Reply to Rutherford, Treatise · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI.
Whether the power of Synods be a power of Iuriſdiction; and of the dependance of the Synagogues upon the Synedrion at Jeruſalem.
NExt of all, in his Page 414 in a 16.th Objection in this and the former Page he ſaith thus, Therefore was the Synagogue of the Jewes no compleat Church, becauſe all the Ordinances of God cannot be performed in the Synagogue: and therefore, were the Jewes commanded only at Ieruſalem, and in no other place to keepe the Paſſeover and to offer Offerings and Sacrifices which were ordinary worſhip: but there is not any worſhiper Sacred Ordinance (ſaith that worthy Divine Dr. Ames) of Preaching, Praying, Sacraments, &c. preſcribed, which is not to be obſerved in every Congregation of the new Teſtament,—and then he ſubjoyneth Mr. Tompſons Name and mine; and in his Margent cites the Anſwer, Page 12, 13. And further ſaith in the Objection, That others ſay becauſe there was a repreſentative worſhip of Sacrificing of all the twelve Tribes at Ieruſalem, therefore all the Synagogues were dependant Churches, and Ieruſalem the Supreame and higheſt Church.
Anſw. To leave what is alledged a… Objected by others, and to conſider only of that which concernes our ſelves. Becauſe the Synagogues in Iſrael were dependant on the great Synedrion at Ieruſalem, therefore ſome would inferre that Congregations in theſe dayes muſt be dependant on the Iuriſdiction of Synods. To this Argument we are endeavouring to give anſwer in the place alledged by Mr. Rutherford, where we ſhew that the Synagogues might be dependant and not compleat Churches, becauſe the Sacred Ordinances of God which were of ordinary uſe, could not be performed in them; but Congregations in theſe dayes compleat and intire as having liberty to enjoy the uſe of all the Ordinances within themſelves: for both which particulars we alledge the teſtimony and words of Dr. Ames. The ſumme is thus much: If the Synagogues could not enjoy all the Ordinances within themſelves, and our Congregations may, then though the Synogogues were dependant on the Synedrion at Jeruſalem, it will not follow that Congregations in theſe dayes muſt be dependant on Synods. This is the … of that which is ſaid in the anſwer: in the place which Mr. Rutherford alledges.
Now what anſwer doth he returne to this paſſage? Truly none at all that I can find. None will you ſay? How can that be? Doth he not propound it in his 16.th Objection, as that which he undertakes to anſwer? I confeſſe he doth ſo, but nevertheleſſe all that he hath ſet down for anſwer is wholly taken up and ſpent in two other things, the Objection which he propoſeth as ours, being wholly left untouched. Thoſe two things are theſe; the one an anſwer to another paſſage of ours in another place of the anſwer, the other an anſwer to the laſt part of his Objection, which himſelfe doth acknowledge to bee the ſaying of others, and not ours; and therefore hee brings it in thus viz. Others ſay, becauſe there was a repreſentative worſhip, &c. by thoſe words, Others ſay, plainly declaring that what he thus expreſſeth, proceedeth not from us, but from others. And ſo though he returne anſwer to this ſaying of others, and to another ſaying of ours which we have written elſewhore, yet for this of ours which he propoſeth in this h…s Objection, I find no anſwer thereto at all. And therefore I thinke the thing remaines as it was, unleſſe wee ſhall take his meere propoſing of it for a ſatisfying anſwer, which we ſee no reaſon to do.
Nevertheleſſe, though he turnes away from this paſſage of ours without returning any anſwer thereto, yet there is another which he applies himſelfe more directly againſt, and therefore to this ſixteenth Objection hee begging his anſwer thus, Surely the aforeſaid Reverend Brethren of New-England have theſe words, but it ſeemeth to us the power (of a Synod) is not properly a power and exerciſe of government and Iuriſdiction, but a power of Doctrine, and ſo a Synod is rather a Teaching then a governing Church: from whence (ſaith he) I inferre, that our Brethren cannot deny a power of governing to a Synod, but it is not ſo proper governing as Excommunication and Ordination performed in their Congregations; but ſay I, it is more properly governing as to make Lawes and rules of governing is a more Noble, Emin…nt and higher act of governing (as is evident in the King and his Parliament) then the execution of …heſe Lawes and rules.
