then that much people that beleeved might so assemble much more For if there be no impossibility but a company that is greater may so assemble I suppose the same cannot bee denyed of a company that is lesser Againe to say this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved is directly to gainsay himselfe who in Page 460 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word Sacraments and Church censures because such a Congregation he saith could not conveniently exceed one thousand whereas the much people must bee much in comparison of thousands of Jewes who rejected Christ for that otherwise it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort for which end it is mentioned and brought If it be said the whole Church be lesse then the people that beleeved then it followes that some of those beleevers were not of the Church and so what himselfe hath written Page 125. 242. 251. will not stand For in Page 125 hee saith That the Seale of Baptisme and the profession of the truth is that which makes one member of the visible Church and by this are all the Citizens and domesticks in-Churched and received into a visible Church And Page 242. He saith any who blamelessely professe Christ is Ecclesiastically in foro Ecclesiae a true and valid member of the Church visible having Ecclesiasticall power valid for that effect and Page 251. he saith a visible profession of the truth and Doctrine of golinesse is that which essentially constituteth a visible Church and every member of the visible Church Now if these things be so then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church inasmuch as they were all partakers of Baptisme and profession which he saith do essentially constitute the visible Church and every member thereof And they were all members of the Church then the Church was not a lesser company then they Nor can hee say it was a greater company for the reasons mentioned before And if it was neither a greater company nor a lesser was it not then the same And if it was the same then how can this stand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand where hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved It seemes to me that which way soever he shall take his own pen will be witnesse against himselfe for in the place wee have in hand hee saith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved and in another place hee tels us that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word Sacraments c. And yet in a third place hee tels us that in effect it was not greater inasmuch as all Baptized professing beleevers hee saith are of the Church Further when the Text speakes of the whole Church comming together in some place let the wise judge whether it be a good Exposition to say by the whole is not meant the whole but only a part Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place but part in one place and part in another the whole being distributed into severall parts and those parts into severall places So that the whole Church comming together into some place must have this meaning the whole came not together in any place but part in one place and part in another which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text which should be handled with reverence But he brings a reason for this Exposition and that is this Because else we must say that at any one Assembly all the Prophets and teachers did Prophesy at Corinth for the Text saith he is convinced of all he is judged of all whereas the consequence should bee absurd it should bee a longsome and wearisome meeting Page 465. Answ And if they Prophesyed not all in one Assemâ—ly but divers how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all It will not bee easie to conceive how it could be they Prophesying in such a way for the unbeleever sure could not be present in sundry Assemblyes at once but in one onely And therefore those words he is convinced of all he is judged of all will lay as much absurdity upon his Exposition of the words as upon ours or rather a great deale more For as for ours there is no absurdity therein at all for asmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Prophesied at the time when the unbeleever was present and not that all must Prophesy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it But the Text doth not so say nor any Interpreter that I have met withall Sure I am Beza saith the expresse contrary for upon verse 31. Ye may all Prophesy one by one c. He hath this note Non eodem sane die sed ternis c. That is indeed not all upon one day which is Mr. Rutherfords Exposition but three at every moeing having their turne to speak till all had spoken by course Interpreters say they met in divers Assemblies Page 465. Answ Let those Interpreters be named and there words set down and then by Gods help we shall consider of what they say and of the grounds and reasons thereof in the meane time to say that interpreters say it and yet neither to tell us the reasons nor the words of those Interpreters nor so much as the names of any of them how should this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehensions in the point True it is in another place c. Pag 461. Speaking of verse 31. Yea may all Prophesy one by one hee there tels us that Diodatus understands it that they might Prophecy by course and in divers or sundry Assemblies And Essius saith he saith the same to wit that these Prophets were to Prophesy in divers Assemblies Answ For Diodatus I have him not at hand and therefore I cannot peruse the place But for Estius this I may say that he neither saith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verse alledged nor upon any verse else in all the Chapter as farre as I can observe and I have read and perused him on purpose to see what were to be found in him But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for yet I find sundry places wherein he seemes to me to affirme the contrary for instance Commenting upon the verse alledged hee hath these words as the sence which he most preferres viz. Quod si non unus tantum Propheta sed plures c. That is If not only one Prophet but sundry yea all do speake in the Assembly in order it will come to passe that those all may also learne and receive exhortation there being never a one of them who is not also a hearer Wherein we see he speaks not
