objected against that way wee in answer thereto do shew by sundry particulars that it is not that way that is justly culpable in this respect but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these dayes in some things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent and on the other side the way of our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the condition of the Iewes So that not Iudayzing but making our condition more defective then the Iewes is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren Nor do I see how our Brother in his Answer doth free their Doctrine and way from being justly culpable in this respect If we had intended the thing which he reporteth we would never have used such a reason as he truly reportâ— us to use viz. That by appeales upon appeales causes according to our Brethrens way may be so protracted as never to be determined nor ended For this reason hath neither strength nor colour of strength for such a purpose as he saith we bring it for inasmuch as it is well known that the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes among them And therefore to say that our Brethren do Iudaize and then to give that for a
read in one assembly and another in another whereof in the present case there is not so much as the least hint And if we would imagine such a matter for which there is small reason yet since it is Iudas and Silas by whom this Epistle was sent and who were to tell the same things by mouth and who also upon the delivering of the Epistle exhorted the breathren of Antioch with many words as is cleare vers 22 23 27 32. Iudas and Silaâ— I say being but two men could not be present and speak and act these things in many assemblies at once but must of necessity be both in one assembly or at the most in two but the text makes no mention of their being in two but plainly enough intimates the contrary that they were both together and yet where they were present there was the multitude gathered together to receive the Epistle by their hands and to heare the report and word of exhortation at their mouth Unlesse therefore we will imagine that Iudas and Silas could be present and act in many assemblies at once there is no reason to think this multitude among whom they were present and acted to be many Congregations or assemblies And therefore for his conclusion pag. 475 476. That the mentioning of one multitude in the singular number Acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one single Congregation at Antioch The answer is that we doe not lay the force of our reason in the mentioning of the multitude in the singular number and therefore it can not thus be satisfied or put off for our words are these The whole multitude of them were gathered together at the return of Paul and Barnabas from the Synod at Jerusalem to heare the Epistle read which was sent from that Synod Answer p. 50. wherein it is easie to perceive that we lay the force of our reason not in this that the Church is called a multitude in the singular number but in this that the whole multitude were gathered together for such an end as there is expressed and this we still conceive may prove the point For a Church which is such a multitude as is gathered together for the receiving of one Epistle which was sent unto them all and which is gathered together to heare the Epistle read and also to heare the same things by mouth the men from whose mouth they must so heare and from whose hands they must so receive being no more but two such a Church as this can be no more but one Congregation or Assembly Now Antioch was such a Church and therefore was no more but one Congregation If this conclusion be not granted some way must be devised how many severall assemblies might all be receivers and hearers of one and the same Epistle at the same time there being but one coppy of the Epistle as also how they might at one time heare the same things declared to them by mouth when there was but two men to declare the same And when such a way is found out we may then further consider thereof But in the mean time the grounds and reasons alledged doth induce me to think that Antioch where those things were thus done was indeed but one Congregation CHAP. XVII Whether no liberties are given by Christ to the People but women must exercise the same as well as men and of the peoples liberty about Ordination or the Calling of Ministers IN the answer p. 8. we have these words viz. Governing properly so called we acknowledge not in any but in the Elders alone 1 Cor. 12. vers 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. If that word be ascribed to the people it must be understood in a more improper sense for that which impropriety of speech were more fitly called liberty or priviledge and yet this liberty when it is exercised about Ordination Deposition Excommunication c. is of the whole body communiter or in generall but not of all and every member in particular as you conceive us to hold for women and children are members and yet are not to act in such matters the one being debarred by their sex and the other for want of understanding and discretion This passage Mr. Rutherford having related though with some variation in his pag. 476 in answer thereto he saith thus p. 477. If there be no governing power in women nor any act at all in Excommunication you loose many arguments that you bring 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in Excommunication 1. Because Paul writeth to all 2. All were to mourne 3. All were to forbeare the company of the Excommunicated then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth not to women and women were not to mourne for the scandall nor to forbeare his company Answ If Mr. Tompson and I doe being such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. why is not the place quoted where we doe bring them I suppose there is no such place at all that can be produced and therefore I desire so much favour that what we never said may not be imputed to us nor divulged abroad as ours If others doe bring such arguments from 1 Cor. 5. they that bring them are able to speake for themselves and to give account of their own arguments but I know no reason that doth require that we should be drawn to defend such arguments as we never used nor that doth allow our Reverend Brother to report such arguments as ours which having never been used by us I counted it therefore an impertinent digression to spend time in the defence of them The priviledge saith he being a part of liberty purchased by Christs body it must be due to 〈…〉 for the liberty wherewith Christ hath made women free cannot be taken away 〈…〉 of God from their sex except in Christ Iesus there be a difference between Iew and Gentile male and female Answ That which is in the people we say in propriety of speech is more â—itly called liberty or priviledge but of liberty purchased by Christs body or blood we make no mention at all and therefore our Brother might have spared speech thereof But it is true indeed that the people can have no liberty but women also may exercise the 〈…〉 else their liberty purchased for them by Christ is taken away It seems he so conceives but then I desire to know how his own doctrine elsewhere and the Apostlâ—s wâ—â—ds can stand together for in one place he saith that Acts 14. 23. Proveth that Elders ordaine Elder with lifting up of the hands of the people and this saith he is 〈…〉 doctrine Due Right p. 190. and in another place he saith The people have Gods right to choose Ministers for so the word prescribeth for which in his margent he alledgeth 〈◊〉 severall texts of Scripture Acts 15. 22. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Acts 6. 4. Acts 14. 23. and in his text alledgeth Tertullian Cyprian Ambrose Origen Chrysostome the Councell
no Elders in the land or nationall Church to lay on hands Now had our words been delivered and set down by him as they came from us this speech and passage of his would have been uselesse and apparently brought in without cause For to what purpose should he bring in this exception saying Except there be no Elders in the land c. when our selves had prevented him in this by putting such an exception expresly into the prohibition which we deduce and gather from that scripture of Numb 8. 10. Sure this had not needed but might have been spared if our words had been fully related But by this omission and concealement his own speech hath more appearance of ground and reason in it then otherwise it would have had and our apprehension doth not appear to his reader as indeed it is nor as himself received it from us in that our answer Which we have reason to take somwhat unkindly from him and the rather because it is not only once but twise at the least that we have thus expressed our selves in that answer once in the words which I have here above repeated and transcribed and again in pag. 49. where speaking again of this same scripture Numb 8. v. 10. We say thus that we have shewed from that scripture that if there be no Elders as at the first nor any that can conveniently be gotten from other Churches then imposition of hands may lawfully be performed by others Neverthelesse though we have thus expressed our selves once and a second time yet M. Rutherford doth not once give notice hereof unto his reader for ought that I can find but still passing by these words of borrowing Elders from other Churches doth take advantage of the want thereof which indeed are not wanting in our Churches which he deals against but twise at the least are plainly expressed therein and would not have been wanting in this passage which here he sets down as ours if himself had not concealed and suppressed the same Now to leave out those words of ours which we have plainly expressed two severall times at the least and then to make advantage for himselfe against us for want thereof whether this be not such measure as we have cause to take unkindly let himself and others consider The third particular of adding words which never came from us I will briefly passe over because it is of lesse moment as not so much misrepresenting our meaning yet I conceive those words it by Ordination is not to be tyed to the Presbytery alone which here are presented to the Reader as ours are not at all to be found in our writing but I will not insist on this but come to consider of his answer There is not saith he a place in all the word of God where people conserâ—e Ordination to the Pastors of the New Testament therefore our brethren flee to the Old Testament to prove it from the Levites who received Imposition of bands from the Children of Israel Answ We have given a reason why no such scripture can be expected in the New Testament viz. because in those times Elders were not wanting for there were the Apostles and Apostolike men who were Elders in all Churches and say