Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 14
CHAP. XIV.
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 came together in ſome place &c. Doe make for ſundry Congregations or for one onelyonly.
PAge 464. I cannot but thinke that weake which Mr. Mather and Mr. Tompſon ſay (Anſwer Page 37.) the place 1 Cor. 14. 23. That ſpeaketh of the whole Church comming together to one place doth unavoidably prove, that Corinth had their meetings and not by way of diſtribution into ſeverall Congregations, but altogether in one Congregation: and it is plaine, that though they had variety of teachers and Prophets, yet they all uſed to come together to one place.
Anſw. If that which wee ſay be weake, it is more eaſie for one of ſuch ability and ſtrength as Mr. Rutherford to overthrow the ſame. Yet it is not words that will ſuffice, but weight of reaſon that muſt availe thereto. Let us heare therefore his Anſwer to this paſſage which he thinkes and cenſures to be ſo weake.
The place ſaith he, 1 Cor. 14. 23. If the whole Church come together &c. Deth evince the contrary. For the Apoſtle doth there reaſon ab abſurdo, from a great incongruity: it were incongruous ſaith he, and ridiculous that the whole Church of Corinth and all their guifted men ſpeaking with Tongues (ſo that they could not be underſtood by Infidels) ſhould all Convene in one place, and ſpeake with divers Tongues: For the unlearned and unbeleevers would ſay they were madde; therefore hee preſuppoſeth that the whole Church ſhould not all come to one place, but that they ſhould ſo come to one place, in divers Aſſemblies.—
Anſw. And is it true indeed, that this place doth evince the contrary? viz. That the Church at Corinth did not all meet in one Congregation: How ſhall we be aſſured that ſuch a thing is evinced by the place? For as for the reaſon given, &c. That the Apoſtle d…th there reaſon ab abſurdo, or from great incongruity, this doth not prove the thing at all, partly becauſe they might practiſe ſomething that were not meete but had incongruity in it, and partly (and more eſpecially) becauſe the Apoſtle doth not lay the abſurdity where Mr. Rutherford layes it, viz. In the convening of the whole Church in one place, but in their ſpeaking with ſtrange Tongues when they were convened and come together.
Touching the former of theſe, Mr. Rutherford reaſoneth to this effect. If it were an incongruous or un…it thing that the whole Church at Corinth ſhould come together in one place, then they did not ſo come together: but the firſt is true, Ergo the ſecond is true alſo. In which kind of reaſoning (ſuch is our weakneſſe) we thinke neither part of the argument to be free from juſt exception. For as we wholly deny the Aſſumption, ſo we alſo thinke there is no ſufficient ſtrength of conſequence in the maine Propoſition, foraſmuch as ſundry things were practiſed in that Church which were no wayes fit not meet to be practiſed, and which the Apoſtle doth therefore reprove, and ſeekes the redreſſe of the ſame: witneſſe their Factions and diviſions: Chap. 1. & 3. Their neglecting Church cenſures againſt the inceſtuous perſon, and on the contrary being puffed up, Chap. 5. their going to Law one with another before the Infidels, Chap. 6. their abuſes in Prayer and Propheſying, their women uncovered and their men covered, Chap. 11. their abuſes in the Lords Supper, when they ſo came unto it that one was hungry and another drunken, Chap. 11. Now as it were an unſufficient kind of arguing to ſay, theſe things were unfit and unmeet, and therefore that Church did not ſo practiſe, even ſo Mr. Rutherford his arguing ſeemes to be no better, who would prove they did come together in one place, becauſe the Apoſtle, as he thinks, did count ſuch comming together unmeet. For if it were granted that ſuch a comming had been unmeet, yet it doth not follow, but ſuch might bee their practiſe notwithſtanding: and therefore as hee counts our apprehenſion in this matter to be weak, ſo I leave it to himſelf and others to conſider, whether in this conſequence, It was not meet they ſhould all come together in one place, Ergo they did it not, be very ſtrong.
I deſire here not to be miſtaken: for I do not grant that their comming together in one place was unmeet, nor that the Apoſtle doth reprove them for the ſame; I have already ſaid the contrary, in denying the Aſſumption afore mentioned, which I do ſtill deny. But the thing I intend, is to conſider the ſtrength of Mr. Rutherford his reaſoning, and for that cauſe to apply it to the thing in queſtion, which I ſtill deſire to keepe cloſe unto, if it may be. Now the thing in queſtion, being this, whether the Church at Corinth, were ſo many at that they could nor meet together in one Aſſembly, but had many Congregations, and all but one Church, and Mr Rutherford maintaining the affirmative, and bringing this reaſon for it, taken from the Congruity of meeting all together, I therefore thought meet, to weigh the ſtrength of this reaſon, which I do not perceive to be in any wiſe convincing: but ſuppoſing the Apoſtle had counted ſuch meetings, inconvenient and unmeet, yet this reaſon as I conceive, is too weak to prove Mr. Rutherford his purpoſe, that their number was ſuch as that they could not all poſſibly meet in one place; for they might poſſibly do that which were unmeet to be done, in this particular as well as they did in many other things.