punishing theeves and such other malefactors only for this reason because to their knowledge other Corporations are troubled with the like lewd persons I suppose it is easie to see the insufficiency and invalidity of such Consequences And therefore if Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with the like offenders as themselves were troubled withall this needs not to hinder but they may determine questions that arise amongst themselves and may censure such of their members as shall trouble the Church or Brethren therewith and obstinately persist in so doing This being considered withall that in thus doing they do not go beyond their line nor meddle with matters any farther but as they are within their Compasse For when divers Churches are troubled with the like corruptions in Doctrine or practise and some one of those Churches by using the Key of Doctrine or discipline or both doth endeavour the removall of these corruptions they do not hereby attempt and endeavour to remove them out of other Churches which might be an appearance of stretching their line beyond their compasse but out of their own Church and only so farre as concernes themselves and in so doing no man can justly say they meddle further then their Power doth reach But he gives another reason why Antioch had not right to determine the question And this is taken from the strong party that was in Antioch against the truth which was such as that they opposed Paul and Barnabas concerning which he saith that when the greatest part of a Church as Antioch is against the truth as is cleere Act. 15. 2. He beleeveth in that they loose their jus their right to determine eatenus in so farre for Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for truth and therefore in this Appeales must be necessary Answ How is it cleere that the greatst part of the Church at Antioch was against the truth The text doth not say so much but only this that certain men which came from Iudea taught the Brethren and said except ye be Circumcised ye cannot be saved and that Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them about the matter and that in the issue they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certaine others should go up to Ierusalem about the question Thus much the Scripture witnesseth Act. 15. 1 2. But whether they that held that corrupt Doctrine at Antioch were the major or the minor part of the Church the text doth not expresse except we shall say that where a false Doctrine is taught by some and greatly opposed and disputed against by others there it must needs bee that the greatest part are tainted with that false Doctrine which wee thinke is no good Consequence And therefore whereas our Author saith the greatest part of this Church was against the Truth and that so much is cleere from verse 2. I answer first that I do not perceive this cleerenesse neither from verse 2 nor from any other place of the Chapter Nextly suppose this were cleere this may argue that they wanted ability and light to end the matter but must it needs argue that they wanted right though they had been able Or shall we say that they who want ability to doe things as they should be done do therefore want right to â—â—alâ— in them at all I conceive it will not follow and the reason is because this right in Churches is Naturall or Connaturall to every Church and this want of ability is only accidentall and therefore this latter cannot totally hinder the former That light of government is Naturall or connaturall to every Church our Brother own words do testifie Page 341. Where he saith this viz. Supposing that Christ have a visible Church it is morall that she have power of government also in so farre as she is a Church yea power of government upon this supposition is Naturall or rather connaturall And in Page 307 he saith as was alledged before That the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive Is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall or in a Nationall yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head And in Page 383. He saith That to a Congregation Christ hath given by an immediate flux from himselfe a politicall Church power intrinsciâ—ally in it derived from none but immediately from Iesus Christ And the like he saith of a Presbyteriall Church Now whether Antioch was a Congregationall Church as we hold or a Presbyteriall as is holden by this our Brother yet it is cleere by those words of his here alledged that being essentially a Church it had a politicall Church power intrinscically within it selfe yet a perfect and compleat power of Iurisdiction yea and such a power as was naturall or connaturall unto her as she was a Church But now the light of knowledge whereby they should be enabled well to use this power did not adde any power unto them which they had not before not did the want of it being but accidentall deprive them of that Power which was intrinscicall essentiall and connaturall unto them as they were a Church of Christ Onely this want did hinder their ability to expresse their power well but their right as being a thing Connaturall did still remaine Our Brother hath a saying or two about the civill Power which by proportion may well illustrate this that I am speaking oâ—â—bo it the Church-power In one place he saith thus There is a two-fold power in a King one in a King as a King and this is a like in all and ordinary regall coactive whether the King be an Heathen a Turke or a sound believing Christian there is another power in a King as such a King either as a Propheticall King as David and Solomon or as a Christian believing King And of this latter he saith that it is not a new regall power but potestas execuliba a power or gracious ability to execute the Kingly Power which he had before as a King Page 387. c. 388. â—ow why may it not be said in like sort there is in a Church two-fold Power one in a Church as it is a Church and this is a like in all true Churches of Christ whether the Church in this or that particular question have light to discerne and hold the truth or otherwise another in a Church as it is sound believing Church holding the truth in such or such question and this is but only a gracious ability to exercise the power which they had before not adding to them any new Power at all Againe in his Page 393. he hath these words Though the King were not a Christian Magistrate yet hath he a Kingly power to command men as Christians and it is by accident that he cannot in that state command Christian duties and service to Christ because he will not and cannot command those dutyes remaining ignorant of Christ
