A reply to Mr. Rutherfurd, or A defence of the answer to Reverend Mr. Herles booke against the independency of churches. VVherein such objections and answers, as are returned to sundry passages in the said answer by Mr. Samuel Rutherfurd, a godly and learned brother of the Church of Scotland, in his boke entituled The due right of Presbyters, are examined and removed, and the answer justified and cleared. / By Richard Macher [sic] teacher to the church at Dorchester in New England. 1646.

CHAP. IX.

Whether the Congregationall way or the Presbyteriall doe make the Gospell more difficultive then the Law. Of Excommunication by a Church that hath only three Elders, and of doing things sudainly.

IN the latter end of his Page 424 meaning Mr T••mpson and me, and alledging Page 17, 18. of the Answer. He writes that we say our opposites do much Judaize in that they multiply appeales upon appeales, from a Congregation to a Classis, then to a Sy∣nod, then to a Nationall Assembly, then to an Oec••••••••nicke Councell; and this way while the world endureth causes are never de∣termined, and Synods cannot alwayes be had; even as in Ierusalem the supreame Iudicature was farre remote from all Proselites, as from the Eunuch of Ethiopia, Act. 8. And from the remote•••• parts of the Holy Land: but God hath provided better for us in the new Testament, where every Congregation which is at hand may decide the Controversie: And then, Page 425. He subjoyneth his Answer.

Answ. Though I deny not but some of the things here alledged are written by us in the Pa•••••• nam••d, yet that they are written for the purpose which our Brother expres∣seth, viz. To shew that our Brethren of the opposite judgement do much Iudaize, that I do utterly deny. For the places being viewed will plainly witnesse that wee bring the things alledged for another end, viz. To shew whether the way that is called Independencie, do make the people (as some have thought of it) more defec∣tive and improvident then their Law. For this being objected against that way, wee in answer thereto do shew by sundry particulars, that it is not that way that is justly culpable in this respect, but the way of our Brethren of the other Iudgement; one way on the one side making the state of Christians in these dayes in some things equall to the Iewes, and in other things more excellent; and on the other side the way of

our Brethren making our condition in many things more defective then was the con∣dition of the Iewes. So that (not Iudayzing but) making our condition more defective then the Iewes, is the thing which we here note in the Doctrine of our Brethren. Nor do I see how our Brother in his Answer doth free their Doctrine and way from being justly culpable in this respect. If we had intended the thing which he reporteth, we would never have used such a reason as he truly report•• us to use, viz. That by ap∣peales upon appeales causes according to our Brethrens way may be so protracted as never to be determined nor ended. For this reason hath neither strength nor colour of strength for such a purpose, as he saith we bring it for, inasmuch as it is well known, that the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes among them. And therefore to say that our Brethren do Iudaize, and then to give that for a rea∣son which doth shew that the Iewes and they are very unlike, the Iewes having a su∣preame Iudicatory for the finall ending of Cruses, and they having none, were to shew our selves very irrationall or worse: end why our Brother should put such a thing upon us, we being no wayes guilty thereof, we do not know. But we desire that our reason may be applyed to our own conclusion, to which we did and do apply it, and not to this other expressed by our Brother, which indeed is none of ours, and then we are content that rationall and judicious Readers may judge whether or no there be any sufficient weight therein. Which that they may more readily do, I have here recollected the same into this short summe, that they may briefly behold it with one view, viz If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes, and the Congregationall way hath the like: If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory al∣wayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes, and the Congregationall way hath the like: and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very farre remote from many of them, and in the Congregationall way be more convenient and neere at hand, then the Congregationall way is in some things equall to the Iewes and in o∣ther things more excellent.

But the first is true in all the particulars, and therefore the second is true also. Againe, If the Iewes had a supreame Iudicatory for the finall ending of causes, and the way of our Brethren hath not: If the Iewes had a standing Iudicatory alwayes in readinesse for the hearing of causes and the way of our Brethren hath not: and if the supreame Iudicatory among the Iewes was very remote from many of them, and Sy∣nods among our Brethren are the same, then the way of our Brethren is in some things as defective as the Iewes, and in other things more defective then theirs.

But the first is true in all the particulars of it, and therefore the second is true also.

Both the Assumptions in all the branches thereof, I conceive are cleerely proved in the Answer in the Pages which our Brother doth alledge, and whether the Conse∣quence be good let the wise judge.

Having thus reduced our Argumentation to its own proper and genuine shape, let us now consider of Mr. Rutherfords answer thereto.