But in this particular I do not thinke, they did any thing abſurd, or unmeet at all; and therefore for further anſwer to this reaſon I would ſay: that the Apoſtle doth not ſay the abſurdity, where Mr. Rutherford layes it, to wit, in that the whole Church did convene, and come together, but in ſpeaking with ſtrange Tongues when they were convened, this latter being incongruous: and abſurd indeed; for the Infidels comming into the Church Aſſembly, and hearing them ſo ſpeake, might thinke them madde, as the Apoſtle ſayes; but for aſſembling all in one place, I know no madneſſe that was in that; nor ſhew thereof; nor do I yet beleeve that the Apoſtle doth place the abſurdity there. For though Mr. Rutherford bee a worthy man and learned, yet ſuch a thing as this had need of ſome further proofe then his bare word. If a Church ſhould meet diſtributively in divers Aſſemblies, and being ſo met ſhould ſpeake with ſtrange Tongues, I demand whether this manner of ſpeaking, do prove ſuch a way of meeting abſurd; I ſuppoſe he will ſay no, becauſe it is the way of meeting which he holds the Apoſtolike Churches did uſe; And if ſo, then ſuppoſe they ſhould ſo ſpeake with ſtrange Tongues, when they meet collectively all in one Aſſembly, how can this manner of ſpeaking conclude the abſurdity of ſuch kind of meeting any more then it did in the other? For my part, though ſuch kind of ſpeaking have incongruity and inconveniency in it, yet I conceive aſſembling collectively and in one Congregation is no more prejudiced thereby, then aſſembling diſtributively in many.
Hee (that is the Apoſtle) preſuppoſeth that the whole Church ſhould come to one place, in divers Aſſemblies, and all Prophecy in a Tongue known to the Infidels, as the unbeleever being convinced and judged of all the Prophets might fall down in his face, &c.
Anſw. If the Prophets were met in divers Aſſemblies at once, I marvell how the unbeleever ſhould be convinced and judged of them all; for I hope one ſingular and individuall unbeleever was not preſent in divers Aſſemblies at once, nor convinced and judged (as here he is ſaid to be) by thoſe Prophets, from whoſe Aſſembly he was abſent. Eithe… therefore the Prophets were all met in one Aſſembly and not in divers, or elſe it is yet a Quaere how he could be convinced by them all. For ſure the unbeleever could not be preſent in ſundry Aſſemblies at once.
Page 465. The whole Church is not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved, that did ordinarily meet in one place, the Text ſaith no ſuch thing, and that is to be proved and not taken as granted.
Anſw. Suppoſe it were true, that the whole Church was not the whole much people of Corinth that beleeved, this doth nothing prejudice our cauſe, for as much as our Queſtion is not about the whole much people that beleeved, but about the whole Church. If therefore it be granted that the whole Church collectively did come together in one place, we have what we deſire, and require no more. As for the whole much people that beleeved, whether this be the ſame with the former or no, wee ſhall have no need to prove or take for granted that theſe did in like manner come together, for as much as our queſtion in the termes of it is not about theſe, but about the other.
But why is not the whole Church the whole much people that beleeved? Shall we ſay the whole Church is more then the people that beleeved? Or ſhall wee ſay it is not ſo much? I conceive it muſt be one of theſe, or elſe it muſt be the ſame. If it be ſaid it is more, then ſtill we have our deſire, if not more then we demand. For if a company that is greater then all the much people that beleeved, were nevertheleſſe not ſo great, but they might and did aſſemble in one Congregation, then that much people that beleeved might ſo aſſemble much more. For if there be no impoſſibility but a company that is greater may ſo aſſemble, I ſuppoſe the ſame cannot bee denyed of a company that is leſſer. Againe, to ſay this whole Church was a greater number then the much people that beleeved, is directly to gainſay himſelfe, who in Page 460, 461. Makes the much people a greater number then the Congregation meeting for the Word, Sacraments, and Church cenſures; becauſe ſuch a Congregation, he ſaith, could not conveniently exceed one thouſand, whereas the much people muſt bee much in compariſon of thouſands of Jewes who rejected Christ, for that otherwiſe it would not have beene much for Pauls comfort, for which end it is mentioned and brought.