have taken things upon my report upon trust and partly that my candid and faire dealing with the Author whom I have to doe withall might the better appeare For when a mans words are not kept but forsaken and others substituted in their place his minde and meaning may soone be mistaken and represented amisse unto the Reader Which is a practise that I have often seene but never approved and therefore I have not used it For I would be loth to wrong any man specially a man of such worth as I take Master Rutherfurd to be by imputing to him what he doth not teach nor deliver and for this cause it is that I have usually transcribed and expressed his owne words and by this meanes my booke is growne to the greater bulk One thing more I would advertise the Reader of and then I shall quickly have done the figures from 185 and so forward noting the number of the Pages in Master Rutherfurd his Treatise are set downe twice therein once in their proper place and againe after the page 484. Wherefore if any of these pages be quoted in this Reply as some of them are if the thing that is alleaged be not found in the page that is named looke for it in the other place of the booke where are the same figures and there you may finde it Courteous Reader study the truth in a way of Piety and peace Be zealous for it but lose not love to the Saints beware when the world is filled with disputes about discipline that thou be not drawne onely to erroneous opinions in maine matters of doctrine Be sure to practise and expresse the power of Godlinesse in humility of minde mortification of thy own corruption faith in the Lord Jesus and love to all his redeemed and be not by any meanes drawne away from these things which doe so mainly conduce to thy salvation Finally as the Holy Ghost saith Phil. 4. 8 9. whatsoever things are true whatsoever things are honest whatsoever things are just whatsoever things are lovely pure and of good report if there be any vertue if there be any praise thinke on these things and doe them and the God of peace shall be with thee Improve I pray such interest as thou hast in God through the mediator by affording the help of thy Prayers for me who am Truly desirous of thy Salvation R. M. Decemb. 10. 1646. A Table of the Contents of the ensuing Treatise Chap. 1. OF Appeales from particular Congregations and the true cause of Appeales and whether by Mr Rutherford his doctrine in this point there must not be appeales to Generall Counsells whose power of Iurisdiction he doth not yet deny page 2. Chap. 2. Of the power of Synods to give advite and Counsell and whether from thence it doth follow that they have no power to command page 11. Chap. 3. Of the Assembly Acts. 15. whether they did exercise any power of Iurisdiction against the obtruders of Circumcision and whether their rebuking of them does argue the Affirmative page 15. Chap. 4. Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods And of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongst themselves if ability serve thereto page 21. Chap. 5. Againe of that Assembly Acts. 15. whether their rebuking the false teachers do prove a power of Iurisdiction and excommunication in Synods and whether preaching do prove the Assembly where it is to be a Church page 24. Chap. 6. Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iurisdiction and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Ierusalem page 30. Chap. 7. Whether the lawfulnesse or necessity of Appeales doe prove a superiority of Iurisdiction in Synods over Congregations and of sundry sayings of our Author which seeme to interfere page 39. Chap. 8. Whether Antioch Acts. 15. had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had bin able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth do prove the contrary And of Supremacy of power in Congregations page 49. Chap. 9. Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall do make the Gospel more defective then the Law of Excommunication by a Church that hath onely three Elders and of doing things suddenly page 66. Chap. 10. Whether the necessity of discipline be greater then of Sacraments and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exercise entirenesse of Iurisdiction as well as one that hath none and whether a man may take on him the whole Minestry having no outward calling thereto and may not as well take on him one act of baptising or ministring the Lords Supper page 75. Chap. 11. Whether the power of Iurisdiction flowing immediately from the essence of a Church doe not agree to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that hath none and whether otherwise neighbouring Churches be not a losse And whether pretence of male-administration be a sufficient reason for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power page 93 Chap. 12. Whether it be against the light of nature that the adverse party be Iudge and whether Mr Rutherford can safely say that none of them do so teach and whether this saying that parties may not be Iudges do make against entirenesse of power in a Congregation any more then in a Generall or Nationall Councell page 104. Chap. 13. Whether the Churches at Thessalonica and Jerusalem were each of them more then one Congregation and of Mr. Baynes his judgement therein Of the Assembly mentioned Luke 12. and whether our Saviour did there speake to his Disciples onely or to all the people also page 112. Chap. 14. Whether the Church at Corinth was one Church meeting distributively in sundry Congregations or whether it was onely one Congregation And whether 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together in some place c. doe make for sundry Congregations or for one onely page 123. Chap. 15. Whether the Church at Ephesus were more in number then Corinth and Jerusalem and the judgement of Mr Baynes whether that Church was many Congregations or one onely page 137. Chap. 16. Whether the Church at Antioch was onely one Congregation and whether Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the affirmative page 140. Chap. 17. Whether or no liberties are given by Christ to the people but women must exercise the same as well as men And of the peoples liberty about ordination or the calling of Ministers page 146. Chap. 18. Of Mr Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in New-England page 151. Chap. 19. Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power of Iurisdiction in generall Councels denied by Mr. Rutherford whether therein be doe not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the Iurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies page 153. Chap. 20. If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all
