A57976:182
A peaceable and temperate plea for Pauls presbytery in Scotland, or, A modest and…A peaceable and temperate plea for Pauls presbyterie in Scotland, or, A modest and…
A peaceable and temperate plea for Pauls presbytery in Scotland, or, A modest and brotherly dispute of the government of the Church of Scotland wherein our discipline is demonstrated to be the true apostolic way of divine truth, and the arguments on the contrary are friendly dissolved, the grounds of separation and the independency [sic] of particular congregations, in defence of ecclesiastical presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, are examined and tried / by Samuel Rutherfurd ...A peaceable and temperate plea for Pauls presbyterie in Scotland, or, A modest and brotherly dispute of the government of the Church of Scotland wherein our discipline is demonstrated to be the true apostolick way of divine truth, and the arguments on the contrary are friendly dissolved, the grounds of separation and the indepencie [sic] of particular congregations, in defence of ecclesiasticall presbyteries, synods, and assemblies, are examined and tryed / by Samuell Rutherfurd ...
London: printed for John Bartlet, 1642London: printed for Iohn Bartlet, 1642
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
7. That government which necessarily includeth a confusion,1 is not to be thought to come from the God of order, popular government is such, for in some Apostolic Congregations that were independent, there were six thousand and above,2 Act. 4. 9. Two answers are given here, 1. Smith saith one may speak for all the Church or two. Answ. These two are then a representative Church, and do speak in the name of the rest, which he denieth. 2. M. Best saith, none should be a congregation, but so many as may orderly meet without confusion. Answ. Then the Apostles government was confused, else there was an Eldership that represented the rest, and the Church of believers was no independent Church.3 A third answer is, Let heads of Families, and fathers only speak. Answ. Yet you fall upon a selected and representative Church, which otherwaies you deny. 2. If sons and servants have a like interest in Christ, and a like power of the keys, who dare for eschewing confusion take from them what Christ hath given them? We may not do evil or rob any that good may come of it. Ainsworth against Bernard. ⟨p. 66⟩The Authors deny they maintain popular government;4 Therefore (say they) the state is popular, the government on Christs part is a Monarchy, 5and in the hands of Elders an Aristocracy. The people is freely to voice in Elections and judgment of the Churches, 6let the Elders publicly propone and order all things, let them reprove, convince, exhort, &c. So they say, they hold no Democracy or popular government. Ans. I acknowledge that the Doctors of Paris do make distinction betwixt the state and government, who yet do acknowledge a visible Monarchy in the Church,7