acknowledged as members thereof and consequently to be under the Ministeriall dispensation of the publick Ordinances of Christ the ordinary means of saving souls but such as are already and antecedently found to be savingly converted regenerated and sealed of God for his by the Holy Spirit if not in the truth of the object which yet most part of his reasoning and discourse pleads for yet in the positive judgement of very spirituall and discerning men And that as some others of his way further lay out the matter upon triall and proof thereof given by a conversation led without the omission of any known duty or commission of any known sin A publick declaration of their knowledge in the fundamentalls and of other points of Religion necessary to lead a life without scandall together with a narration of the experimentall work of their Effectuall Calling unto Repentance and faith And all Churches that are not constituted of only such matter as this are to our Author wrong constitute In the former part of this Examination my labour is to discover the unwarrantablnesse and contrariety of this Tenent to the Word of God And to shew that all who being of years does seriously professe the Christian faith and subjection to be disciplin'd and governed by the Ordinances of Christ ought to be admitted into the fellowship of his Visible Church without any necessity of puting them to a triall touching their inward spirituall estate and judging upon the same whether regenerat or not as to that effect And are to be dealt with by Pastours and privat Christians in their respective wayes as these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within 1 Cor. 5. 12. Upon this point I have insisted the more largely because not so fully and of purpose handled by others before And it is of a truth of greater importance then many are awarre of 'T is far from my thoughts to charge our Independent Brethren with any perverse designe in taking up and following that opinion which I dispute against Many of them known to me by their writings especially these worthy Ministers in New-England Cotton Hooker Shepheard Norton c. I do from my heart reverence as godly and faithfull Servants of Christ and as burning and shining lights in the Reformed Church But I think verily the specious notion of a pure Visible Church has duzled their eyes and led them upon a way which in it self beside that it hath no warrand in the Word of God should it get footing in the world tends to the ruine loss of many souls and to the bringing of the greatest prejudice to the present Cause and Churches that any thing ever yet did since the first Reformation from Popery And I am perswaded that albeit the intention of those holy and reverend men abettors of it be honest and from simplicity of heart Yet Satan is under-board let no man offend at this I say Peters example teacheth us that Satan may abuse good mens zeal and intentions for Christ to wicked ends contrair to his Cause Satan I say is under-board driving that wicked designe For if that be the the rule and modell of constituting the Visible Church which they give us are not all the Reformed Churches by this means condemned of wrong constitution razed out of the account of true Visible Churches as not being conformed nor ever having been set up according to that modell And what could more gratifie the Roman Antichrist and his followers then to yeeld this Again is there not hereby a ground laid to Question all Administration of Ordinances that has been in them and to justifie the wilde fancy of Seekers denying that there is or hath been for many ages any Church or Ordinances in the world Moreover when as none of the Reformed Churches at this day are thus constitute if that modell should have place must not either all of them be dissolved and cast down to the ground that new ones may be reared up of some few precious ones picked out of their ruines or to the effect they may consist only of persons regenerated and sealed by the Spirit all other persons who albeit they professe the truth subject themselves to Ordinances yet come not up so far as to obtain a positive sentence that they are regenerat upon such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 evidences as these men require must be all cast out and banished the Church put amongst those that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without 1 Cor. 5. 12 left destitute of the custody of spiritual Discipline Pastorall instruction inspection and authority And so exposed to be a prey to Satan and his Emissaries Jesuits Hereticks and erroneous spirits whatsoever to be led away unto what soever pernicious soul-destroying errours or to turn black Atheists That this is no needlesse fear but a reall consequent of this way is too too clear by the sad examples of many in these times who living without the pale of true Visible Churches and not subject to the shepheards staffe and vigilancy are run out into so many wilde errours in Religion as never age of the Christian Church saw the like Touching the other head the Author in his Appendix pleadeth for two things 1. That the power and exercise of Church Government should be in the hands of the whole body or community of Professours as well as of the Officers appointed by Christ in the Church A Tenent not heard of in the Christian Church untill Morellius in France Anabaptists and Brownists fancied it and as contrary to the Word of God which to Ministers and other Officers appointed by Christ in his Church as contradistinguished from common Professours attributeth the name of Rulers injoyns the work of Ruling and prescribes the rules of right governing but never to the people so cannot but unavoidably draw after it much confusion and frequent schisms in the Church of God whereof experience affordeth plenty of examples 2. That this power of Government should be solely intirely â—nd Independently in a single Congregation A Tenent that besides the contrariety thereof to the Word of God and the very light of nature carrieth with it a multitude of gross absurdities and inconveniencies By this means let a particular Congregation of 30. or 20. or fewer 10. or 7. persons for of so few may a Church as our Brethren say be compleatly constitute run into never so grosse an errour as to Excommunicate a person unjustly to hold and maintain Heresie in Doctrine to set up idolatrous worship there is no Ecclesiastick authoritative remedy left under Heaven to rectifie it All church-Church-communion amongst the Churches of Christ is taken away The unity of Christs sheep-fold the Visible Church upon earth is dissolved and Christ should have as many visible bodies as there are particular Congregations A Minister could not perform any Ministeriall act out of his own Congregation Not Preach but as a privat gifted Brother Not Administer the Sacraments out of his own Congregation nor give the Sacrament
impossible for them to have any certain cognition of by ordinary discerning because a man may live in a known sin of omission or commission such to wit whereof as Mr. Hooker himself speaketh he is informed and convinced by the power of the word and evidence of reason which is secret and falls not under the cognition of any outward Judicatory Mr. Norton saith somewhat more purposely that it must be a conversation without scandall that is offence before men And Mr. Hooker himself a little after he hath laid down the rule wavering from himself as indeed in handling this Question about the necessary qualification of Church members he is exceeding uncertain in expressing his mind he speaks not of living in any known sin but of committing some grosse evill But then 2. Is freedome from living in grosse evills or outward scandalls ground sufficient with a profession of the truth for the Church to passe a positive sentence or judgement that a man is regenerat and really in Christ I think indeed it may be a ground to keep us from positive judging the contrary of them which in effect is nothing else but to abstract from positive judging of their inward spirituall condition at all 3. If not living in the neglect of any known duty i. e. living in the performance of all known duty or if he will all known duties obvious to the notice of men and not living in the commission of any known evill i. e. living in abstinence from any known evill or if he will obvious to the notice of men must be the ground whereupon to proceed upon this judgement to be passed upon a mans regeneration in relation to his admission to the Visible Church and this living importeth a trade as Mr. Hooker exponeth that is a continued course Then I would enquire how long time living so is sufficient to ground the Ecclesiastick judgement and lesse then which will not serve the turn This was necessary to have been determined that the rule might be certain i. e. definite and constant that the mater might not be devolved upon the arbitrement of mans judgement or rather pleasure Here is altum silentium and so again the mater left in the mist To presse this the more and the more clearly I put the case the person desiring to be admitted to the fellowship of the Church and so to be judged of the Church whether Regenerat or not is one who has been an heathen living before and till that very time in some known sins as many sins are to heathen known sins of omission and commission Now I inquire how long time must be taken to evidence him not to be a liver in these known sins to the effect that a positive judgement may passe upon him that he is Regenerat Let a positive Answer be given to this If any shall say a definite time is not necessary for trying such an one if he have Repentance for these sins and as soon as he hath it it is enough according to what Mr. Norton speaketh conversatio absque scandalo paenitentiâ non sanato then I say Repentance here must be understood either as comprehending the inward grace in the heart but this falls not directly and immediatly under the cognition of the outward Court to be a ground or medium of their procedour into judgement yea it is the very thing or a part of the thing which is to be concluded in the judgement Or it must be taken as only comprehending the outward part of it i. e. Reformation which is nothing else but performing of the duties formerly neglected and abstaining from the evills formerly committed and if so then we are just where we were in the mist yet section 20 3. As for the third ground or part of the rule a declaration of the experimentall work of Conversion or acquaintance with Christ as M◠Hooker expresseth it or as distinctly the Author of the narration of the practices of the Churches of New-England pag. 9. of their effectuall vocation in their sound Repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is most unwarrantable and rigid What must this be a generall rule for all professours that they must make a declaration of this experimentall work upon their heart that they may be judged Regenerat and Converts and so capable of admission to the Visible Church What warrant for this in the Word The places pointed at by that last Author Mat. 3. 8. Luke 3. 8. Acts 8. 37. does not warrand any such thing In the former two John Baptist indeed charged these people to perform really the work of Reformation and Repentance that they might not delude themselves with vain imaginations of interest in God upon common priviledges But requireth not of them a declaration of the experimentall work thereof upon their hearts that thereupon a positive judgement might be passed concerning the truth of the work in their heart So in the place Acts 8 37. Philip tells the Eunuch what is his duety in relation to the susception of Baptism that he beleeve with all his heart And together I confesse insinuateth the requiring of a profession of so much that he might Administrat baptisme to him But neither does Philip require nor the Eunuch make a declaration of the experimentall work in his heart in relation to passing a positive judgement concerning the inexistence of the work in his heart Verily were this made an universall rule or ground whereby to judge of professours Conversion and consequently of their admission unto Church fellowship many an honest gracious soul should never obtain such a judgement upon them while they live there being many such who put them to declarations of this kind could say little or nothing He that were best read in practicall tractats of the nature of Repentance and Faith and the way of the Spirits working of these and had a gift of utterance should carry the fairest sentence what ever were the reall work in his heart if he could but carry fair outwardly in his conversation as an hypocrite may without scandall Nay it were in effect to erect a stage for hypocrites to out themselves upon and to cast a stumbling block in the way of honest hearts not indued with the gift of expressing themselves I deny not but good use may be made of drawing out of Christians what experience they find of the work of the spirit upon their hearts and conferences between Ministers and People and between Christians among themselves may and ought prudently to be exercised for that end But I speak against the making of declarations of this sort a generall rule and ground for judiciall tryall and passing judgement concerning the Regeneration and Conversion of Professours section 21 To conclude this Argument when these particulars held forth by the Word of God are considered and laid together 1. That Regeneration and Conversion being an inward work in the heart no judgement can be made thereupon by man but by
