Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 10
CHAP. X.
Whether the neceſſity of Diſcipline be greater then of Sacraments: and whether a Congregation that hath neighbours may not exerciſe intireneſse of Iuriſdiction as well as one that hath none: and whether a man may take on him the whole Miniſtery having no outward calling thereto; and may not as well take on him one act of Baptizing or Miniſtring the Lords Supper.
THe next place where I find our Reverend Brother dealing with the Anſwer, is in Page 453, 454. Where diſputing that there was a Presbyteriall Church at Ieruſalem, he ſaith it is Objected by us (alledging the Anſwer, Page 6.) That if a Church in an Iland by Divine inſtitution and ſo the firſt Congregation as Ieruſalem which did meete in Solomons Porch had once an intire power of Iuriſdiction, 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 he… 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 …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 th…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 reſpect of its end. Now if this be all the neceſſity that is in Diſcipline, how is Diſcipline more neceſſary then Sacraments? For may not as much bee ſaid of them as here is ſaid of Diſcipline? Are not Sacraments neceſſary to the well-being of the Church, as being commanded in the word, as well as Diſcipline is? And ſerving for excellent ends, as well as Diſcipline doth? I ſuppoſe it will n… be denyed, and therefore the neceſſity of Diſcipline above Sacraments doth not yet appeare. Eſpecially if that be conſidered withall which our Brother teacheth elſe-where. viz. In his ſecond P. 211. & ſequ. Where he tels us, That Sacraments are not only declarative ſignes, but alſo reall exhibitive ſeales of Grace, having a cauſality in them to make a thing that was not, and ſo excelling all civill Seales which do adde no new Lands to the owner of the Charter ſealed therewith. Now if Sacraments be thus excellent and effectuall, how is it that in the place wee have in hand, Diſcipline is made more neceſſary then they? For a greater Elogie then here hee gives to Sacraments, I ſuppoſe himſelfe would not give unto Diſcipline. Yea in P. 302 he expreſly affirmes, That Preaching of the word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments are eſſentiall notes of the viſible Church. But of Diſcipline I conceive he will not ſay the ſame, ſure it is in the Page following diſtinguiſhing betwixt notes of the Church which are neceſſary ad…ſſe, To the very being of a viſible Church, and ſuch as are neceſſary only ad bene eſſe, to the well-being thereof, he expreſly makes Diſcipline a worke or note of this ſecond ſort, and as we heard ere-while, he in Page 287 expreſly affirmes it is not neceſſary to the eſſence of a Church. And therefore it is ſome marvell why now … makes Diſcipline more neceſſary then Sacraments.
But he gives us two reaſons of this greater neceſſity of Diſcipline then of Sacraments. Firſt, that intire power of Diſcipline in a Congregation that wants neighbours is not extraordinary Second, that there is no ſuch morall neceſſity of Sacraments, as there is of Diſcipline, Page 455.
Concerning the former his words are theſe, viz. That the Church be in an Iland it ſelfe alone may poſſibly be extraordinary, but that in ſuch a caſe they have intire power of diſcipline whole and entire within themſelves to Excommunicate Scandalous perſons is not extraordinary. Wherein firſt of all I obſerve a difference between him and our Reverend Brother Mr. Herle, who having granted that where there is no conſociation or neighbour-hood of Congregations, there a ſingle Congregation muſt not be denyed intireneſſe of Iuriſdiction, doth preſently adde that the caſe is extraordinary, and ſo fals not within the compaſſe of the queſtion of the ordinary rule of Church-government: Independencie of Churches, P. 2. plainly confeſſing that the caſe is extraordinary, whereas Mr. Rutherford here ſaith it is not.
