Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 17 – Chapter 18
CHAP. XVII.
Whether no liberties are given by Chriſt to the People, but women muſt exerciſe the ſame, as well as men: and of the peoples liberty about Ordination, or the Calling of Miniſters.
IN the anſwer, p. 8. we have theſe words, viz. Governing properly ſo called we acknowledge not in any, but in the Elders alone, 1 Cor. 12. verſ. 28. Rom. 12. 8. Heb. 13. 17. If that word be aſcribed to the people, it muſt be underſtood in a more improper ſenſe; for that which impropriety of ſpeech were more fitly called liberty or priviledge: and yet this liberty when it is exerciſed about Ordination, Depoſition, Excommunication, &c. is of the whole body communiter, or in generall, but not of all and every member in particular, as you conceive us to hold; for women and children are members, and yet are not to act in ſuch matters, the one being debarred by their ſex, and the other for want of underſtanding and diſcretion. This paſſage Mr. Rutherford having related (though with ſome variation) in his pag. 476: in anſwer thereto, he ſaith thus, p. 477. If there be no governing power in women, nor any act at all in Excommunication, you looſe many arguments, that you bring 1 Cor. 5. to prove that all have hand in Excommunication, 1. Becauſe Paul writeth to all. 2. All were to mourne. 3. All were to forbeare the company of the Excommunicated: then belike Paul writeth not to all Saints at Corinth, not to women, and women were not to mourne for the ſcandall, nor to forbeare his company.
Anſw. If Mr. Tompſon and I doe being ſuch arguments from 1 Cor. 5. why is not the place quoted, where we doe bring them? I ſuppoſe there is no ſuch place at all that can be produced; and therefore I deſire ſo much favour, that what we never ſaid, may not be imputed to us, nor divulged abroad, as ours. If others doe bring ſuch arguments from 1 Cor. 5. they that bring them are able to ſpeake for themſelves, and to give account of their own arguments; but I know no reaſon that doth require, that we ſhould be drawn to defend ſuch arguments as we never uſed; nor that doth allow our Reverend Brother to report ſuch arguments as ours; which having never been uſed by us, I counted it therefore an impertinent digreſſion, to ſpend time in the defence of them.
The priviledge, ſaith he, being a part of liberty purchaſed by Chriſts body, it muſt be due to … for the liberty wherewith Chriſt hath made women free, cannot be taken away … of God from their ſex, except in Chriſt Ieſus there be a difference between Iew and Gentile, male and female.
Anſw. That which is in the people, we ſay, in propriety of ſpeech, is more …itly called liberty or priviledge: but of liberty purchaſed by Chriſts body or blood, we make no mention at all: and therefore our Brother might have ſpared ſpeech thereof. But it is true indeed, that the people can have no liberty, but women alſo may exerciſe the … elſe their liberty purchaſed for them by Chriſt is taken away? It ſeems, he ſo conceives: but then I deſire to know how his own doctrine elſewhere, and the Apoſtl…s w…ds can ſtand together: for in one place, he ſaith, that Acts 14. 23. Proveth that Elders ordaine Elder, with lifting up of the hands of the people, and this, ſaith he, is … doctrine, Due Right p. 190. and in another place, he ſaith, The people have Gods right to chooſe Miniſters, for ſo the word preſcribeth; for which in his margent he alledgeth … ſeverall texts of Scripture, Acts 15. 22. 1 Cor. 16. 3. 2. Cor. 8. 19. Acts 6. 4. Acts 14. 23. and in his text alledgeth Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambroſe, Origen, Chryſoſtome, the Councell of Nice, the firſt generall Councell of Conſtantinople, with other Councels and Authors witneſſing the ſame: pag. 201, 202. And in a third place, he grants that all matters in the Church muſt be done with the peoples conſent, conſentiente plebe, alledging a matter of 18. or 19. Authors for the ſame tenet. Peaceable Plea, p. 49. and in another place he alledgeth and approveth the judgement of Mr. Calderwood, and Mr. Cartwright affirming that this liberty is purchaſed by the blood of Chriſt: Due Right, Secondly, pag. 464. All which, do plainly ſhew that in his judgement, the people have ſome …, or priviledge, or right in Church matters; yea, as himſelf ſaith in this, they have divinum jus, Gods right: And yet for all this, the Apoſtles words do plainly forbid women to ſpeak in the Church, 1 Cor. 14. 34. 1 Tim. 2. 12. which very prohibition to women doth alſo ſecretly imply, that men may have liberty to practiſe, though women may not. Now then, if the people have liberty, priviledge, right to conſent, and act in Church matters; yea, to ſpeak in the Church, and yet women may not ſpeak therein, how can this ſtand, which here M. Rutherford writes, That if the people have any liberty, this liberty muſt alſo be due to women? If the Apoſtles words and our Brothers own doctrine in the places cited do ſtand, his ſaying in the place, we have now in hand, cannot ſtand, they being ſo contrary one to another. Thirdly, ſaith he, What priviledge the people have in Ordination to conferre a miniſtery, which they neither have formally, nor virtually, I know not.
