Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 4
CHAP. IIII.
Of the Dogmaticall power of Synods, and of the power of Congregations to determine matters amongſt themſelves if ability ſerve thereto.
IN his Page 396. alledging Mr. Tompſons name and mine, and chap. 1. page 9. of the Anſwer. He ſaith we there teach that there is a power of cleering truth dogmatically, & that ultimately where the controverſy is ended: but he ſaith, we will have this Vltimate power not in a Synod only, but alſo in a Congregation; and then no anſwereth three things which there enſue.
Anſw. Our words are theſe, by power of Decrees we underſtand power to cleere up the truth Dogmatically; for the word tranſlated Decrees is Dogmata in the Originall, Act. 16. 4. And this power we confeſſe is in a Synod, though not all in a Synod alone, but alſo in the Presbyterie of a ſingle Congregation. Now theſe bring our words, if therefore this Reverend Brother would overthrow our Tenent in this particular, he ſhould have proved that there is not any power as all in the Presbytery of a ſingle Congregation to cleere up the truth Dogmatically: this indeed had been directly contrary to what we teach: But this be neither proveth, nor once attempteth to prove; and therefore our Tenent herein doth yet ſtand good, for any thing he hath ſaid to the contrary.
And no marvell, ſi…h the expreſſe words of the text do witneſſe that every Biſhop hath power and is boand by his Office and duty, by ſound Doctrin… both to exhort and convince gainſayets, Tit. 1. 9. And accordingly the Presbitery of Antioch did labour to cleere up the truth in that controverſy about Circumciſion; and had much diſputation about it amongſt themſelves, afore there was any ſpeech of ſending to Jeruſalem for help, Act. 15. 2. Which ſheweth that they had power or right to have cleered the matter amongſt themſelves, if ability had ſerved, or elſe this indeavour had been ſinful as being an attempting to do that whereto they had no right. So that for ought we yet ſoe, the power that we ſpeake of, and which wee hold to bee in the Presbytery of a Congregation is there indeed by the appointment of the Lord.
But let us heare Maſter Rutherfords Anſwer.
Firſt, ſaith he, they ſeeme to make this Dogmaticall power a Church power, and the exerciſe thereof formally an act of Church government; and ſo it muſt be Church power and Church government in the Synod, as well as in the Congregation.
Anſw. Whence doth it ſeeme that we do ſo make it? Are there any ſuch words as here he ſets down? Or any words equivalent thereto? Or doth the place make any mention of Church-power, and Church government at all? Or is there ſo much as one word that looketh that way? If there be, let our Brother ſay that we ſeeme to …each as he doth report; but if there be not, we are ſorry he ſhould report us to teach o… ſeeme to teach, that which to our remembrance we never ſaid nor thought. And ſure it is, we have expreſly ſaid the direct contrary in page 7, the Page next ſave one afore this which heere he is dealing againſt, where wee have theſe words, It ſeemeth to us (ſay we) that this power, viz. By diſquiſition and diſputation to cleere up the rule (and then to command Obedience thereto) is not properly a power and exerciſe of government and Juriſdiction, but a power of Doctrine, and ſo a Synod is rather a teaching then a governing Church. Theſe are our words in the Page afore alledged; wherein we plainly expreſſe what the power of Synods ſeemeth unto us to be, even the direct contrary to that which he ſaith we ſeeme to make it; wee on the one ſide affirming and expreſſing, that it ſeemes to us, the power of a Synod is no power of government and Iuriſdiction, but a power of Doctrine: And he on the other ſide reporting that we ſeeme to make the exerciſe of Dogmaticall power to be formally an act of Church-government, and ſo to place Church-government in the Synod. In which report we muſt needs ſay, wee are plainly miſ-reported.
His ſecond anſwer is this. The laſt period and Concluſion of the controverſie cannot be both in the Congregation by right only, and in the Synod by right only: For two laſt powers cannot be properly in two Subordinate Iudicatures.
Anſw. This is very true, but it toucheth not us at all. For we never ſaid the laſt period of the controverſie is both in the Congregation only, and in the Synod onelyonly. If we have ſo ſaid, let the place be produced where we have ſaid it; for the place by him alledged doth afford us no ſuch thing, nor any place elſe that we know of. All that the place affords concerning this point is only this, that there is a power of cleering the truth Dogmatically in a Synod, though not in a Synod only, but alſo in the Presbytery of a ſingle Congregation. And this Doctrine I hope our Brother will not deny. But whether this power be laſt in the Synod, or in the Congregationall Preſbytery, of this we do not ſpeaks at all; much leſſe do we ſay as he doth apprehend and report, that this power is both laſt in the Synod and laſt in the Congregation too. Wherefore our defence in this particular muſt needs be this; that what here he confuteth to be outs, is ſuch a thing as never fell from our mouths or pens, nor for ought we know did never enter into our thoughts.
Thirdly, he ſaith. If a controverſie concerne many Congregations as this doth Act. 15. I ſee not how a Congregation except they tranſgreſſe their line, can finally determine it.
Anſw. Neither doth this touch us, except we had ſaid that a Congregation may finally determine controverſies which concerne many Churches, which yet we have not ſaid. As for that controverſie Act. 15. It is plaine from verſe 2, that Antioch did endeavour to have ended it amongſt themſelves, ſo far as they were troubled therewith. For ſome teaching that corrupt Doctrine amongſt them, they had much diſputation about the point afore they determined to ſend out for helpe elſewhere. Now to what end was thus much diſputation, if they had no right to determine the matter? might they not better have ſpared their paines? Or did they not tranſgreſſe their line in attempting what they did attempt? Sure it ſeemes they did, if they had not right to determine the matter. But for our part, ſith we do not find them in the leaſt reproved by the Holy Ghoſt for this attempt, therfore we cannot but think they did well therein. And thereupon it followeth, that if Antioch was a Congregationall Church (as it ſeemes to us it was, from Act. 14. 27.) either this controverſie did trouble no Church but Antioch only, or elſe when a controverſie or corrupt opinion doth trouble many Churches, one of them may lawfully determine and end it, ſo farre at it concernes themſelves.