Second, as he expreſly differs from Mr. Herle, ſo it is conſiderable whether his words do well agree with themſelves. For ſaith he, That the Church be in an Iland it ſelfe alone may be extraordinary, but that in ſuch caſe they have entire power of Iuriſdiction of Diſcipline within themſelves, to Excommunicate Scandalous perſons, is not extraordinary. Which ſaying needs good explication. For it ſeemes hard to conceive how the power and actions of any ſubject or efficient ſhould be more uſuall and ordinary then its very being and ſubſiſtance: Which yet muſt needs bee, if this ſtand good that the being of a Church in an Iland is extraordinary, and yet the power of ſuch a Church to Excommunicate is uſuall and ordinary
Third, If their power of Diſcipline, yea intire Power be in the caſe expreſſed or…ary, ſhall we then ſay that if the caſe …e otherwiſe ſo that a Church be not alone but have neighbours, entireneſſe of power in ſuch a caſe is extraordinary? It ſeemes a… muſt …ay …, or elſe wee muſt ſay that intireneſſe of power in both caſes is ordinary. If this latter be ſaid, it is as much as we deſire: for then I hope it muſt not be a ſmall … ordinary matter, that muſt hinder a Church that hath neighbours from exerciſing … …diction within themſelves, no more then a Church that lives alone, … power being ordinary in them both. For if it be ſo in them both, in the one as well as in the other, I know not why any ſmall or ordinary matter ſhould hinder the one Church any more then the other from the uſe and exerciſe of ſuch entire power. If we ſay that entireneſſe of power in a Church that hath neighbours is extraordinary, though in a Church that is alone it be ordinary, beſides that ſuch a ſaying ſounds harſhly and ſeemes very improbable, we ſhall by this meanes make caſes extraordinary to be very frequent & uſuall, in as much as all men know it is very uſuall for Congregationall Churches to have neighbours: and ſo if entireneſſe of power in a Church that hath neighbours be extraordinary, it will follow that extraorninary power is very uſuall and frequent; ſo that inconveniences on each ſide do ſeeme inevitably to follow againſt our Brothers cauſe, upon this which here he affirmeth, that entireneſſe of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary.
But let us here his reaſon in the ſubſequent words, why this entireneſſe of power in a Church that is alone is not extraordinary. For it floweth ſaith he, continually from a Church, to which agreeth the eſſence of a Church, to exerciſe Iuriſdiction over all its own members. And I ſuppoſe he muſt meane this of Iuriſdiction entire and compleat, for of this is the queſtion, and a few lines afore, He expreſly cals it entire power of Diſcipline, whole and entire within themſelves. Now if this be true which here is ſaid, as for my part I conceive no other of it, that it floweth connaturally from a Church, to which agreeth the eſſence of a Church to exerciſe entire Iuriſdiction over all its own members, then it will follow that a Church that hath neighbours as well as a Church that hath none muſt have this entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction, ſith the eſſence of a Church doth agree to the one as well as to the other, to a Church that hath neighbours as well as to a Church that is alone. Our Author tels us Page 302. That a Congregation in an Iland is a Church properly ſo called, and hath the eſſentiall notes of a viſible Church agreeing to it, and wants nothing of the being and eſſence of a Church. And if this be true of a Church that is alone, ſhall we thinke it is not true of a Church that hath neighbours? Doth the acceſſion of neighbours to a Congregation take away from ſuch a Congregation the eſſence of a Church which it had before? I conceive none will ſo ſay. And if every Church to which agreeth the eſſence of a Church may exerciſe entire Iuriſdiction over all its own members, as our Brother doth acknowledge, it followeth unavoidably thereupon that all Congregationall Churches, ſuch as have neighbours and ſuch as have none may exerciſe ſuch entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction, ſith the eſſence of a Church doth agree unto them all. Vnleſſe he will deny the eſſence of a Church to a Congregation which hath neighbours, which hee freely yeeldeth to a Congregation which is alone, he muſt grant entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction unto them both, becauſe he grants it to the one upon this reaſon, that the eſſence of a Church doth agree thereunto, which reaſon if it agree to both, how can i… be avoided but entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction muſt be in both? And how can it be affirmed or imagined that a Congregation having the eſſence of a Church afore and have neighbours, ſhould loſe this eſſence of a Church when neighbours are added to it? A family having the eſſence of a family now it is alone, doth not loſe this eſſence by meanes of other families added. Nor doth a City that is ſuch, as it is alone loſe the eſſence of a City by the acceſſe of other Cities: and the ſame might be ſaid of a Corporation, a Province, a Kingdome, or any other ſociety whatſoever. And that it ſhould be otherwiſe with a Congregationall Church, that it ſhould loſe the eſſence of a Church as other neighbours Churches do ariſe, doth ſeeme very ſtrange and unreaſonable. And let the eſſence of a Church be ſtill retayned by ſuch a Congregation, as I conceive it muſt, and then intireneſſe of Iuriſdiction muſt not be denyed to ſuch a Congregation, ſith it doth flow connaturally from every Church to which the eſſence of a Church doth agree.