of the Visible Church formally consists baptizing if Mr. Lockier shall say that this cannot be done without the sentence of the collective body of Professours he 'll speak beside the book of God which holds forth to us baptisme administrate by one Minister alone without the knowledge of any particular Church and mentioneth not any instance so far as I can remember of Ministers requiring the vote of the Church for baptizing any at any time section 8 For the third the limitation of the Elderships exerting of power not without the consent and approbation of the Church Upon this 1. I would inquire of Mr. Lockier whom he meaneth by the Church without whose consent and approbation this ought not to be done Whether the whole Congregation i. e. all Members thereof promiscuously and indifferently or only some certain Members thereof excluding the rest If the whole Congregation and all the Members thereof Then women and children also must have an hand in these weighty maters of the Government of the Church which I cannot well think he will affirme sure I am will not be owned by many of his side and is contrary to the Word of God If not the whole Congregation but some certain Members viz. men these of years of discretion or of a manlyage Then 1. why speaketh he of the Church indefinitely without any such restriction not without the consent and approbation of the Church Are not women a part of the Church yea and children also under age unlesse we shall say that they are without i. e. of the world of heathens and aliens from the Israel and Household of God which is absurd Nay I suppose there may be a Church consisting of only women beside the Officers as in case all the men of a Congregation were removed by death or otherwise for must we say that a Congregation consisting of 40. men and as many women if by Pestilence all the men should be removed excepting the Officers thereof that it should because of this cease to be a Visible Church 2. It cannot consist with what he saith afterward in sundry of his Arguments brought to prove his Assertion In the first thereof he alledgeth that the power of the Keyes are given to persons not as Officers Apostles or Elders but as beleevers to the Church of beleevers and beleeving with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal but I assume that Women are beleevers and beleevers with such a faith as well as Men Ergo by his Argument they must have an hand in the Government by their consent and approbation as well as the men Again in the third whereas he alledges that other wayes viz. than as he asserted the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren for as much as persons may be taken in and casten out concerning which they can have no distinct knowledge I assume that this will hold as well for women little ones of the Church and sisters of tender consciences as well as men Because offending of these must be eschewed as well as of those Further in his fourth Argument he alledgeth as a ground of his Assert that the spirit of discerning is not confined to Elders but may be in great measure in some of the members and a greater gift when all are joyned together in the Name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge And addeth that the Saints shall Judge the World All which take in female Saints as well as male Saints section 9 2. When as there is a consent and approbation of acts of Government privat obedientiall and not-authoritative And a consent and approbation publick and authoritative by way of a judiciall decisive vote Why is it that the Author does not in his Assertion determine which of these he means 'T is true afterward in his 5th Argument he is expresse that the whole Church and so men women and children should be joyntly authoritative about these acts of Government But here in propounding the Assertion involves the mater in an ambiguous generality It would seem to bear the ignorant Reader in hand that we did grant nothing to people about these acts of Government but a passive blind obedience to what is determined by the Eldership It would seem I say this is the drift of it the rather that afterward SECT 5. end he hints at our Doctrine in this expression If the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Presbytery and the people left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills who thus impropriat power But surely this is either a grosse misunderstanding or a foul misrepresentation of the Doctrine of Presbyterians in this mater which may appear by these things which they reach and grant unto the people in relation to matters belonging to Ecclesiastick Government As section 10 First we grant as to the mater of the Calling of Ministers and Officers of the Church that to all the people belongeth the power to nominat and elect the persons to be their own Church-Officers And that to put upon a people who are Christians and in a capacity to elect any Church Officer without their consent and election is unwarrantable intrusion But withall we affirm that this nomination or election is not an authoritative act of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction conferring upon the person any Ministeriall or Officiall power and authority but that this is conferred by the act of ordination 〈◊〉 the ordinary course appointed by Christ in his Church Ministerially under Christ and by vertue of his institution which act is to be performed by the Rulers of the Church and not by the people and that the nomination or election performed by the people is only the designation of the persons on whom this power is to be conferred by ordination if he be one as yet not ordained and is appropriated to be their Minister Besides we grant that any of the people has power to object any just exceptions against a person who is a calling to be their Minister and they ought to be heard and if their reasons be relevant they ought to be admitted section 11 Secondly we grant in like manner as to admission of members that any of the members of the Church has power to represent any just exception and reason they know against any person to be admitted and that their reasons ought to be heard and if relevant to be admitted section 12 Thirdly as to the Preaching of the Word we grant that the people are not obliged to give blind and implicit obedience to what is delivered by the Ministers as if they ought to receive as the Word of God whatsoever is delivered by them but that they have power and ought by the judgement of discretion to search the Scriptures whether the things delivered by the Ministers be so to try the spirits whether they be of God or not to prove all things and hold fast that which
guides and leads the proceedings of the Judicatory 5. The Church if the Elders go wrong may not only admonish them But 6. if impenitent reject i. e. Excommunicate them Ans 1. If the Church ordain their Elders may depose them may Excommunicate them To speak of Elders exerting power but not without consent and approbation of the Church is give me leave to say it without offence upon the mater a Gilli-maufrey The Church can and does exert Power it self by it self without Elders exerting any Power in these weighty maters of Government And what need then to talk of a necessity of their consent and approbation to the Elders exerting the Power nay by these suppositions the Elders as such shall have no Power no judiciall or authoritative Power at all to exert As such they are at most only as Chair-men and Moderators to the Church in its exerting Power But. 2. all these Assertions making up the Antecedent or proof except the first concerning the electing of Officers which is no act of Government nor makes a man a Minister but only is a designation of the person to be made a Minister by ordination or an application of him being a Minister to exercise his office in a particular charge and the 5th concerning admonition which is not an act of jurisdiction or authority but a duty of love and mercy competent to every single Professour except these two all the rest are but bare unwarranted Assertions and a very begging of the things in question More of them severally hereafter Only in a word now here concerning the last that the Church may Excommunicate their Elders however many of the Independents affirme so Yet some of them and these not of least account have scunnered at it yea denyed it down-right and given reason for their so denying As Mr. Cotton Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some rulers The Keyes pag. 16. The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbyterie because they have not received from Christ an office of rule without their Officers ib. no act of the peoples power doth properly bind unlesse the authoritâ— of the Presbytery joine with it 3. But one word more for the present when the Author sayes that the Elders are set over the Church and yet makes them but servants of the Church in the sense we have before expressed subject to judiciall tryall and censures by the Church c. he gives us but an empty word nomen sine re which is another scorn it is impossible by his way to shew us one act of authority in regard of which they can be said to be over the Church See this I say made good impregnably by Reverend Mr. Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries pag. * This is to be looked after the retrogradation of the number of pages mentioned by the Printer in admonition about Errata 311. to 323. section 10 As to the Latine testimonie cited by the Author to confirm what he has been saying concerning the Church of believers power to censure their Elders and Officers I professe I know not what Author he means nor have leisure to enquire But to the two Texts of Scripture pointed at in it 1. The former Act 11. 3. 't is true Peter there giveth an account of his going in to the uncircumcised But 1. was he required by a Church of Believers only and contradistinguished from all Elders and Officers in which notion it is that Mr. Lockier is now speaking of the Church to do this before them judicially this is a dream The Church at Jerusalem before whom Peter was at that time consisted of Elders as well as Believers And the Apostles and Brethren that were in Judea heard c. and it is well observed by the Nedder Dutch Notes that under the name of Brethren are comprehended the Elders who afterwards c. 15. 