Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 16
CHAP. XVI.
Whether the Church at Antioch was onelyonly one Congregation, and whether Acts 14. 27. and 15. 30. doe not prove the Affirmative.
THE Anſwer, having in pag. 5. alledged Acts. 14. 27. and 15. 30, 31. to prove that the Church at Antioch was no more then might be gathered together into one place, Mr. Rutherford in Anſwer hereto ſaith, p. 472, 473. That the place Acts 14. 27. is the repreſentative Church, and that he beleeveth the Aſſembling of the multitude, Acts 15. verſ. 30. muſt be taken diſtributively.
Anſw. This anſwer of Mr. Rutherfords, to the former place, was removed long ago by worthy Mr. Baynes, who alſo underſtands the latter place as we doe, and not as Mr. Rutherford: For in his Dioceſ. triall, maintaining this poſition, that the Churches inſtituted by the Apoſtles, were onelyonly ſuch as might meet in one Congregation ordinarily, and giving this very place and inſtance of the Church of Antioch, for one of his grounds, for confirming the ſaid poſition, p. 5. Hee comes imediately thereupon to anſwer an objection, which is the very ſame that here Mr. Rutherford brings to the former place, viz. that the Church mentioned in that place, was the Miniſters or repreſentative Church: for the removing whereof Mr. Baynes returneth 4. things, 1. that the word Church, is never ſo uſed: 2. He argues by analogy from that Acts 11. where Peter gives account before the whole Church, even the Church of the faithfull, and therefore in like ſort, Paul and Barnabas might report before the whole Church of the faithfull, what things God had done by them. 3. Saith he, they made relation to that Church which had ſent them forth, with Prayer and Impoſition of Hands; and this Church ſtood of all thoſe who aſſembled to the publicke ſervice and worſhip of God, (which is cleere, Acts 13. 2.) 4. His fourth particular is this other place of Acts 15. verſ. 30. where, ſaith he, the people of the Church of Antioch were gathered together, to conſider of Decrees ſent them by the Apoſtles from Ieruſalem, foreign. In all which, we cleerly perceive the judgement of this worthy man to be the ſame with us, and as clearly againſt Mr. Rutherford, as can be expreſſed, which being ſo, and his judgement being delivered upon ſuch reaſons, as ſeem to me weighty, and which Mr. Rutherford doth not remove; I therefore ſee no ſufficient reaſon to think otherwiſe of the Church of Antioch then formerly.
For as for M. Rutherford his reaſon to prove the place, Acts 14. 27. to be meant of a repreſentative Church, viz. That they met for a matter of Diſcipline, at leaſt for a matter that concerned all the Churches, to wit, to know how God had opened the doore of ſaith unto the Gentiles: The anſwer is, that this doth not evince the thing: 1. Becauſe rehearſing, how God had opened the doore of Faith unto the Gentiles, being neither admiſſion of Members, nor of Officers, nor any matter of cenſure, nor any thing elſe; but onelyonly a meer declaration of the gracious workings of the Lord, cannot be any matter of Diſcipline, as I conceive.
2. Suppoſe it were a meeting for matter of Diſcipline, muſt it needs be a meeting for Elders alone, without the preſence of the faithfull? Will Mr. Rutherford deny it to be l…wfull for any to be preſent at matters of Diſcipline, but onelyonly the Elders? I ſuppoſe he will not deny it at all, ſure I am he hath heretofore written otherwayes; Peaceable Plea p. 49. Where he granteth that all matters of Diſcipline muſt be done with the peoples conſent, and alledgeth about 19. or 20. Divines old and new for the ſame Tenet. Now if matters of Diſcipline muſt be done with the peoples conſent, then the people muſt be preſent thereat; For elſe they give their conſent blindefold. And if they muſt be preſent at ſuch matters; then ſuppoſe the matter mentioned in the Scripture we have in hand, had been of that nature, yet the Church that was gathered together about the ſame, needed not to be a repreſentative Church of Elders alone, as Mr. Rutherford would have it, but might conſiſt of the people alſo, who by his own grant may be lawfully preſent at ſuch matters.
3. Be it a matter of Diſcipline, or a matter that concerned all the Churches, or what elſe Mr. Rutherford will have it? It is plain that Paul and Barnabas when they were at Ieruſalem, did declare ſuch matters as here they do declare at Antioch, not onelyonly to the Apoſtles and Elders, whom he perhaps would make a repreſentative Church, but alſo to a Church beſides them, I mean beſides the Apoſtles and Elders; for ſo it is ſaid, Acts 15. 4. That at Ieruſ…lem they were received of the Church, and of the Apoſtles and Elders, and declared all things that God had done with them: and verſ. 12. they declared to the multitude what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. Now if they declared theſe things at Ieruſalem not onelyonly to the Apoſtles and Elders, as to a repreſentative Church, but to the Church of the Faithfull alſo, as the Text ſaith, they did, what reaſon can be rendred that the Church, which was gathered together at Antioch, ſhould be onelyonly a repreſentative Church? And that the people there were not preſent? For my part, I ſee no reaſon for it, but that they might declare theſe things to the Brethren a… Antioch, as well as to the Brethren at Ieruſalem; and as well to a repreſentative Church at Ieruſalem, as to a repreſentative Church at Antioch. And therefore ſith it is apparent that at Ieruſalem they declared theſe things to a Church, which conſiſted of others beſides Apoſtles and Elders; the Church at Antioch to whom they declared the ſame things, might be alſo a Church of the like kinde, and not a repreſentative Church, as our Brother conceives it to be.
