Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 9
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 T…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 Oec…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 remote… 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 Pa… nam…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 report… 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 reaſon which doth ſhew that the Iewes and they are very unlike, the Iewes having a ſupreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of Cruſes, and they having none, were to ſhew our ſelves very irrationall or worſe: end why our Brother ſhould put ſuch a thing upon us, we being no wayes guilty thereof, we do not know. But we deſire that our reaſon may be applyed to our own concluſion, to which we did and do apply it, and not to this other expreſſed by our Brother, which indeed is none of ours, and then we are content that rationall and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there be any ſufficient weight therein. Which that they may more readily do, I have here recollected the ſame into this ſhort ſumme, that they may briefly behold it with one view, viz If the Iewes had a ſupreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of cauſes, and the Congregationall way hath the like: If the Iewes had a ſtanding Iudicatory alwayes in readineſſe for the hearing of cauſes, and the Congregationall way hath the like: and if the ſupreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very farre remote from many of them, and in the Congregationall way be more convenient and neere at hand, then the Congregationall way is in ſome things equall to the Iewes and in other things more excellent.
But the firſt is true in all the particulars, and therefore the ſecond is true alſo. Againe, If the Iewes had a ſupreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of cauſes, and the way of our Brethren hath not: If the Iewes had a ſtanding Iudicatory alwayes in readineſſe for the hearing of cauſes and the way of our Brethren hath not: and if the ſupreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very remote from many of them, and Synods among our Brethren are the ſame, then the way of our Brethren is in ſome things as defective as the Iewes, and in other things more defective then theirs.
But the firſt is true in all the particulars of it, and therefore the ſecond is true alſo.
Both the Aſſumptions in all the branches thereof, I conceive are cleerely proved in the Anſwer in the Pages which our Brother doth alledge, and whether the Conſequence be good let the wiſe judge.
Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine ſhape, let us now conſider of Mr. Rutherfords anſwer thereto.
Firſt, ſaith he, The ſpeedineſſe of ending controverſies in a Congregation is badly compriſed with the ſuddainneſſe and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the deciſion of three Elders, without ſo much as asking adviſe of any Claſſes of Elders, and with deciding queſtions deepe and grave which concerneth many Churches, which is a putting of a private ſickle in a common and publicke harveſt.
Anſw. If adviſe from other Churches may be had, we never ſpake word for doing weighty matters without the ſame, but in ſuch caſes it is both our practiſe and adviſe to make uſe thereof, And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity or raſhneſſe toucheth not us whoſe opinion and practiſe is other wiſe.
As for ſuddainneſſe, I conceive if the ſame be ſometimes accompanyed with temerity and raſhneſſe, and ſo worthy to be blamed, yet not alwayes: for in the Reformation of the Houſe of God in the dayes of Hezekiah, it is ſaid, that the thing was done ſuddainly. 2 Chron. 29. 36. Where ſuddainneſſe doth not ſignifie any ſinfull temerity or r…ſhneſle. But contrarily doth teſtifie Gods great goodneſle that had ſo prepared the people to ſo good a worke: for this cauſe this ſuddainneſſe was to Hezekiah, and Gods people an occaſion and ground of great joy and gladneſſe, which temerity could not have been. And therefore ſuddainneſſe and temerity muſt not alwayes be confounded and coupled together, as if they were the ſame.
Though haſty delivering of men to Satan without due conſideration be not good, yet overlong delay of due proceeding againſt Delinquents is bad alſo, for the Holy Ghoſt tels us becauſe ſentence againſt an evill worke is not executed ſpeedily, therefore the heart of the ſons of men is fully ſet to do evill, Eccl. 8. 11. For which cauſe execute judgement in the morning, that is to ſay ſpeedily is ſometimes expreſly required, Jer. 21. 12. Which being ſpoken of juſtice to be executed by civill Authority doth hold by proportion and like reaſon in Eccleſiaſticall cenſures, for as much as ſpeedineſle is a duty, and delayes are daangerous in the one caſe as well as in the other.
Whereas our Author thinkes much that Excommunication ſhould proceed upon the deciſion of three Elders, as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more Elders then the three, if God provide them fit men and the numerouſneſſe of the Congregation ſo require, in which caſe our Author ſaith nothing to the contrary, but they may have power to Excommunicate, ſo if they have but three, we know nothing in this, but they may have power to Excommunicate notwithſtanding, ſince himſelfe teacheth, Due Right. Page 61. That the Iewes had their Congregationall Churches as we have, and had their meeting in their Synagogues, not only for Doctrine, but alſo for Diſcipline and Excommunication; Which if it be ſo, it ſeemes there might be Excommunication by as ſmall a number as three, unleſſe it could appeare that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in it were a greater number then is here mentioned, which is more then I do remember to be expreſſed in Scripture. Yea and further he tels us, That the inferiour Iudicatures in Iſrael had power of life and death, Page 315. Now the Iudges in theſe inferiour Iudicatures though they muſt never be under that number of three, yet they did not alwayes exceed the ſame, for ought that doth appeare. And if three Iudges had power of life and death, why may not a Congregation with three Elders have power of Excommunication? Moreover, in his Page 454. He gives us theſe words for a Propoſition, That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the eſſence of Church to exerciſe Juriſdiction over all its own members; to which thoſe words do alſo agree, Page 287. viz. The power and right to Diſcipline is a propriety eſſentiall to a Church and is not removed from it till God remove the Candleſticke, and the Church ceaſe to be a viſible Church: And in Page 302. Hee affords us theſe words for an Aſſumption, that a Congregation is a Church, wanting nothing of the being and eſſence of a Church: And hence the concluſion is obvious, that a Congregation may exerciſe Iuriſdiction over all it own members: and in as much as a Congregation in which are but three Elders, is a Congregation, it followeth that a Congregation in which are but three Elders may exerciſe ſuch Iuriſdiction. This concluſion our Author cannot deny in as much as it neceſſarily and directly followeth from Premiſes which are both his own. Yea in his Page 302. H… ſaith, That this is a principle of Church policie, that every politicke body of Chriſt hath power of Church government within it ſelfe. Either therefore a Congregation with only three Elders is no politicke body of Chriſt, or elſe it muſt have power of Church government within it ſelfe. Beſides, if the power of Iuriſdiction ordinary intenſive be according to the entire eſſence of a Miniſteriall Church be as compleat and perfect in one ſingle Congregation, as in a Provinciall, Nationall, or Catholike Church as our Author ſaith it is P. 307. It is then a marvell why ſuch a Congregation having onelyonly three Elders, may not have power to Excommunicate. Laſtly, his words are expreſſe, Page 338. Where there are not many Churches conſociated, then Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one ſingle Congregation. If therefore a Congregation have not above three Elders, yet being not conſociated with other Churches, it may lawfully Excommunicate, by his own grant.