Congregation or the Congregation will be partiall and unjust or when the businesse is difficâ—ll and intricate then we may appeale from the Congregation else we may not These things I say doe not cleere the matter at all because still the question remaines who must be judge of these things whether the party appealing or the Congregation from whom or the Synod to whom the appeale is made and unlesse this be determined the things mentioned alledged by our Brother do afford us small help in the matter for the cleering of it And therefore what we said in the Answer doth still for ought I see remaine sound viz. That there must be some finall and supreame judgement that controversies may not by appeales after appeales be spun out in infinitum and to determine where that supremacie doth lye is the maine question which unlesse it be determined the usefulnesse of appeales may be granted and yet we shall be still at uncertainty about the thing in question and as much to seeke as before because that there ought to be appeales till you come to the highest is one thing and that a Synod and nâ—t the Congregation is the highest is another Now whether our Brother in that which we have hitherto heard have sufficiently cleered it unto us that we may know where this supremacie doth lye I leave it to the Iudicious to consider CHAP. VIII Whether Antioch Act. 15. Had right to have ended the controversie amongst themselves if they had been able and whether their sending to Jerusalem for helpe or their knowledge that other Churches were troubled with the like evill or the party among themselves who were against the truth doe prove the contrary And of supremacy of power in Congregations BVt though our Author doe not cleere it to us where the supremacie doth lye yet in this pag 423 and 424. He useth an argument from the practise of the Church of Antioch Act. 15. And our own Doctrine concerning the same to prove that it doth not lye in the Congregation which argument we are willing to consider His words are those That supremacie of power should bee in a Congregation without any power of appealing I thinke our Brethren cannot teach For when the Church of Antioch cannot judge a matter concerning the necessity of keeping Moses Law they by Natures direction Act. 15. 2. Decree to send Paul and Barnabas and others to Jerusalem to the Apostles and Elders as to an higher Judicature that there truth may be determined and then he addeth that Mr. Tompson and my selfe do teach that the Church of Antioch had jus power to judge and determine the controversie but because of the difficulty had not light to judge thereof alledging for this in the Margent the answer Chap. 4. Page 42. Ergo saith he they must acknowledge Appeales by Natures light warrantable as well as wee Answ That appeales are warrantable and warrantable by Natures light till we come to the supreame judicatorie this we deny not but have formerly yeelded no lesse But for that our Brother here aymes at viz. Appeales from a Congregationall Church as not being supreame to another Iudicatory this we conceive is not proved by the example of the Church of Antioch nor by any thing that we have written concerning the same And the reason it because Antioch had right and Authority to have ended the matter amongst themselves if ability had served thereto and their sending to Ierusalem for helpe may argue want of agreement or imperfection of light but argues no want of Authority or right within themselves For it is plain verse 2 that Antioch did endeavour to have ended the matter amongst themselves and had much disputation about it for that end afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem Now this endeavour doth argue their right for otherwise it had been sinfull as being a presuming to do that which did not belong to them This reason we have rendered afore in the place which our Author alledgeth and he doth not at all remove it and therefore we are still of the same mind as before that Antioch was not dependant upon the Iurisdiction of other Churches but had independant power within themselves as many may have who yet need the help of light from others for their direction in using their power Great Kings and Monarchs have received light from their Councellours without any impeacâ—ment of their independant power which they have in themselves and without any ascribing of that power to those their Counsellours As we said in the place alledged Antioch may send to Ierusalem for help and yet this sending neither prove right of Iurisdiction in them who are sent unto nor want of Iurisdiction in them who do send And therefore whereas our Brother saith Antioch because of the difficulty of the controversie had not light to judge thereof Ergo we must acknowledge Appeales to be warrantable We would rather argue thus Antioch wanted light Ergo Counsell and light is to be sought elsewhere and thus we conceive the inference will hold but to say Ergo there must be Appeales from the Congregation to others in matter of Iurisdiction this we conceive will not follow at all No more then it will follow Kings or other supreame civill Rulers must seek light and direction from their Counsellours Ergo there lyes an appeale from them to those Counsellours which Consequence none will maintain nor affirme If the Scriptures had said that Antioch did never attempt to â—nd that controversie as knowing that the ending thereof belonged not to them but to others or if it had said that the censuring of these obtruders of Circumcision had been performed by them of Jerusalem and not by them of Antioch as not belonging to Antioch but to them of Jerusalem then our Brother might have had some ground from Antioch to prove the necessity or warrantablenesse of appeales from Congregationall Churches to other Iudicatories but such no such thing is said we see not how this example can be any ground for the establishing of such appeales or the taking away from Congregationall Churches their power of Iurisdiction within themselves Especially wee see not how this our Brother can alledge the same for such a purpose considering what himselfe hath written elsewhere in this learned Treatise of his wherein he examines that answer of ours Two passages in his treatise I propound to consideration which seeme to me to make for that independant or supreame power in Congregations which here he is disputing against the one is that which we touched before in his Page 413. Where he saith that Synods in case of neglect of Presbyteriall Churches are to command the particular Churches whom it concerneth to do their dutie as in other particulars there named so in excommunication of offenders and further that the Synod Act. 15. Is to remit the censure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ierusalem in case of the obstinaâ—ie of these obtruders of Circumcision Which I