Anſw. So then, th…ſe former words of ours propoſed in the Objection, are wholly forſaken and left, and inſtead of anſwering them, he fals as we ſet upon other words which we have written elſewhere, and applies himſelfe to deale againſt thoſe other. By which dealing the conſiderate Reader may judge whether the former words being thus handſomly forſaken and left, do not ſtill remaine in their ſtrength: and whether it had not been as good never to have propoſed them at all in his Objection, as having propoſed them to turne away directly and immediately from them unto other matters, without returning one word of anſwer to the former. The wiſe in heart may conſider what this doth import.
But ſich he is pleaſed to acquit the former and to apply himſelfe to the other, let us therefore leave the former in its ſtrength and unſhaken, and conſider of what he ſaith in this other.
Wherein when he ſpeakes of making Lawes and rules of governing, either he me…nes this making Lawes and rules properly ſo called, or elſe he meanes it onelyonly of a Miniſteriall power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Chriſt, and in his name to com…and obedience thereto. And it ſeemes by the inſtance which he gives of the King and his Parliament, that he intends the former ſence. And if ſo, then the anſwer is that this Noble, Eminent, and high act of governing as he cals it, doth not belong to any Synods upon earth, but only to the Lord Ieſus Chriſt in Heaven, the Script…res abundantly witneſſing, that he only is the Lord and Law giver to his Church, L…. 4. 12. Iſa. 33. 22. For the cleering of which point, much needs not to be ſaid, conſidering that this learned Brother himſelfe doth elſewhere directly and in expreſſe termes co…feſſe as much as we deſire in this matter. For in one place ſpeaking in one place of a Power to preſcribe rules and Lawes, he doth not only diſtinguiſh them from Lawes p…operly ſo called by the word Directive, calling them directive Lawes, but alſo for further explaining his Mind, annexeth theſe words. They are not properly Lawes which the Church preſcribeth: Christ is the only Law-giver: Due Right, Page 395. And in the page following ſpeaking of a Societies or a Synods power of making Lawes, he addeth for explanation thus, I take not here Lawes for Lawes properly ſo called, but for Miniſteriall directories, having Eccleſiaſticall Authority. So then the Church or the Synod hath no power at all to make Lawes properly ſo called, for Chriſt …s the onelyonly Law giver: And if ſo, then the governing power of Sy…ods which our brother would prove by this Noble and Eminent and high power of making Lawes is not proved thereby at all, in as much as this Noble and eminent power of making Lawes doth not belong to any Synods upon earth, but to Chriſt only. And this may be an Anſwer to what he ſaith or a Synods power to make Lawes, it Lawes be taken in their proper ſenſe.
But if he intend not this ſenſe and meaning in the place we are ſpeaking of, but only the latter, viz That Synods have power to cleere up the Lawes and rules of Chriſt, and to command obedience thereto, then I confeſſe the anſwer in the 7.th page thereof doth acknowledge ſuch power to belong unto Synods, but how this can prove their Power of Iuriſdiction and government properly ſo called, which Mr. Rutherford would thence inferre, we for our parts do not yet perceive. For the power here deſcribed is but a meere Doctrinall power, and we have given ſundry inſtances in the Anſwer, Pag. 43. 44. To ſhew that there may be a power by way of Doctrine to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Chriſt, and to command obedience thereto, where yet there is no power by way of Iuriſdiction and Diſcipline to puniſh the breach of thoſe rules; which inſtance, this Reverend brother doth not ſatisfie at all. And therefore though Synods have power to cleere up the rules and Lawes of Chriſt, and to command obedience thereto (which power we deny them not) yet that which he from thence would inferre, that they have alſo a power of government and Iuriſdiction, doth not follow from thence at all, unleſſe we ſhall ſay, that Doctrine and Diſcipline, Doctrine and Iuriſdiction or government are the ſame.