First, saith he, The speedinesse of ending controversies in a Congrega∣tion is badly comprised with the suddainnesse and temerity of delivering men to Satan upon the decision of three Elders, without so much as asking

advise of any Classes of Elders, and with deciding questions deepe and grave which concerneth many Churches, which is a putting of a private sickle in a common and publicke harvest.

Answ. If advise from other Churches may be had, we never spake word for doing weighty matters without the same, but in such cases it is both our practise and advise to make use thereof, And therefore this delivering men to Satan in way of temerity or rashnesse toucheth not us whose opinion and practise is other wise.

As for suddainnesse, I conceive if the same be sometimes accompanyed with temeri∣ty and rashnesse, and so worthy to be blamed, yet not alwayes: for in the Reformati∣on of the House of God in the dayes of Hezekiah, it is said, that the thing was done suddainly. 2 Chron. 29. 36. Where suddainnesse doth not signifie any sinfull temerity or r••shnesle. But contrarily doth testifie Gods great goodnesle that had so prepared the people to so good a worke: for this cause this suddainnesse was to Hezekiah, and Gods people an occasion and ground of great joy and gladnesse, which temerity could not have been. And therefore suddainnesse and temerity must not alwayes be con∣founded and coupled together, as if they were the same.

Though hasty delivering of men to Satan without due consideration be not good, yet overlong delay of due proceeding against Delinquents is bad also, for the Holy Ghost tels us because sentence against an evill worke is not executed speedily, there∣fore the heart of the sons of men is fully set to do evill, Eccl. 8. 11. For which cause execute judgement in the morning, that is to say speedily is sometimes expresly re∣quired, Jer. 21. 12. Which being spoken of justice to be executed by civill Autho∣rity doth hold by proportion and like reason in Ecclesiasticall censures, for as much as speedinesle is a duty, and delayes are daangerous in the one case as well as in the other.

Whereas our Author thinkes much that Excommunication should proceed upon the decision of three Elders, as we know nothing but a Congregation may have more El∣ders then the three, if God provide them fit men and the numerousnesse of the Con∣gregation so require, in which case our Author saith nothing to the contrary, but they may have power to Excommunicate, so if they have but three, we know nothing in this, but they may have power to Excommunicate notwithstanding, since himselfe teacheth, Due Right. Page 61. That the Iewes had their Congregationall Churches as we have, and had their meeting in their Synagogues, not only for Doctrine, but also for Discipline and Excommunication; Which if it be so, it seemes there might be Excommunication by as small a number as three, unlesse it could appeare that in every Synagogue the Elders and Rulers in it were a greater number then is here mentioned, which is more then I do remember to be expressed in Scripture. Yea and further he tels us, That the inferiour Iu∣dicatures in Israel had power of life and death, Page 315. Now the Iudges in these inferiour Iudicatures though they must never be under that number of three, yet they did not alwayes exceed the same, for ought that doth appeare. And if three Iudges had power of life and death, why may not a Congregation with three Elders have power of Excommunication? Moreover, in his Page 454. He gives us these

words for a Proposition, That it floweth connaturally from a Church to which agreeth the essence of Church to exercise Jurisdiction over all its own mem∣bers; to which those words do also agree, Page 287. viz. The power and right to Discipline is a propriety essentiall to a Church and is not re∣moved from it till God remove the Candlesticke, and the Church cease to be a visible Church: And in Page 302. Hee affords us these words for an Assumption, that a Congregation is a Church, wanting nothing of the being and essence of a Church: And hence the conclusion is obvious, that a Con∣gregation may exercise Iurisdiction over all it own members: and in as much as a Congregation in which are but three Elders, is a Congregation, it followeth that a Congregation in which are but three Elders may exercise such Iurisdiction. This conclusion our Author cannot deny in as much as it necessarily and directly followeth from Premises which are both his own. Yea in his Page 302. H•• saith, That this is a principle of Church policie, that every politicke body of Christ hath power of Church government within it selfe. Either therefore a Congregati∣on with only three Elders is no politicke body of Christ, or else it must have power of Church government within it selfe. Besides, if the power of Iurisdiction ordinary intensive be according to the entire essence of a Ministeriall Church be as compleat and perfect in one single Congregation, as in a Pro∣vinciall, Nationall, or Catholike Church as our Author saith it is P. 307. It is then a marvell why such a Congregation having onely three Elders, may not have power to Excommunicate. Lastly, his words are expresse, Page 338. Where there are not many Churches consociated, then Ordination and Excommunication may be done by one single Congregation. If therefore a Congregation have not above three Elders, yet being not consociated with other Churches, it may lawfully Excommunicate, by his own grant.

