Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 11
CHAP. XI.
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 bee not a loſſe. And whether pretence of male-adminiſtration be a ſufficient reaſon for neighbouring Churches to deprive a Congregation of its power.
THe next place where I find Mr. Rutherford dealing with the Anſwer, is in his Page 455. Where he brings in theſe words under Mr. Tompſons name and mine, viz. If the power of Juriſdiction flow immediately and neceſſarily from the eſſence of a Church, and a Congregation be eſſentially a Church, then this power agreeth to all Churches whether conſociated, or not conſociated, and without reſpect of what neighbours they have, whether many or few, whether any or none. Second, a Congregation it ſelfe alone cannot have ſole power of Iuriſdiction and then be deprived of it, when God ſendeth neighbours, for then neighbouring Churches which are given for help ſhould be given for loſſe, the contrary whereof Ames ſaith no. Doe Synods ſaith he, Conſtitute a new forme of a Chur…h.
Thus farre Mr. Rutherford who in his Margent alledgeth Mr. Tompſon and me, 16. Pag. 4, 5.
Anſw. In one of theſe Pages of the Anſwer, viz. P. 5. there is nothing at all to be found that looks toward ſuch a purpoſe as our Brother hath in hand, and therefore this Page ſhould not have been here alledged. The words of Dr. Ames are more imperfectly cited by our Brother, then they were alledged in the Anſwer, For the Anſwer alledgeth them thus out of Medull. Theol. Lib. 1. Chapter 3. Sect 27. That the combination of Churches into Claſſes, and Synods doth neither conſtitute a new forme of a Church, nor ought by any meanes to take away or impayer that liberty and power which Chriſt hath given to his Churches, ſith it ſerveth only for the directing and furthering of the ſame. Wher…as our Brother expreſſeth only thoſe firſt words that Synods do not conſtitute a new forme of a Church, but all the reſt wherein the chiefe ſtrength of Dr. Ames his teſtimony doth lye, them he doth wholly omit and leave out. He alſo leaves out the aſſent which is given by Mr. Paget, to this teſtimony of Dr. Ames, which aſſent as it is expreſſed in his defence P. 107. in theſe words, This we do willingly grant, is alſo in the …ame words alledged by the Anſwer in P. 4. But this is wholly paſſed over by Mr. Rutherford in ſilence. Now two ſuch men as theſe being alledged in the Anſwer, as plainly affirming that the combination of Churches into Claſſes and Synods muſt neither tollere nor minuere, take away not impaire or diminiſh the liberty or power of Churches, but only ſerve for the directing and furthering of the ſame, And the one of them being the chiefe Patron of the power of Claſſes and Synods, It is ſome marvell to me that no word of Anſwer is vouchſafed to them by Mr. Rutherford, but that their words are thus paſſed by with ſilence, and the name of one of them not ſo much as mentioned. How ever this is cleere, that he that gainſayes the Anſwer in this paſſage, hath not only the Anſwer, but alſo the Reverend Author here mentioned to be againſt him. But let us come to conſider of Mr. Rutherford his Anſwer which he ſubjoyneth in theſe words, viz.
Power of Iuriſdiction floweth from the eſſence of a Congregation in an Iland, ergo a totall and compleat power of Iuriſdiction floweth from the eſſence of a Church or Congregation conſociated, it followeth no wayes.