23. are distinguished from private brethren 't is said v. 2. that some of the Brethren contended with him for that deed now supposing that they challenged him judicially and that he made his Apology judicially how shall it be evidenced from the Text that he did it before the body of Professours and not before the Colledge of Apostles and other Elders only sitting and cognoscing judicially upon the mater the sharpest sight in the World will not see a vestige of any thing of this kind in the Text nor can any man shew us either precept or example in Scripture for a Church of Believers alone judicially cognoscing and giving sentence of censure upon their Elders and Rulers 2. Suppose there had been none but private Believers amongst them to whom Peter made that Apologie to remove the scandall Yet that were but a poor ground to prove that he did it to them judicially sitting upon him and as having authority to judge and censure him for why One Christian doing any thing at which offence is taken may and ought to give an account and satisfaction to another privat brother who is offended for removing the offence Yet hath not a privat Brother authority or power judicially to cognosce and passe sentence upon another Brother section 11 2. To the other place 1 Cor. 3. 22. brought for that Peter and so other Church-Officers are the servants and Ministers of the Church 1. 'T is true the Pastours there are said to be the Churches and so also are the world life death things present things to come and all things But I hope none will be so absurd as to say that the World Life Death c. are the Churches as servants in way of relation to the Church as a Mistresse calling commissionating them under Her they are the Churches as means to Her good and so are the Pastors and Rulers Her servants in this sense 2. Tho Independents will not stand to affirme that ordinary Officers are the servants of a particular Church as their Mistresse commissionating them and having Power over them Yet I am ready to think their stomacks will stand at it to affirme so much of the Apostles of Jesus Christ as Apostles And yet by that Text even the Apostles themselves as Apostles are held forth to be the Churches as well as ordinary Pastors and Rulers and that in a like maner for ought can be perceived by the Text. section 12 The 3. Argument SECT 4. Because otherwise if the Elders should exert power in these maters of Government without the joint Authoritative consent and vote of the members of the Church the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren But offence ought not to be given to Christ little ones one of the least of the family Ergo c. To prove the assumption needlesse pains is taken Now if this Argument hold good it will conclude that not only men but women also must have joint authoritative consent and vote with the Elders in these maters of power and Government For
rationall obedience 3. That they joined their assent we shall not deny but the Question is what sort of assent whether authoritative and definitive◠〈◊〉 is not proven nor can be proven from the Text. Their â—…urring in sending Messengers proveâ— it not section 13 As to what followes of Mr. Lockiers words in this 8. SECT yet would they not leave c. 1. What he means by Presbyters Primats and these introduceing superintendents bringing in generall coercive Assem I confesse I understand not sure I am Presbyterians acknowledges no presbyters Primats nor superintendants either but that their way is very contrary to both 2. I confesse the Apostles in their practice in this Synod left no example introducing of a Pope but withall I think â—hey left an example for a Synod generall or particular wherein Church Rulers may juridically determine controversies in Religion according to the Word of God oblidging people to obedience under hazard of Ecclesiastick censure as shall be more cleared hereafter and that this does not supersede any power of people or particular Assemb of Saints privat beleevers that is competent to them by the grant and appointment of Jesus Christ I close this purpose of this Section with the words of the Learned Professours of Leiden Synop. Pur. Theol. Disp 49. de Concil Thes 29. Si ex Laicis cujuscunque status conditionis sunt viri pietate sacrarum rerum intelligentiâ sapientiâ prudentiâ modestiâ pacis studio mansuetudine insignes admitti accedere possunt sed vocati seu ab Ecclesiâ selecti missi iique suo ordine modo rogati sententiam dicere verumtamen ab illis in publicâ hâc actione consilium arbitrium potius quà m suffragium requiritur Adfuisse sanè plebem consilio Apostolis Presbyterisque adstitisse ut auditores testes silentio saltem suo si non voce approbatores fuisse consensumque praebuisse videre est Act. 15. Atque id etiam comprobat primarum probatarum Synodorum praxis usus ut in Concilio Carthaginensi sub Cypriano liqâ—et Interea tamen populo Christi maneâ— hâ—c suum ex divino Verbo judicium sed privatum â—e humana placita pro divinis accipiat Math. 7. 19. section 14 For hâ— 3. instance conceâ—ning elections of Officers we grant that election of Officers is to be done by the 〈◊〉 But election is no 〈◊〉 which was one of the thâ—… weighty things mentioned in 〈…〉 â—sseâ—…ion and repeated aâ—aiâ—… SECT 6. wherein he underâ—…k 〈…〉 â—hat the Elder 〈…〉 to exert power without the 〈◊〉 authoritative 〈◊〉 of the people not 〈◊〉 iâ— formally give the office power 〈…〉 signes the person to be invested 〈◊〉 the powâ—… by 〈…〉 be not one already ordained as 〈◊〉 â—he 〈◊〉 of thâ—s◠〈…〉 to be Deacons Acts 6. or applye◠〈◊〉 to exercise his 〈◊〉 in this particular charge if ordained and in office 〈◊〉 Nor is it any authoritative act of Government Ordination is done only by the Presbyters and Officers as thâ—… Deacons elected by the people were ordained not by them bâ—t by the Apostles section 15 His 4th instance is of ordination of Elders This we acknowledge to be a potestative act of Ecclesiastick authority and affirme that in Churches constitute and in the ordinary way of calling by Christs appointment in the Words belongs only to these who have Ecclesiastick Authority the Presbytery or Eldership Let 's see how Mr. Lockier shâ—weth us expresse Scripture that the people must joyntly concâ—r â—uthoritatively therein His first Scripture is Acts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communibus calculis simul suffragijs electus est By joynt voice was Matthias ordained to his place After the Lord had pointed out which of the two should be successor to Judas one would have thought that the Lord pointing out the man had been enough to formalize the mater And yâ—t lest this might prove a means to justle out the priviledge of the whole Church in matters of essentiall concernment after the Lords designation which was proper to him they joyntly take this designation and enstate him amongst them not by the suffrages of some but by the suffrages of the whole Church by preparing and drawing out of the whole to this particular work by the Apostle Peter who stood up in the midst of the Disciples the number being about an hundred and twenty and speaks of this mater joyntly to aâ—… Answ 1. Granting that by that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were signified an act of ordination performed upon Matthias formally constituting him an Apostle Yet there can be nothing brought out of the Text to prove that all the Church present concurred formally in that authoritative act Mr. Rutherfurds reasoning from the Text to the contrary to shew that it was only the Apostles is very considerable Due righâ— of Presbytery c. 8. pag. 1â—0 â—…eed not transcribe his grounâ—â—eâ— Mr. Lockier answâ—… 〈◊〉 What he brings is either 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 sufficient to prove his point oâ— an addition unto or rather a corrupting of the Text or a begging of â—he Question 1. That the whoâ—e hundred and twentie were drawn out to this Work and Peter spaâ—e 〈◊〉 them all â—bout the mater and told them that one amongst them must begâ—…en â—s a poor Argument to prove that all were to act formally in the authoritative act of the ordination of the man They might all be called out to the Work and Peter might speak to them all and yet not all of them be there in one and the same capacity as to â—…at Work But some as witnesses and consenters some as formall actors 2. That Peter in his speach said to all that one of them might be chosen by them i. e. all of them This is a plain addition unto or corrupting of the Text wherein there is no such thing Peter sayeth of these men that hath companied with us must one be ordained to be a witnesse he sayeth not must be ordained by you 3. When he sayeth they appointed they gave forth their loâ—… they numbered meaning as he doth they all the hundred and twenty he begs the thing in Question But 2. I confesse I never thought that in this place was held forth an ordination performed by men at all People or Apostles I find learned Mr. Caudry of the same judgement Vindic. Clav. pag. 28 29. whose solide considerations I present here That place Act. 1. was not an ordinary case wherein the people had little or no hand I adde the Apostles themselves had little or no hand For 1. they were confined to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour 2. They propounded two it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man 3. The Lord himself determined it and not the Apostles much lesse the People As for that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stood upon as Master Lockier also stands upon it it cannot be properly taken as if they by their votes or suffrages
filthy lucre And this ordination they acted alone Therefore the Eldership may do in most weighty things in the Church without the Church without the joint consent of the Church Answ We bring not these places for the generall that Acts of Government belong to the Officers of the Church only To wit to act therein authoritatively But for this particular ordination Again the Author propounds the conclusion invidiously without the consent of the Church We acknowledge that in these weighty matters the Church i. e. the people are to have a rationall obedientiall consent but privat The Question is whether they ought to have an authoritative decisive suffrage And in the Calling of Ministers they ought to have suffrage in their election But as for the potestative mission or ordination that we say belongs to the Officers in the Church onely 3ly It is to be observed how the Author labours to cover the force of these places for proving of this by slipping by the principall words Titus 1. 5. and ordain Elders in every City and produces only the words of the verses following expressing the qualifications requisite and to be presupposed in the persons that are to be ordained In a word the argument from these places is by him as slightly propounded as I think possibly he could But let him take it thus If ordination of Pastours by Apostolick authority be committed to Officers in the Church as Officers then it belongeth not unto the people But the former is proven from these places Therefore c. The Proposition is clear of it self The Assumption is cleared from the Texts First Timothy is charged to lay hands suddenly on no man in that same way and under that same consideration that he is charged not to receive an accusation against an Elder but upon two or three witnesses testimony And as he is charged to rebuke sins publickly that others may fear and that he is charged to observe these other Rules given to him for ordering his administration in the Church v. 19 20 21. But these things are a charge given to him as a Pastor So by what power Titus was charged to rebuke the Cretians sharply that they might be sound in the faith v. 13. By that same power was he left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City But this he was to doe by an Official power and as an Officer as is evident by comparing that v. with v. 9. Therefore c. Again here is an expresse Commission to men in Office to ordain and charge laid upon them to be aware of doing it in a wrong way Let the Author show me in all the New testament a Commission given to people to ordain Ministers or a charge laid upon them to take heed how they ordain But see we now the Authors Answers to these places section 7 One of these places saith he answers another and openeth another 'T is said to Titus that he should ordain Elders in every City as Paul had appointed him Now it cannot be thought in reason that the Apostle would appoint him to ordain otherwise then he himself had ordained but he himself did ordain by the suffrage of the people and did establish them by the help of their fasting and prayer Acts 14. 