Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX.
If it were granted that the light of nature teacheth all ſocieties to end in Monarchies, whether it would not thence follow, that the government of Churches muſt ſo end, as well as that Congregations muſt depend on the government of Synods, becauſe the light of nature teacheth a Communion in government to other ſocieties. And whether the multitude of Grecians and Hebrews, who choſe the ſeven Deacons, Act. 6. were two Congregations or one onelyonly.
PAG. 482. If Churches muſt be dependent on Synods, becauſe the light of nature teacheth a communion and aſſiſtance in government, by the ſame reaſon Churches muſt end in a Monarchy on earth; for which he alledgeth the anſw. pag. 20. and then ſubjoyneth his anſwer, thus: I ſee this ſaid without any approbation: Churches depend on many above them for unity; but what conſquence in this, Erg… they depend upon one viſible Monarch? It is an unjuſt conſequence.
Anſw. With favour of ſo worthy a man, he greatly wrongs our words (and thereby wrongs the reader) by leaving out thoſe words wherein the plaineneſſe and ſtrength of our argumentation lyes. Therefore I am forced here to relate the order and progreſſe of the diſpute in that ſcript of ours, and to ſet down our words there uſed, becauſe as Mr. Rutherford hath ſet them down, the ſtrength of conſequence is ſuppreſſed from the Readers knowledge, and ſo indeed his anſwer is made eaſie: but the naked truth lyes thus. Our reverend Brother to whoſe Treatiſe we return anſwer in that ſmall piece of ours, having ſaid, that communion and aſſiſtance in government is taught by the very light of nature to all ſocieties whatſoever, whether Commonwealths, or Armies, Univerſities, or Navies; he preſently addeth by way of prevention. Not that therefore this government of Churches ſhould (as thoſe) end in a Monarchy upon earth. In anſwer whereto, beſides other things, we have theſe words, pag. 21. If Churches muſt be dependent on the government of Synods, becauſe the light of nature teacheth a communion and aſſiſtance in government to all ſocieties whatſoever, then we ſee not how it will be avoided, but by the ſame reaſon, Churches muſt end in a Monarchie on earth, if it were once cleared, that the light of nature doth teach all ſocieties whatever ſo to end; ſo there is as good reaſon for this as for the other. Which laſt words, if it were once proved &c. Mr. Rutherford wholy leaves out and ſuppreſſeth, and ſo makes his own anſwer more eaſie. But I deſire ſo much favour, which I think is but reaſonable, that he that will undertake to anſwer our writing, would repreſent our words and arguing as it is, and no otherwiſe, and then I am content that the ſame may come under tryall. Now our arguing is this; If Churches muſt be dependent upon the government of Synods upon this reaſon; becauſe the light of nature teacheth a communion and aſſiſtance in government to all ſocieties whatſoever; then by the like reaſon let it be once proved (which is by Mr. Herle affirmed) that the light of nature teacheth all ſocieties to end in a Monarchy, and it will thereupon follow that Churches muſt likewiſe end in the ſame manner. If we yeeld thus much that what the light of nature teacheth other ſocieties, the ſame muſt be obſerved in the government of Churches: I think it will then follow, that if the light of nature teach other ſocieties to end in a Monarchy on earth, the government of Churches muſt do ſo alſo. This is our manner of arguing, in which the conſequence is the ſame with that which our Brethren think ſo ſtrong, viz. that becauſe the light of nature teacheth a communion and aſſiſtance in government, therefore there muſt be in the Churches a government of Synods.
If any ſay the conſequence is not alike neceſſary in both caſes, becauſe the ground doth not hold alike in both, for the light of nature doth not teach all ſocieties on earth to end in a Monarchie, as it doth teach a communion and aſſiſtance in government The anſwer in that we have plainly ſaid the ſame, in the place of the Anſwerer alledgeth, viz. p. 20, 21. But the main queſtion lyes not there, whether other ſocieties do end in Monarchies, (for though the reverend author whom we there doe anſwer, do ſeem ſo to judge; yet we have there plainly declared, that we conceive of that matter otherwiſe:) but here doth lye the main queſtion, viz. Suppoſe it were granted, that light of nature doth teach all ſocieties to end in a Monarchy on earth, whether would it not then follow that Churches muſt alſo ſo end: And that this is the thing in queſtion wil plainly appear to any that ſhall peruſe the place. And to this queſtion, our anſwer is that the conſequence for the affirmative is as good as in that other caſe, in which our Brethren do think it ſo ſtrong: viz. for the government of Synods over congregations, from the communion and aſſiſtance—government taught by the light of nature to other ſocieties: and our reverend brother granting that the light of nature doth teach the one as well as the other unto other ſocieties, that is, that they ſhould end in Monarchies, as well as have communion in government, our anſwer is that thereupon the conſequence will be as ſtrong for the one as for the other in Churches. In which arguing it is eaſie to perceive that we go upon the ground which was laid and given us by our author: and therefore for M. Rutherford to ſuppreſſe this ground which we have there ſo plainly expreſſed, and to repreſent and ſet down our arguing as if there had been no ſuch matter; this indeed may make way for himſelf to give anſwer to us with eaſe, but whether it be candid and faire thus to deale, I leave it to himſelf, and the godly wiſe to conſider.