Anſw I deſire the reaſon may be laid down according to our true meaning therein, and in its full ſtrength; and then the former part thereof muſt not only ſpeak of power of Iuriſdiction flowing from the eſſence of a Church that want neighbours, but of entire power, for thereof is the queſtion; and in the latter part the termes muſt no: be a Church conſociated but a Church that hath neighbours; Now if entire power and Iuriſdiction do flow from the eſſence of a Church, and therefore this eſſence of a Church being found in a Congregation that wants neighbours, this entireneſſe of power mu…t thereupon be granted to ſuch a Congregation; I then demand why the like entireneſſe of power muſt not be granted as well to a Congregation that hath neighbours, ſith the eſſence of a Church is found in this Congregation, as well as in the other. For ought I ſee either the eſſence of a Church muſt be denyed to a Congregation that hath neighbours or elſe it will follow that entireneſſe of power muſt be granted to ſuch a Congregation, Riſibility and power of reaſon flowing immediately and neceſſarily from the eſſence of a man, and power to defend it ſelfe and purge out excrements flowing in like ſort from the eſſence of a humane body, and power to governe it ſelf with family government flowing in like ſort from the eſſence of a family; therefore we muſt not grant theſe powers to be entire in ſuch a man, ſuch a body, or ſuch a family as is alone, and deny the ſame to one that hath neighbours, but muſt grant them alike unto all, becauſe this power flowes from their very eſſence, which is as truly found in ſuch as have neighbours, as it is in thoſe that are alone. And the like may be ſaid in other caſes. And why it ſhould be otherwiſe in a Congregationall Church, that the power of the Iuriſdiction flowing from the eſſence of ſuch a Church ſhould therefore be entire in ſuch a Congregation as is alone in an Iland, and yet not entire in a Congregation that hath neighbours, though this Congregation hath the eſſence of a Church as well as the other, why theſe Congregations I ſay ſhould thus greatly differ in their power, and yet be alike in their eſſence from whence their power doth flow, for my part I yet do not underſtand the reaſon.
Nor doth that ſatisfy which Mr. Rutherford here alledgeth, That one Paſtor in a Congregation hath as a Paſtor power to rebuke ſin and to adminiſter the Sacraments, and yet when three Paſtors are added to help him he hath duplicate page duplicate page not the ſole power of rebuking ſin, and the ſole and entire power to adminiſter the Sacraments, but theſe three Paſtors have power with him: This I conceive doth not help the matter at all: For though it be true that theſe three Paſtors being added to the firſt have each of them the like power as the firſt had, yet the power of the firſt for the performance of theſe things mentioned, is as comple…t in him notwithſtanding this addition, as it was before, and not any whit abated nor impayred thereby: And the reaſon is, becauſe matters of order flowing from the eſſence of a Paſtor may bee ſufficiently and compleatly performed by one Paſtor ſingly, which acts of Iuriſdiction cannot. Mr. Rutherford his own words in this caſe are theſe, viz. A ſingle Paſtor may Miniſterially give out Commandements in the authority of Chriſt, but hee cannot himſelfe cenſure or Excommunicate the contraveners of thoſe Commandements: Due Right, Page 387. And againe, Page 387, 388 It is proper is acts of Iuriſ…iction Eccleſiaſticall that they cannot be exerciſed by one alone, but muſt be exerciſed by a ſociety: but a Paſtor as a Paſtor himſelfe alone without any collaterally joyned with him exerciſeth his Paſtorall acts of Preaching and adminiſtring the Sacraments. Now if a Paſtor as a Paſtor himſelf alone without any collatterally joyned with him, may thus exerciſe his Paſtorall acts, then indeed the acceſſe or addition of other Paſtors is not at all deſtructive of his Paſtorall power, but he ſtill retaineth the ſame as compleat and perfect as before, becauſe hee doth theſe acts as a Paſtor and remaineth a Paſtor ſtill. But how this example and inſtance can any thing further Mr. Ruth…rford his purpoſe, I do not underſtand. For his intention is to make good that a Congregation may have entire power when it is alone, a…d yet not ſo when other Congregations do ariſe; and for the conſuming of this hee brings this inſtance and example from a Paſtor that hath a Paſtorall power afore other Paſtors are added; who by the addition of others hath no leſſe power then afore; which example I conceive rather makes againſt him then for him. For ſaith he, Page 456. Their Paſtorall power added to him is Cumulative and auxiliary, but not privative or deſtructive of his Paſtorall power, and therefore that the firſt Paſtor ſuffereth loſſe by the addition of theſe three to him, who, ſaith he, will ſay this?
