Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 5
CHAP. V.
Againe of that Aſsembly, Act. 15. Whether their rebuking the falſe teachers do prove a power of Iuriſdiction and Excommunication in Synods: and whether Preaching doe prove the Aſſembly where it is, to be a Church.
THe new place where I find him excepting againſt the Anſwer, it in his Pag. 410. Where he propoſeth an Object. to this effect, to wit. Paul exerciſed the Keyes of knowledge upon Barbarians, and might have Preached to Indians, and did to ſcoffing Athenians—yea Paul by this power Dogmaticall rebuked the Athenians, Act. 17. 22. Yet Paul had no power to Excommunicate the Athenians. And then he ſubjoyneth my name, and cites in the Margent the 43, and 44 pages of the Anſwer.
Anſw. This Objection being taken from Pauls rebuking the Athenians, our Brother had no reaſon to propoſe it under Mr. Tompſons … and mine, for as much as in all that diſcourſe of ours, the Athenians to my rememb…ance are not ſo much as once mentioned: ſure in the Pages by him alledged there is no mention of the Athenians at all. And therefore why this Objection ſhould bee propoſed and reported by him as ours, wee doe not know. Which I doe not ſay, … though I thought the objection ſo weake, as though the Authors of it may not well owne it. For from whoſoever the Objection came, for ought that I yet perceive there is good weight therein. For which cauſe, and becauſe in one of thoſe Pages wee have delivered ſomething concerning a Miniſters power to Preach to Pagans in generall, (though nothing concerning the Atheni…ns in particular, as hee reporteth) therefore I am willing to conſider what Mr. Rutherfor… ſaith, for the ſatisfying of the objection propoſed, as not willing to paſſe by any thing without conſideration, wherein our ſelves may ſeeme to be concerned or aymed at
I deny not ſaith he, but there is a great oddes betwixt a concionall rebuking by way of Preaching, which may be and is alwayes performed by one, and a juridicall rebuking by a power Jurididicall of the Keyes, which is performed only by a Church ſociety.
Anſw. If all this were granted, you the Objection is not ſatisfied, nor his purpoſe gained thereby. For the cleering whereof it is good to conſider the thing in Queſtion, and how this Objection comes in, and whereto it tends, and then we may better deſcerne how the objection is removed by Mr. Rutherfords anſwer: The thing in queſtion is, whether a Synod have power of Iuriſidiction and Excommunication. Mr. Rutherford his ſcope in that place is to prove the Affirmative; and therefore for a dozen or 14 Pages together, hee hath theſe words in the top of every leaſe, The power of a Synod a power of Juriſdiction: and his medium to prove this Tenent is this; Becauſe a Synod hath Power to rebuke. Whereupon enſueth the Objection, that Paul might rebuke the Athenians and yet might not Excommunicate them; and therefore enough a Synod may rebuke, it followes not that they may Excommunicate. This is the order of the Diſpute, as is plainly to bee ſeeme by p…ſing the place. And now comes in the Anſwer which Mr. Rutherford gives to the objection; to wit, That there is a great odds betwixt a Concionall rebuking and a Juridicall, the one being performed by one, and the other by many; Which Anſwer I conceive is not ſufficient, becauſe this Difference may hee granted and many more may be added if hee pleaſe, and yet the thing in queſtion not gained, nor the Objection removed at all. For what though a Concionall rebuking be performed by one, and a Iuridicall by many? Yet ſtill it remaineth cleare, that there may bee rebuking where there is no Iuriſdiction; and therefore, though a Synod may rebuke, it followes not that they may Excommunicate, nor have power of Iuriſdiction. If our Brother would have ſatisfied the Objection, he ſhould not have ſatisfyed himſelfe with alledging the difference mentioned betweene a Concionall rebuking, and a Iuridicall or Synodicall; but ſhould have proved that there cannot be any Concionall rebuking at all, at leaſt wiſe not any rebuking of Athenians who are not ſubject to Excommunication, and if this had been proved, the Objection had been fully removed. But this he hath not proved at all, nor once attempted to prove it, but plainly yeelds the contrary; and therefore for ought I ſee the Objection remayneth in its ſtrength, and ſo the ſtrength of his argument removed thereby, who would prove the Synod, power of Iuriſdiction from their power of rebuking.
But let as heare what he anſwereth in the words enſuing.
It cannot be denyed ſaith he, but the rebuking of men becauſe they ſubverted Soules, verſe 24. Is not a meere Concionall rebuking which may be performed by one. Firſt, it is a rebuking verſe 24. Second, it is a rebuking performed by many, by a whole Synod, 6. 22. Third, it is performed by a politicall Society.
Anſw, And what of all this? May it not nevertheleſſe be denyed that this rebuking was any other then in a Doctrinall way? Be it granted, that it was a rebuking, and a rebuking performed by many; and if were granted by a Politicall Society too; muſt it needs follow that therefore it was Iuridicall, or in way of Iuriſdiction? I ſee no neceſſity of ſuch Conſequence. Nay, Maſter Rutherford himſelfe doth confeſſe (as we heard afore) in his Page 393. That the ſpecification of this rebuke muſt not be fetched from the efficient cauſes, becauſe one Apoſtle might himſelfe alone have rebuked theſe obtruders of Circumciſion. If therefore it were granted that many perſons, a whole Synod, a Politicall Society, or what ever elſe he will call them, were the efficient cauſes of this rebuke, yet all this is too little to prove that the rebuke was Iuridicall, unleſſe the ſpecification of it muſt be fetched from the efficient cauſes, which Maſter Rutherford himſelfe diſclaymes.