If it be ſaid the whole Church be leſſe then the people that beleeved, then it followes that ſome of thoſe beleevers were not of the Church, and ſo what himſelfe hath written, Page 125. 242. 251. will not ſtand. For in Page 125, hee ſaith, That the Seale of Baptiſme and the profeſſion of the truth is that which makes one member of the viſible Church—and by this are all the Citizens and domeſticks in-Churched, and received into a viſible Church. And Page 242. He ſaith any who blameleſſely profeſſe Chriſt is Eccleſiaſtically —in foro Eccleſiae, a true and valid member of the Church viſible, having Eccleſiaſticall power valid for that effect, and Page 251. he ſaith, a viſible profeſſion of the truth and Doctrine of golineſſe is that which eſſentially conſtituteth a viſible Church and every member of the viſible Church. Now if theſe things be ſo, then it followes that this whole people that beleeved were all of them members of the Church, inaſmuch as they were all partakers of Baptiſme and profeſſion, which he ſaith do eſſentially conſtitute the viſible Church and every member thereof. And they were all members of the Church, then the Church was not a leſſer company then they.
Nor can hee ſay it was a greater company, for the reaſons mentioned before.
And if it was neither a greater company nor a leſſer, was it not then the ſame. And if it was the ſame, then how can this ſtand which he affirmeth in the place wee have in hand, where hee ſaith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved? It ſeemes to me, that which way ſoever he ſhall take, his own pen will be witneſſe againſt himſelfe; for in the place wee have in hand, hee ſaith the whole Church is not the whole much people that beleeved: and in another place hee tels us, that the much people that beleeved was a greater number then the whole Church meeting for Word, Sacraments, &c. And yet in a third place hee tels us, that in effect it was not greater, inaſmuch as all Baptized profeſſing beleevers, hee ſaith, are of the Church.
Further, when the Text ſpeakes of the whole Church comming together in ſome place, let the wiſe judge whether it be a good Expoſition to ſay, by the whole is not meant the whole, but only a part. Which I conceive is Mr. Rutherfords Expoſition, who will not yeeld that the whole did come together in any one place, but part in one place, and part in another, the whole being diſtributed into ſeverall parts, and thoſe parts into ſeverall places. So that the whole Church comming together into ſome place, muſt have this meaning, the whole came not together in any place, but part in one place and part in another, which I feare is too much violence offered to the Sacred Text, which ſhould be handled with reverence.
But he brings a reaſon for this Expoſition, and that is this, Becauſe elſe we muſt ſay that at any one Aſſembly all the Prophets and teachers did Propheſy at Corinth; for the Text ſaith, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, whereas the conſequence ſhould bee abſurd, it ſhould bee a longſome and weariſome meeting, Page 465.
Anſw. And if they Propheſyed not all in one Aſſem…ly but divers, how could the unbeleever bee convinced and judged by them all? It will not bee eaſie to conceive how it could be, they Propheſying in ſuch a way: for the unbeleever ſure could not be preſent in ſundry Aſſemblyes at once, but in one onelyonly. And therefore, thoſe words, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all, will lay as much abſurdity upon his Expoſition of the words as upon ours, or rather a great deale more. For as for ours, there is no abſurdity therein at all, for aſmuch as by all the Prophets is meant all that Propheſied at the time, when the unbeleever was preſent, and not that all muſt Propheſy upon one day as Mr. Rutherford would have it. But the Text doth not ſo ſay, nor any Interpreter that I have met withall. Sure I am Beza ſaith, the expreſſe contrary, for upon verſe 31. Ye may all Propheſy one by one, &c. He hath this note, Non eodem ſane die, ſed ternis &c. That is indeed not all upon one day (which is Mr. Rutherfords Expoſition) but three at every moeing, having their turne to ſpeak till all had ſpoken by courſe.
Interpreters ſay they met in divers Aſſemblies, Page 465.
Anſw. Let thoſe Interpreters be named; and there words ſet down, and then by Gods help we ſhall conſider of what they ſay, and of the grounds and reaſons thereof▪ in the meane time to ſay that interpreters ſay it, and yet neither to tell us the reaſons nor the words of thoſe Interpreters, nor ſo much as the names of any of them, how ſhould this prevaile with us to turne us away from our former apprehenſions in the point?