we we do willingly grant that where Elders are not wanting Imposition of hands is to be performed by the Elders Ans p. 49. Now for our brethren to require of us an example of Imposition of hands performed without Elders in the Apostles times in which times there were Elders to be had this we think to be unreasonable first it is our opinion that when Elders are to be had Imposition of hands is not to be performed without those Elders but by them Moreover if it be such a disparagement to our cause that the scripture of the New Testament affords no example of Imposition of hands by the people how will Mr. Rutherford free his own way from another objection which we think as sore and weighty against the same as this which they think of so much weight against us The objection I mean is this that there is not any place in all the scripture of the New Testament where ordinary Pastors or Elders Imposed hands on ordinary Pastors or Elders but all the examples in scripture concerning this matter are such where either the persons Imposing or the persons on whom hands were Imposed or both were officers of extraordinary note and degree such as now are not extant in the Church but are ceased long again Not that I deny but an argument may be taken from those examples for Imposition of hands in these dayes but the thing I stand upon is this that no example can be given from scripture directly parallel to the way which our brethren in these dayes do practise and allow but some dissonancy will be found therein from their way as well and perhaps as much as from the way of Imposition of hands performed by the people in some cases let them tell us of Act. 6. v. 6. and 14. 23. and 1. Tim. 5. 22. and we answer the persons imposing hands in those places were Apostles and Evangelists such as our brethren are not nor do so account themselves Let them name Act. 13. 3. and 1 Tim. 4. 14. and we answer the persons on whom hands were there laid were the like even Apostles and Evangelists whatever the imposers were and therefore neither will these places perfectly suit the case So that if we could give no example in the New Testament of Imposition of hands performed in some cases by the people we think Mr. Rutherford and out brethren of his way might be favourable to us for their own sake Yet for the justification of our way and for further answer to this passage of Mr. Rutherford we have this to say further that an example in the Old Testament of a practise not abolished in the New as ceremoniall typicall or of some peculiar reason specially concerning those times and peoples but of morall equity and reason such an example we think a sufficient warrant unto us for the like practise upon the like occasion in these dayes This I thinke Mr Rutherford must acknowledge for else he shall loose many arguments which he frequently useth in this Treatise from the example of Asa Hezekiah Josiah and others in the Old Testament for the proving of things to be practised in the New And else himself and we all shall loose the argument for Pedobaptisme which is taken from Circumcision Yea and which is more if it were not thus the Apostles arguing would not be strong who do frequently argue from the examples of the Old Testament to confirm and prove truth and vertue and to reprove and to condemn the contraâ—y in the New to instance in no more but 1 Cor. 9. 10. 2. Heb. 3. 24. which examples together with that saying Rom. 15. 4. Whatsoever was written in former time was written for our learning and many more that might be
societies to end in Monarchies whether would it not follow that the Government of Churches must so end as well as that Congregations must depend on the Government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion in government to other societies And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrewes who châ—se the seven Deacons Acts. 6. were two Congregations or one onely page 159. Chap. 21. Whether Congregations may be excommunicated by Classes and Synods by vertue of those words Mat. 18. Tell the Church as containing a rule and remedy for all offences or at the least a Church remedy for the offences of Churches and Church members And if yea whether it would not thereupon follow that a Nationall Church must have the benefit of this remedy as well as others and so have no independency of Iurisdiction within it selfe but be subject to the jurisdiction of Generall Counsels which yet Mr. Rutherford doth deny page 164. Chap. 22. When the supreame Magistrate is a professed enemy 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 injoyne the same unto that greater part page 170. Chap. 23. Whether the word Church be not given to a single Congregation and whether a Congregation be a company or Church-meeting onely 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 page 175. Chap. 24 Whether those children of Israell Numb 8. 10. who laid hands on the Levites were Elders by office and as so considered did lay on their hands And whether this Scripture do not prove that where there are no Elders to be had there some principall members though no Elders by office may impose hands on Church-Officers page 180 Chap. 25. Whether a Ministers calling consist in election or imposition of hands and whether of these is greater and whether is prior or posterior Whether 1 Tim. 4. 14. Acts. 6 2 3 4. Acts. 13. 1 2 3. doe prove that the Ministers calling consists in imposition of hands by the Presbeterie and that such imposition of hands is not a consummatory rite or benedictory signe Also whether Rom. 10. 15. do prove that a man cannot be a Minister except some Presbyterie ordaine him before the people choose him and whether otherwise the people doe send a Minister to themselves And whether the people of God may not as well discerne a mans fitnesse to be ordained as his fitnesse to be elected page 196. Chap. 26. Whether the Epistles to Timothy and Titus wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands do prove that this action may not in any case be performed by Non-officers but must be performed onely by Presbyteries and whether the argument do not make as strongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates as to the Presbyteries and do not as well exclude the Presbyteries from medling therein as exclude the people page 206. To the Christian Reader IN the yeare 1643. there came forth a Treatise against Independency under the name of my Reverend and learned Brother Mr. Charles Herle the Pastor of Winwick in Lancashire This Treatise because it seemed to bee written with such a Candid and peaceable spirit as might witnesse for its Author that the thing he aymed at therein was meerly the disquisition of the Truth and because the Author thereof was many yeares agoe of my Reverend brother Mr. Tompsons acquaintance and mine therefore we thought it might not be in vaine if we should lovingly communicate to the learned Author such apprehensions of ours whereby wee were detained from concurring with his judgement in the principall Question disputed in the said Treatise And therefore in the latter end of the same yeare there came forth a small Script under our Name in way of a brotherly Answer to that his loving and learned Treatise Against this Answer Mr. Samuell Rutherford a learned writer of the Church of Scotland hath alledged and published many Objections Exceptions and Answers in his Booke entituled The due right of Presbyteries I may call them many because in that Treatise of his there are no lesse then 24 or 25 severall places wherein he bring up by name the said Answer disputing against sundry passages therein as if they were not sound which passages if they be indeed erronious and unsound are a great many to bee contained and found in so small a Work the whole Booke as it is now printed containing in it 30. leaves So that the leaves in the Booke are not much more then the places therein which this learned Writer doth object against which being considered I thought it therefore needfull to peruse and weigh as the Lord should helpe the severall places of his fore-mentioned Treatise wherein he deales against the said Answer And having so done I here present my apprehentions to publike view leaving the Prudent and judicious Reader to consider and judge whether this Reverend and learned Brother have sufficiently overthrowne or weak'ned the said Answer or whether the same doe not still remaine agreable to the rule of Truth notwithstanding his Objections against the same or such Answers as he doth returne to severall passages therein CHAP. I. Of Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales and whether by Mr. Rutherford his doctrine in this point there may not be Appeales to generall Councils whose power of Iuâ—isdiction he doth yet deny FIrst of all in his Page 315. for that is the first place wherein I find him medling with the Answer speaking of doubts concerning Math. 18. 17. Tell the Church In a 9 th Objection about that Scripture besides other particulers hee hath these words viz. There is no reason to appeale to a higher Iudicature because the inferiour may erre because all above a Congregation are Courts which may erre Presbyteries Provinciall Nationall the universall Councill of the Catholicke Church may erre And then for author of this part of the Objection hee subjoyneth my Name and Answer to Mr. Herle Cap. 2. pag. 13 14. Answ When hee is discoursing of doubts concerning that Scripture Math 18. Tell the Church I know no reason why hee should bring those words of mine at such a time or for such a purpose For though I doe acknowledge that I wrote the words which hee hath set downe or such like in the place by him alledged yet that they were brought by me for such purpose as hee doth report viz. For the cleering of Doubts concerning the meaning of Math. 18 17. that I doe utterly deny He that shall looke upon the Chapter and Pages alledged will find that I doe not there meddle at all