conceive is very truly spoken and thereupon it followes that there was a supremacie of Iurisdiction in that Church of Antioch and no necessity of appealing from them to the Iurisdiction of others For â—ith the Synods are only to command the Churches to do their duty and to remit the censure of offenders to the Churches themselves to whom the offenders belong it plainly appeareth thereby where the supremacie of Iurisdiction doth lye The other place is in his Page 307. Where we have these words viz. The power of Jurisdiction ordinary intensive and quo ad essentiam Ecclesiae Ministerialis according to the intire essence of a Ministeriall Church is as perfect and compleat in one single Congregation as in a Provinciall as in a Nationall Yea as in the Catholike visible body whereof Christ is the head Now if there be such perfect compleat power of Iurisdiction in a single Congregation I know not how there can be such necessity of Appeales from them to the Iurisdiction of others as he is pleading for nor how that supreame and independant power in Congregations can be denyed which here he disputeth against For let this compleat and perfect Power of Iurisdiction be acknowledged as due to such Churches and appeales from them to other Iurisdictions will be of small necessity or use I know indeed this Reverend Author sayeth in the Page last mentioned and within a few lines of the words which I have here alledged That a Congregation is so a part of the Presbytery that it hath not a whole intire compleat intensive power over its own members to Excommunicate them And therefore the consociated Churches must have a power over the members of a Congregation Which words I confesse seeme not well to agree with the former because in the one intire compleat intensive Power is denyed to a Congregation and in the other the Power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive is said to be as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as in the great Churches But it is not the latter words but the former which I do stand upon and by them as I conceive the supremacie of Congregations is established and the necessity of appeales from them to other Iurisdictions is cleerely takes away For if the Power of Iurisdiction be as intire perfect and compleat in the Congregation as in the greater Churches as our Brother expresly affirmes it to be I know not the reason why there must be appeales from the Iurisdiction of the Congregation unto the Iurisdiction of those other Churches If the Power spoken of were more imperfect and incompleat in the Congregation then it is in the other Churches then there might be more reason or â—ayrer pretence for those appeales but sith our Author confesseth it is no more intire compleat and perfect in these then in the Congregation but as compleat and perfect in the Congregation as it is in the other I am yet to seeke of a sufficient ground for the necessity of appeales from the Iurisdiction in a Congregation For is it reasonable to appeale from one Iudicatory to another and yet the power of Iurisdiction be as intire compleat and perfect in the former from which the appeale is made as in the latter to which the cause is brought by such appeale It seemes by such appeales we are not like to be much helper nor much to mend the matter above what it was before and therefore the usefulnesse and necessity thereof is still unclâ—â—â—â— I thinke the Brethren erre in this to teach that Antioch had power to determine the controversie Act. 15. When the Churches of Syria and Cicilia to their knowledge were troubled with the like question as verse 24. may cleere I doubt much if they had power to determine a question that so much concerned all the Churches Answ It is not cleere from verse 24. nor from any part of the Chapter as farre as I can find that Antioch did know that other Churches were troubled with this question and if they had known it I see nothing therein but they might notwithstanding lawfully end the matter so farre as concerned themselves For when this question was started amongst them by such as came from Judea and taught this corrupt Doctrine at Antioch the text is very cleere verse 2 that they had much disputation amongst themselves to have ended the matter afore there was any speech of sending to Ierusalem which disputation is an argument that they had right to have ended it if ability had noâ— been wanting And as for our Brothers reason for the contrary taken from their knowledge that the other Churches of Syria and Cicilia were troubled with the like question there is not one word in the verse alledged to shew that Antioch had knowledge of any such matter nor is Syria and Cicilia once mentioned therein And though they be mentioned verse 23. Yet neither doth this verse declare that Antioch had any knowledge that this question had ever troubled those other Churches Say it be true that indeed they had been troubled therewith and that the Epistle from the Synod doth intimate no lesse this may prove that when the Epistle came to be read at Antioch then Antioch by this meanes might come to the knowledge thereof but all this doth not prove that Antioch knew so much afore And therefore they might endeavour to end the matter amongst themselves as not knowing for any thing our Author hath yet brought to the contrary that any other Churches besides themselves were troubled therewith But suppose they had known so much I see nothing in this to hinder but Antioch might lawfully cleere up the truth in the question and censure such of their Church as should obstinately hold and teach that false Doctrine notwithstanding their knowledge that others had been troubled with the like Doctrine and teachers Suppose a Christian family be troubled with lying Children or servants or such as are disobedient and undutifull in one kind or in another suppose they also knew that their neighbour families are troubled with the like shall this knowledge of theirs hinder the Parents or Masters in such a family from censuring or correcting these that are under their government according to their demerits If not why shall Antioch be hindered from censuring offending members of their Church only upon this ground because to their knowledge other Churches are troubled with the like offenders A City or Corporation is troubled with Drunkards with theeves or other vicious and lewd persons and knoweth that other Cities or Corporations are troubled with the like A Nationall Church as Scotland for example is troubled with obtruders of Ceremonies Service booke Episcopacie or other corruptions and knoweth that England or other Churches are troubled with the like shall Scotland now be hindered from removing these corruptions and the obtruders of them from amongst themselves only upon this ground because England to their knowledge is troubled with the like Or shall the Corporation â—ee hindered from
