Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
Of the Aſsembly, Act. 15. Whether they did exerciſe any power of Iuriſdiction againſt the obtruders of Circumciſion, and whether their rebuking of them do argue the Affirmative.
IN his page 388. He laies downe this as a 2d. Object. viz. That there is no cenſuring of perſons for Scandals, and that meeting, Act, 15. Becauſe there is nothing there but a Doctrinall declaration of the falſhood of their opinion who taught the neceſſity of Circumciſion: and that all is done by way of Doctrine and by power of the Keyes of knowledge, not of Iuriſdiction, is cleere from the end of the meeting, which was verſe 2 & 6. To conſider of that Queſtion: Conſideration of Queſtions being the end of the Synod, is a thing belonging to Doctrinall Power meerely. And then he ſ…joyneth my name, and in the Margent alledgeth the anſwer, chap. 1. page 8.
Anſ. Whereto I firſt of all returne this anſwer. Firſt, that the thing here in Queſtion being about the power of that meeting Acts 15. There is nothing in the place alledged by Maſter Rutherford that can warrant him to frame ſuch an Objection under Maſter Tompſons name and mine, as proceeding from us: And the reaſon is, becauſe that meeting Acts 15, is not mentioned at all in the place by him alledged, neither for that purpoſe which he ſets down, nor for any other; much loſſe is the Objection ours in Terminis. Now to frame an Objection, and to alledge chapter and page for proofe that the Objection is ours, when as neither page nor chapter aleadged do ſpeake any thing at all of that matter, what reaſon can be given for this I know not.
Nevertheleſſe, becauſe the matter contayned in the Objection doth not much differ from my apprehenſion and judgement, and ſomething in the anſwer elſewhere may poſſibly intimate ſuch a thing, though but briefly touched, I will therefore conſider of what he ſaith for removing the Objection as himſelfe hath propounded the ſame.
It is falſe, ſaith he, that there is no cenſuring of perſons here, for—it is more then evident that the publike Synodicall cenſure of rebuke is put upon thoſe who held and urged the neceſſity of Circumciſion, and why not Excommunication alſo in caſe of obſtinacy? For the Synodicall cenſure of a publike Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different, not ſpecifically from excommunication, & both muſt proceed from ou… & the ſame power. So then the ſumme is, the Synod had power of rebuking, and therefore of Excommunication alſo.
Anſw. The Conſequence is not cleere, for who knoweth not that there may be power to rebuke, where there is no power of Excommunication? Is it not the expreſſe Law of God, that every man ſhall plainly rebuke his Neighbour and not ſuffer ſin upon him, Levit. 19. 17? And are not our … words as plaine, if thy brother treſpaſle againſt thee rebuke him, and if he repent forgive him, Luke 17. 3? Whereby it is evident that one particular perſon hath power by the Law of God and Chriſt to put a rebuke upon another, if there be occaſion for it. But will it follow hereupon that one particular Chriſtian hath power to Excommunicate another in caſe of Obſtinacy? I ſuppoſe Maſter Rutherford will not ſay ſo; and yet unleſſe this be ſaid, I know not how his Conſequence can be made good, that if a Synod may rebuke, they may Excommunicate alſo. I know indeed he ſaith, the Synodicall rebuke is only gradually different from Excommunication, and not ſpecifically, and that both muſt proceed from one and the ſame Power. But this would require ſome proofe, and ſhould not nakedly be affirmed without any proofe at all. For of it ſelfe it is not evident, that where …ver there is power to rebuke, there is power of Excommunication alſo. The contrary I ſuppoſe is evident from that which hath already been ſaid from Levit. 19. 17. and Luke 17. 3. and from many other Scriptures, and reaſons, which ſhew that one man alone hath power to rebuke, who cannot for that be concluded to have any power of Excommunication. I know the learned m…n is copious in proving from the words of verſe 24. Certaine men went from us, and have troubled you with words, ſubverting your Soules, &c. That this Aſſembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way confute the falſe opinion and Doctrine of theſe teachers of Circumciſion, but doth alſo rebuke them for another fault, to wit; their obtruding their falſe way upon the Soules and Conſciences of others, and for their wilfull and obſtinate upholding that opinion and rayſing a Schiſme in the Church. But if all this were granted his purpoſe were not gained thereby, unleſſe he would prove that which he doth but only affirme, to wit, That a Synodicall rebuke is not ſpecifically different but only gradually from Excommunication, and that both muſt proceed from the ſame power, which ye… he hath not proved at all.
But ſaith he, I argue thus: If the Apoſtles do not only in a Doctrinall way refute a falſe Doctrine in this Synod, but alſo in Church way and by a Juridicall power do rebuke and Synodically charge the Authors as ſubverters of Soules, and Lyers, then they doe not onelyonly uſe a meere Doctrinall power in this Synod, but alſo a Juridicall power: but the former is true: Ergo, ſo is the latter.