properly found in such Assemblies I meâ—ne in generall Councils unto whom as having no Power of Iurisdiction there must be no apâ—eales at all To conclude this Chapter When wee doe enquire about Power of appealing and unto what Courts appeales must be brought our way is not to seeke for such â—ourts as cannot Erre for such wee shall never find nor for such as we thinke will more seldome erre as Mr. Rutherford would have it for that Rule is also subject to much uncertainty and exception as hath beene already declared But the best way is to enquire where the Lord JESVS hath placed the Power of the last and finall censuring and determining of Causes and when that is found therewith to rest contented And as for Synods and Councils it is neither their not Erring nor their seldome erring that can bee a suffiâ—ient argument to place the Power of Iurisdiction in them unlesse the Lord Iesus had so appointed and ordained which yet doth not appeare And so much for this first place wherein our Brother deales against the Answer CHAP. II. Of the Power of Synods to give advice and Counsell and whether from thence it doth follow that they have no power to Command THe next place wherein I find this learned Author dealing with the Answer is in his Page 381. Where having in the Close of a 4 th Objection in the preceâ—ent Page brought in these words viz. A Synod in dogmaticall Power ariseth no higher then this viz. a man or a single Congregation as that a divine Institution doth fall upon it Amongst other things in his Answer to the Objection hee saith thus viz. I would know if a Synods dogmaticall Power be above the power of single Congregations I think saith he it is not by our Brethrens tenents for they say expressely that every particular Church hath right jus to decide Dogmaticall points This right the Church of Antioch had Act. 15 anâ— laboured to end that Controversie within her selfe which sheweth that they had Right anâ— Power but they had not Ability and therefore in that case they seeke for Counsell light and advise from other Churches And then amongst other places for Proofe that this is our Tenent hee alledgeth in his margent my Name and Mr. Tompsonâ— in the Answer to Mr. Herle Chap. 2. and after the words above rehearsed and some others to the like purpose hee inferreth thus Hence saith hee the power of Synods is onely by way of Counsell and advise Answ To omit at least for this time the other Places alledged in his margent and not to examine how farre his Answer reacheth to satisfie the Objection as himselfe hath propounded it I will onely consider of such things as doe directly Concerne the answer for that is the scope â—ayme at and I endeavour to keepe close thereto First therefore I have this to say That for the Dogmaticall power of Synods above Congregations for the Right and Power of the Church of Antioch in particular and for the Power of Synods to bee onely by way of Counsell and advise there is not in the Chapter alledged so much as one word about any one of those 〈◊〉 either one way or another so that I cannot but marvell why this reverend Brother should alledge that Chapter for such a purpose 2. Although in another place of the Answer viz. Page 4â— there be words to the like purpose with those which our Author here sets downe concerning Antioch yet for the Conclusion and consequence which hee would thence inferre viz. That the power of Synods is onely by way of Counsell and advice as there is nothing said â— the Chapter by him alledged that lookes that way so there is nothing in the Page or Chapter where Aâ—tioch is spoken of nor any where else in all thâ— Booke 〈◊〉 as I doe remember that can any way serve for the proving of such a Conclusion and tenent to bee ours The Author alledgeth no place that hath such a conclusion in it either in direct words or by just consequence and I professe that for my part I doe not know of any such 3. But this I doe know that the direct contrary to what here is expressed is plainly to be found in another place of the said answer viz. Pag. 7. where there are these words viz. If a Synod may bâ— called a Church and if Power by disputation and disquisition to cleare up the Rule and then to Command Obedience thereto may be called Government then they viz. the Independants as they are called doe admit a Synod to bee a governing Church for the Power here mâ—ntioned they doe allow unto Synods Now the Power here mentioned being as we see not onely a Power by disputation to cleare up the Rule but also a Power to Command obedience thereto they allowing this power unto Synods as they doe exprestly say that they doe I know not why our Brother should say that they allow unto Synods onely a Power of Counsell and advice For power to Command Obedience and power onely by way of Counsell and advice I suppose are not the same and if they be not I know not how this report in this particuler can bee made good To me it seemes apparent and undenyable that they who have Power to Command Obedience have more then only a Power to counsell and advise and they who have onely this latter have no Power of the â—ormeâ— at all Even interiours as Naamans servants 2 King 5. have power to counsell and advise their Master and yet I hope they had no Power to Command their Master to yeeld Obedience 4 Suppose it bee true which I deny not that the Answer in another place â—hough not in the place by him alledged doth say that Aâ—tioch had right to have ended the matter amongst themselves if ability had served thereto and that by reason of Distention and through want of Light they were forced to send out to â—â—rusalem for helpe must it needs follow thereupon that his assembly at Ierusalem had no more Power but onely by way of Counsell and advise which is the Conclusion which hee endeavours to draw â—â—om that which is said concerning Antioch I â—â—â—ceive there is no necessity at all of such a consequence For whence must the same 〈◊〉 I suppose from one of these two either from this that Antioch is supposed and said to have had Right within her selfe or else from this that Jerusalem gives Counsell and advise Any other colour for concluding such a Conseptionce as is in question the Answer affords none that I know of 〈◊〉 for these two Particulers here mentioned they are both insufficient for such 〈◊〉 purpose For what should hinder but there bee more Power in the Synod of â—erusalem towards them of Antioch then only by way of counsell and advise even power to command them to do what is their duty though Antioch have right to end the matter themselves if ability serves thereto Doth right in one Person or Assembly
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
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
answer is wholly taken up and spent in two other things the Objection which he proposeth as ours being wholly left untouched Those two things are these the one an answer to another passage of ours in another place of the answer the other an answer to the last part of his Objection which himselfe doth acknowledge to bee the saying of others and not ours and therefore hee brings it in thus viz. Others say because there was a representative worship c. by those words Others say plainly declaring that what he thus expresseth proceedeth not from us but from others And so though he returne answer to this saying of others and to another saying of ours which we have written elsewhore yet for this of ours which he proposeth in this hâ—s Objection I find no answer thereto at all And therefore I thinke the thing remaines as it was unlesse wee shall take his meere proposing of it for a satisfying answer which we see no reason to do Neverthelesse though he turnes away from this passage of ours without returning any answer thereto yet there is another which he applies himselfe more directly against and therefore to this sixteenth Objection hee begging his answer thus Surely the aforesaid Reverend Brethren of New-England have these words but it seemeth to us the power of a Synod is not properly a power and exercise of government and Iurisdiction but a power of Doctrine and so a Synod is rather a Teaching then a governing Church from whence saith he I inferre that our Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod but it is not so proper governing as Excommunication and Ordination performed in their Congregations but say I it is more properly governing as to make Lawes and rules of governing is a more Noble Eminâ—nt and higher act of governing as is evident in the King and his Parliament then the execution of â—hese Lawes and rules Answ So then thâ—se former words of ours proposed in the Objection are wholly forsaken and left and instead of answering them he fals as we set upon other words which we have written elsewhere and applies himselfe to deale against those other By which dealing the considerate Reader may judge whether the former words being thus handsomly forsaken and left do not still remaine in their strength and whether it had not been as good never to have proposed them at all in his Objection as having proposed them to turne away directly and immediately from them unto other matters without returning one word of answer to the former The wise in heart may consider what this doth import But sich he is pleased to acquit the former and to apply himselfe to the other let us therefore leave the former in its strength and unshaken and consider of what he saith in this other Wherein when he speakes of making Lawes and rules of governing either he meâ—nes this making Lawes and rules properly so called or else he meanes it onely of a Ministeriall power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Christ and in his name to comâ—and obedience thereto And it seemes by the instance which he gives of the King and his Parliament that he intends the former sence And if so then the answer is that this Noble Eminent and high act of governing as he cals it doth not belong to any Synods upon earth but only to the Lord Iesus Christ in Heaven the Scriptâ—res abundantly witnessing that he only is the Lord and Law giver to his Church Lâ—â— 4. 12. Isa 33. 22. For the cleering of which point much needs not to be said considering that this learned Brother himselfe doth elsewhere directly and in expresse termes coâ—fesse as much as we desire in this matter For in one place speaking in one place of a Power to prescribe rules and Lawes he doth not only distinguish them from Lawes pâ—operly so called by the word Directive calling them directive Lawes but also for further explaining his Mind annexeth these words They are not properly Lawes which the Church prescribeth Christ is the only Law-giver Due Right Page 395. And in the page following speaking of a Societies or a Synods power of making Lawes he addeth for explanation thus I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly so called but for Ministeriall directories having Ecclesiasticall Authority So then the Church or the Synod hath no power at all to make Lawes properly so called for Christ â—s the onely Law giver And if so then the governing power of Syâ—ods which our brother would prove by this Noble and Eminent and high power of making Lawes is not proved thereby at all in as much as this Noble and eminent power of making Lawes doth not belong to any Synods upon earth but to Christ only And this may be an Answer to what he saith or a Synods power to make Lawes it Lawes be taken in their proper sense But if he intend not this sense and meaning in the place we are speaking of but only the latter viz That Synods have power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Christ and to command obedience thereto then I confesse the answer in the 7 th page thereof doth acknowledge such power to belong unto Synods but how this can prove their Power of Iurisdiction and government properly so called which Mr. Rutherford would thence inferre we for our parts do not yet perceive For the power here described is but a meere Doctrinall power and we have given sundry instances in the Answer Pag. 43. 