True it is in another place, &c. Pag 461. Speaking of verſe 31. Yea may all Propheſy one by one, hee there tels us that Diodatus underſtands it that they might Prophecy, by courſe and in divers or ſundry Aſſemblies; And Eſſius, ſaith he, ſaith the ſame, to wit, that theſe Prophets were to Propheſy in divers Aſſemblies.
Anſw. For Diodatus I have him not at hand, and therefore I cannot peruſe the place; But for Eſtius, this I may ſay, that he neither ſaith what here is reported in his Commentary upon the verſe alledged, nor upon any verſe elſe in all the Chapter, as farre as I can obſerve, and I have read and peruſed him on purpoſe to ſee what were to be found in him: But though I cannot find him affirming that which Mr. Rutherford brings him for, yet I find ſundry places, wherein he ſeemes to me to affirme the contrary; for inſtance, Commenting upon the verſe alledged, hee hath theſe words as the ſence which he moſt preferres, viz. Quod ſi non unus tantum Propheta ſed plures &c. That is, If not only one Prophet but ſundry, yea all do ſpeake in the Aſſembly in order, it will come to paſſe that thoſe all may alſo learne, and receive exhortation, there being never a one of them, who is not alſo a hearer. Wherein we ſee he ſpeaks not one word of Propheſying in divers Aſſemblies at the ſame time, but that they were ſo to Propheſy that all of them were to be hearers, and learners, as well as ſpeakers. Which doth plainly imply, that there muſt be many Prophets in one Aſſembly at once. Againe, upon verſe …9, he hath theſe words as the ſenſe of the place, Quamvis forte multi ſuit in Eccleſiae—veſtra Prophetae &c. That is, Although perhaps there be many Prophets in your Church, yet it will be ſufficient if two or three do ſpeake at one meeting, and for others it ſhall be their duty to judge, that is to ſay, to examine and try whether theſe things be true and ſound which are ſpoken by them that ſpeake. Wherein he plainly ſhewes his judgement to be that at one meeting they were to have many Prophets preſent, of whom two or three onelyonly were to ſpeake, and the reſt to try and examine what was ſpoken. And to the ſame purpoſe he ſpeakes upon verſe 32. Which he counts to be the ſame with that of judging, verſe 29. Further theſe words verſe 23. Of the whole Church comming together into one place, he expounds thus, Alicujus loci totus populus fidelis, That is, all the faithfull or beleeving people of a place; which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who will not have the whole Church, to be the whole much people that beleeved. Finally, ſpeaking of thoſe words verſe 24. if all Propheſy, he hath theſe words, Nec omnes inteligit abſoluté, &c. That is, the Apoſtle underſtands not all abſolutely but to this ſenſe, to wit, if all that ſpeake in the Aſſembly of the Church do Propheſy, that is, if Prophets only do ſpeake, and they that have the gift of Tongues do hold their peace. Which is contrary to Mr. Rutherford who underſtands the Text ſo, that they were all to Propheſie at one time; and becauſe at one meeting there were but two or three to Propheſie, which two or three hee thinkes could not be all, hee will therefore have it that they were diſtributed into ſeverall Aſſemblies, and ſo did Propheſie all at once, though onelyonly two or three at one meeting. For which interpretation, though he alledgeth Eſtius, yet Eſtius wee ſee affords him no help at all. Whereupon I have marvelled why Eſtius ſhould be alledged, ſometimes thinking with my ſelfe whether his name might not bee miſ-Printed by the Printer, inſtead of ſome other man; ſometimes thinking whether Mr. Rutherford his memory might not faile him in this particular, having read the thing in ſome other Author, and ſuppoſing it had been in Eſtius. But what ever might be the reaſon of this miſtake, he that ſhall examine Eſtius will not find in him any help at all for Mr. Rutherfords cauſe in this particular, but the contrary.
The Text ſaith expreſly, verſe 29, that at one time they Propheſied but two or three.
Anſwer. This is a miſtake alſo: for the words are, let the Prophets ſpeake two or three, and let the other judge. Now let them do ſo, doth not ſhew their practiſe, but their duty: not what they did, but what they ſhould have done. The Text ſaith, if there be no interpreter let him that hath an unknown Tongue keepe ſilence in the Church, verſe 20. And let your Women keepe ſilence in the Churches, verſe 34. Now ſhall any man ſay, that theſe Texts do expreſly prove that it was the manner of their Women and of their men that had unknown Tongues to keepe ſilence. I ſuppoſe no man can ſay it, the words being not a report of what their practiſe was, but a rule of direction to ſhew them how they ought to practiſe. And ſo wee ſay of the caſe in hand. But let it be ſuppoſed that it was not onelyonly their duty, but alſo their practiſe to Propheſie at one meeting but onelyonly two or three, what can Maſter Rutherford gaine heereby? His words following do tell us, where hee ſaith, If two onelyonly Propheſyed at one Aſſembly, as this Text will warrant cleerely.