23. And this is all which is left upon record for direction in this mater as yet we can find and therefore this appointment Timothy and Titus must and did follow Answ 1. True Paul would not appoint Titus to ordain otherwise then he ordained himself But that Paul did ordain by the suffrage of the people is but begged and that place Acts 14. 23. does not prove it The most that can be deduced from it is that Paul and Barnabas ordained the Elders being nominated designed and elected by the peoples suffrage as is shown before whether we refer the Author and the Reader I shall onely note a word here of worthy Cartwright upon that place Acts 14. 23. whereby it doth appear that albeit he standeth for the first signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in that place to wit that it importeth giving of suffrages by lifting up of hands yet he referreth that to Election which he will have to have bee◠done by the people and we deny not this but saith not that the people had hand in the ordination of these Elders with Paul and Barnabas But on the contrair expresly giveth ordination to the sole Officers You speak untruly saith he to the Rhemists which accuse us as if we so commended the Churches Election as we shot out the Bishops Ordination which we not only give unto them but make them also the chief and directors in the Election Vnderstanding by Bishops such as are mentioned in the Scriptures and not humane creatures 2. Is this viz. Acts 14. 23. all that is left upon record for direction in this matter to wit Ordination Then 1. its sure M◠Lockier has little ground for his faith that Ordination ought to be done by the people when as we have so expresse Scriptures for Officers acting in it And he has none for the peoples acting in it but that one which neither mentions people nor vi materiae by force of the thing spoken in it can by consequence import any more as to them but their suffrages for Election 2. But it seems he has forgotten himself in short bounds for did he not SECT 8. cite Acts 1. 28. for direction in this matter Or has he afterward changed his minde of that place finding that it made nothing for his purpose But 3. He may if he will find more upon record for direction in this matter besides these present two places Acts. 6. 3 6. Acts 13. 1 2 3. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 2. in all which we finde Ordination performed by Officers without people Also Tit. 1. 13. Rev. 2. 2 14 15 16 20. Acts 20. 28 29. In which places the censuring of Ministers is committed unto and required of the Officers of the Church which is never committed unto or required of people Now to whom belongeth the Authority of taking away an Ecclesiastick Ministry to the same belongeth to confer it Gul. Apollon Consider of sundrie Controv c. 4. pag. 58 59 SECTION VI. Mr. Lockiers Answers to some other Objection made by way of Reason SECT 15. 16. 17. Examined section 1 THe Author as he picked out some of the places of Scripture brought by the opposites of his way to prove the powe◠of the Church Government to be in the hands of Church Officers only and they are but a few of many and only concerning a particular Act of Government Ordination when as they bring many pregnant proofs from Scripture for the whole power of Government in generall so he is pleased to pick out at his pleasure some few of their Arguments by way of reason section 2 1. If the Eldership cannot determinately act in the Church without the consent of the Church then
of Government but particular Congregations where they can conveniently associate together they are oblidged by the rule and warrand of Gods Word to associate under common Presbyteries Classicall and Synodicall and in this case that a particular Congregation ought not nor may by warrand of Gods Word exercise these acts of Government of publike and common concernment as Ordination and Deposition of Ministers Excommunication of persons by it self alone But these acts ought to be done by the common Presbytery Classicall or Synodicall And that a particular Congregation ought not nor may not by warrand of Gods Word perform any act in maters particularly concerning themselves so without the common Presbytery of the association but that there should be liberty of appeal to the common Presbytery And that the common Presbytery may juridically and authoritatively cognosce and judge upon their proceedings and actings In a word it may do things of Government particularly belonging to it self in and by it self but with subordination to the larger and common Presbyteries these things have been abundantly proven by sundry learned men as Mr Gillâ—sp in his Assert of the Government c. Mr. Rutherfurd Gull Apollon in his consideration of sundry controversies Jus Divin The Ass of Divines come we to see what Mr. Lockier bringeth for the contrair section 3 First It is granted by our Brethren sayeth he that such a Church hath this sufficiency in the exercise of some Ordinances as Preaching Administration of Sacraments without seeking the consent or help of the Classes Nor were the Church to neglect these Whence he concludeth that it may also exercise the other Ordination and Excommunication And gives for a proof of the consequence upon that grant If they may do the greater surely they may do the lesser and there is no dispensation of so choise an excellency as Preaching as Paul witnesseth making it the chief part of his errand I was sent to Preach the Gospel not to Baptize Answ 1. 'T is true we grant that such a Church i. e. a particular Congregation having all its Officers hath sufficiency in it to exercise these Ordinances of Preaching and Administration of Sacraments i. e. the Pastors of a particular Congregation may Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments without speciall consent or help and concurrence of the Classicall Presbytery to every act nor were he to neglect or cease from these if the Classis should forbid I mean without just cause Yet it may be and it is so indeed by the warrand of Gods Word that the particular Congregation cannot have in the ordinary way of the Church in a setled and constitute state the Pastor to exercise these Ordinances but by the consent and potestative mission and Ordination of the Classis or some associate Presbyterie and tho the Pastor of the particular Congregation his exercising these Ordinances be not dependent upon the actuall concurrence in the severall individuall acts Yet therein he is subordinate to their Ministeriall Authority to try and judge his Preaching according to the Word of God and if they find just cause may forbid him to preach and they forbidding he must obey But 2. It s a grosse non-sequitur a particular Church or the Pastors in a particular Church have sufficiency or power to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments without the help or concurrence of the Classicall Presbyterie Ergo they may also exercise these other Ordinances Ordination and Excommunication without their concurrence And the proof of it is invalide because that is greater and if they may do the greater alone by themselves they may also do the lesser For by that same reason it should follow A Pastor hath sufficiency and power by himself alone to preach the Gospel to Baptize without the help and concurrence of his fellow-Elders in the Congregation Ergo he may also by himself alone Ordain and Excommunicate without their help and concurrence Why That is the greater and if he may do the greater alone he may also do the lesser The Author himself will not I conceive admit the Consequence here The truth is the interest of persons to exercise this or that or the other Ordinance is not to be attended or determined according to the greater or lesser excellency of the work But according to Christs commission institution and grant of power to them The exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in some things which is commonly called power of order as Preaching of the Word Administration of Sacraments is given to Christs Ministers severally and a part considered as single Pastors So a Pastor may preach the Word and administer Sacraments alone without concurrence or speciall consent either of the whole Church or other Rulers to every act But in other things these of the power called the power of jurisdiction the exercise and power thereof is not given to one but to an unity To the community of Governours of the Church united together not any single Rulers severally Therefore tho a Pastor may preach and baptize alone yet he may not Censure nor Excommunicate alone And if he should do this the act were invalide both in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiastico Now the power of Ordination and Excommunication being given to a community the Question is whether this community be a particular Congregation having an intire particular Eldership or the Eldership of a particular Congregation by it self and independent from a larger Presbyterie this Mr. Lockier saith but his Argument grounded upon our grant to prove it is impertinent as we have seen section 4 But further he would prove that a particular Congregation hath power to exercise all Ordinances as well as any thus Sect. 41. The Keyes are not divided The Keyes are all given to Peter as personating the Church of beleevers in the Gospel that Kingdom of which Christ said he would build And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth Mat. 16. 19. Surely this particular here used is not in vain but to set forth that every Gospel-Church every particular Congregation of beleevers united as a visible organicall body for Gods Worship have ability a power given to it as to such an end he means to exercise all the Keyes alone and by themselves which he expresseth thus they have not a lame commission part of the Keyes at their girdle and strangers and forrainers carrying another part Answ 1. As to that of dividing the Keyes we have said sufficient before 2. As to that alledged the Keyes were all given to Peter as personating the Church of Believers c. we have spoken also before in the Examination of his first proof of the first Assertion Now we adde but these things here 1. I would ask Mr. Lockier what he means by the Church of Believers in the Gospel Whether the universall Church Visible of Believers Then he must acknowledge a Church Universall Visible individually one For certainly the article the denotateth