If there bee no more conſociated with that Church that is by accident, and an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence. As a Maſter of a family is to educate his children in the feare of God, but if God take all his children from him by death, he doth not tranſgreſſe the ordinary rule of educating his children in the feare of God, as he hath none.
Anſw. If this compariſon doe ſuit the preſent purpoſe and caſe in hand, then this Maſter of a family is a Congregation, and theſe his children are the members of other Congregations: And ſo as a Maſter of a family needs not to educate his children in Gods feare, when they are all taken from him by death, ſo a Congregation needs not to governe the members of other Congregation as there are no other Congregation extant, but it ſelfe is left alone in an Iland. In which kind of arguing ſundry things may be excepted againſt. As fir… of all that there ſhould be ſuch power in a Congregation as in a Maſter of a family over his own children, which needs a good deale of proofe afore it may be yeelded, in as much as the power of the one is plainly and plentifully taught in the Scripture, as Eph. 4. 6. Col. 3. Deut. 6. 7. Deut. 21. And many other places. But I deſire one cleere place of Scripture, in all the Book of God either old Teſtament or new, to ſhew the like power in a Congregationall Church, over the members of other Churches. Againe, when a Maſter of a family hath all his children taken from him by death, he hath then no children of his own to governe, but wants a Congregationall Church & is left alone in an Iland, the Presbytery of that Congregation is left alone, but have ſtill the members of that Congregation whom they may and ought to guide and governe in the feare of God, which is another particular wherein the compariſon failes.
But though the ſimilitude as Mr. Rutherford hath laid it down, doth not confirme his purpoſe, yet I conceive it may be▪ ſo framed and applyed as that it may well ſerve for the weekning thereof, thus; A Maſter of a family having (when that family is alone) entire power to governe his family in the feare of God, when other families do ariſe that become neighbours neere adjoyning, he is not by this meanes deprived of the power which he had before, but ſtill retaines the ſame entire and compleate as formerly it was: even ſo the Presbytery of a Congregationall Church having (when that Congregation is alone,) entire power of Iuriſdiction over its own members, is not when neighbour Congregation do ariſe, deprived by this meanes of the power which it had before, but ſtill retaines the ſame entire as formerly it was. Againe, though when God takes away a mans children by death, he is no longer bound to educate and governe thoſe children in the feare of God, yet as long as his children live with him in his family, it is not the ſitting down of other families neere by him that can take away this power from him, or diſcharge him of this duty: even ſo, though when members of a Congregation be taken away by death or otherwiſe, the Congregation or its Presbytery doth no longer ſtand charged or bound with the overſight and government of ſuch members yet as long as they live in the Congregation, it is not the ariſing of other Congregations neere to them that can free them from the power wherewith they were inveſted, nor from the duty wherewith they were formerly charged towards ſuch members, Thus the compariſon runs even, and we ſee our Brothers cauſe is not a little diſadvantaged thereby. But as he hath laid it down, it doth ſo apparantly faile that I do not perceive how it can afford him any helpe at all.
This argument ſuppoſeth that the Congregation hath no power of Excommunication at all, either compleat or incompleate, as the Midwife hath no power to Baptize, either compleate or incompleate.
Anſw. Suppoſe a Congregation have an incompleate power when they have neighbours, how ſhall it appeare that when they are alone their power is now compleat? Or how will it be avoided but by the like reaſon, one Elder alone may Excommunicate in caſe there be no other Elders to joyne with him? For plain it is, that one Elder when their is a full Presbytery or Claſſis hath an incompleate power, though not a compleat. And yet I hope this incompleat power in one Elder when there are other Elders joyned with him, will not warrant him to exerciſe a power compleat when he is alone, becauſe ſuch a power muſt be exerciſed by a Church, with one Elder alone cannot be. And if one Elder having an incompleat power when he is joyned with others, may not exerciſe a compleat power when he is alone, how will the incompleat power of a Congregation when they have neighbours (ſuppoſe that in ſuch caſe their power were indeed incompleate) how will this I ſay warr…nt that Congregation when they are alone to exerciſe a compleat power? For ought I ſee, the compleat power of the Congregation is no more warranted upon this ground, then the like power of one Elder upon the ſame ground, the caſes being alike in both.
Neither doth a Congregation tranſgreſſe any rule of Christ at all when it exerciſeth entire power of cenſures within it ſelf, whereas there be no conſociated …hurches to ſhare with it in that power.