Briefly thus: a power of mak…ng Lawes properly ſo called is a Noble and Eminent kind of government, but this power doth not belong unto Synods, but to Chriſt. A power of cleering up Chriſts Lawes, and commanding in his name obedience thereunto doth belong unto Synods, but this is no power of Iuriſdiction and government, but a Miniſteriall power of Doctrine, and ſo ſtill our Tenent doth ſtand, that a Synod if it may be called a Church, is rather a teaching then a governing Church.
Secondly, ſaith our Author, Our brethren incline to make a Synod a teaching Church.
Anſw. We never yet abſolutely yeelded that a Synod might be called a Church, … on the contrary, Wee have ſaid, that unleſſe it could be proved that in Scripture the name of a Church is given to a Synod, we are not to be blamed though we give not a Synod that name. Anſw. Pag. 1. The moſt that we have yeelded in this point is this, that for the name we will not contend, and that if a Synod may be called a Church, then ſith they have Power by diſputation to cleere up the rule, they are rather a Teaching then a governing Church. Anſwer Pag. 1. & 7. This is all we have ſaid, and we deſire our words may not be ſtretched beyond our intent and ſcope therein. But let us heare what our Brother would hence inferre.
I inferre, ſaith he, that Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees, tying many Churches, as our brethren of New-England and the forenamed Authors teach, is an Ordinance of Chriſt, that can be performed in no ſingle Congregation on earth, for a Doctrinall Cannon of one Congregation can lay any Eccleſiaſticall tye upon many Churches, Ergo by this reaſon our Congregations ſhall be dependant as were the Jewiſh Synagogues.
Anſw. When he ſaith the Brethren of New-England and the Authors of the Anſwer do teach a Synodicall teaching by giving out Decrees tying many Churches, and aledgeth for proofe in his Margent, Anſw. 7. to 32. q. 9. 14. page 43, 44. and Anſwer to Mr. Herle, Chap. 4. Pag. 40. 41 with favour of ſo learned a man, wee muſt returne this Anſwer, that neither of the palces alledged will make good his purpoſe, in as much as neither of them doth make any mention at all of the thing which he reports them to teach, viz. Such Synodicall teaching as gives out Decrees tying many Churches. Let the places be viewed and the thing will be found as I ſay. And therefore how they can be ſaid to teach that which they neither teach nor mention, doth ſurmount my ability to conceive. If the Reader would know what it is that is taught in the places, it is no more but this, that in ſome Caſes it is requiſite that Churches ſhould ſeeke for light and Counſell and advice from other Churches, as Antioch, did ſend unto Ieruſalem in a Queſtion which they wanted ability to determine amongſt themſelves, and that there ought to be Synods, and that we thinke that meeting Act 15. might be ſuch an one. The firſt of theſe is taught in the form… of the places, and the other in the other. But for giving out Synodicall Decrees tying many Churches, this ſame be it within the power of Synods or otherwiſe, is … taught at all in either of the places, except wee ſhall ſay (which we thinke were unreaſonable) that there can be no Synods, nor conſulting of other Churches for light and Counſell and advice, but there muſt be in thoſe other Churches ſo conſulted withall, a power to give out binding Decrees, yea Decrees that ſhall bind or tye many Churches. We thinke this latter doth no wayes neceſſarily follow upon the former; and therefore though the places alledged do ſpeake to the former, yet the latter which this Author reports them to teach, they do not teach at all.