4. The nature of the thing, which they doe declare to this Church was ſuch, as that it was fit enough for the people to be acquainted therewith; which the text mentions in two clauſes; firſt, more generally, all that God had done with them: Secondly, more ſpecially, how he had opened the doore of Faith to the Gentiles. Now ſuppoſe the people had nothing to do in matters of Judicature by way of power therein, yet to be informed of other peoples converſion, and how God bleſſed the labors of the Apoſtles to that end, which are the things they declared to this Church, theſe are no ſuch matters, but the people may bee acquainted therewith for their comfort, and that God might have praiſes from them all; and therefore the Church to whom Paul and Barnabas declared theſe things, needs not to be underſtood of the Elders alone, but may well enough be a Church conſiſting alſo of ordinary Chriſtians.
5. Paul thought it not unmeet to make known to all the Corinthians the grace of God beſtowed on the Churches of Macedonia, 2 Cor. 9. 1, 2. and declareth to them of Macedonia, the forwardneſſe of the Corinthians in the grace of liberality, 2 Cor. 9. 2. ſhewing the good that came hereby, in that the example of Gods grace, in ſome provoked many others to the like, 2 Cor. 9. 2. your zeale, ſaith he, hath provoked very many; and likewiſe in that, by this meanes, there redounded many thankſgivings unto God, verſ. 12, 13. And if upon theſe and other good cauſes he did thus practice towards the Chriſtians of Macedonia and Achaia, I know no good reaſon why he and Barnabas ſhould deal otherwiſe with the Chriſtians at Antioch, and conceale from them the gracious workings of God by their Miniſtery amongſt the Gentiles; and make known the ſame onelyonly to a repreſentative Church of Elders.
As for our Brothers anſwer to the other Scripture, Act. 15. 30. That the aſſembling of the multitude, there ſpoken of, muſt be taken diſtributively, I conceive the text will not beare that expoſition: for the words are that they gathered the multitude together, then delivered the Epiſtle. Now if this multitude was gathered together not in one aſſembly but diverſe, how could the Epiſtle being but one, be delivered to them all? Can one Epiſtle be delivered to ſundry or ſeverall aſſemblies at one time? I ſuppoſe it is not poſſible, except we ſhall imagine there be ſundry Coppies, one to be read in one aſſembly, and another in another; whereof in the preſent caſe, there is not ſo much as the leaſt hint. And if we would imagine ſuch a matter, for which there is ſmall reaſon; yet ſince it is, Iudas and Silas, by whom this Epiſtle was ſent, and who were to tell the ſame things by mouth, and who alſo upon the delivering of the Epiſtle exhorted the breathren of Antioch, with many words, as is cleare, verſ. 22, 23, 27, 32. Iudas and Sila…, I ſay, being but two men could not be preſent, and ſpeak, and act theſe things in many aſſemblies at once, but muſt of neceſſity be both in one aſſembly, or at the moſt in two: but the text makes no mention of their being in two, but plainly enough intimates the contrary, that they were both together: and yet where they were preſent, there was the multitude gathered together, to receive the Epiſtle by their hands, and to heare the report and word of exhortation at their mouth. Unleſſe therefore we will imagine that Iudas and Silas could be preſent, and act in many aſſemblies at once, there is no reaſon to think this multitude among whom they were preſent and acted, to be many Congregations or aſſemblies.
And therefore for his concluſion, pag. 475, 476. That the mentioning of one multitude in the ſingular number, Acts 15. 30. can never prove that there was but one ſingle Congregation at Antioch. The anſwer is, that we doe not lay the force of our reaſon in the mentioning of the multitude in the ſingular number, and therefore it can not thus be ſatisfied, or put off: for our words are theſe: The whole multitude of them were gathered together at the return of Paul and Barnabas from the Synod at Jeruſalem, to heare the Epiſtle read, which was ſent from that Synod: Anſwer p. 50. wherein it is eaſie to perceive, that we lay the force of our reaſon not in this, that the Church is called a multitude in the ſingular number; but in this, that the whole multitude were gathered together, for ſuch an end, as there is expreſſed: and this we ſtill conceive may prove the point: For a Church, which is ſuch a multitude, as is gathered together, for the receiving of one Epiſtle, which was ſent unto them all, and which is gathered together to heare the Epiſtle read, and alſo to heare the ſame things by mouth, the men from whoſe mouth they muſt ſo heare, and from whoſe hands they muſt ſo receive, being no more but two; ſuch a Church as this can be no more, but one Congregation, or Aſſembly. Now Antioch was ſuch a Church: and therefore was no more but one Congregation. If this concluſion be not granted, ſome way muſt be deviſed how many ſeverall aſſemblies might all be receivers and hearers of one and the ſame Epiſtle at the ſame time, there being but one coppy of the Epiſtle, as alſo how they might at one time heare the ſame things declared to them by mouth, when there was but two men to declare the ſame. And when ſuch a way is found out, we may then further conſider thereof. But in the mean time, the grounds and reaſons alledged doth induce me to think, that Antioch, where thoſe things were thus done, was indeed, but one Congregation.