Anſw. I know none that will ſay it; but if their power be Cumulative and auxiliary to his Paſtorall power, and no wayes privative or deſtructive thereof, then what power he had afore they were added, the ſame he hath ſtill in as great meaſure as formerly, and ſo his Paſtorall acts are as perfect and valid as they were before. Now let the ſame bee granted to a Congregation that hath neighbour Congregations added, and we have what we demand: And if this be not granted, then though the power of thoſe other Paſtors be Cumulative and auxiliary to the other Paſtor, yet the power of thoſe other Congregations ſeemes not ſo to the former Congregation, but rather privative or deſtructive of its power, and then how can this example confirme our Brothers purpoſe, or how can it be avoided but the example which he produceth doth make againſt himſelfe? Sure if the power of theſe other Paſtors bee not deſtructive to the former Paſtors power, but auxiliary thereto, ſo that what power he had before, the ſame he retayneth ſtill, and in the ſame meaſure, then it muſt bee ſo likew…ſe in a Congregation when neighbour Congregations are added, or elſe this example will not ſuit: But make the examples to agree and our cauſe is advantaged thereby.
Our Brethren doe conceive the power of Congregations in its kind and eſſence to be Monarchicall, ſo as if any power from conſociated Congregations be added thereunto, the Congregations power Monarchicall is diminiſhed and the eſſence of it changed.
Anſw. The power of Congregations we …old to be Miniſteriall, as being delegated from Chriſt Ieſus, and to be exerciſed according to his appointment; and in him alone and in no other do we place this Monarchicall power; according to what the Holy Ghoſt witneſſeth, that there are differences of adminiſtrations but the ſame Lord, 1 Cor. 12. 5. And though our Brother is pleaſed to put this upon us, that we conceive the power of Congregations to bee Monarchicall, yet in truth the ſame is farre from us: Nor do I thinke that ſo much as one of us can be named, that at any time hath ſo ſpoken: Nor doth ſuch a thing follow from any thing delivered by us concerning the power of Congregations. For as for that which here he intimateth and elſewhere expreſſeth more plainly, ſo that the power of Iuriſdiction in Congregations is cloſely made void or deſtroyed by that power which ſome aſcribe unto Claſſes, if this be holden by us, doth it thence follow that we hold the power of Congregations to be Monarchical… It followes not at all. For then by the like reaſon I could prove that himſelfe d…th hold a power Monarchicall in the univerſall or Provinciall Churches: For he expreſly affirmeth, Page 337. That the Popes power deſtroyeth the power of the Church univerſall, and the Prelates power deſtroyeth the power of the Church whereof hee is pretended Paſtor. And yet I hope he doth not hold a Monarchicall power in the one Chu…ch nor in the other, nor in any Church or Churches but in Chriſt alone; nor can the ſame bee truly concluded upon that which hee affirmeth of deſtroying the power of Churches by the power of the Pope and Prelate. And if not, how then can any man conclude againſt us that we hold a Monarchicall power in Congregations, though wee ſhould hold that the power of Congregations is deſtroyed or diminiſhed by that power which ſome would give unto Claſſes… If our pr…miſes will warrant him to faſten ſuch a Tenent upon us, his own will give a warrant for the like againſt himſelfe. And if the ground be inſufficient to beare ſuch a concluſion againſt him, as I confeſſe it is, I know no ſufficient ground why the ſame ſhould be imputed unto us.
Compleat and en…ire power to rule both the Congrega…ion and members of conſociated Churches in ſo farre as they do keep communion with that Congregation, and may either edifie or Scandalize them, floweth not immeaiately and …eceſſarily from the eſſence of every Congregation even in remote Ilands not conſociated with others, that we never ſaid.
Anſwer. Indeed it were an abſurd and groſſe ſaying for any man to ſay, that a Congregation in a remote Iland not conſociated with others ſhould have power, yea compleat and entire power to rule the Congregation and members of Churches conſociated and that this ſhould flow immediately and neceſſarily from the eſſence of ſuch a Congregation. But there is no need that our Brother ſhould cleere himſelfe from this ſaying, for I know none that imputes it to him. Nevertheleſſe, the ſaying here …joyned cannot be denyed, for they are his own verb…ti….
Firſt, the ordinary power of Iuriſdiction becauſe of neereſt vicinity and contiguity of members is given by Ieſus Chriſt to one Congregation in an Iſle, becauſe that Church is a Church properly ſo called: It is a little City, and a little Kingdome of Ieſus Chriſt, having within it ſelfe power of the …ord and Sacraments and that is a Church and hath the eſſence of a Church to which agree the eſſentiall notes of a Church: now Preaching of the word and adminiſtration of the Sacraments are eſſentiall notes of a viſible Church: Page 302.