Anſw. Not ſo, the Text allowes three, which is more then two onelyonly. But go on, and let us heare the conſequence.
Then how doth this whole Church conſiſting of all the beleevers at Corinth, as is ſuppoſed by our Brethren, convince the Infidell, ſo as it may beare this ſence, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all▪ Can two Prophets be all Prophets?
Anſw. Though wee ſuppoſe the whole Church conſiſted of all the Beleevers at Corinth, yet that the whole Church did convince the the Infidell, this wee never ſaid nor ſuppoſed at all: For wee ſuppoſed and ſo do ſtill, that hee was to bee convinced onelyonly by the Prophets, beſides whom there were many others that were of the Church.
But for his demand, Whether two Prophets can bee all Prophets, The anſwer is, that though two bee not all where there are more then two, yet if there bee no more, there it is otherwiſe; and ſo where there are but two or three that doe Propheſie at one meeting, there hee that is convinced by thoſe two or three, may bee ſaid to bee convinced of all, that is of all that doe Propheſie. This ſence of the place muſt needs bee received, elſe how ſhall the Apoſtles words bee reconciled and ſtand together? For as in one verſe hee requireth, that the Prophets ſpeake two or three at one meeting, and the reſt to Iudge, verſe 29. And in another verſe affirmeth that the Infidell in the caſe there propoſed, is judged of all, verſe 24. So hee doth not onelyonly ſuppoſe in the very ſame verſe, that they did all Propheſie, if all, Propheſie ſaith hee, and there come in one that beleeveth not, &c. But moreover in verſe 31. Hee expreſly and plainely allowes them thus to Propheſie; Yee may all Propheſie, ſaith hee, one by one, that all may learne and all may bee comforted. Which places compared doe evince the ſence of the words heere given, and doe plainely ſhew that what hee ſaith verſe 24. Of the Infidell being convinced of all and judged of all, may bee truely made good, if hee bee convinced of all and Iudged of all that Propheſyed at that meeting, though their number that ſo Propheſyed were no more but two or three.
And therefore whereas hee concludes, Surely for my part I thinke it muſt unavoidably bee ſaid, that they Propheſyed diſtributively and in ſeverall Congregations, The Anſwer is, that this needs not to bee ſaid at all, but may bee avoided with …aſe; and the contrary may bee ſafely held; to wit, that they Pro…cied collectively and in one Congregation.
For firſt, they did ſo Propheſy, that one that beleeved not, and one unlearned might come in amongſt them when they were Propheſying, and by that meanes might bee convinced of all and judged of all, verſe 24. Which might well bee done, if they Propheſyed all in one Congregation, but otherwiſe it could not, for as much as one unbeleever could not bee preſent in ſeverall Congregations at once.
Secondly, they were ſo to Propheſie, that the Prophets when they Prophecied were to have the reſt of the Prophets to bee …, to heare and Iudge of that which was delivered, let the Prophets ſpeake two or three, and the reſt judge, verſe 29. and the ſpirits of the Prophets are ſubject to the Prophets, verſe 32. The former of which ſayings Mr. Rutherford himſelfe doth underſtand of a Colledge Prophets, having a power Dogmaticall of judging, and cenſuring the Doctrine of the Prophets delivered. What they ſpeake, ſaith he, Page 467. Is to bee judged and put under cenſure; for the whole Colledge muſt judge; for which he alledgeth verſe 29. And a little after, this is not a Power of judging which every Chriſtian hath, for foreign ſaith Piſcator doth relate to the Prophets, who are to judge; but as … take it a Propheticall judging, which may warrant the Iuridicall power of a Presbytery, &c. By all which it plainely appeareth that when the Prophets did Propheſy, the other Prophets were to bee preſent, to heare and judge of the Doctrines delivered; and if ſo, how can it bee that they Propheſyed in ſeverall Congregations at the ſame time? For had it been ſo, they could not have judged of one anothers Doctrine, which they could not heare, being themſelves at that time imployed in ſpeaking in ſome other place.
And therefore it ſeemes more likely, that they met in one Congregation, where they might all Propheſy, firſt one and then another, ſome at one time and ſome at another, and ſo all of them might alſo heare and learne, and judge of the Doctrine delivered by others.