even as a King ignorant of necessary civill dutyes cannot command them not because he wanteth Kingly power to command these civill things for undeniably he is a Iudge in civill things but because he hath not knowledge of them And may we not say in like sort though a Church want the knowledge of the truth in some particular question yet they have a Church power to determine such questions to command obedience therein and it is by accident they cannot in that state determine rightly because they will not being ignorant of the truth therein not because they want Church-power to determine such matters but because they have not the knowledge of them Againe a little after in the same P. he tels us That Christianity addeth no new fatherly power to a Father over his Children nor giveth a new husband right to the husband once an Heathen over his wife for an heathen Father is as essentially a Father over his Children as a Christian Father and an heathen husband an heathen master c. are all as essentially Husband Masters c. as are the Christian husbands masters c. And may we not as well say soundnesse of knowledge in such or such a particular question addeth no new Church power to a Christian Church over their own members nor giveth a new Church right over them which they had not before for a Church that wanteth such knowledge is as essentially a Church invested with Church power over her members as is another Church For ought I perceive the cases are alike and if soundnesse of knowledge do not give to a Church their Church-right in this or that question how can want of that knowledge deprive them of that right Sure one would thinke the whole substance of Christianity might do as much for the adding of Kingly right Fatherly right Husband right c. As soundnesse of knowledge in some one particular question for the adding of Church right that the want of all Christianity should be as available for taking away the Kingly right the Fatherly right c. As the want of knowledge in one particular point for the taking away of Church-right and sith we have our Brothers own testimony cleer and full for the one it seems to me the cases are so parallel and proportionable that the other is unavoidable I meane thus sith in the one case the whole substance of Christianity doth not give power nor the want thereof take away the same by our Brothers own teaching I know not how in the other case soundnesse of knowledge in one particular question should give power or right want of such knowledge take away the same And so for Antioch in particular if it were as our Brother supposeth that the greater part of them did hold against the truth in that question about Circumcision I see not how this could deprive them of their Church right which they had before As for our Brothers reason that Christ hath given no Ecclesiasticall right and power to determine against the truth but onely for the truth This saying I confesse is very true but doth not suffice for the purpose for which hee brings it viz. To prove that Antioch being ignorant of the truth in that question about Circumcision or holding against the truth therein did thereby lose their Church right to determine For if this reason be good then a man may conclude against that power in heathen Kings Parents and Husbands to governe their Subjects children and Wives which our Brother as we heard afore hath granted and taught For suppose that Antioch were ignorant of the truth in that particular is it not cleere that the Kings Parents and Husbands mentioned are ignorant of the truth in many more matters And it Antioch do hereupon loose their right because Christ hath given no power to determine against the truth but for the truth how will it be avoided but by the same reason â—he Kings and the others mentioned must likewise lose their right to governe their own subjects and families For the Lord gives no right I hope to Pagans against the truth no more then he doth unto Churches And therfore if the reason be valid and strong in the one case and for the purpose for which our Brother brings it it seemes to be as strong in the other case also which shall be contrary to what our Brother himselfe doth teach In a word Churches and Antioch in particular have right to determine questions and they ought to determine only according to the truth They have formally a right to determine and when their determinations are according to truth then they will â—ind Vi matâ—â—iâ— which else they will not They have right to determine in fore Humano and if their determinations be for matter agreeable to truth they will be ratifyed in foro Divâ—â—o but not else Now our Brothers arguing doth seeme to confound these two and because of the latter which is freely granted he would conclude against the former which we thinke is not good reasoning but on the contrary do still thinke that though Churches ought to give out no determinations but such as are agreeable to truth and that otherwise their determinations in respect of the matter of them will not bind before God yet for all this they may have right formally and in Foro humano to judge and to determine of such things Moreover if this were granted for true that Antioch when they are against the truth do lose their right to determine Controversies yet we are not hereby much neerer to an issue unlesse it be determined withall who must be judge whether they be against the truth or no and the reason is because if they be not against the truth but for it then I hope it will be granted that they doo not lose their right at all The question therefore still remaines who hath this Ministeriall Power to Iudge whether this or that Church Antioch or any other be against the truth or for it and unlesse this be cleered we are but where we were before But to draw towards an end of this passage about the Church of Antioch whether they had right to determine Controversies when ability failed or whether they did when lose that right I will here transcribe a few words of our Brother as I find them in his second 331. Page Wherein he either cleerely yeeldeth the cause and saith the same that we do or I am much mistaken The words are these There is a difference between ability to judge and right or power to judge A presbyteriall Church and he disputeth in six Pages together to prove Antioch such a one Page 470. 471. c. sequ may have right jus and Ecclesiasticâ—ll law to judge of a point to the judging whereof they want ability therefore de facto it belongeth to an higher Synod where more learned men are though de jure the Presbytery may judge it These words I wish to be well considered For
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
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