to clear the businesse Naamans practising of heathnish Idolatry in the house of Rimmon amongst a people not so much as professing the true God but an Heathnish people professedly denying the God of Israel what will intelligent pious men say to this To the third exception Whether Mr. Lockier defines protesting well to be a peece of revenge the vehemencie of Repentance let Lawyers judge To my simple apprehension protesting in the nature of it has nothing to do with Repentance as not importing guiltinesse in the person protesting but being an act whereby he testifies against the sinfulnesse and unjustice of the dead of some others that he himself may appear clear and free from the concurrence in or the accession to it and preserves himself in a legall capacitie to challenge it before a judge competent but whereas Mr. Lockier supposeth that a man protesting or testifying against the intrusion or admission of scandalous wicked persons into the participation of an Ordinance of Christ or lawfull necessarie act of Worship if he participate in that Ordinance or Worship when and where scandalous persons participates therein that in this the man halts and halves he does but beg the thing which will not be granted to him and he will never prove And on begged suppositions to say how these will accord is worthy deep thoughts of heart favours of contempt of Readers if not of somewhat else To the fourth when there is a Protestation against the constitution and very being of an Assembly 't is true there is no submitting to it by the Protesters But yet there may be a protesting against some on or more particular deeds of an Assembly when the constitution and being of it is acknowledged and to such an Assembly submission is not refused or denyed by any principles of ours So there may be a protesting or testifying against some particular abuses in a Church and yet communion keeped with that Church in lawfull true necessarie acts of Divine Worship But if the Author mean that if such an abuse be in a Church as that wicked persons are permitted in it or coming to Communion that in that case the Godly must protest not only against the deed but the very thing of that Church as no Church and therefore must not joine therewith in warranted acts of Worship but separate from its Communion altogether he will not have the simile of Assemblies and our cariage to them to go along with him and it is in it self without warrand contrare to the warrand of Scripture and we doubt not to say a most Schismatick Assertion Mr. Lockier in Sect. 56. and 57. brings and answers a new Objection and therein raiseth much dust to small purpose about the causalitie of Baptisme as to the constituting a Church The Objection is this Doeth not Baptisme give the forme of a true Church and you say if the forme and foundation be right it may be capable to purge it self right Sir you are much mistaken if you think that we hold Baptisme alone to give the forme of a true Church We say it is the initiall seal and solemne entry and admission of Members into the Visible Church so this is a needless Objection brought in it would seeme to vent a new conceit borrowed out of Mr. Hookers Survey part 1. c. 5. of a Church without Baptisme of which a word shortly upon his Answer to this Objection Only here we say this that which gives form and being to a Church is the true Doctrine of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace for substantials at least solemnly avowed by the sealing of Baptism and Preached by a lawfull Ministry Lawfull Ministry I say as to the essentials of a Gospel-Ministry these three at least are necessary to give the being of a Gospel-Church And where these are tho there be many corruptions and defects in the Church yet it is capable to purge it self from its corruptions and to supply its defects and to urge unchurching of such a society and dissolving of it as no Church or totall separation from it is not of GOD. But come we to speak a little to the Authors Answer to his Objection Baptism saith he doth not give the form of Church membership So say we too Profession of the true Christian faith is that which giveth the form of Church-membership de jure Baptism is the solemn seal thereof But Mr. Lock having in his Objection spoken of that which giveth form being to a Church how falleth he now to speak of that which giveth form of Church-membership Is there no more requisite to give form and being to a Church we are now speaking of a Church Visible but that which giveth form to Church membership simply This is a grosse mistake Profession of the Christian Faith simpliciter is that which adaequately gives the form and being to Church-membership simply But to give form and being to a Church there must be concurring with this a Ministeriall dispensation of the Doctrine of Faith and Ordinances by such means as Christ hath instituted them to be dispensed by A Church existing without a Ministry compleat in the nature and being of a Visible Church is a thing unheard of in the Word of GOD. See Huds c. 6. vindic section 12 But to Mr. Lockiers purpose in hand His aim here in his solution is to maintain that Baptism is no wayes necessary to Church-membership We confesse it is not that which giveth the forme and being of a member or the jus but yet we say it is necessary as the solemn seal of actuall admission into the possession of Church-membership in the ordinary way appointed by Christ The Authors Reasons for his Assertion are two 1. There may bee a Church and so consequently members of a Church before Baptisme Ministers are before Baptisme and the Church is before Ministers for out of it are they made and have their keyes c. See this abundantly dashed by Caudry in Mr. Hookers Surv. c. 5. 2. Saith he The Church was visibleble when there was no seal neither Circumcision nor Baptisme and then how could these constitute a Church Answ What a childish reasoning is this There was a Church without Circumcision and without Baptism when neither of them was yet instituted by God Ergo after Circumcision was instituted to be the solemn seal of his Church there might yet been a Jewish Visible Church without it and now after Baptisme is instituted to be a solemn initiall seal of the Christian Church there may be a Christian Church without Baptisme he might as well say that there may be a Christian Church without the profession and belief of that Article JESUS the Son of MARY is the CHRIST why the Church was sometime when there was no such Article to be believed section 13 He addeth to these two Reasons this prejudice Besides how much this gratifieth the judgement and practice of Anabaptists any one may see who constitute Church members by baptism and how much Presbyterians
and triall as is a sufficient ground whereupon the Church may and ought to esteem and judge the person truly gracious regenerate and endued with true saving faith and repentance in a word a true inward Saint or if somewhat else section 13 As for the Tenet of the Independent Brethren all of them speak not the same way Mr. Hooker Survey part 1. c. 2. pag. 20 21. confesseth that the expressions of some of his Brethren as well as those of the Separation are somewhat narrow at the first sight and seem to require exactnesse of the highest strain and so speaks for a candide interpretation of them to wit that when such Phrases of theirs occurre upon this Subject as these Onely the Saints faithfull called and sanctified are to be members of the Congregation such a construction as this be put upon these words persons visibly externally such to the judgement of charity not alwayes really and internally such by the powerfull impression of Gods free grace Certainly some of them have so roundly affirmed that none should be acknowledged members of the visible Church but such as are true internall Saints that hardly can such a construction be put upon their words See D. Holmes and Mr. Barclets expressions set down by Daniel Cawdry in his Schem of contradictions in the Independent way n. 17. And Mr. Lockiers expressions of this purpose along his Lecture can as hardly suffer such a construction Others of them indeed have spoken more warily and in a lower strain as Mr. Hooker himself stating the Question p. 1. pag. 15. tells us persons who may be are hypocrites inwardly yet if their conversations and expressions be such that we cannot but conclude in charity there may be and is some spirituall good in them we say and hope and are bound to conceive they are Saints these are fit mater of a Visible Church Only it is to be observed that it cannot be well discerned by his words whether he meaneth a * By a positive judgement wee meane the elicting of an act of the understanding whereby we affirme the man to be such and by a negative judgement the abstaining from affirmation of the contrarie negative judgment of charity or a positive his words as to this are so wavering and fluctuating and that very remarkably pag. 14. end and 15. begin he speaketh of the mater thus So far as rationall charity directed by rule from the Word a man can not but conclude that there may be some seeds of some spiritual work of grace in the heart Here if we look at these words A man can not but conclude one would think that a positive judgement were intended for that expression doth import a necessity of elicting positively an act of judgement affirming of the subject that form touching which the Question is But the next word which is but a may be nothing being more said there before he concludeth the description of Visible Saints seemeth to cast down that and to import lesse Then a little after he expresseth clearly a positive judgement we say and hope and are bound to conceive they are Saints Again in propounding the state of the Question the mater is involved in a cloud We cannot conclude but in charity there may be and is some spirituall good in them c. If we look at that we cannot conclude but c. one would think only a negative judgment were intended for these words import no more but a necessity of abstaining from an act of judgment whereby the form in Question is denyed of the subject or the contrair thereunto affirmed But when it is added there may be and is c this seems to speak for a positive Before it was we cannot but conclude and therewith there may be only Now it is we cannot conclude but and herewith there may be and is I verily think the godly man has been at a puzzle in his conceptions about the mater Of all the Brethren of the Independent way whose Writings I have had occasion to see Mr. Nortoun in his Answer to Gulliel Apoll. his Questions are most mâ—derate and come nearest to the truth In many particulars he cometh below that which is required by most part of all others of that way particularly in that expresly he asserteth that it is not a positive judgement but only negative that we are to have of the grace of Church-members c. 1. that we are not positively to judge ill of them section 14 But not to insist on these differences this in generall is their common Tenet that only such can be taken to be members of the Visible Church whether as foundationalls at the first gathering of the Church or as additionalls by admission into fellowship of the Church as may and ought to be accompted in the judgement of charity true heart-beleevers having reall communion with Christ and that upon sufficient evidences given thereof 1. By knowledge in the Fundamentall points of Religion and such other as are requisite and necessary to be known for leading a life without scandal 2. An experimentall work of Grace upon their hearts of Repentance towards God and Faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST 3. A conversation not only without scandall and offence before men indeed Norton goeth no further but also without neglect of any known duty and commission of any known ill concerning which they must be a good space tryed first in a way privat if the Church be a gathering by one another mutually untill they be mutually satisfied in the judgement of charity touching the truth of the grace of each other If it be in the admission of additionall members the triall is first by the Ruling Elder or Elders both by way of diligent enquiry for information from others and by way of conference with and examination of the parties themselves Then all things being clear and satisfactory to the Elder the person being propounded to the Church the people also must as opportunity may serve them try their spirituall condition and that both wayes too If these find no realitie of satisfaction they present their dissatisfaction to the Elder or Elders which stayes the proceeding for the present But if satisfaction hath been gotten by Elders and People in this privat way then the persons to be admitted must further every one after another if it be at the first gathering of the Church make first a publick confession of their knowledge and faith in the grounds of Religion then a declaration of the experimentall work of their effectuall vocation 1. In Repentance from dead works 2. In their unfeigned faith towards the Lord Jesus and then must produce if required a testimony of their blamelesse conversation For a testimony to my faithfulnesse in this representation of their Doctrine I refer the Reader to these on the Margent * Hookers Survey p. 1. c. 2. pag. 14 15 24 25. p. 3. cap. 3. pag. 4 â— Brief Narrat of the pract of the Churches of N. E. pa.