In the ſame pag. 482. he alledgeth the anſwer pag. 26. and ſets down theſe words as ours, viz. The Graecians and Hebrews made not two Churches, but one Congregation; they called the multitude of the Diſciples together, verſ. 2.
Anſw. Here againe our words are ſet down unperfectly: for the queſtion being, whether thoſe Graecians and Hebrews, Act. 6. were two ſeverall Congregation in one Church, or both but one Congregation, we for this latter do not onelyonly alledge that one particular which Mr. Rutherford mentioneth, that the Apoſtles called the multitude of the diſciples together, verſ. 2. but moreover that this multitude muſt look out ſeven men duely qualified, whom they might appoint over that buſineſſe, v. 3. and that the ſaying pleaſed this whole multitude, and that they thereupon choſe ſeven who are there named v. 5. and ſet them before the Apoſtles, v. 6. who laid their hands on them: ibid. In all which, ſay we, there is no hint of two Congregations, one of Graecians and another of Hebrews, but all the buſineſſe of chuſing and ordeyning theſe Deacons, ſeems to be tranſacted and done in one Congregation. For when the text ſaith that the Apoſtles called the multitude of the diſciples unto them, and made a ſpeech to this multitude being aſſembled, and the whole multitude did hear what the Apoſtles ſpake, and well liked the ſame, and thereupon joyntly concurred in one act of chuſing ſeven, and preſenting them being choſen before the Apoſtles, it ſeems to me more rationall to look at theſe things as done in one Congregation, then to imagine there were two, one of Graecians another of Hebrews: for of two Congregations wherein this choiſe of Deacons ſhould be made, the text for ought I perceive doth not afford the leaſt hint.
But let us hear Mr. Rutherford his anſwer. That the chiefe, ſaith he, of both Graecians and Hebrews were contained in one, to give their conſent to the admiſſion of the Deacons, I conceive.
Anſw. The chief are not ſo much as once mentioned in the ſtory: but contrarily the text expreſſely mentioneth the multitude, verſ. 2. and the whole multitude, verſ. 5. Now to exclude the multitude, whom the text doth expreſly mention, and to attribute the aſſembling and acting only to the chiefe, of whom the holy Ghoſt ſpeaks not one word, this (to ſay no more) ſeems a violent forcing of the text.
And if ſomthing had not forced him to it, I think he would not have uſed it; for elſwhere (viz. p. 495, 496.) he alledgeth this very ſcripture, and that three ſeverall times, within the ſpace of a doozen or ſixteen lines, to prove that the people, yea the multitude are to have the choiſe of Officers; and ſaith he, If it pleaſe not the whol multitude, Act. 6. verſ. 5. it is not a choiſe. And in pag. 190. He tells us, that the multitude Act. 6. are directed to chooſe out ſeven men, as being beſt acquainted with them; and that accordingly they did look out ſeven men and choſe them. In which places we ſee he can attribute this choiſe to the whole multitude, without any mention of the chief, or ſo much as the leaſt intimation of the action to be performed by them, the multitude being excluded or abſent; yea, he gives a reaſon of this choiſe, which will reach the multitude, and not the chief only, except we ſhall ſay, that the chief only were acquainted with theſe ſeven: whereas in the place we have in hand, he would exclude the multitude, and aſcribe the action to the chiefe onelyonly.
But that all the thouſands of the Church of Jeruſalem were here as in one ordinary Congregation, I judge unpoſſible.
Anſw. For aſmuch as the text tells us that the whole multitude of the diſciples were gathered together to act as here is recorded about the election of Deacons, therefore we judge that it was not unpoſſible for them ſo to do; for how ſhould we judge the thing unpoſſible, except we would judge the words of God to be unpoſſible to be true? Beſides, how many ſoever they were the text tels us Act. 2. 46. that they continued daily with one accord in the Temple: Now Temples we know there were none but one; and therefore that they ſhould all aſſemble in one Congregation, we dare not judge a matter unpoſſible, leaſt in ſo judging we ſhould ſeem to queſtion the truth of Gods Teſtimony.