Anſw. Neither formally, nor virtually? then hear your own words, pag. 7. I deny not but there is a power virtuall, not formall in the Church of beleevers, to ſupply the want of ordination of Paſtors, hic & nunc; this power is virtuall, not formall, &c. Whereas in the place we have in hand, the virtuall power as well as the formall is denyed; which things are not free from Interferring, or ſtrong appearance thereof.
Our words are not juſt the ſame which M. Rutherford ſets downe, a priviledge in ordination to conferre a Miniſtery; but theſe are our words, a liberty exerciſed about ordination, &c. And who knows not but there may be a liberty exerciſed about ordination, or any other Ordinance by way of conſent thereto, or deſire thereof, &c. without any authoritative acting therein? And if this liberty about ordination be ſuch a fault, then how ſhall he be juſtified, who doth give to the people a greater matter then this liberty doth amount unto, even a power to do that which ſhall ſtand for ordination it ſelfe? which to do I conceive is more then to exerciſe ſome liberty about ordination. And when the reader ſhall have conſidered theſe enſuing words of M Rutherford: then let him be judge, whether M. Rutherford do not give this power unto the people in ſome caſes. As a roſe, ſaith he, cauſed to grow in winter by art, is of that ſame nature with a roſe produced in ſummer by nature, though the manner of production be different; ſo are they both true Paſtors, thoſe who have no call, but the peoples election, and thoſe who have ordination by Paſtors, p. 186. And in the page following, he gives two reaſons to prove that in ſome caſes election by the people onelyonly may ſtand for ordination: 1. Becauſe God is not neceſſarily tyed to ſucceſſion of Paſtors: 2. Becauſe where men are gifted for the work of the Miniſtery, and there be no Paſtors to be had, the giving of the Holy Ghoſt is a ſigne of a calling of God, who is not wanting to his own gracious intention, though ordinary means faile. Now if the people without Paſtors may do that which ſhall ſtand for ordination, and if their election do make a Miniſter in ſome caſes; this ſeems to be more then onelyonly to exerciſe ſome liberty about ordination, for as much as they may doe this latter, and poſſibly no Miniſter be made thereby; whereas in the other caſe a man is made a true Paſtor and Miniſter, as well as by ordination it ſelfe. Marvell it is therefore that the greater is allowed as lawfull, and not the leſſer: that ſome liberty about ordination may not be allowed, and yet that can be allowed which may ſtand for ordination it ſelf, and which makes a Miniſter… as truly as ordination doth.
CHAP. XVIII.
Of Mr. Rutherfords report of Synodicall propoſitions in new-England.
NExt after this, our reverend Author falls to ſcanning, as he ſaith, pag. 476. ſome Synodicall propoſitions of the Churches of New England, as he calls them, together with a Table of Church power, which he calls the Table of New England. But with favour of ſoworthy a man, he doth greatly miſtake the matter: for neither was there any ſuch Synod, nor Synodicall propoſitions as he ſpeaks of, nor any ſuch Table of New England, as hee mentioneth. There was indeed at Cambridge in the year 1643. a printed conference of ſome of the Elders of that Country; where ſundry points of Church judgement were privatly diſcourſed of, and this was all. But as the meeting was not any Synod, as Synods are uſually underſtood, ſo neither were there any Synodicall propoſitions there agreed upon, nor any table of propoſitions agreed upon to be given forth as the Doctrine of New England. This I am able to teſtifie, having been preſent at that meeting from the beginning thereof unto the end: and ſundry others of the Elders of theſe Churches can teſtifie the ſame, upon the ſame ground: And knowing full well the truth of what I heare relate, I will not ſpend time in replying to what he hath written upon ſo manifeſt miſinformation, and miſtake. What information he goeth upon, I know not: per adventure ſome notes may have come to his view, which one or other might gather at that conference for his own private uſe: Peradventure ſome in their ſimplicity meaning no hurt, many have called that private conference by the name and tearme of a Syno…, and M. Rutherford might thereupon adventure to publiſh in print as here we ſee. But however they miſtake a Roſe, ſure I am, Synodicall propoſitions there were none; … any Synod at all, not New England Table. And therefore I think himſelfe and others may do well and wiſely hereafter, to be informed by good and ſufficient intelligence of ſuch things as they publiſh to the world concer…ing the Churches in New England, or elſe not to beleeve the ſame, much leſſe to divulge the ſame in print. For what comfort can it be to any Chriſtian to receive, and publiſh to the world againſt a mans neighb…u…, ſpecially againſt whole Churches of Chriſt, ſuch reports as for the matter contained in them do not agree with truth?