without apprehension of danger converse with him And accordingly when the effect of Barnabas discourse and information is set down v. 28. we find not a word nor a hint of an Ecclesiastick admission or stating him into Church-membership But this is said he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem i. e. he was daily conversing familiarly with them I need say no more to this Passage but shall only adde this Godly men would be more tender of Scripture then to use or rather to abuse it thus by shaping conceptions of their own and then driving them into it by force Come we to the next Text. section 4 It is Act. 2. 47. And the Lord added to the Church dayly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the saved eos qui salvi fiebant so he translateth it but what hence to his purpose He added to the Church the saved those which were out of harms-way as we say in a safe and sure state and so are no persons but such who have received the sure mercies of David A sinner is not safe nor out of Gun-shot till indeed in Christ And this is the mater accepted and taken in to build withall and none else so far as they could make judgement between things that differed After this he concluds by a dilemma thus Either they were thus strict upon their own will and so not to be followed Or else by divine and infallible warrand and so as a precedent which hath the force of a precept And then takes occasion to anticipate an Objection thus And this is over and above a plain demonstration of the possibilitie of the precept to be obeyed which taketh off that Objection 't were well Sir if 〈◊〉 so But how can it be How shall we do it Why it hath been 〈◊〉 therefore may be therefore should be and no otherwise section 5 Answ Here are involved a number of things some gratis affirmed some evidently false 1. He supposeth all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were already and antecedently to their addition to the Church inwardly delivered and translated from the state of nature and sin into the state of grace and begun reall union by faith in Christ and this he grounds upon the Greek participle which he will have translated the saved as noting a thing then already done But this is a very weak ground to bear up that supposition Why who knoweth not that oftentimes in the Greek Language passive participles of the present tense are used in the signification of gerundive names So that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be well rendered servandi such as were to be saved And so hath Beza and the old Latine Interpreters rendered it qui salvi sierent and the English Translation such as should be saved and so the word doth not necessarily import as the Author would have it that these added were antecedently to their addition saved by the begun work of grace in them tho we are not denying but it might been so with them and that under that consideration and upon that account they were added But this it doth import that they were such as God by the decree of Election had appointed to be saved and that he added them to the Church as the means whereby they were to be actually made partakers of Salvation as Calvine well taketh it up 'T is true the Syriack Interpreter as expounded by Tremel hath it qui salvi fiebant but withall he hath the whole place thus addebat quotidie eos qui salvi fiebant in Ecclesia i. e. such as were saved in the Church 2. He supposeth that this Text speaketh of Ecclesiastick addition of members in foro exteriori in the outward Court by the Church Rulers or them and the Congregation together to which of these belongeth this Act we discusse not now upon outward tryall and discerning This again is besides the Text which speaketh not one word of this I mean the Churches adding or admitting but of Gods adding which Interpreterâ— expound of the work of saving grace upon their hearts coâ—…ng and drawing them effectually to Christ and distinguisheth â—…om the acts of the outward Ministry upon them See Calvin in locum most plainare the words of Eras Sarcerius in Marlorat dicit Dominum eos addidisse Ecclesiae qui salvi fierent perinde enim est ac si diceret Lucas quos non addebat Deus etiamsi se ipsi adderent Ecclesiae non tamen fiebant salvi So Mr. Lockiers dilemma falls to the ground having no ground in the Text to subsist on It supposeth the Text to be speaking of an Ecclesiastick procedure with persons upon outward triall and discerning when as the Text is speaking of no such thing but of a divine efficiency upon persons 3. He supposeth that all and every one that were then visibly added to the Church and none else were added but such as were translated to the state of grace partakers of the sure mercies of David really in Christ at least so far as they could make judgement between things that differed But first I ask where doth he find or how will he make out of the Text that interpretation so far as they could make judgement c. and that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be understood without any such qualification to import such as were really saved I think this in divine destination is that indeed is meant and he shall never instruct from the Text that which he saith 2. How will he make out from the Text that all and every one that were by Ecclesiastick admission added to the Church and none else The Text indeed saith the Lord added such as were to be saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Doeth it hence follow none else were by Ecclesiastick admission added to the Church The Author must give us leave not to believe every thing upon his bare Assertion and must finde out new Logick ere he prove that consequence so then we see not how this Scripture consenteth to this point of Doctrine the simple meaning of the wods being thus much that daily the Lord was by his effectuall assisting the Ministry of the Gospel and working upon the hearts of men bringing such as he had a purpose to save unto the fellowship of the Church that therein as the ordinary way instituted by himself they might be led on to the participation of eternall salvation But this no wayes importeth but many others not so destinate to salvation might adjoin themselves and be by Ecclesiastick admission received into the outward fellowship of the Church section 6 The 3d. Text is Heb 3. 5 6. And Moses verily was faithfull in all his house as a servant for a testimony of thâ—se things that were to be spoken after but Christ as a Sonne over his own house whose house are we if we hold fast our confidence and rejoicing of hope firm unto the end Hereupon the Author commenteth thus To a Church of the Jews this is spoken who
in this vision was not to give a patern and portraicture or modell of the Visible Church for the time to come 2. As to that alledged meaning of Moses receiving his patern near Heaven viz. to shew of what qualification the people i. e. the members of the ancient Visible Church should be viz. in foro exteriori so must he understand it if he speak to the purpose in hand I will not trouble my self to inquire who may be these very learned men that say so But the thing it self is but a conjecture and I desire Mr. Lockier concerning this and the expounding of Heaven here to remember the axiome acknowledged by Schoole-men themselves otherwise doting on allegories theologia symbolica non est Argumentativa except where the Spirit of God himself openeth the signification 3. I desire to know what Mr. Lockier meaneth by persons really living very near Heaven if truely gracious then what difference between those and these afterward brought in with an adversative opposing them to the former and why did he propound his Doctrine with a restriction to the time of the Gospel 4. That patern which Moses had shown to him in the Mount according to which he was commanded to make did not concern the constitution of the body of the then Visible Church of what and how qualified persons it was to be made up But was a patern of the Tabernacle and the things pertaining to it Exod. 25. 9. 40. S. The place Ezek. 44. 7. referred as speaking of the ordinary members of the then Visible Church is not to the purpose for it speaks of such as were admitted to the Priests Office See Junius and Paraeus in locum 5. As impertinently and much more impertinently is the place of Heb. 8. 10. cited from Ier. 31. 33. brought into this discourse concerning the Visible Church and the mater thereof I appeal to all judicious Christians in the World and to Mr. Lockier himself in second serious thoughts if that Scripture was intended to be a rule of constituting Congregations Or if it be not a declaration or revelation of Gods purpose and Decree what he is to do himself by his efficacious grace and if that Covenant and the promises thereof belongeth not in the fulfilling thereof only to the Lords elect SECTION V. Examination of Mr. Lockyers proofe of his Doctrine by induction section 1 BVt saith he this is not the way which I most mind to make probation by of this point I would prove it by induction it seemeth then that he hes not had such confidence in that former way of probation by testimonies alledged to speak the point in thesi And I humbly leave it to the judicious and impartiall Reader to judge by what hath been said in answer to these passages if it be not made clearer that he had little ground of confidence in them for proof of his point and comes now to that way of probation wherein it seemeth he conceiveth more strength to ly section 2 The Churches of the Romanes Corinthians Ephesians Galatians Collossians Thessalonians of the Jews which are mentioned by Peter Iames and the Author to the Hebrews and in the Acts were all thus constitute of truely Godly so far as a Godly man can make judgement of one like himself Ergo. if these be denyed as presidents then I would aske our Brethren of the Presbytery by what rule they walk But if these be considered as presidents I have only to shew that these Churches did all thus constitute though I think they did not long keep and maintain this pure constitution for which they bore their judgement yet bear Ans Where did Mr. Lockier read that the judgement comed and yet lying upon these Churches came upon them for their admitting and permitting to be in their visible society such as were not true converts such as God the searcher of the hearts of all men can bear witnesse of as indeed sealed for his by his Holy Spirit as far as men truely converted and very spirituall can discern and judge We find indeed laid to some of their charge that they suffered scandalous persons broatchers of errors and seducers of others into their errors such I mean maintainers of errors I trow he and others of his way are not averse from receiving and suffering into their Independent Churches and I doubt not but for this among other causes judgement came upon them But that ever that which he saith was laid to tâ—eir charge or that the judgement of God came upon them for that cause we cannot believe his assertion we require it to be instanced by proofe but to the purpose he supposeth that beside these particular Churches instanced and what is said of them in the Epistles written to them there can be no where in Scripture found any thing holden forth as a rule by which we may walk in the constitution of the visible Church as to the mater or members tâ—ereof So doth his Question then I would aske our Brethren by what rule they walk import But we trust ere we have done to find a rule else-where yet we shall not deny nor refuse these Churches as presidents in this businesse in whatsoever can be made clear to have been their practice in this mater I mean the notion and consideration under which persons were admitted unto and reckoned in their externall Church-fellowship Come we then to consider the antecedent of this Argument or what is affirmed in his induction of these Churches First in the generall and then his proof thereof particularly The assertion of them all in generall is that all of them were constitute of persons truely Godly so far as Godly men could make judgement Ans 1. Mr. Lockier if he would have made the attributum of this induction answerable to his conclusion intended he should have said they were constitute of persons all and every one of them truely Godly and none else But he speaks only indefinitely which might be granted But let us take him to mean so this assertion as it lyeth may be granted in some sense which it may carry and never a whit advantage redound thereby to his Doctrine for it may carry this sense that these Churches were made up or did consist of persons all of them truely matâ—…ially Godly de facto and quoad eventum or it may carry this sense that they were constitute of persons all truly godly formally considered as such in their taking them into the constitution and external society of them Now in the first sense it might be granted as I suppose some Congregation or Congregations may be such eventually that all the members may be truely godly yet no advantage come thereby to his Tenet unlesse he could prove that the enumeration which he makes is a perfect enumeration of all the particular Churches in Scripture which he cannot because it is clearly contrary to truth and therefore his induction is imperfect Yea and this also that there is no other
