Reply to Rutherford, Table of contents
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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly, 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly. 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 onelyonly. page. 137.
Chap. 16. Whether the Church at Antioch was onelyonly 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 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 ch…ſe the ſeven Deacons Acts. 6. were two Congregations, or one onelyonly. 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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.