Secondly, I Anſwer further, that if ſuch a Doctrine were indeed taught in the places by him alledged or any other, yet the inference which he would thence bring in, That then our Congregations ſhall be dependant as were the Iewiſh Synagogues, Th…s ſame doth not follow at all: and the reaſon is, becauſe the Synagogues were dependant on the Supreame Synedrion not only for light and Counſell, no nor only for Doctrinall Cannons or Decrees, but alſo for Iuriſdiction and Diſcipline, that Synodrion being their ſupreame Court, to whoſe ſentence they were all bound under paine of Death to ſubmit, as is cleere, Deut. 17. 11, 12. And therefore if it were granted (which yet we do not ſee proved) that Synods may give out Decrees and Doctrinall Cannons, that ſhall tye many Churches, it doth not follow that our Congregations ſhall therefore be dependant as were the Iewiſh Synagogues, except it were alſo proved that they muſt depend upon Synods in point of Iuriſdiction and Diſcipline, as well as in point of Doctrine, yea and ſo depend as that the ſentence of thoſe Synods muſt be obeyed under paine of death. Sure the Synagogues and every member of them were in this ſort dependant upon the Supreame Synedrion: but we hope … Reverend brother will not ſay that Congregations muſt in this ſort be dependant upon Synods. At the leaſt wiſe this we hope he will not deny, that every member of a Church is bound to depend upon the Paſtor of that Church in point of Doctrine; and yet it will not follow that he muſt depend upon one Paſtor alone in point of Iuriſdiction and D…ſcipline. And the reaſon is, becauſe Doctrine may be diſpenced by one Paſtor alone, but Diſcipline muſt be diſpenced by a Church, which one Paſtor alone cannot be. And therefore if Congregations were to be dependant upon Synods in point of Doctrine, it would not follow that they muſt bee dependant in point of Iuriſdiction and Diſcipline.
Thirdly, ſaith he, It is a begging of the queſtion to make Ieruſalem the Supreame Church and the Synagogues dependant Churches; becauſe it it was lawfull only at Ieruſalem to Sacrafice; for I hold that Ieruſalem was a dependant Church no leſſe then the ſmalleſt Synagogues in all their Trybes. And ſo he proceedeth largely, to ſhew that ſacrificing at Ieruſalem did not make Ieruſalem Supreame.
Anſw. It this were even ſo as is pleaded, yet that which we have ſaid of the compleatneſſe of the Synagogues and of their dependancie is not at all removed thereby: and the reaſon is, becauſe we do not make the Synagogues dependant nor Ieruſalem ſupreame, meerely upon this ground, becauſe Ieruſalem alone was the place of Sacrificing, but this is the ground upon which chiefly we go, that at Ieruſalem was the Synedrion upon whom all Iſraell muſt depend for judgement, and from whoſe ſentence there was no appeale, which ground wee ſtill thinke doth prove both the incomplearneſſe of the Synagogues, and the ſupremacie of the Synedrion, and the contrary to this muſt be cleered if our Tenent in this matter be removed. True it is, we thinke it ſome argument of the Synagogues incompleatneſſe and imperfection that they were not permitted to enjoy all the Ordinances which were of ordinary uſe: but the ſupremacie of Ieruſalem we do not place in this only, that there was the place for Sacrifice but in this withall that the ſupreame Iudicatory was there, upon which all Iſraell muſt depend, and from the which there muſt be no appeale. And yet this ſupremacie we do not place in Ieruſalem conſidered a part from the Synedrion, but in the Synedrion it ſelfe.
And therefore, whereas he ſaith, Pag. 415. That we might as well conclude that all the Cities and Incorporations of England are dependant upon London, inaſmuch as the Parliament uſeth there to ſit, I conceive the compariſon doth not ſute, becauſe as we do not place the ſupremacie in London or in Weſtminſter, conſidered apart from the Parliament, but in the Parliament which uſeth there to ſit, ſo we place not the ſupremacie amongſt the Iewes in Ieruſalem conſidered apart from the Synedrion, but in the Synedrion it ſelfe, which was there ſeated. But becauſe our Reverend brother in the latter end of this 16.th Objection bringeth in this particular of Ieruſalems ſupremacie by reaſon of the Sacrifices, with Others ſay, therefore I conceive he intends not us therein, but ſome body elſe, and therefore I will proceed to the next wherein our ſelves are concerned.