44. To shew that there may be a power by way of Doctrine to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Christ and to command obedience thereto where yet there is no power by way of Iurisdiction and Discipline to punish the breach of those rules which instance this Reverend brother doth not satisfie at all And therefore though Synods have power to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Christ and to command obedience thereto which power we deny them not yet that which he from thence would inferre that they have also a power of government and Iurisdiction doth not follow from thence at all unlesse we shall say that Doctrine and Discipline Doctrine and Iurisdiction or government are the same Briefly thus a power of makâ—ng Lawes properly so called is a Noble and Eminent kind of government but this power doth not belong unto Synods but to Christ A power of cleering up Christs Lawes and commanding in his name obedience thereunto doth belong unto Synods but this is no power of Iurisdiction and government but a Ministeriall power of Doctrine and so still our Tenent doth stand that a Synod if it may be called a Church is rather a teaching then a governing Church Secondly saith our Author Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church Answ We never yet absolutely yeelded that a Synod might be called a Church 〈◊〉 on the contrary Wee have said that unlesse it could be proved that in Scripture the name of a Church is given to a
though in an extraordinary case the case is ordinary as in the Dominion of Wales there is scarce a Congregation to be found within 20 or 30 miles 2. Suppose the case were extraordinary and rare may they violate the ordinary rules of Christ For so some may thinke and say that though according to ordinary rules Baptisme and the Lords Supper must be dispensed only by men and by Ministers yet in the want of these the one may be dispensed by a woman or mid-wife and both of them by such as are no Ministers And then hee subjoyneth his Answer Answ Our Authors scope and intention being to prove a Presbyteriall Church at Ierusalem I cannot apprehend a good reason why now he should fall upon the place of the Answer alledged in as much at the place makes not any mention of Ierusalem at all nor of any Presbyteriall Church there either one way or other But it seemes he was willing to go something out of his way that so he might have a saying to the Answer yet if it must needs be so I could have desired that the words of the Answer might have been kept without making alteration by leaving some things out and putting others in of his own accord and by mentioning others with another face then was ever intended by us For though he is pleased to mention a Church in an Iland and the first founded Congregation at Ierusalem in his Objection which heâ— brings in under Mr. Tompsons name and mine yet he that shall peruse the place will find that neither of these are once mentioned by us at all and why then they should be brought in as ours I do not know And for the former part of our Answer wherein we show that for a Christian Congregation to want neighbour Congregations to whom they may with conveniency have recourse and not so unusuall as some may imagine we do not only alledge for that end the Dominion of Wales as our Brother doth report but also the remoter parts of the North and specially the state of things in times and places of generall Persecution and generall prophanenesse and new Plantations in Heathen Countries all which our Brother doth omit as if wee had not mentioned any of them And whereas we mention the scarcity of Congregations in the remoter parts of Wales and of the North as intimated by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle in that learned and loving discourse of his whereto we doe apply our Answer Mr. Rutherford concealeth that we do mention this as the apprehension or intimation of another and instead thereof makes bold to set it downe under our name as if we had delivered it as our own All which alterations omissions and additions are such as wee for our parts would not willingly have made the like in any worke of his nor of any other man For let such liberty as this be taken in repeating what men do speake or write and misapprehension of their true â—ntent and meaning must needs be bred hereby in the minds of all those that shall read or heare such reports and beleeve the same Neverthelesse let us consider what our Brother doth returne in his Answer We thinke saith he a Ministery and Discipline more necessary to a Congregation in a remote Iland or to the Church of Ierusalem before they increase to such a number as cannot meet for their numerous multitude in one Congregation then the Sacraments when there be no Ministers to dispense them Answ Would not one thinke by thâ—se words and the other laid down in the Objection that we had spoken something of a Church in an Iland and of the Church in Jerusalem Else why should these be objected and answered as ours But th truth is we have not spoken one word either of the one or the other of these particulars which will plainly appeare to him that shall view the place Something wee have spoken in the generall of a Congregation that wants neighbours which we did being thereunto led by our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle but of a Church in an Iland and of the Church at Ierusalem in particular of which Mr. Rutherford heere speaks of these we have said nothing Second the former part of our answer that for a Congregation to want neighbours is not so unusuall as some may imagine this Mr. Rutherford wholly passeth over in silence only he propounds it in his Objection in such sort as we have heard and so leaves it whereby it seemes he yeelds the thing And thereupon it followes that intirenesse of Iurisdiction in a Congregation must be yeelded frequently lawfull it being frequently seene that Congregations want neighbours in which case their intirenesse of Iurisdiction is not denyed Third for the second part of our answer we thus expresse our selves therein viz. That we suppose it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in extraordinary cases to transgresse and violate ordinary rules whereof wee render the reason least some body doe thence inferre the lawfulnesse of ministring Sacraments by non-Ministers in case Ministers be wanting This is that which we have said in this matter If therefore Mr. Rutherford would take away what we have said herein he must say it is not good nor needfull to take such heed but men may yeeld it lawfull in such cases to transgresse and violate ordinary rules and never need to take heed how farre they yeeld therein This indeed were contradictory to what we have said and if this be once cleered for truth then I must confesse our saying is cleerely disproved But the cleering of this we hope our Brother will never attempt Sure yet he hath not done it and so our saying yet remaines as it was Fourth Whereas he saith he thinkes a Ministery and Discipline more necessary in the cases he speaks of then Sacraments and there be no Ministers though this be not directly opposite to what we have said yet because I would consider of every thing wherein he seemes to ayme at us therefore I am willing to consider of this also Our Reverend Brother thinkes Discipline in the cases mentioned more necessary then Sacraments and yet in his Page 287 288. handling that question whether Discipline be a marke of the visible Church and laying down sundry distinctions about the same hee gives us these severall Propositions in termes First care to exercise Discipline may be wanting in a true Church Second right Discipline is not necessary to the essence of a visible Church as a City may bee without Wals a Garden without a hedge Third the exercise of Discipline may be wanting and the Church a true visible Church Fourth the Church may retaine the essence and being of a visible Church and yet have no Discipline in actuall use or little in which place he cites and approves the judgement of Parker Cartwright and others who make Discipline necessary only to the wel-being of the Church as being not indifferent but commanded in the word and necessary in
necessity will warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church Which two sayings for ought I perceive do not agree For in the one it is affirmed that if they may exercise Discipline and censures they may by the like reason administer Sacraments and the other saith they may exercise Discipline and censures and yet may not administer Sacraments and yet both the sayings are expressed by the same Authors Pen. CHAP. XI Whether the power of Iurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none And whether otherwise neighbouring Churches bee not a losse And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power THe next place where I find Mr. Rutherford dealing with the Answer is in his Page 455. Where he brings in these words under Mr. Tompsons name and mine viz. If the power of Jurisdiction flow immediately and necessarily from the essence of a Church and a Congregation be essentially a Church then this power agreeth to all Churches whether consociated or not consociated and without respect of what neighbours they have whether many or few whether any or none Second a Congregation it selfe alone cannot have sole power of Iurisdiction and then be deprived of it when God sendeth neighbours for then neighbouring Churches which are given for help should be given for losse the contrary whereof Ames saith no. Doe Synods saith he Constitute a new forme of a Churâ—h Thus farre Mr. Rutherford who in his Margent alledgeth Mr. Tompson and me 16. Pag. 4 5. Answ In one of these Pages of the Answer viz. P. 5. there is nothing at all to be found that looks toward such a purpose as our Brother hath in hand and therefore this Page should not have been here alledged The words of Dr. Ames are more imperfectly cited by our Brother then they were alledged in the Answer For the Answer alledgeth them thus out of Medull Theol. Lib. 1. Chapter 3. Sect 27. That the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods doth neither constitute a new forme of a Church nor ought by any meanes to take away or impayer that liberty and power which Christ hath given to his Churches sith it serveth only for the directing and furthering of the same Wherâ—as our Brother expresseth only those first words that Synods do not constitute a new forme of a Church but all the rest wherein the chiefe strength of Dr. Ames his testimony doth lye them he doth wholly omit and leave out He also leaves out the assent