Anſw. With favour of ſo learned a man, I thinke this kind of argu…ng is but a begging of the thing in queſtion, and a proving of Idem per Idem. For if the Synod did not only in a Doctrinall way refute a falſe Doctrine, but alſo by a Iuridicall power rebuke the Authors of it, then it muſt needs be true indeed that they did not only uſe a Doctrinall power, but alſo a Iuridicall power; that is, If they did ſo, they did ſo: if they did uſe ſuch power, they did uſe it. But there ſtill lyes the queſtion, whether they did ſo or no: and whether they did uſe ſuch power or not, and this kind of arguing doth not cleere it all. If we on the contrary ſhould argue thus, if this Aſſembly did not put forth any power of Iuriſdiction or Diſcipline, but only in a Doctrinall way con…ute a falſe Doctrine and rebuke the Authors of it, then they did onelyonly put forth a Doctrinall power, and not any power of Iuriſdiction, one of farre leſſe abilities then our learned Author, would ſoone eſpy the looſeneſſe of ſuch reaſoning: at leaſt himſelfe, we doubt not, would ſoone eſpy it, for ſometimes we heare him ſay, friend your Logick is naught, page 177. And yet (be it ſpoke without offence) the Logick which himſelfe doth here uſe is not ſo good, as to be altogether without fault, no not for the forme of it; and therefore, we do not ſee how any thing can be concluded th…reby.
But to leave this miſtake, and to conſider of the matter it ſelfe. If it were granted that this Aſſembly doth not only in a Doctrinall way conſute a falſe Doctrine, but alſo rebuke the Authors thereof, muſt it needs follow that this rebuking was done in a Iu…idicall way? Is there no rebuking of offenders for their faults, but only in a way of …ction and Diſcipline? I ſuppoſe much needs not to be ſaid for the cleering the truth to be otherwiſe. For Maſter Rutherford himſelfe confeſſes Page 394. That there is great odds to do one and the ſame action materially, and to do the ſame formally: and Page 393. That one Apoſtle might himſelfe alone have rebuked theſe obtruders of Circumciſion. Which being ſo, it followeth thereupon that though this Synod (to call it ſo) Act. 15. Had a Doctrinall power, yea and a power of rebuking theſe falſe teachers; yet the thing that he from thence would inferre, viz. Their power of rebuking in a Iuridicall way, and their power of Excommunication, theſe are neither of them proved thereby.
For if it ſhould be ſaid, that though rebuking do not alwayes imply Iuridicall power, yet if it be a Synod that doth rebuke, then the power here ſpoken of may be concluded thence to be in a Synod. The Anſwer is, that this will not helpe at all, becauſe this is nothing but the bringing in of another Efficient, viz. The Synod, for effecting or acting the ſame effect. Now Maſter Rutherford confeſſeth pag. 393. That he doth not fetch the ſpecification of this rebuke and of thoſe Decrees from the efficient cauſes; and gives that for his reaſon, which to me is unanſwerable, to wit, becauſe one Apoſtle might himſelfe alone have rebuked theſe obtruders of Circumciſion: And in the page next enſuing he confeſſeth alſo, that actions have not by good Logick their totall ſpecification from the efficient cauſe. Which being ſo, then though it were granted that any Synod may, and that this Synod did performe this action of rebuking, yet the thing in queſtion, to wit, that the power of a Synod is a power of Iuriſdiction and of Excommunication is not at all gained thereby.
At the leaſt wiſe (to end this paſſage) this I may ſay, that if this Reverend Brother will be true to his own Principles, and not gainſay what himſelfe hath already written, he for his part cannot conclude the Synods power to Excommunicate from this argument of their power to rebuke, nor yet from any other argument whatſoever: and the reaſon is, becauſe he doth elſewhere confeſſe that Synods are not to Excommunicate any, and not this Synod in particular to Excommunicate theſe falſe teachers, but to remit the cenſuring of them to other Churches, Commanding them to doe it. His words as they are to be ſeene in his Page 413. are theſe, viz. I could eaſily yeeld that there is no neceſſity of the Elicit acts of many parts of government, ſuch as Excommunication, Ordination, admitting of Heathens, profeſſing the Faith to Church-memberſhip, in Synods Provincicall, Nationall or Oecumenicall; but that Synods in the eaſe of neglect of Presbyterycall Churches, Command theſe particular Churches whom it concerneth to doe their duty: and in this ſence Act. 15. Is to remit the cenſure of Excommunication to the Presbytery of Antioch and Ieruſalem, in caſe of the obſtinacy of theſe obtruders of Circumciſion. In which words we have two things concerning Excommunication (to omit other particulars) firſt, that there is no neceſſity that Synods ſhould Excommunicate any, but only command the Churches to do their duty therein. Secondly, in particular concerning that Synod Acts 15. That they were to remit the cenſure of Excommunication to the Presbyteries of Antioch and Jeruſalem, in caſe of the obſtinacy of theſe obtruders or Circumciſion. Which particulars being moſt true (as I for my part ſo eſteeme of them) it followes thereupon, that what Maſter Rutherford ſaith in this place we have now in hand, is greatly weakned thereby. For how both theſe can ſtand together, that this Synod ſhould have power not only to rebuke, but to Excommunicate theſe falſe teachers, and yet neither Provinciall, Nationall, nor Oecumenicall Synods to Excommunicate any, nor this Synod in particular to Excommunicate theſe falſe teachers, but to remit the cenſure to other Churches to whom it concerned, commanding them to do it, how theſe things I ſay can ſtand together, I for my part am not able to underſtand.