Iudge and party too in the cause there can be no Ceremony or Type in this Next of all I alledge the words of the same Reverend Author in his Page 10 Which is also alledged in the forementioned place of the Answer Where the words are these What if a Brother offend not a particular Brother but the whole Congregation What if ten Brethren offend the whole or part Shall we thinke the offence fals not within our Saviours remed or complaint or Appeale here That the offended party be not against all equity the sole and finall Judge of the offence In which places wee see it is plaine yet this Reverend Author counts it against the very light of Nature that the adverse party should bee Iudge and party too in the cause and that it is against all equity that the party offended should bee sole and finall Iudge of the offence And therefore it is marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should say that none of them do so teach Yea it is the more marvellous inasmuch as both these places of Mr. Herle are expresly mentioned in that very page of the Answer which here Mr. Rutherford is disputing against And therefore it he had not remembred that himselfe had read the same in Mr Herle as like enough he had yet finding the same alledged by us in that Scripture of ouâ—s it is marvell hee would not turne to the places alledged to search and see whether the thing were so or no afore he had denyed the same Whereas on the contrary whether he searched or searched not this we see that he roundly affirmes that none of them do so teach to which saying I know not how to assent our eyes having so plainly seene and read the direct contrary Yea and further it is yet more marvellous that Mr. Rutherford should thus write considering not only what hath been already said but also what himselfe hath written elsewhere I will mention a few of his own sayings and then himselfe shall be â—udge whether the thing we have now in hand was by him adviseâ—ly and well spoken In his Peâ—ceable Plea Page 218 he hath these words When the Graecian Church offendeth the Hebrew Church the Hebrew Church cannot complaine to the Graecian Church for the Law forbiddeth the party to bee Judge And what Law hee meanes may be perceived by his words in Page 208. of the same Treatise where he saith If one man be wronged and see truth suffer by partiality the Law of Nature will warrant him to appeale to an Assembly where there is more light and greater Authority as the weaker may fly to the stronger Now let himselfe be judge whether in these testimonies compared he do not teach that it is against the Law of Nature that parties should be Iudgeâ— and that therefore men may appeale from them Againe those words Page 27 of the same Book are so plaine as that nothing can be more These words saith he what soever yee bind on earth c. Must be meant only of the Apostles and of the Church verse 18. Yea and it must exclude Peter and his offending Brother suppose they were both beleevers because parties by the Law of Nature and Nations cannot be Iudges Lasâ—ly those words are expresse in his Due Right of Presbytery in his see â—nd P. 338 339. Where hee writes thus If according to the Law of Nature and Nations no man can be Iudge in his own cause then are appeales from the Eldership of one Congregation when they are a party to the caused person Naturall but the former is reason Nature Law of Nations Ergo so is the latter In the Assumption of which Sylogisme he plainly affirmes that it is reason Nature and the Law of Nations that no man may be judge in his own cause and by all this I suppose tâ— is manifest that the thing which he saith none of them do teach is expresly and plainly taught by some of them and among others even by himselfe who therefore ought not to have denyed the same nor can bee cleered from much forgetfulnesse in so doing And if so great an oversight be found in him I hope himself may thereby be intreated to be tender of agravating matters against us or others at leastwise not so farre to agravate them as to impute unto us matters which we do not hold for a mans owne infirmities should make him more equitable and favourable towards others And Christian Readers may be warned hereby not hastily to receive all that Mr. Rutherford hath written afore they have duly examined and tryed the same whether the things bee so or not for wee see through forgetfulnesse or otherwise hee may greatly mistake himselfe and misse of the truth and give forth such sayings and expressions for truth as are in no sort to be maintained but recalled though neverthelesse he is otherwise a man of great worth and so ever to be acknowledged We teach that it is not Congruous to the wisdome of Christ nor to the light of Nature that Christ should have appointed all the ordinary Church Courts so many thousand Congregations who may rather crie then extraordinary and higher Synods to bee the onely ordinary Iudges in their own cause Answ These qualifications and limitations of the matter of parties being Iudges are such as to my remembrance I never heard given afore now Now indeed it is said 1. That all Congregations being so many thousand 2. May not be the only ordinary Iudges in their own cause but it would bee against the wisdome of Christ and light of Nature if it should so be Yet formerly it was delivered absolutely and simply that it is against the light of Nature for parties to be Iudges without any such modifications and qualifications as now Mr. Rutherf gives to help the matter withall Neverthelesse by qualifying the thing in this sort it seemes thereby to bee still granted that though so many thousand Congregations may not ordinarily be Iudge in their own cause but the light of Nature will be against it yet for some Congregations and at some times the thing may be allowed well enough else why is the thing denyed only to so many Congregations and ordinarily if it be not thereby implyed that some Congregations and at some times may thus practise Now hereupon the question groweth whether some at some times may bee allowed to do contrary to the light of Nature though all may not or whether the light of Nature bee changed when there comes to be many Congregations and be not the same that it was before when there was no more Congregations but one whether I say some new light of Nature do arise with the rise of new Congregations so that when they are many it would be against this light for them thus to bee Iudges though it was not so when there was but one or whether we must say the light of Nature remaining in the same one Congregation remaining alone may be allowed to do contrary thereto but