which is given by Mr. Paget to this testimony of Dr. Ames which assent as it is expressed in his defence P. 107. in these words This we do willingly grant is also in the â—ame words alledged by the Answer in P. 4. But this is wholly passed over by Mr. Rutherford in silence Now two such men as these being alledged in the Answer as plainly affirming that the combination of Churches into Classes and Synods must neither tollere nor minuere take away not impaire or diminish the liberty or power of Churches but only serve for the directing and furthering of the same And the one of them being the chiefe Patron of the power of Classes and Synods It is some marvell to me that no word of Answer is vouchsafed to them by Mr. Rutherford but that their words are thus passed by with silence and the name of one of them not so much as mentioned How ever this is cleere that he that gainsayes the Answer in this passage hath not only the Answer but also the Reverend Author here mentioned to be against him But let us come to consider of Mr. Rutherford his Answer which he subjoyneth in these words viz. Power of Iurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Congregation in an Iland ergo a totall and compleat power of Iurisdiction floweth from the essence of a Church or Congregation consociated it followeth no wayes Answ I desire the reason may be laid down according to our true meaning therein and in its full strength and then the former part thereof must not only speak of power of Iurisdiction flowing from the essence of a Church that want neighbours but of entire power for thereof is the question and in the latter part the termes must no be a Church consociated but a Church that hath neighbours Now if entire power and Iurisdiction do flow from the essence of a Church and therefore this essence of a Church being found in a Congregation that wants neighbours this entirenesse of power muâ—t thereupon be granted to such a Congregation I then demand why the like entirenesse of power must not be granted as well to a Congregation that hath neighbours sith the essence of a Church is found in this Congregation as well as in the other For ought I see either the essence of a Church must be denyed to a Congregation that hath neighbours or else it will follow that entirenesse of power must be granted to such a Congregation Risibility and power of reason flowing immediately and necessarily from the essence of a man and power to defend it selfe and purge out excrements flowing in like sort from the essence of a humane body and power to governe it self with family government flowing in like sort from the essence of a family therefore we must not grant these powers to be entire in such a man such a body or such a family as is alone and deny the same to one that hath neighbours but must grant them alike unto all because this power flowes from their very essence which is as truly found in such as have neighbours as it is in those that are alone And the like may be said in other cases And why it should be otherwise in a Congregationall Church that the power of the Iurisdiction flowing from the essence of such a Church should therefore be entire in such a Congregation as is alone in an Iland and yet not entire in a Congregation that hath neighbours though this Congregation hath the essence of a Church as well as the other why these Congregations I say should thus greatly differ in their power and yet be alike in their essence from whence their power doth flow for my part I yet do not understand the reason Nor doth that satisfy which Mr. Rutherford here alledgeth That one Pastor in a Congregation hath as a Pastor power to rebuke sin and to administer the Sacraments and yet when three Pastors are added to help him he hath not the sole power of rebuking sin and the sole and entire power to administer the Sacraments but these three Pastors have power with him This I conceive doth not help the matter at all For though it be true that these three Pastors being added to the first have each of them the like power as the first had yet the power of the
heare matters proposed to them to consider thereof and upon liking to put them in execution as in other things so in this particular of making election of Officers as there they are Recorded to have done And as for the other place Act. 21. though it be a Question whether those many thousand Iewes that beleeved were all members of that one Church at Jerusalem yet it cannot be any question whether they might come together in one place sith Iames and the Elders do expresly there say unto Paul the multitude must needs come together for they will heare that thou art come Nor can we say they might come together onely distributively in sundry companies but not all in one place for the end of their comming together will not beare that exposition which end was that they might see and heare Paul and try what satisfaction he would give them in the matter whereof they were informed of him that he taught the Iewes to forsake Moses and to omit Circumcision and other Iewish customes These things they were informed to have been taught by him amongst the Gentiles and hearing that he was come to the City they must needs come together to heare what he would say to the matter and how hee would cleere himselfe Now if this was the end of their comming together it must needs be that their comming was altogether unto one place and not in severall companies for this could not answer their end inasmuch as Paul being but one person it was not possible they could see him nor heare him in sundry places at once and therefore they might as well have staid at home and not have come together at all as come together in such sort Plaine it is therefore that the multitude spoken of in these two Scripures were not so many but they might meete in one Congregation Which point as something hath been said in the Answer P. 34 35. For the cleering of it so I am the more confirmed in it by Mr. Rutherford his dealing concerning these Scriptures For though he make mention of them in this place as we see and of that apprehension of mine concerning those Scriptures yet he doth not at all remove the grounds which were given for that apprehension in the Answer but doth wholly passe them by in silence Now taking occasion to speak of the Scriptures and relating what my apprehension was concerning the same and yet saying nothing at all to the gronnds whereon that apprehension was built it seemes hereby to bee implyed that indeed he had nothing in readinesse to object against the same So that I may still conceive of those Scriptures as I did before for any thing yet brought to induce me to be of another mind As for that which next followes certainly the Apostles practice must be our rule and then 500 or 1000 being so farre beneath 10 or 8000 may well seeme a number for fewnesse not competent and what shall wee then thinke of 7 only or 10. Answ The answer is that the Apostles practise doth not at all condemn ours though our Congregations have not in them the like numbers but sometimes more and sometimes lesse for was it not so in that Primative Apostolike Church Is it not plain that that Church was for number farre lesser at the first then afterward when they grew to 4000 or more and yet after this they grew to be fewer againe when Persecution scattered them all abroad except the Apostles Act. 8. 1. And therefore if 10 or 8000 being once the number in that Church be a rule condemning out Churches as being for fewnesse not competent when they are beneath that number how will it be avoided but by the same reason the practise of that Church at one time shall be a rule for the condemning of it self at another time For sure it is their number was not at all times alike but sometimes more and sometimes lesse as in the Sea it is not alwayes full tyde but sometimes low ebbe nor is the Moone alwayes at full but sometimes at the Change Nay if the Apostles practise must be our rule then inasmuch as their Churches had not alwayes the like numbers of members in them but sometimes the number was greater and sometimes lesser it will follow therefore that the number of members in our Churches needs not alwayes to bee the same but though greater numbers be lawfull yet the lawfulnesse of lesser numbers may not be denyed CHAP. XIV Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church came together in some place c. Doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely PAge 464. I cannot but thinke that weake which Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompson say Answer Page 37. the place 1 Cor. 14. 23. That speaketh of the whole Church comming together to one place doth unavoidably prove that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of distribution into severall Congregations but altogether in one Congregation and it is plaine that though they had variety of teachers and Prophets yet they all used to come together to one place Answ If that which wee say be weake it is more easie for one of such ability and strength as Mr. Rutherford to overthrow the same Yet it is not words that will suffice but weight of reason that must availe thereto Let us heare therefore his Answer to this passage which he thinkes and censures to be so weake The place saith he 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together c. Deth evince the contrary For the Apostle doth there reason ab absurdo from a great incongruity it were incongruous saith he and ridiculous that the whole Church of Corinth and all their guifted men speaking with Tongues so that they could not be understood by Infidels should all Convene in one place and speake with divers Tongues For the unlearned and unbeleevers would say they were madde therefore hee presupposeth that the whole Church should not all come to one place but that they should so come to one place in divers Assemblies Answ And is it true indeed that this place doth evince the contrary viz. That the Church at Corinth did not all meet in one Congregation How shall we be assured that such a thing is evinced by the place For as for the reason given c. That the Apostle dâ—th there reason ab absurdo or from great incongruity this doth not prove the thing at all partly because they might practise something that were not meete but had incongruity in it and partly and more especially because the Apostle doth not lay the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it viz. In the convening of the whole Church in one place but in their speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened and come together Touching the former of these Mr. Rutherford reasoneth to this effect If it were an incongruous