Anſw. This I grant is very true; and I deſire it may not be recalled, but may ſtill ſtand as here it is expreſly given to us; and then I deſire to know what rule of Chriſt is tranſgreſſed, if an other Congregation, I meane a Congregation that hath neighbours, do exerciſe the like power. For my part I know no ſuch rule, nor any good reaſon but if that the one Congregation may ſo practiſe, the other Congregation may do the like, and that the grounds (at leaſt ſome of them) which will warrant the one, will alſo ſuffice to warrant the other. Nevertheleſſe when any rule of Chriſt ſhal be produced that doth reſtraine a Congregation that hath neighbours of this entire power, which is ſo freely and plainly granted to the Congregation that is alone, I ſhall then grant that the former muſt have leſſe liberty to exerciſe this power, then is here granted to the latter. In the meane time, that which here is yeelded to the one doth amongſt other things induce me to thinke that the ſame ought to be granted to the other, and ſo that entireneſſe of power is in them both.
A Congregation (viz. which is alone) is capable of entire Juriſdiction becauſe it is a Church.
Anſw. How will it then be avoided but a Congregation which hath neighbours, or a Congregation which was alone and now hath neighbours added to it, how will it be avoided I ſay, but ſuch a Congregation as this is alſo capable of entire Iuriſdiction? For can it be denyed but ſuch a Congregation is a Church, as well as the other? Sure if Mr. Rutherford his Doctrine elſewhere delivered do ſtand good, this cannot be denyed at all. For in his Page 301 he ſaith, That is a Church, and hath the eſſence of a Church, to which agree the eſſentiall notes of a viſible Church, and Preaching of the word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments ſaith he are eſſentiall notes of a viſible Church. Which if it bee ſo, then a Congregation that hath neighbours is a viſible Church, and hath the eſſence of a Church, becauſe Preaching of the word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments are cleerely found in ſuch a Congregation. And if ſuch a Congregation be a Church, then by his own Doctrine in this place which we have in hand, ſuch a Congregation is capable of entire Iuriſdiction. For thus I argue from his own words
Every Congregation which is a Church is capable of entire Iuriſdiction.
But a Congregation which hath neighbours is a Church.
Therefore a Congregation which hath neighbours is capable of entire Iuriſdiction.
The concluſion is that which we ſtand for, and it makes directly againſt our Brother, and yet I ſee not how he can avoyd it, becauſe both the premiſes are his own. For the Propoſition is plaine from the words we have in hand, v…z. A Congregation is capable of entire Juriſdiction becauſe it is a Church. Now if this be the reaſon why it is capable thereof, then looke to what Congregation this reaſon doth agree, every ſuch Congregation muſt be ſo capable. For our Author well knoweth that à quatenus ad omnia conſequentia. And for the Aſſumption, the ſame is confirmed by his words, Page 302, Where he makes that to be a Church, and to have the eſſence of a Church, to which the Preaching of the word, and adminiſtration of the Sacraments do agree. And theſe agreeing to a Congregation that hath neighbours, it followeth that a Congregation that hath neighbours is a Church. Vnleſſe hee will deny to a Congregation that hath neighbours power of Preaching the word and adminiſtring the Sacraments (which I am perſwaded he will not deny at all) it will unavoidably follow from his own ground that ſuch a Congregation is a viſible Church. And if ſuch a Congregation be a viſible Church, then by his own ground alſo, ſuch a Congregation muſt be capable of entire Iuriſdiction: which concluſion if it bee granted we deſire no more, for it is the thing that we hold.
A woman in no caſe is capable of adminiſtring Baptiſme or the Lords Supper, except ſhe were extraordinarily and immediately inſpired to bee a Propheteſſe, but for the exerciſe of entire power of Juriſdiction by a Congregation in a remote Iland, I hope it hath no ſuch need of immediate inſpiration.