Moreover, I would put this Caſe: ſuppoſe a Pagan or a Chriſtian of another Nation and Kingdome, ſhall come into a Church Aſſembly, whether the Aſſembly be a Congregationall Church, or a Synod; and in the Aſſembly ſhall openly and Scandalouſly miſbehave himſelfe in one kind or other, to the diſhonour of God, and grieving of the godly, and the danger of corrupting others that ſhall behold ſuch bad example. I would gladly know whether this Aſſembly be it Synod or other, may not lawfully rebuke this Scandalous practice and behaviour, and if they may, whether it would follow therupon that they may alſo lawfully Excommunicate the man, if his ſin and impenitency ſhall deſerve the ſame. If it be ſaid they may, I would know: quo jure? And who gave them ſuch Authority to Excommunicate Pagans, or men of another Nation, being only there preſent at that time occaſionally? And if they may not ſo proceed againſt ſuch a perſon, then the anſwer to Maſter Rutherfords alledgements in the Caſe we have in hand, is ready and plaine: For as he alledgeth, Firſt, here is a rebuking. Second, a rebuking of many, even a whole Synod. Third, of a Politicall Society and Body; even ſo the ſame may be ſaid in this Caſe in all the particulars; For firſt, here is a rebuking. Second, rebuking of many. Third, by a Politicall Society and body: and yet all this is too little to prove a power of Iuriſdiction and Excommunication in the caſe propoſed; and therefore I ſee not how it can be ſufficient to prove ſuch a power in a Synod, for which purpoſe Maſter Rutherford brings it. Of neceſſity for ought that I ſee, one of theſe muſt be ſaid, either that this Aſſembly have no power to rebuke the man, but muſt ſuffer his ſin to be upon him, though God be diſhonoured, and others endangered thereby; or elſe it muſt be ſaid they have power to Excommunicate him as well as to rebuke him; (neither of which I conceive can ſafely be ſaid) or if neither of theſe can be ſaid, it muſt then follow that their may be power to rebuke, even in an Aſſembly of many perſons, a Politicall Society; and yet the ſame Aſſembly have no power at all to Excommunicate the perſons ſo rebuked, and ſo this learned Brothers arguing is anſwered.
Likewiſe, I ſuppoſe it will not be denyed, but one Congregation if need ſo require, may rebuke and reprove another Congregation, though neither of them be Superiour to other, but both of them equall and Independant of each other in regard of ſubjection, Mr. Rutherf. confeſſeth, p. 294. That Congregations and Churches may admoniſh and rebuke each other, And ſure it is, that Scripture, Cant. 8. 8. We have a little siſter, what ſhall we do for her? Doth ſhew that Churches ought to take care one for the good of another. And if they muſt take care and conſult for one another, there is the like reaſon that they ſhould reprove and admoniſh one another, as need ſhall require. Now when one Church doth ſo practiſe towards another, it cannot be denyed, but here are the ſame things which Mr. Rutherford ſpeakes of, Firſt, a Rebuking Second, a rebuking performed by many. Third, a rebuking performed by a Politicall Society and Body. But can any man inferre from hence, that the Church thus rebuking another Church hath power to Excommunicate that other Church? I ſuppoſe none will affirme it. And if this may not be affirmed, I do not ſee how rebuking performed by many even by a whole Synod, can be any ſufficient ground to prove that the Synod hath power to Excommunicate.
The Apoſtles and Elders (ſaith our Author) are not conſidered here as meerely Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching; for why then ſhould they not be formally a Church Aſſembly, if they be an Aſſembly meeting for Preaching the word? Pag. 411. 412.
Anſw. When the text Acts 15, doth mention ſometimes the Multitude, verſe 12. Sometimes the Brethren, verſe 23. Sometimes the whole Church, verſe 22. Beſides the Apoſtles and Elders, we know no abſurdity in it, if one ſhould ſay, here was formally a Church and a Church Aſſembly; in which Church-aſſembly the Apoſtles and Elders were teachers and Preachers, though they alone were not the Church. Yet though wee thinke heere was a Church, and a Church-aſſembly; wee do not thinke Mr. Rutherford reaſon doth prove them ſo to be. For Paul and S…las were Preachers of the word in the Priſon at Philippi, Act 16. And at Mar…hill, and the Market-place at Athens, Act. 17. And yet we thinke it hard to inferre thence, that theſe Aſſemblies were formally Churches.
Yea but ſaith our Author, the exerciſe of the Keyes of knowledge in the hearing of a multitude, is eſſentially an act of Preaching of the Word, Page 412.
Anſw This is very true indeed, an act of Preaching the word it muſt needs bee, the word Preaching being taken in its utmoſt Latitude. But is not unavoidably and alwayes a Church-act, or an act that infallibly proves the Aſſembly, where ſuch an act is performed, to be formally a Church? This is the thing that ſhould have been cleered, or elſe the thing is not cleered; But this our Reverend Author doth not cleere at all; and the contrary is very plaine from ſundry inſtances in the Acts, where the Apoſtles did exerciſe the Key of knowledge in the hearing of multitudes in ſundry places, where yet for all this there was not forthwith any Church; and therfore, whereas he ſaith, The Apoſtles and Elders are not conſidered in this Aſſembly as Preachers and teachers in the act of teaching, becauſe then the Aſſembly ſhould have been formally a Church, We rather thinke they that ſhall conſider it will find that the Apoſtles did, and other Elders in theſe dayes may put forth the act of teaching and Preaching in ſome Aſſemblies (ſuppoſe Aſſemblies of Turkes and Indians) and yet the Aſſemblies not thereby proved to be Churches.