Church of the Galatians is cited Gal. 4. 9. chap. 6. 1. the latter whereof is so impertinent to the purpose that I wonder how it came in his minde to alledge it The point to be proven is that the Church of the Galat. was constitute of persons all truely godly so far as men could judge The Apostles meaning in this place is this much if any amongst you through infirmity or ignorance be surprized and fall into a fault such among you as are spirituall i. e. more advanced and confirmed in knowledge and piety and more experimentally skilled in Christianity being conscious of your own lyablenesse to temptations apply your selves to recover and restore such an one with meeknesse and gentlenesse what is this to that conclusion If Mr. Lockier had assayed to make up a Syllogisme upon it for inferring that conclusion he would I no wayes doubt have perceived the impertinency of his alledging it Neither yet doth the former prove the point for let that knowing of God and their being known of God be understood of reality of saving grace Yet the speech is but indefinite after ye have known God or rather are known of God And every body knows what an indefinite speech can bear in materiâ contingente section 6 For the Church of Ephesus is cited Eph. 1. 1. 13. and Acts 20. 28. 32. For the first citation I mean what is said in the Epistle we need say no more then what is said upon the Romanes and Corinthians The places are all alike and the same answer serveth all Only I will say I am astonished that any man should think or say that these high Heavenly blessings priviledges and graces spoken of by the Apostle to the Ephesians as blessed with spirituall blessings in Heavenly places chosen before the foundation of the World predestinat to the adoption of Children to the praise of the Glory of His Grace accepted in the Beloved having Redemption through His Blood the forgivenesse of sins obtained the inheritance sealed with the Spirit of promise quickned with Christ raised up together with him to sit in heavenly places c. are all by the Apostle spoken of and attributed to all and every one in the visible societie of the Church of Ephesus so far as he could judge wherein he himself clearly intimats there were some and he speaks according to his own knowledge that were given to teach other Doctrine giving heed to fables 1 Tim. 1. 3 4. some that had swerved aside to vain jangling desiring to be Teachers of the Law c. v. 6 7. that teached otherwise not consenting to wholesome words proud knowing nothing doting about Questions and Strifes of words c. 6. 3 4. some addicted to the love of Money and Covetousnesse v. 9 10. striving about words to no profite but to the subverting of the hearers vessels to dishonour as vessels to honour Reprobates and Cast-awayes as well as Elect the foundation of the Lord having the seal of Gods Eternal Predestination Fore-knowledge set upon them 2 Tim. 2. 19. 20. those that oppose themselves and were to be brought with meeknesse unto Repentance and recovered out of the snare of Satan who had them captive at his will v. 25 26. such as had a forme of Godlinesse but denyed the Power thereof Misleaders and Mislead cap. 3. 6. 7. compare with v. 5. who will dare to say that the Apostle writing to a Church and giving them all these high stiles and commendations mentioned before did intend them to all and every one severally and distributively in that Church Neither will it avail to say that this Church might been so constitute at first as that all the Members might been such as these stiles might been given to them as far as men could judge though afterward many of them degenerated and discovered themselves Unlesse Mr. Lockier make it good that such was the state of that Church in all the Members of it at the time of the writing of this Epistle to the Ephesians he alleadgeth what is said in it to no effect for his purpose But it is certain that the first Epistle to Timothie was written long before it this being written long ere he came to Rome as Interpreters agree and that being written from Rome and that as most think in the time of his second imprisonment there and so it seemeth but a little before the second to Timothie which was the last of all section 7 For the other citation Acts 20. 28 32. 1. The latter vers 32. any man who sees any thing may see it clearly impertinent to the purpose in hand 2. To the other feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood We Answ That by the Church bought with the blood of Iesus Christ true God is not meant the Visible Church as such as if the meaning of the words were bought with the blood of Christ in the judgement of charitie or so far as men can judge which is a meer addition to the Text but the Invisible Church of the Elect really redeemed So do all Orthodox Divines writing against Remonstrants on the Article of Redemption expound it of the Church of the Elect only and presse it as an Argument against the Remonstrants Universall Redemption and Remonstrants upon the contrare would have it meant of the whole Visible Church Mr. Lockier hath given no proof that it is spoken of the Visible Church as such but thought it enough to point us to the place and to suppose it be as he would have it But because Reverend M. Hooker in his Survey par 1. c. 3. pag. 39 40. asserteth the same interpretation of the place with Mr. Lockier against my Reverend Collegue Mr. Rutherfurd and assayes to give some reason for it albeit I doubt not ere long the Church shall have a sufficient answer from Mr. Rutherfurd himself to that and other things in the Survey Yet I must crave humble leave of him to say somewhat to Mr. Hooker in this particular seeing it cometh so far in my way and otherwise Mr. Lockier and his followers might haply say I had purposely shun'd it section 8 The Church here sayeth he whether Congregationall or Presbyteriall must needs be visible Ans That is not the question nor the thing he should have proven for we shall confesse the Church here spoken of and as spoken of in the context must be visible but he should have said and proven the Church here spoken of and said to be bought with the blood of Christ must be the Church Visible and as such considered according to its visible state and consequently that the attribute of the enunciation is enunciat of all and every one in that state see we then if the argument he formeth maketh out this That over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend to feed by Doctrine and Discipline this must needs be a visible Church for unlesse they did see them and know them how could they execute censure
these thine elect and therefore I cannot tell how to feed them It is not necessary or a Pastour to feed the Elect that he know distinctly who are the singular persons by the head but for feeding by publick Doctrine it is sufficient that he know them confusedly that they are there in the Congregation and if he have any grounds of a positive judgement concerning particular persons that indeed gives him further advantage to apply himself to those in a more particularly applicatory way If indeed it were the Ministers work to feed efficaciter to give the increase as the Apostle expresseth the actuall efficaciousnesse or efficiency of grace and they were required to feed the elect that way I confesse if the Lord did not distinctly point out the particular persons to them then they might make such a reply Lord I cannot search into thy secrets to perceive who are these c. but the efficiency of grace is in Gods own hand alone and the Minister has upon him but an externall morall suasive administration which he is to dispense for the good of the elect but he needeth not for that know them distinctly it is enough he knowes they are there where he dispenseth them and let God discern and waile them out from the rest 3. It is a groundlesse supposition and contrary to the truth that in the current and common sense of Scripture that redeemed being spoken of spirituall redemption from sin and eternall wrath as for the name sanctified it is not in this text and therefore is impertinently brought in here is taken for redeemed visibly though not really I doubt he can bring many passages of Scripture wherein it can with any appearance be so exponed yea visibly redeemed is an expression in my judgement strange to Scripture Let this suffice us in answer to Mr. Hooker in this particular We doubt not but Mr. Rutherfurd will have more full and acurate considerations on it section 10 I shall adde a word or two for proofe that by the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ cannot be understood all and every one of the Visible Church but only the Elect desiring Mr. Lockier to take the same to his consideration if the Church which Ephes 5. 25 26 27. Christ is said to have loved and given himself for that he might sanctifie and cleanse it be not the Visible Church as such and so all members of the Visible Church then neither is it so to be taken here the consequence and connexion of this proposition is necessary and clear because the attribute enunciate of it in both places is all one upon the matter for what else is it that Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that c. but that he redeemed it by his own blood But that Eph. 5. by the Church is meant only the elect i. e. the Invisible Church is the constant Doctrine of all Orthodox Divines in their disputes against the Remonstrants universall Redemption for the Redemption of the elect only and likewise of all Orthodox Divines writing against Papists on the Question concerning the members of the true Invisible Church the Mysticall body of Christ and also upon the Question of the Visibility of the Church I instance but a testimonie of one viz. Learned Whittaker de Eccles q. 1. c. 9. tert arg where you shall find him not only affirm but solidely prove this we say reasoning thus from the place Christ is not the Head * This is to be understood of such headship as has allusion to the head of the naturall body which hath a reall influence into the body so no doubt Christ is an head in a politicall sort to the Visible Church having a morall influence by command c. but of that Church which he shall save which he shall present to himself on the day of Judgement glorious not having spot or wrinkle But only the predestinate shall be saved Ergo. only the Elect belong to the Church of Christ i. e. the Church mentioned there and to Bellarmin's answer that Christ is Head to that Church which he shall not save he saith falsissimum esse Read that whole paragraph and you shall find sundry other solide Arguments brought by him from that context to prove that only the elect are that Church spoken of there 2. Again I desire him to look forward from v. 28. to ver 30. of this very 20. chap. of the Acts and see what the Apostle saith also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Whether we expone of your own selves of the whole body of the Church of Ephesus or particularly of the Elders and Officers thereof is all one to our purpose It will not be denied that the Officers were members of the Church of Ephesus and as Christians were partakers of the common Priviledges and Titles competent to the Visible Church now if Paul shall be conceived to speak that redeemed by the blood of Christ let it be out of the positive judgement of charity and so far as he could judge universally of all the Visible Church of Ephesus how could this consist with what he saith v. 30. * Surgendi verbo quo utitur significat iam lupos illos fovere clandestinam perniciem donec occasione sibi datâ erumpant Calv. in loc that he knew there was some amongst them presently fostering secret and clandestine wickednesse who would afterward openly kyth apostatize from the truth and become seducers of others Could the Apostle have a judgement such as is mentioned of such that they were Redeemed by c. Sure understand the Word v. 20. as Mr. Lockier would and we shall have clearly contradictory judgements of Paul at once I judge the Church of Ephesus Universally all and every one of you Redeemed and yet I know some among you are lurking traitours who will kyth afterward he sayeth not may be some of you will but positively some of you will section 11 For the Church of the Philippians is cited chap. 1. v. 6. and chap. 4. v. 15 16. For the latter I see nothing in it that hath any colour of a ground for his point nor yet doth the former hold forth a proof of it The Apostle writeth to all the Saints at Philippi and v. 6. declares the confidence that he had that God who had begun the work in them would perfite it to the coming of the Lord Jesus Will it follow hence that all and every one of the Visible Church of Philippi were reall Saints so far as man could judge * The 6. vers by the Orthodox writing-against the Remonstrants upon the head of perseverance is applyed only to the Elect and true Believers in the judgement of verity or truth of the thing it self See Ames Coron art 5. arg 2. proving this by solide reasons no Logick will evince this from these words cited If he had taken in the 7. vers he might had a