Anſw. Nor do wee thinke otherwiſe; but (that we may keepe to the points and bring up the diſpute to the thing in queſtio) if ſuch a Congregation having no ſuch inſpiration may notwithſtanding lawfully exerciſe intire power of Iuriſdiction within themſelves, and that upon this reaſon, becauſe they now are alone, which if they had neighbours were not lawfull for them to do, then let it be well conſidered, whether by the like reaſon in the like extraordinary caſe, Baptiſme and the Lords Supper may not be adminiſtred the one of them by a woman, and both of them by ſuch as are no Miniſters. For as in one caſe the plea, to make it lawfull is this, becauſe ſuch a Congregation hath no neighbours, ſo in the other the plea is becauſe the Congregation hath no Miniſters, nor perhaps there are no men at hand. And if the one which at other times were unlawfull, yet in ſuch an extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence may be lawfully done, though there be no immediate inſpiration to warrant the ſame, why doth there need ſuch immediate inſpiration to warrant the other, the extraordinary exigence of Gods Providence being alike in both. I deſire I may not be miſtaken in this paſſage, for I doe not affirme (nor ever did) that the diſpenſation of Diſcipline and of Sacraments in the caſes mentioned are both alike unlawfull, or elſe both alike lawfull. The Anſwer will not witneſſe that I have ſo affirmed, neither yet this preſent diſcourſe t… much leſſe do I hold that Sacraments may be diſpenſed by women or by men that are not Miniſters. All that I have ſaid in this matter is thus much, that it is good to take heed how farre we yeeld it lawfull in ſuch extraordinary caſes, as want of neighbours, to tranſgreſſe and violate ordinary rules, leaſt ſome body do thence inferre that Sacraments may be diſpenſed by women or men that are no Miniſters, in caſe that Miniſters or men be wanting. This I have ſaid indeed, as being tender and afraid to open a dore too far for liberty of tranſgreſſing ordinary rules, and conceiving that keeping cloſe to thoſe rules is the ſafeſt way. If any man be more bold and dare open the dore further then I dare adventure to do, and thinke he can eaſily ſhut the ſame againe, to ſtop the inconveniencies and ill conſequents which I feare may thence enſue. I ſhall leave him to his diſcretion, and the guidance of God therein, onelyonly craving thus much for my ſelfe that no more may be imputed to me, nor reported of me in this or other matters, then indeed I have affirmed or expreſſed.
Concerning his ſecond reaſon of the greater neceſſity of Diſcipline then of Sacraments, his words are theſe. There is no ſuch morall neceſſity of Sacraments as there is of the Miniſtery of the word and conſequently of the uſe of the Keyes, where a Scandalous perſon may infect the Lords flock: for where viſion ceaſeth the people periſh. But it is never ſaid where Baptiſme ceaſeth the people periſh, Pag. 455.
Anſw. How ſhall we be ſure that by viſion, Prov. 26. 18. Is meant Diſcipline? Yea Diſcipline not in a large ſenſe as comprehending generally all order and behaviour concerning a Church and outward duties therein, but Diſcipline ſtrictly taken for adminiſtration of cenſures (for of this is one queſtion) how I ſay ſhall wee be ſure that by viſion is meant this Diſcipline? The uſuall Expoſiters Tremeli… and Junius, …, and others doe expound the ſame of the Preaching and diſpenſing of the word, making no mention at all of Diſcipline as meant thereby. And the … branch of the verſe, He …hat keepeth the Law is bleſſed, doth …hew that by viſion in the former branch is mean the Law, or Doctrine or word of God. And if the Scripture do not ſ…y, where Baptiſme ceaſeth the people periſh, yet neither doth it ſay, where adminiſtrat…on of Cenſures ceaſeth the people periſh; and therefore no neceſſity of cenſures above Sacraments can be concluded hence.
Vncalled Miniſters in caſe of neceſſity without Ordination or calling from a Presbytery may Preach and take on them the holy Miniſtery and exerciſe power of Juriſdiction, becauſe of the neceſſity of the Soules of a Congregation in a remote Iland requireth ſo.