or unâ—it thing that the whole Church at Corinth should come together in one place then they did not so come together but the first is true Ergo the second is true also In which kind of reasoning such is our weaknesse we thinke neither part of the argument to be free from just exception For as we wholly deny the Assumption so we also thinke there is no sufficient strength of consequence in the maine Proposition forasmuch as sundry things were practised in that Church which were no wayes fit not meet to be practised and which the Apostle doth therefore reprove and seekes the redresse of the same witnesse their Factions and divisions Chap. 1. 3. Their neglecting Church censures against the incestuous person and on the contrary being puffed up Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels Chap. 6. their abuses in Prayer and Prophesying their women uncovered and their men covered Chap. 11. their abuses in the Lords Supper when they so came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken Chap. 11. Now as it were an unsufficient kind of arguing to say these things were unfit and unmeet and therefore that Church did not so practise even so Mr. Rutherford his arguing seemes to be no better who would prove they did come together in one place because the Apostle as he thinks did count such comming together unmeet For if it were granted that such a comming had been unmeet yet it doth not follow but such might bee their practise notwithstanding and therefore as hee counts our apprehension in this matter to be weak so I leave it to himself and others to consider whether in this consequence It was not meet they should all come together in one place Ergo they did it not be very strong I desire here not to be mistaken for I do not grant that their comming together in one place was unmeet nor that the Apostle doth reprove them for the same I have already said the contrary in denying the Assumption afore mentioned which I do still deny But the thing I intend is to consider the strength of Mr. Rutherford his reasoning and for that cause to apply it to the thing in question which I still desire to keepe close unto if it may be Now the thing in question being this whether the Church at Corinth were so many at that they could nor meet together in one Assembly but had many Congregations and all but one Church and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative and bringing this reason for it taken from the Congruity of meeting all together I therefore thought meet to weigh the strength of this reason which I do not perceive to be in any wise convincing but supposing the Apostle had counted such meetings inconvenient and unmeet yet this reason as I conceive is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpose that their number was such as that they could not all possibly meet in one place for they might possibly do that which were unmeet to be done in this particular as well as they did in many other things But in this particular I do not thinke they did any thing absurd or unmeet at all and therefore for further answer to this reason I would say that the Apostle doth not say the absurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it to wit in that the whole Church did convene and come together but in speaking with strange Tongues when they were convened this latter being incongruous and absurd indeed for the Infidels comming into the Church Assembly and hearing them so speake might thinke them madde as the Apostle sayes but for assembling all in one place I know no madnesse that was in that nor shew thereof nor do I yet beleeve that the Apostle doth place the absurdity there For though Mr. Rutherford bee a worthy man and learned yet such a thing as this had need of some further proofe then his bare word If a Church should meet distributively in divers Assemblies and being so met should speake with strange Tongues I demand whether this manner of speaking do prove such a way of meeting absurd I suppose he will say no because it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apostolike Churches did use And if so then suppose they should so speake with strange Tongues when they meet collectively all in one Assembly how can this manner of speaking conclude the absurdity of such kind of meeting any more then it did in the other For my part though such kind of speaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it yet I conceive assembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby then assembling distributively in many Hee that is the Apostle presupposeth that the whole Church should come to one place in divers Assemblies and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face c. Answ If the Prophets were met in divers Assemblies at once I marvell how the unbeleever should be convinced and judged of them all for I hope one singular and individuall unbeleever was not present in divers Assemblies at once nor convinced and judged as here he is said to be by those Prophets from whose Assembly he was absent Eitheâ— therefore the Prophets were all met in one Assembly and not in divers or else it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all For sure the unbeleever could not be present in sundry Assemblies at once Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved that did ordinarily meet in one place the Text saith no such thing and that is to be proved and not taken as granted Answ Suppose it were true that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved this doth nothing prejudice our cause for as much as our Question is not about the whole much people that beleeved but about the whole Church If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place we have what we desire and require no more As for the whole much people that beleeved whether this be the same with the former or no wee shall have no need to prove or take for granted that these did in like manner come together for as much as our question in the termes of it is not about these but about the other But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved Shall we say the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved Or shall wee say it is not so much I conceive it must be one of these or else it must be the same If it be said it is more then still we have our desire if not more then we demand For if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved were neverthelesse not so great but they might and did assemble in one Congregation
and holden by the whole this reason we see is now removed and utterly taken away forasmuch as all power of jurisdiction is denyed to the generall Councell which is the inevitable Now if there be no power of jurisdiction within the generall Councell then there can be no appeals to such a Councell for such an end and if no appeales to that Councell then the rule doth not alwayes hold that there must be appeals from the lesser assemblies to the greater and if this do not alwayes hold then there may be independent power of jurisdiction in a Congregation without appeals from the same though it be a lesser assembly then the Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Presbyteries and thus our purpose is gained For how can it be avoided except this power of jurisdiction yea supream or independent power which is denyed to the generall Councell could be proved to be in the Classes Synods or nationall Presbyteries which we think cannot be done Indeed to say on the one side that 〈◊〉 is no independent power in the Congregation and to say on the other side that there is no power at all of jurisdiction in generall Councells this doth inevitably lay a necessity of such Independent power in these intermediat assemblies of the Classicall Provinciall and nationall Presbyteries except we shall say there is no such power at all appointed by Christ in any Church assemblies on earth Now if such independent power be given to the Presbyteries mentioned as it needs must if it be neither in the generall Councell nor in the single Congregations then I desire to know upon what scripture or scritures such power in the said Presbyteries is grounded and built and whether the said power belong unto them all or only unto some of them and which they be and why not to the rest as well yea why not to the single Congregation nor yet to the generall Councell as well as to any of them When this quaere is answered and the answer sufficiently proved by scripture then we shall see more reason for the jurisdiction of such assemblies over the particular Congregations then yet we have seen In the mean time this quaere with the rest I leave to our Brethrens consideration CHAP. XX. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in Monarchies whether it would not thence follow that the government of Churches must so end as well as that Congregations must depend on the government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a Communion in government to other societies And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews who chose the seven Deacons Act. 6. were two Congregations or one onely PAG 482. If Churches must be dependent on Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchy on earth for which he alledgeth the answ pag. 20. and then subjoyneth his answer thus I see this said without any approbation Churches depend on many above them for unity but what consquence in this Erg◠they depend upon one visible Monarch It is an unjust consequence Answ With favour of so worthy a man he greatly wrongs our words and thereby wrongs the reader by leaving out those words wherein the plainenesse and strength of our argumentation lyes Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progresse of the dispute in that script of ours and to set down our words there used because as Mr. Rutherford hath set them down the strength of consequence is suppressed from the Readers knowledge and so indeed his answer is made easie but the naked truth lyes thus Our reverend Brother to whose Treatise we return answer in that small piece of ours having said that communion and assistance in government is taught by the very light of nature to all societies whatsoever whether Commonwealths or Armies Universities or Navies he presently addeth by way of prevention Not that therefore this government of Churches should as those end in a Monarchy upon earth In answer whereto besides other things we have these words pag. 21. If Churches must be dependent on the government of Synods because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever then we see not how it will be avoided but by the same reason Churches must end in a Monarchie on earth if it were once cleared that the light of nature doth teach all societies whatever so to end so there is as good reason for this as for the other Which last words if it were once proved c. Mr. Rutherford wholy leaves out and suppresseth and so makes his own answer more easie But I desire so much favour which I think is but reasonable that he that will undertake to answer our writing would represent our words and arguing as it is