Second, a Congregation is a Church wanting nothing of the being and eſſence of a Church, Page 302.
Third, where conſociation is not, Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one ſingle Congregation, Page 338.
Fourth, that in ſuch caſes (viz. When a Church is in an Iland it ſelfe alone) they have the word Preached and entire power of Diſcipline whole and entire within themſelves to Excommunicate Scandalous perſons, is not extraordinary, Page 454.
Fift, it floweth co…naturally from a Church to which agreeth the eſſence of a Church, to exerciſe Iuriſdiction over all its owne members, ibid.
Sixt, neither doth a Congregation tranſgreſſe any rules of Chriſt at all, when it exerciſeth entire Power of cenſures within it ſelfe, whereas there be no conſociated Churches to ſhare with it in that power, ibid.
Seaventh, a Congregation is capable of entire Iuriſdiction, becauſe it is a Church, Ibid.
Such ſayings as theſe himſelfe hath delivered in the pages and places here cited, and in the words and termes here expreſſed; and therefore from theſe he cannot cleere himſelfe And if from theſe the entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction in a Church that hath neighbours may juſtly be deduced, as I conceive it may, and have above manifeſted, it will then but little availe him to waſh his hands from the ſtayne of that other abſurd ſaying afore mentioned, which no man that I know do charge him withall. For as long as theſe other ſayings do ſtand unrecalled, ſo long wee have cleere grounds from himſelfe and his own words, for entireneſſe of Iuriſdiction in every Congregationall Church, and ſo for the weakening of his cauſe, and for the ſtrengthening of our own.
A power to governe well and according to the rule of the Word added to an other power to governe well and according to the Word, is an auxiliary power and no way deſtructive to that power to which it is added. Indeed a power to governe well added to a power of male-adminiſtration in a Congregation is deſtructive of that power, and reaſon it ſhould bee ſo, becauſe Christ never gave any ſuch power of male-adminiſtration to a Congregation.
Anſw. Here our Brother ſpeakes of two caſes, firſt of a Power of governing well added to a power of governing well. Second, of a power of governing well added to a power of governing ill; but beſides theſe, there is a third caſe which had need to bee conſidered alſo, viz. A power of governing ill added to a power of governing well, which may be the caſe when the power of Claſſis is added to a Congregation; for it is not impoſſible but the Congregation may be in the right and the Claſſis in the wrong. Now what ſhall be ſaid or done in this …aſe? Shall the Congregation now have the free exerciſe of its power, or ſhall it not? To ſay yea, would ſatisfie the minds of many, if the Congregation themſelves may be judge that they are in the right, or if it were determined who muſt judge thereof. And to ſay no, and that the power muſt ſtill be in this erring Claſſis, were to ſubject righteouſneſſe to wickedneſſe, and truth to falſhood, and I conceive our Brother will not maintain ſuch power in a compound or Presbytery or Claſſis. For in Page 335. ſpeaking of this very caſe, and the greater Presbytery is wrong in their voicing, and the Elders of a Congregationall Church are right, and have the beſt in judging of a caſe before them, he plainly affirmeth, That the power which in this caſe the Presbytery exerciſeth is not of Chriſt, and that de jure the power of the greater Presbytery in this caſe ought to be ſwallowed up of the voices of the Elders of a Congregation, though they be fewer in number. Now if this be ſo, then the thing in queſtion is ſtill as uncertain as before, and ſtill wee are to ſeeke where the power of cenſures or Iuriſdiction doth finally reſide. For in the one place our Brother tels us, Chriſt never gave power of male-adminiſtration to a Congregation, and in the other he tels us the like of a Claſſis or great Presbytery, and that Chriſt hath given no power to any Church to erre. By which ſayings we are left at great uncertainty: for ſtill the queſtion will be whether the Congregation doth erre or no, and ſo whether the Claſſis do erre or no, and unleſſe it be determined who muſt judge of this, we are ſtill but where wee were, and no neerer an iſſue then before.
