Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 26
CHAP. XXVI.
Whether the Epiſtles to Timothy and Titus, wherein there are contained rules of direction in laying on of hands, do prove that the action may not in any caſe be performed by non-officers, but muſt be performed onelyonly by Presbyters; and whether the argument do not make as ſtrongly for the appropriating of laying on of hands to the Prelates, as to the Presbyters, and do not as well exclude the Presbyters from medling therein, as exclude the People.
THere is onelyonly one place more where I finde Mr. Rutherford excepting againſt the anſwer; and that is in his pag. 497. where alledging the anſwer pag. 59. which I conceive is miſprinted for pag. 49. He ſets down theſe words as ours, viz. If people may not meddle with ordination, becauſe it is proper to Timothy and Titus, this may prove that they were Biſhops who did ordaine Elders there alone, which Miniſters may not doe there, for theſe Epiſtles are not written to them as Biſhops alone, nor as Elders alone, but as to a mixt ſtate including the People.
Anſw. The order of the diſpute is this: Reverend Mr. Herle arguing for ordination of officers by a conſociated Elderſhip, and not by a ſingle Congregation with or without a Paſtor, brings this reaſon for his judgement, viz. Rules of direction how to proceed in ordination, and the Epiſtles where thoſe rules are laid down, are not written to the Churches or Congregations, but to Timothy and Titus. In anſwer whereunto we ſpoke to this purpoſe, that if this be a ſufficient reaſon to prove that the people may not in any caſe meddle with Ordination, then by as good reaſon it will follow, that Ordination belongs not to the Presbytery or Synod, but onelyonly to one man, as the Prelates would have it; the reaſon we give is, becauſe Timothy and Titus were each of them but onelyonly one man. And we there further ſay, that we doe approve the anſwer given to this kinde of reaſoning by the refuter of Dr. Down…s ſermon, at L…beth, who ſhews that what was written in thoſe Epiſtles, was not onelyonly written for Timothy and Titus, but for other Miniſters alſo, and alſo in ſome ſort for all the Saints, and that therefore there is no more reaſon to appropriate thoſe rules, onelyonly to the uſe of Presbyteries and Synods, then only to the uſe of Prelates.
Now what ſaith Mr. Rutherford to this?
Some parcell of theſe … are written, ſaith he, to Timothy and Titus as Evangeli…ts. Somethings are written to them as Chriſtians; and finaditer & objective all is written for the Churches good, but the bulk of the Epiſtles is written to them as Elders, and eſpecially. 1 Tim. 5. 22. 2 Tim. 2. 2. for theſe and the like they were to doe with the Presbytery as is cleare, 1 Tim. 4. 14.
Anſw. This Scripture 1 Tim. 4. doth ſhew that Timothy had a gift given him by Propheſie with the laying on the hands of the Presbytery; but how doth it hence appear, that not only Timothy but Titus alſo was to dothings with the Presbytery? Titus is not at all mentioned in that Scripture. And as for Timothy, Scripture tells what the Presbytery did to him, but what he muſt doe with the Presbytery it tells us nothing at all. Again, if the bulk of the Epiſtles be written to them as Elders, and the Churches be no otherwiſe concerned therein, but only finaliter and objectively, the Epiſtles being written for their good, then what ſhall be the meaning and reaſon of theſe words in the concluſion of the Epiſtle to Titus, and of the latter to Timothy, where it is ſaid, grace be with you, and grace be with you all? doth it not plainly appear hereby, that more then Elders, even all the Saints in thoſe places are written unto in thoſe Epiſtles? Thirdly if there be rules in the Epiſtles that doe belong to Elders alone, yet ſith it is confeſſed, and may not be denyed, that other things therein doe concern all Chriſtians, how ſhall we be aſſured that ſuch paſſages, as concern …aying on of hands are of the former ſort, and not of the latter? For to ſay it is ſo, and it is clear, we think doth not clear it at all, unleſſe ſome further proofe be added. Laſtly, if all this were granted, which here is ſaid by Mr. Rutherford, yet for ought I ſee, our anſwer is not removed thereby, but ſtill ſtands fair and good: For in that place of the anſwer alledged, we ſay two things, 1. That theſe rules about ordination in Timothy and Titus may with as fair a colour be appropriated to one man, as to Presbyteries and Synods. 2. That the Epiſtles and the rules therein are not to be appropriated to Biſhops alone or Miniſters alone, but are indeed of generall concernment for all the Chriſtians. Now neither of theſe two is diſcovered by Mr. Rutherford. For as for the former of them, he ſaith nothing thereto at all; and the latter he doth in a manner grant, not only by ſaying that all here is written for the Churches good, but alſo by ſaying that ſomethings are written to Timothy and Titus as Chriſtians which is in effect the ſame that we had ſaid before. And how our anſwer can be diſproved or ſatisfied, either by ſaying nothing at all thereto, or by ſaying the ſame that we had ſaid before, I leave it to the Judicious reader to conſider.
FINIS.
End of the text · Richard Mather, Reply to Rutherford (1647)