and no otherwise and then I am content that the same may come under tryall Now our arguing is this If Churches must be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this reason because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government to all societies whatsoever then by the like reason let it be once proved which is by Mr. Herle affirmed that the light of nature teacheth all societies to end in a Monarchy and it will thereupon follow that Churches must likewise end in the same manner If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other societies the same must be observed in the government of Churches I think it will then follow that if the light of nature teach other societies to end in a Monarchy on earth the government of Churches must do so also This is our manner of arguing in which the consequence is the same with that which our Brethren think so strong viz. that because the light of nature teacheth a communion and assistance in government therefore there must be in the Churches a government of Synods If any say the consequence is not alike necessary in both cases because the ground doth not hold alike in both for the light of nature doth not teach all societies on earth to end in a Monarchie as it doth teach a communion and assistance in government The answer in that we have plainly said the same in the place of the Answerer alledgeth viz. p. 20 21. But the main question lyes not there whether other societies do end in Monarchies for though the reverend author whom we there doe answer do seem so to judge yet we have there plainly declared that we conceive of that matter otherwise but here doth lye the main question viz. Suppose it were granted that light of nature doth teach all societies to end in a Monarchy on earth whether would it not then follow that Churches must also so end And that this is the thing in question wil plainly appear to any that shall peruse the place And to this question our answer is that the consequence for
alledged do abundantly and plainly prove the point in hand And therefore Mr. Rutherford should bear with us if we somtimes argue from examples of the Old Testament As for that which followeth where he saith But our brethren hold that the calling of the Levites and of the Pastors of the New Testament are different as the officers and Churches of the Jewish and Christian Churches are different the answer is that I do not remember that we have spoken one word of this matter either one way or other nor doth he mention any place where we have spoken ought of these things And for the thing it selfe though many differences may be assigned between the Levites and Pastors of the New Testament and between the Jewish and Christian Churches yet I know no such difference between them but that in things which are of generall and common nature concerning them both in those we may lawfully argue from them and their times unto our selves and our times If Mr. Rutherford know we have given any such difference as will not suffer us thus to argue when he shall expresse the same we may consider further thereof Our brethren grant pag. 49. that it wanteth all example in the New Testament that the people lay on hands Answ And we have also in the same pag. 49. rendred the reason hereof viz. because Elders then were not wanting Why then did not our brothers ingenuity so farre prevaile with him as to mention this when he mentioned the other however yet this he may be pleased to observe that as we grant the thing he speaks of so themselves I think must grant also that it wanteth all example in the New Testament where ordinary Elders do Impose hands on ordinary Elders for my part I remember none nor do I remember that themselves have yet produced any These who laid on hands on the Levites Numb 8. were Elders and our brethren say it is like they were but 1. They did not as Elders 2. But as representing the people not as Elders Civill for that belonged to Aaron and his Sonnes Levit. 8. else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands there the Church may doe it Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiasticall Elders because what these which laid on hands did they did as from the Congregation For 1. these Levites were taken in stead of the first born of Israel and not instead of the first born of the Elders only Numb 3. 40 41. 2 They were presented to the Lord as an offering of the Children of Israel not of the Elders onely 3. When the multitude brought an oblation the Elders put their hands on the heads of the sacrifice Levit. 4. 15. instead of all the multitude Answ In relating this passage our meaning is exceedingly mistaken and both our meaning and our words represented farre amisse unto the reader the particulars which in this respect may be excepted against are such as these 1. That reporting us to say it is like they who laid on hands were Elders he there breaks off the speech and so suppresseth that which follows wherein we first of all do give an explication in what respect they might be said to be Elders viz. as being the chiefe and principall members of the Congregation and next of all we do adde that neverthelesse therein example doth prove the point if two things be considered which there we do expresse But both these particulars I mean both the explication and the addition or exception are wholly suppressed by Mr. Rutherford and so the concession It is like they were Elders is left standing alone by it selfe 2. He reports us to say they did it not as Elders civill for that belonged to Aaron and his Sons wherein he fathers on us a palpable errour of accounting Aaron and his sonnes to be Elders civill or magistrates which never came into our thoughts nay it was so farre from us that we plainly said the contrary in that very place to wit that they were Elders Ecclesiasticall Our words are these If they that is the children of Israel did it as Elders then either as Elders and governours ecclesiasticall or as civill governours but not the first for that charge belonged to Aaron and his sonnes Levit. 8. and these Levites now ordained In which words we plainly ascribe to Aaron and his sonnes the charge of Elders and Governours Ecclesiasticall but not of civill governours as Mr. Rutherford is pleased to report 3. In these words Else it will follow that where a Church hath no magistrates to lay on hands there the Church may do it our words are so miserably mangled that no tolerable sence can appeare for here is expressed an inference or consequence that must follow and yet no ground or antecedent at all from which it should follow which is to represent us to the world as men that were loesi cerebro For men that were in their right wits I conceive would scarcely ever argue in this fashion as here we are reported to do But our words are these If the second be said viz. that the children of Israel did lay on hands as civill governours then it will follow that civill magistrates though no Church-officers may Impose hands in Ordination of Church-officers and so the point is gained viz. that Church-officers may be ordained by those that are no Church-officers which we do further manifest in the following words in this manner If the magistrate may doe it then it will follow that a Church that hath no magistrate may perform this action by other the fittest instrumentâ— she hath For which we there give this ground for that this is not a work properly tyed to the magistrates office because then the Church in the Apostles times wanting magistrates could not have had officers the contrary whereof we say is manifest in the Scriptures Act. 14. 13. Tit. 1. 5. This is our manner of arguing in the place alledged which is farre different from that which Mr. Rutherford reporteth as ours 4. Whereas he reports us to say Nor did they lay on hands as Ecclesiasticall Elders because what these which lay on hands did they did as from the Congregation in this he also reports us to speak quite besides our plain meaning and expresse words For whereas he so sets down this sentence as that the latter clause or branch therein is made the reason of the former the truth is this that these clauses in the answer have no dependance the one upon the other at all but the former hath another reason given for it which here is not mentioned and the latter which is here mentioned as the reason of the former is not so mentioned by us but for another end and purpose Touching the former of these two when we said that the children of Israel did not impose hands on the Levites as ecclesiasticall Elders the reason we give for this saying is this because that charge was onely belonging to Aaron
and his sonnes and those Levites now ordained which reason Mr. Rutherford never mentions but mentions another speech as our reason which was delivered by us for another purpose The like measure doth he afford to us in the second branch of the sentence by him expressed For whereas we give two reasons of the main thing in question that this example of the children of Israel imposing hands on the Levites doth prove that in some cases non-officers may impose hands upon Church officers the one because what these children of Israel did they did it not as Elders the other that what they did they did it not for themselves alone but for all the Congregation Mr. Rutherford applies not these two reasons to the thing in question as they were applyed by us but instead thereof makes one of them to be a reason of the other which was no part of our meaning nor could justly be gathered from our words This being said for clearing this passage of ours from his manifold mistakes let us now heare his answer Pag. 49â— These who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders because the Elders were a part of the first borne who by office were Elders and in whose stead the Levites were assumed Numb 3. 