For deciding questions that concerne many Churches, if they decide them no fur∣ther but onely as they concerne themselves, this is no putting a private sickle in a common and publike Harvest, but a medling with matters onely so farre as they doe concerne themselves.

Secondly, he saith, All appeales without warrant from Christs will we condemne, as the abuse of Appeales to a Court which is known shall never be, Page 425.

Answ. If appeales without warrant from Christ will be condemned, why are wee not told what appeales they are, that have the warrant of Christs will, and what Ap∣peales have not? For such a generall word a•• this, of the warrant of Christs will, without some further and more particular explication doth leave the matter as darke as it was before. If the meaning be, that only such Appeales are unwarrantable as are made to a Court which is known shall never be, and that all others are warrant∣able, then it will follow that appeales to generall Councels and all other Courts, except only from a generall Councell are warrantable, for who doth certainely know that a generall Councell will never be? And so by this meanes the Classes, 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Synod, and the Nationall Church are all deprived of supremacie, and independen∣cie of Iurisdiction as well as the Congregacion.

Thirdly, he saith, Antiochs appeale to a Synod 200 miles distant as our Brethren say, was no Judaizing but that which Paul and the Apostles were guilty of as well as we.

Answ. Whether Antioch and Jerusalem were 200 miles distant or no as we have never affirmed so much, so I will not stand now to inquire. But this I stand upon, that no Scripture doth witnesse that Antioch did appeale to Jerusalem in the point of Iurisdiction, about which our question doth lye, if they did appeale to them for a Doctrinall decision or determination of the question, that nothing hindereth our cause who do not deny such a Doctrinall power in Synods. But their power of Iuris∣diction is the thing that should be proved. Lastly, if this example of Antioch doe prove that there may bee and ought to bee appeales from Congregations to Synods, though those Synods be 200 miles distant, then that which wee said in the Answer is here confessed to be true: viz. That according to our Brethrens Iudgement the state of the Church in point of Discipline is as defective and burdensome in the time of the Gospell, as it was in the dayes of the old Testament. For as then the supreame Iu∣dicatory at Jerusalem was many miles distant from such as dwelt in the furthest parts of the Holy Land, and specially from the Proselites that dwelt in other Countries, so here our Author seemes to yeeld that in these dayes of the new Testament there must or may be appeales to Synods, though they be 200 miles distant. I hope then if o∣thers blame our way for making the Gospell as defective and improvident as the Law, or more defective then it, yet this our Brother will not do so, but on the contrary will acknowledge for us and with us, that the way which himselfe pleads for, is more justly culpable in this respect.

Fourthly, he saith, Matters concerning many Churches must be hand∣led by many.

Answ. This may be granted in a safe sence without any prejudice at all unto our cause, for we are well content that so farre as they concerne many they may be hand∣led by many, so that each Congregation may have liberty to deale in them so farre as they concerne themselves.

And thus you have all which Mr. Rutherford hath brought against that passage of ours wherein we say it is not our way but theirs, that doth make the Gospell more de∣fective then the Law, instead whereof he is pleased to make us say that they doe Iu∣daize; But for eleering their way from that which wee object against the same, or for convincing out way to be guilty thereof as by some hath been objected, which is the thing in question in the place by him alledged, for ought I perceive there is no∣thing in the foure particulars of his answer, that doth any thing availe to either of these: for if a rash delivering of men to Satan have more evill in it then speedy end∣ing of controversies hath good▪ If appeales without warrant from Christs will, be un∣lawfull: If Antioch did appeale to a Synod 200 miles distant, and if matters concer∣ning many Churches must be ended by many, which foure particulars are the whole substance of his answer, what is there in all this (for I would gladly apply his An∣swers to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the thing in question, what is there I say in all this that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 convince our way to be more defective then the way under the old Testament?

Or that doth cleere the way of our Brethren from being truly culpable thereof▪ Let all the evill that can be found in rash delivering men to Satan be extended to the utmost, and let the rest of the foure particulars be granted, doth all this sufficiently cleere it that the way which we plead for is more defective, or the way of our Bre∣thren more perfect and excellent, then the way that was used under the Law? If they do not amount to the cleering of this, they do not come up to cleere the thing in question, which for ought I perceive doth still remaine as it was notwithstanding all that our Brother here brings.