Anſw If they may do theſe things without Ordination (as for my part I deny it not, ſo that the election or conſent of the Congregation be not wan…ing, for that I ſuppoſe might be a good part of an outward calling) then I demand whether one Miniſter alone may not thus do, I meane whether one alone may not in the caſe propoſed take on him the holy Miniſtery and Preach the word as a Miniſter. If many may do it, then I ſuppoſe there is no queſtion but one may do it much rather. And if ſo, then I demand further whe…her ſuch a ſingle Miniſter may not alſo adminiſter the Sacraments to ſuch a Congregation: I ſuppoſe it cannot be denyed, for if he lawfully take on him the Miniſtery and Preach as a Miniſter, what ſhould hinder, but he may alſo Baptize, and miniſter the Lords Supper? And if hee may thus doe, then I demand laſtly, whether this ſingle Miniſter may alſo adminiſter Diſcipline and cenſures in that Congregation. If he may, then either the power of thoſe cenſures muſt be in himſelfe alone, or in the Congregation alſo, in himſelfe alone it cannot be, becauſe cenſures muſt bee diſpenſed by a Church, and one man alone cannot bee a Church, If it be in the Congregation alſo, then here is a power of Excommunication or other cenſures even in the people which is againſt our Brothers judgement. If it be ſaid that this ſingle Miniſter as long as he wan…s other Miniſters joyned with him may not adminiſter cenſures or Diſcipline, then it will follow that power of cenſures is not alwayes annexed to the Miniſtery as an inſeparable adjunct thereof, nor are Cenſures to be preferred before Sacraments as more neceſſary, as our Brother would have it, for as much as here is a Miniſtery and the adminiſtring of Sacraments, the neceſſity of the ſoules of the Congregation requiring ſo, and yet for all this not any power of cenſures at all. Our Brother therefore may make his choyce, whether hee will grant the power of the Keyes of Diſcipline to bee in the people, or whether he will ſay the neceſſity of the ſoules in a Congregation doth require Sacraments more then Diſcipline; For though theſe be both againſt himſelfe, yet upon the ground which himſelfe doth here lay, the one of the two is unavoidable.
But I hope no neceſſity in any of the moſt extraordinary caſe requireth that a Midwife may Baptize, or that a private man remaining a private man may celebrate the Lords Supper to the Church, without any calling from the Church.
Anſw. Concerning the Midwife I thinke the ſame that he doth. And concerning the private man, I alſo therein …curre that without calling from the Church hee may not performe what here is ſpoken of. But here I would make this Quare whether … man that never was a Miniſter may not as well in an extraordinary caſe performe … act of adminiſtring of Baptiſme or the Lords Supper, without any calling from the … bytery or the Church unto whom the office of Miniſtery, as take on him without any ſuch calling the whole Miniſtery, and ſo Preach and exerciſe the power of Iuriſdiction as a Miniſter For as for the one of theſe, our Brother expreſly grants a man m…y lawfully take it on him without any ſuch calling, the neceſſity of the Soules of a Congregation in an Iland requiring ſo; and if this neceſſity will warrant the one which is the whole and ſo the greater, why will it not warrant the other which is but one act and ſo the leſſer? One would thinke one act of diſpenſing Baptiſme or the Supper were a leſſer matter then the whole Miniſtery, and all the actions thereof. And marvell it is, that the neceſſity of the Soules of a Congregation ſhould warrant this which is the greater, and yet the ſame neceſſity ſhould not be ſufficient warrant for the leſſer, a mans calling being otherwiſe alike unto both, that is, having an outward calling to neither Himſelf doth ſometimes reaſon thus, If wee give to beleevers that are not in office one paſtorall act, wee may with the like weight of reaſon give them all: Peaceable plea, Page 272. Now if this reaſoning be good from one Act to all, why is no this as good, from all to any one or to ſome one? And why may we not in like maner argue thus, If perſons uncalled may without Ordination or calling take on them the whole Miniſtery, why may not perſons uncalled without Ordination or calling take on them to Baptize or Miniſter the Supper? Not that I thinke ſuch a practiſe to be lawfull, but only I intend to make quaere about the validity of our Brothers kind of arguing. Yea, it is elſewhere his arguing, that it perſons not in office of Miniſtery may execute cenſures and Diſcipline, they may then adminiſter the Sacraments. For ſaith he, What hinders by this reaſon but they may alſo without Miniſters Prea…h and adminiſter the Sacraments: Peaceable Plea, Page 196. Yea ſaith he, I ſ…e not but with a like warrant private men may adminiſter the Sacraments: Vbi Supra, Page 196. This we ſee is his arguing elſewhere: And yet in the place we have in hand he grants that perſons uncalled may in caſe of neceſſity without Ordination or calling take on them the Miniſtery in generall, and in particular may exerc…ſe the power of Iuriſdiction, and yet for all this he ſayes, that no neceſſity will warrant a man to celebrate the Lords Supper without a calling from the Church. Which two ſayings for ought I perceive do not agree. For in the one it is affirmed that if they may exerciſe Diſcipline and cenſures, they may by the like reaſon adminiſter Sacraments: and the other ſaith they may exerciſe Diſcipline and cenſures and yet may not adminiſter Sacraments; and yet both the ſayings are expreſſed by the ſame Authors Pen.