40 41. Answ If the Elders were but a part of the first born then how could all the first born be Elders by office or if all the first born were by office Elders then how could the Elders be but a part of the first born These things seem not to be here But be it so that the Elders were a part of the first born as here is affirmed how doth this prove that they who laid on hands did it as a work peculiar to the Elders Is there any necessary or clear consequence in such a proposition For my part I see it not but on the contrary I suppose it is certaine that the Elders might be part or all of the first born and yet they who did the work of imposing hands might neither impose as Elders nor of necessity be Elders Though in the sense expressed in the answer I will not deny but there might be Elders that is chiefe and principall members of the Congregation But if this were granted in the sense expressed must it needs follow that they imposed hands as Elders and as Elders by office too Can a man sustain no relation but all his actions must be actions of that relation Cannot a man be an husband or a parent c. but his actions of plowing sowing c. must needs be performed by him as he is a husband or parent Cannot a minister pray in his family instruct his children or receive the bread and wine in the Lords supper in the Congregation but all these things must be performed by him as a Minister I suppose that none will say that this doth follow and if not then suppose that these who imposed hands were Elders how doth it follow that when they imposed hands they did impose as Elders Else the Church of Israel being a constituted Church before this time wanted officers which is against all truth Answ Else else what let the antecedent or ground of this inference be taken from the words preceding or from any of them and whence else to take it I cannot tell and no necessity of consequence I think will appear The words preceding are no more but these These who laid on hands did it as a worke peculiar to the Elders because the Elders were a part of the first born who by office were Elders and in whose steed the Levites were assumed and then comes in this inference else the Church of Israel wanted officers Now how this must needs follow upon any or all of those preceding I see not Not that I deny the truth of all those preceding words for of some of them I think otherwise but supposing that were all true which is more then doth yet appeare yet here is that which I am doubtfull in whether this inference must needs follow upon the same For ought I see the Church of Israel might have officers and yet the particulars here mentioned not be all true but some of them false notwithstanding At least wise if they were true yet the reason here used would not inferre so much For to consider a little of the particulars The Church of Israel had officers ergo the Elders were a part of the first born which is one of the particulars The Church of Israel had officers ergo the first born were Elders by office which is another The Church of Israel had officers Ergo the Levites were assumed instead of the first born which is another of them is there any necessity of consequence in any of these For my part I see it not but suppose they were in themselves true yet the medium here used doth not proove them so to be And for that which is the first and as I conceive the cheif to wit that these who imposed hands did it as a work peculiar to Elders must this needs be granted if it be granted that the Church of Israel was not without officers I see no necessity of granting this neither but the contrary to me seems possible enough that thee might be officers afore this time in that Church and yet what was now done by them who imposed hands not be done by them as Elders by office but as prime and principall members of the Congregation For the clearing whereof a little further we may observe that they who imposed hands on the Levites are not here called Elders nor rulers nor officers nor first born nor any such like but the term whereby they are expressed is this the children of Israel The children of Israel saith the Lord shall put their hands upon the Levites Numb 8. 10. Now this term being used in the 9. verse imediately preceding and in the 11. vers imediately following yet in neither of both can it be meant of Elders and officers alone but in both verses is undoubtedly meant of all the body of the Congregation and therefore if the context and circumstances of the place be regarded these children of Israel who imposed hands on the Levites v. 10. cannot in that act be considered under the notâ—on of officers Sure it is when the verse before tells us that the whole assembly of the children of Israel must be gathered together and the verse following tells us that Aaron must offer the Levites for an offering of the children of Israel in neither of these can the children of Israel be understand of the officers alone but the whole Congregation is meant hereby in both verses reason therefore requires that this tenth verse standing in the midst between the other two the word children of Israel being used therein should be taken in the same sense in this verse in which it is taken in the verse before and in the verse that comes after Nay and further he that shall
peruse this chapter Numb 8. may easily finde that this word the children of Israel is used therein no lesse then fifteen or sixteen severall times and sometimes foure or five times in one verse and yet of all these I think here is not so much as one where it can be understood of the Elders and Officers as such but is used to signifie all the Congregation And therefore to give such a singular interpretation of this word in v. 10. so far different from the sense of the same word in all the rest of the verses both before and after and those being not only one or two but so very many this kind of practise and interpretation had need to be builded upon very plain and pregnant very cleare and cogent reason and demonstration or else our brethren may excuse us if we be not over hasty and forward to receive it Again the ninth and eleventh verses tell us plainly that these Levites were to be offered to the Lord for an offering not of the Elders alone but of the children of Israel even of all the assembly of the children of Israel and other scriptures tell us as plainly that all offerings were to be presented with the imposition of his hands whose the offering was Levit. 1. 3 4 and 4. 24 29 33. whereby it seems evident that these children of Israel who imposed hands on these Levites at this time when they were offered for an offering were the whole Congregation or some in your name and stead sith these Levites were an offering of the whole Congregation Wee grant the magistrates laid not on hands but they who laid on hands did it as Ecclesiasticall Elders Reconcile this with that pag. 188 l. 1. where t is said the Princes and heads of tribes laid hands on them now what were these Princes and heads of tribes but magistrates and if they were Princes and Magistrates how could they be considered in this act as Ecclesiasticall Elders The reasons against this conclude not The first reason concludeth not Ans Here again our meaning is presented amisse to the reader for those three reasons of ours were given by us to prove another point and not this to which Mr. Rutherford applyes therein as is plainly to be seen in answer pag. 46 47. where the reader may perceive that those reasons were brought to shew that when the children of Israel imposed hands if these children of Israel were not all the Congregation yet what they performed herein was for the Congregation and not for themselves onely And if those reasons prove this as I hope they doe it is no great disparagement to them not us if they prove not another point for which they were never intended But let us hear the answer The first reason concludeth not because those who laid on hands were the first born who by office were Church-men Answ How shall we be sure that those who laid on hands were the first born though I deny it not yet a bare affirmation proves not Again suppose what here is affirmed were also sufficiently confirmed how is the point in question proved hereby for say they were the first born they might notwithstanding do what they did for all the people and not for themselves above The other two reasons proves nothing Answ Let them be applyed to the thing whereto they were intended and applyed by us and then let the reader judge The position was that those who imposed hands on the Levites did it for the Congregation or in their stead The first of the two reasons is that the Levites were the Congregations offerings and all offerings were to be presented with the imposition of his hands whose the offering was The other is this that it was an usuall thing when the Congregation were to present an offering that the Elders should impose hands on the Congregations offering in the Congregations stead Levit. 4. vers 14 15. Now let the Prophets judge whether these reasons prove what they were brought to prove to wit that they who imposed hands on the Levites did it for or in stead of the Congregation or whether it be as our reverend brother affirms that these two reasons proves nothing yet let us hear why they prove nothing Because these who laid on hands did lay on hands as representing the whole Congregation Alas it doth no wayes conclude that they laid not on hands as it is a worke peculiar to them 〈◊〉 Elders Ans If it doe not yet if our reasons do conclude that they did it instead of the Congregation we have our intent But to follow Mr. Rutherford a little in digressing from the point why do not our reasons conclude this other The High-priest offered sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the peoples Heb. 7. v. 27. and so did represent the people but I hope it followeth not that therefore the Priest did not sacrifice as a Priest and by virtue of a peculiar office but only as a principall member of the Congregation Answ Mr. Rutherford himself gives us a distinction which may be sufficient for answer to this passage A representer saith he standeth for another either objectively or subjectively The former of these is he that doth a busines for another or in rem ejus for his behalf and good as the eye seeth and the eare heareth for the whole body and thus objectively the Presbytery doth represent the people that is for your good and salvation of the people The other representing another subjectively is when the representer hath its power from that which it representeth as he who carrieth the room and person of a King as an Ambassadour but thus saith he the Presbytery or Eldership doth not represent the People Due right of Presbyt p. 316 317. Now as the Presbytery represents the people so may it be said of the Priest viz. that he represented the people only objectively for their good but not subjectively in their room and stead and therefore the cases are not alike for we think that what was done by those who imposed hands Numb 8. was not only done for the good of the children of Israel but also in their room and stead which he will not say of the Priest sacrificing for the people having already said the contrary of the Presbytery Pag. 493. You will say in a Church in an Iland one may be a Pastor without any ordination if the people elect him and there be no Elders to ordain I answer it is true Answ If this be true then what becomnes of that which was said in the precedent page That though imposition of hands be not so essentiall as that a Minister can be no Minister without it yet for Ordination it is otherwise this being the authoritative calling of a Minister and the other but a rite annexed to the calling In which place he counts ordination so essentiall as that a Minister can be no Minister without it and yet in the very next page confesseth