For deciding queſtions that concerne many Churches, if they decide them no further but onelyonly as they concerne themſelves, this is no putting a private ſickle in a common and publike Harveſt, but a medling with matters onelyonly ſo farre as they doe concerne themſelves.
Secondly, he ſaith, All appeales without warrant from Chriſts will we condemne, as the abuſe of Appeales to a Court which is known ſhall never be, Page 425.
Anſw. If appeales without warrant from Chriſt will be condemned, why are wee not told what appeales they are, that have the warrant of Chriſts will, and what Appeales have not? For ſuch a generall word a… this, of the warrant of Chriſts will, without ſome further and more particular explication doth leave the matter as darke as it was before. If the meaning be, that only ſuch Appeales are unwarrantable as are made to a Court which is known ſhall never be, and that all others are warrantable, then it will follow that appeales to generall Councels and all other Courts, except only from a generall Councell are warrantable, for who doth certainely know that a generall Councell will never be? And ſo by this meanes the Claſſes, … Synod, and the Nationall Church are all deprived of ſupremacie, and independencie of Iuriſdiction as well as the Congregacion.
Thirdly, he ſaith, Antiochs appeale to a Synod 200 miles diſtant as our Brethren ſay, was no Judaizing but that which Paul and the Apoſtles were guilty of as well as we.
Anſw. Whether Antioch and Jeruſalem were 200 miles diſtant or no as we have never affirmed ſo much, ſo I will not ſtand now to inquire. But this I ſtand upon, that no Scripture doth witneſſe that Antioch did appeale to Jeruſalem in the point of Iuriſdiction, about which our queſtion doth lye, if they did appeale to them for a Doctrinall deciſion or determination of the queſtion, that nothing hindereth our cauſe who do not deny ſuch a Doctrinall power in Synods. But their power of Iuriſdiction is the thing that ſhould be proved. Laſtly, if this example of Antioch doe prove that there may bee and ought to bee appeales from Congregations to Synods, though thoſe Synods be 200 miles diſtant, then that which wee ſaid in the Anſwer is here confeſſed to be true: viz. That according to our Brethrens Iudgement the ſtate of the Church in point of Diſcipline is as defective and burdenſome in the time of the Goſpell, as it was in the dayes of the old Teſtament. For as then the ſupreame Iudicatory at Jeruſalem was many miles diſtant from ſuch as dwelt in the furtheſt parts of the Holy Land, and ſpecially from the Proſelites that dwelt in other Countries, ſo here our Author ſeemes to yeeld that in theſe dayes of the new Teſtament there muſt or may be appeales to Synods, though they be 200 miles diſtant. I hope then if others blame our way for making the Goſpell as defective and improvident as the Law, or more defective then it, yet this our Brother will not do ſo, but on the contrary will acknowledge for us and with us, that the way which himſelfe pleads for, is more juſtly culpable in this reſpect.
Fourthly, he ſaith, Matters concerning many Churches muſt be handled by many.
Anſw. This may be granted in a ſafe ſence without any prejudice at all unto our cauſe, for we are well content that ſo farre as they concerne many they may be handled by many, ſo that each Congregation may have liberty to deale in them ſo farre as they concerne themſelves.
And thus you have all which Mr. Rutherford hath brought againſt that paſſage of ours wherein we ſay it is not our way but theirs, that doth make the Goſpell more defective then the Law, inſtead whereof he is pleaſed to make us ſay that they doe Iudaize; But for eleering their way from that which wee object againſt the ſame, or for convincing out way to be guilty thereof as by ſome hath been objected, which is the thing in queſtion in the place by him alledged, for ought I perceive there is nothing in the foure particulars of his anſwer, that doth any thing availe to either of theſe: for if a raſh delivering of men to Satan have more evill in it then ſpeedy ending of controverſies hath good▪ If appeales without warrant from Chriſts will, be unlawfull: If Antioch did appeale to a Synod 200 miles diſtant, and if matters concerning many Churches muſt be ended by many, which foure particulars are the whole ſubſtance of his anſwer, what is there in all this (for I would gladly apply his Anſwers to the foreign the thing in queſtion, what is there I ſay in all this that … convince our way to be more defective then the way under the old Teſtament? Or that doth cleere the way of our Brethren from being truly culpable thereof▪ Let all the evill that can be found in raſh delivering men to Satan be extended to the utmoſt, and let the reſt of the foure particulars be granted, doth all this ſufficiently cleere it that the way which we plead for is more defective, or the way of our Brethren more perfect and excellent, then the way that was uſed under the Law? If they do not amount to the cleering of this, they do not come up to cleere the thing in queſtion, which for ought I perceive doth ſtill remaine as it was notwithſtanding all that our Brother here brings.