of Nice the first generall Councell of Constantinople with other Councels and Authors witnessing the same pag. 201 202. And in a third place he grants that all matters in the Church must be done with the peoples consent consentiente plebe alledging a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the same tenet Peaceable Plea p. 49. and in another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr. Calderwood and Mr. Cartwright affirming that this liberty is purchased by the blood of Christ Due Right Secondly pag. 464. All which do plainly shew that in his judgement the people have some 〈◊〉 or priviledge or right in Church matters yea as himself saith in this they have divinum jus Gods right And yet for all this the Apostles words do plainly forbid women to speak in the Church 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. which very prohibition to women doth also secretly imply that men may have liberty to practise though women may not Now then if the people have liberty priviledge right to consent and act in Church matters yea to speak in the Church and yet women may not speak therein how can this stand which here M. Rutherford writes That if the people have any liberty this liberty must also be due to women If the Apostles words and our Brothers own doctrine in the places cited do stand his saying in the place we have now in hand cannot stand they being so contrary one to another Thirdly saith he What priviledge the people have in Ordination to conferre a ministery which they neither have formally nor virtually I know not Answ Neither formally nor virtually then hear your own words pag. 7. I deny not but there is a power virtuall not formall in the Church of beleevers to supply the want of ordination of Pastors hic nunc this power is virtuall not formall c. Whereas in the place we have in hand the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed which things are not free from Interferring or strong appearance thereof Our words are not just the same which M. Rutherford sets downe a priviledge in ordination to conferre a Ministery but these are our words a liberty exercised about ordination c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exercised about ordination or any other Ordinance by way of consent thereto or desire thereof c. without any authoritative acting therein And if this liberty about ordination be such a fault then how shall he be justified who doth give to the people a greater matter then this liberty doth amount unto even a power to do that which shall stand for ordination it selfe which to do I conceive is more then to exercise some liberty about ordination And when the reader shall have considered these ensuing words of M Rutherford then let him be judge whether M. Rutherford do not give this power unto the people in some cases As a rose saith he caused to grow in winter by art is of that same nature with a rose produced in summer by nature though the manner of production be different so are they both true Pastors those who have no call but the peoples election and those who have ordination by Pastors p. 186. And in the page following he gives two reasons to prove that in some cases election by the people onely may stand for ordination 1. Because God is not necessarily tyed to succession of Pastors 2. Because where men are gifted for the work of the Ministery and there be no Pastors to be had the giving of the Holy Ghost is a signe of a calling of God who is not wanting to his own gracious intention though ordinary means faile Now if the people without Pastors may do that which shall stand for ordination and if their election do make a Minister in some cases this seems to be more then onely to exercise some liberty about ordination for as much as they may doe this latter and possibly no Minister be made thereby whereas in the other case a man is made a true Pastor and Minister as well as by ordination it selfe Marvell it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawfull and not the lesser that some liberty about ordination may not be allowed and yet that can be allowed which may stand for ordination it self and which makes a Ministerâ— as truly as ordination doth CHAP. XVIII Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propositions in new-England NExt after this our reverend Author falls to scanning as he saith pag. 476. some Synodicall propositions of the Churches of New England as he calls them together with a Table of Church power which he calls the Table of New England But with favour of soworthy a man he doth greatly mistake the matter for neither was there any such Synod nor Synodicall propositions as he speaks of nor any such Table of New England as hee mentioneth There was indeed at Cambridge in the year 1643. a printed conference of some of the Elders of that Country where sundry points of Church judgement were privatly discoursed of and this was all But as the meeting was not any Synod as Synods are usually understood so neither were there any Synodicall propositions there agreed upon nor any table of propositions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of New England This I am able to testifie having been present at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end and sundry others of the Elders of these Churches can testifie the same upon the same ground And knowing full well the truth of what I heare relate I will not spend time in replying to what he hath written upon so manifest misinformation and mistake What information he goeth upon I know not per adventure some notes may have come to his view which one or other might gather at that conference for his own private use Peradventure some in their simplicity meaning no hurt many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Synoâ— and M. Rutherford might thereupon adventure to publish in print as here we see But however they mistake a Rose sure I am Synodicall propositions there were none 〈◊〉 any Synod at all not New England Table And therefore I think himselfe and others may do well and wisely hereafter to be informed by good and sufficient intelligence of such things as they publish to the world concerâ—ing the Churches in New England or else not to beleeve the same much lesse to divulge the same in print For what comfort can it be to any Christian to receive and publish to the world against a mans neighbâ—uâ— specially against whole Churches of Christ such reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth CHAP. XIX Of the Appeales of Luther and Cranmer and of the power and jurisdiction in generall Councells denyed by Mr. Rutherford whether therein he do not contradict himselfe and also overthrow the jurisdiction of Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies IN
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