This indeed is moſt true and muſt be ſo acknowledged, that though the Lord Almighty have given a power unto Societies, whether they bee families, Commonwealths, or Churches, and have made ſundry of them ſubordinate to none other the like Societies in the exerciſe of their power, but to have ſupremacy of power within themſelves, yet he hath alſo given them juſt and holy rules in his word for the directing of them in the uſe of this Power, from which rules it is not lawfull for them to ſwerve or go aſtray; but if they do, it will be ſin unto them, and he will ſurely require it of them: But now between theſe two the power it ſelfe and the abuſe or right uſe of the power, we muſt carefully diſtinguiſh, for though abuſe of their power bee not given of God, from whom comes nothing but good, yet the power it ſelfe being good is given of him, and is ſo to be acknowledged. And though abuſe of their power do juſtly deſerve at his hands that they ſhould be deprived of the power it ſelfe, ye… God doth not alwayes forthwith deale with men according to their deſerts herein, but many times continues ſtill to them their power, though they have abuſed the ſame, much leſſe doth he allow others to deprive them of this power becauſe of every abuſe thero…: witneſſe among others the examples of the Pagan Princes in the Apoſtles times, who through their ignorance, infidelity, pride and other ſins, could not but in great meaſure abuſe their authority, and yet the Holy Ghoſt commands the Chriſtians to be ſubject and obedient thereunto, Rom. 13. 1, 2. &c. Tit 3. 1. Not to obey them indeed, in doing evill at their commands, for in ſuch caſe they muſt obey God rather then man, as Act 5. 29. Yet ſtill they muſt be ſubject to the powers either actively or pa…ively, even then when the powers were ſinfully abuſed. Even ſo, if a family ſhall abuſe their power, it doth not follow that other families, may lawfully for this cauſe take away their power from them: Or if a Corporation ſhall ſo offend, it will not follow that other Corporations may deprive them of their power. And if it be ſo in Commonwealths, and families, why may wee not ſay the ſame of Churches? Or how will it follow, if a Church ſhall abuſe their power, that other Churches in ſuch eaſes may take away the power from ſuch a Church? For ought I ſee, this will not follow at all, no more then the other. For though Chriſt have not given to any Church a power of male adminiſtration as Mr. Rutherford ſpeaks, yet hath he given to every Church a power of adminiſtration, which if they manage not aright but do abuſe the ſame, the Lord Ieſus will be diſpleaſed with them for this abuſe, and other Churches may and ought to adviſe them and admoniſh them and teſtifie againſt them for the ſame; but for the power it ſelfe, as Chriſt himſelfe doth not forthwith deprive them thereof, ſo much leſſe may other Churches take it from them, for who gave them this authority? Per in parem non habet poteſtatem: and Churches are all of equall authority, and not one ſuperior or inferior to another, as therefore when children or ſervants in a family are not governed as they ought to be, yet neighbour families have not warrant becauſe of this male adminiſtration to invade the rights and deſtroy the power of ſuch a family, even ſo it is in this caſe of Churches▪ this male-adminiſtration in a Church is not forthwith a ſufficient warrant for neighbour Churches to invade the rights of ſuch a Church, and to take away its power from it. Eſpecially if we do conſider that this male-adminiſtration in a Congregation may poſſibly be but pretended and not reall, and that the adminiſtration of the Claſſes may paradventure be really ſuch; in which caſe Mr. Rutherford ſaith the power of the Claſſis is not of Chriſt, but their voices ought de jure to be ſwallowed up by the Congregation and the Elders thereof. This argument therefore from male-adminiſtration of the power of a Congregation, which Mr Rutherford ſaith, it is reaſon ſhould be deſtroyed by another power added to it, meaning the power of a Claſſis is of no ſufficient force to take away the power of a Congregation at all, not to eſtabliſh the power of the Claſſis over the ſame, being as juſtly applyable againſt the Claſſis it ſelfe: Therefore for ought that doth yet appeare, ſupreame Miniſteriall Church power which I conceive muſt needs be ſomewhere, may as well be in the Congregation as in the Claſſis, and can neither by this argument of male-adminiſtration nor by any other that we have yet ſeene, bee placed in the Claſſis any more then in the Congregation.