be formed into these processes 1. The Church Visible is a building whereof Jesus Christ is the Rock and foundation Therefore the whole Visible Church and all parts of it consist of such persons as must be and bear upon him as a superstruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superstructi Eph. 2. 20. And must be among themselves an uniforme congruous building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22. so as they may stand Then supposing that consequent this will be the second processe But such persons as have not true saving faith such as Peters cannot hold and bear upon Christ nor can they make up an uniforme congruous building that will stand how can the building stand whose materials have not a symmetry but antilogâ—… and antistasie not an agreement but a fighting with the foundation and one another Ergo they are not fit materials to constitute the Visible Church Ans Truely this reason let me say it without offence is a building that cannot stand let a man but touch it as it were with his finger and it will to the ground 1. If it prove any thing it proveth not only that de jure the Visible Church ought to be constitute of materials or members truely endued with saving grace and faith but also it is no true Visible Church which doth not de facto consist of materials all such i. e. truely in veritate rei endued with true saving grace and faith and then likely there was never in the world a true Visible Christian Church unlesse it was that of the eleven after that Judas hanged himself or may be that Acts 1. nor ever shall be in the world For suppose a Church consisting of members all which may be accounteâ— truely gracious so far as men can judge yet seeing mens judgements herein are not infallible some of them many of them yea most of them are not indeed truely gracious and believers Then say I according to Mr. Lockiers reasoning here how can these bear and hold upon Christ who have no faith And how can that building stand whose materials have not a symmetrie c. Let men judge of them what they will and how probably soever that helps not for they want the bond by which they should bear upon Christ and they have no symmetrie one with another 2. 'T is grounded upon a meer mistake or false supposition that the building built upon Christ as a Rock and foundation Eph. 2. 20 21. is the Visible Church as such Mr. Lockier saith well that it is confessed on all hands that Christ is the Rock and foundation stone but he could not say it is agreed upon by all that the Church Visible is the building that is said to be built upon that foundation growing up into a holy Temple c. Papists indeed say it is the Visible Church that they may draw all the priviledges of the Church Invisible which is the Mysticall body of Christ to the Church visible and by that means at least to their own stinking whore the Antichristian Roman Synagogue But Orthodox Protestant Divinâ—… have ever maintained the contrary that it is the Catholick Invisible Church of the elect that is the building built upon Christ as the Rock and foundation stone see Whittaker de Eccles in many places known to any that hath read him untill of late Separatists and Independents have joyned with Papists in this and drawn all the priviledges proper to the Church Invisible which is the Mysticall body of Christ unto every Independent visible Congregation Mr. Lockier should have proven and not meerly taken for granted that the Visible Church is the building built upon Christ as the foundation-stone seeing he knew that it was denyed generally by Protestant Divines The Visible Church according to its visible state is not the building but the work house wherein the stones are fitted for to be laid in the building and built up 3. Mr. Lockier supposeth in this Argument that the Visible Church i. e. a particular Independent Congregation must be a standing fast lasting house quae non deficiat which is not to fail and that perpetuity is the priviledge and property of it in this also joyning with Papists against whom all Protestant Divines maintain that to belong only to the Church of the elect or if to the Church Visible not to any particular but to the universall We grant then that any Church Visible is defectible and may indeed fall and that even upon that ground amongst others that there is not an uniformity and homogeneousnesse amongst all parts of it some are of the seed of the Woman really good some be at the best seemingly good and really bad and the seed of the Serpent and Mr. Lockiers way will not make it to be otherwayes and we confesse that it is by the finger of God that any Church is any long space kept standing Yet God will keep Visible Churches standing for all the asymmetry and heterogeneousnesse of members amongst themselves as to their inward spirituall eternall state so long as he has a work for gathering and building up his elect amongst them for whose sake it is that a Visible Church and his Ordinances therein are set up You will say but doth not God this by means Ans yea verily he useth means which he blesseth and maketh effectuall for that end to the keeping down of the evills that are in many and would be ready to break out to the undoeing of all as long as he sees meet as the Preaching of the Word exercise of Discipline against scandals but God never prescribed this as a means for keeping up Visible Churches that no persons should be admitted or permitted to be in the Visible Church but such as are symmetricall and homogeneall in true saving grace This is a means altogether unpracticable by men unlesse God by an immediat revelation should point out the men section 3 Mr. Lockier for the strengthning of this first reason bringeth in 1 Cor. 3. from vers 10. thus Christ sayeth he it should be Paul doth argue from this medium that suitable to the foundation should be the building otherwise such uncongruous superstructions will be fired and they which make them vers 10 11 12 13. in which words the Apostle argues as I do that if Christ be laid as the Foundation-Stone in a building 't is good for men to take heed that they make congruous superstructions least all the building fall about their ears and see how he applyeth this vers 16 17. incongruous superstructions if it be in point of Doctrine it maketh incongruous matter it defileth the Temple of God destroyes it sayeth the margent and such will God destroy for the Temple of God sayeth he is holy which Temple ye are i. e. such are the Temple which are holy which have the Spirit of God dwelling in their heart and none else Ans 1. I professe I cannot forbear to say that I find Mr. Lockier abuse much Scripture in the little bounds of this Peece
evidence of this I mean that his Interpretation is forced and contrary to the Grammer of the Text. section 14 He by these spoken of in the beginning of the vers 19. I will set a signe among them and will send those that escape of them understandeth Christian Gentiles and then saith the meaning of the words following is that these refined Gentiles shall be sent unto the Nations as he must take it to the countries where the Jews are scattered and then by these spoken of vers 22. your brethren he understandeth the Jews scattered through the Nations And then he tells us that these Gentiles sent abroad unto the Nations their end and effect here is that by declaring the glory of God they shall not only gain the Gentile World but shall also bring in these Brethren the Jews they shall also saith he bring all your Brethen saith the Prophet Further ere I discover the manifold violence done here to the Text I would ask Mr. Lockier what he meaneth by the Glory of God which these refined Gentiles sent abroad where the Jews are scattered shall declare For he doth not explaine himself in this Certainly if he hold to his scope i. e. the illustration and confirmation of his former Argument he must mean the glorious reformation of Worship and Ordinances in their exercise and of professours in their conversation spoken of there as the means which by the light thereof should provoke the Jews to emulation Now here 1. One point of violence done to the Text the clear discovery to every body likely he hes shun'd by not explaining what he understood by that glory of God for by the glory of God here I think no Christian Interpreter will understand any other thing but the true knowledge of God in Jesus Christ declared by the Preaching of the Gospel that same which the Apostle meaneth 2 Cor. 3. ult the glory of the Lord beheld with open face as in a glasse viz. in the Gospel and Chap. 4. 6. hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ If he say he meaneth the same then I say he passes from the purpose of his Argument for clearing of which he brought in this 2. Another clear violence done to the Text is that he maks an addition to the Text while as he saith upon ver 20. shall they only gain the Gentiles World they shall also bring in all your Brethren As if the Text held forth two sorts of people gained by these sent abroad through the nations one sort and also another called their brethren The first implyed in ver 19. and the other ver 20. When as there is not such a thing as also in the Text but the simple copulative and which only coupleth together these Verbs they shall declare my glory and they shall bring And so 2. There is not the least insinuation of the gaining two sorts of persons as the effect of their labour and pains But in the end of v. 19. is set down their labour and work they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles â—nd v. 20. is set down the effect of that their work the bringing of one sort of persons called their Brethren 3. By these Brethren who are said to be brought in cannot be understood Jews I mean as the name of Jews is now taken under the New Test as comprehending all that are remaining of the ancient people professing the Jewish Religion whether of the Tribe of Judah or of other Tribes my reason from the Text is this because vers 21. it s set down as a new and unusuall priviledge and dignity vouchsafed upon these Brethren brought that God would also take of them Priests and Levits i. e. Ministers to officiat in his Worship and Ordinances Now it can be no new unusuall thing to take of Jews to be such for it had been alwayes so therefore we do conceive with these Learned Interpretets we named and others by these Brethren must be meant Gentiles who are called the Jews Brethren because when now brought in by the Gospel in regard of faith they are Abrahams children Rom. 4. and Gods Children yea and are called Gods Children even while yet not actually called viz. in the decree and purpose of God John 11. 52. I no wise doubt but the Children of God scattered distinguished from the Nation of the Jews to be gathered in spoken of by Christ Joh. 11. 53. And these Brethren to be brought in out of all Nations are all one and the same 4. These spoken of ver 19. I will set a signe among them and send these that escape among them are not of the Gentiles 1. For that which we said of these Brethren that are brought in by them If these Brethren be the Gentiles these sent out to bring them in must be Jews 2. Clearly ver 19 20. these sent forth are distinguished from the Gentiles even the whole universality of the Gentiles which are set down 1. Generally unto the Nations then by a particular enumeration or distribution of them according to the severall quarters of the World East West South and North Iles and Continent See English notes on the particulars Therefore these sent forth must be of the Jews and it is remarkable that where the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and another people or other persons are set down by way of contradistinction it signifieth not simply people but the rest of the people of the World distinguished from the Jewe Therefore we conclude with the generality of Christian Interpreters in these verses is described not the Calling of the Jews but the Calling of the Gentiles into the fellowship of the Church and that by these signed and sent forth are meant the Apostles and others of the Jews sent forth to Preach the Gospel among the Gentiles to bring about their Conversion which we see fulfilled and accomplished Mat. 28. 18. Mark 16. 15. Acts 8. 14. Rom. 10. 15 18. places also cited by the English notes to clear this purpose section 15 For that which he hath upon the last words of this Chapter ah let men read with much dread lay to heart which make light of these things we are upon its true indeed men especially such as that verse speaketh against should not and had they any spiritual feeling could not without much dread of heart transgressours against God read that but when as M â— Lockier in so speaking supposeth that such as will not acknowledge his way of constitution of a Visible Church of such only as are already truely gracious and regenerate in so doing makes light of the things spoken of in that Text he supposeth it without ground or warrand in this place or any otherwhere in Scripture The thing that he is upon and that this Text is upon are not one and the same And therefore the things he is on may be made light of as being but his own and yet no hazard of the
we wish you may do we cite you before his Tribunall to answer for it But 2. Sir we are content also to stand at the Barre of any impartiall judicious Divines in the Christian World and that they give their judgement by that same much which I who pretends not to be one of the Learned Men in this Land have Answered to your preceeding Discourse if your Doctrine be such as we are not able to disprove and if we do not upon some good grounds of reason and not out of a meer spirit of contradiction oppose the same And thus I shall leave your invective without saying any more to it we have not learned Christ so as to repay evill with evill bitternesse with bitternesse you have cursed us we blesse you we wish you heartily a blessing Repentance and forgivennesse of this evill thought of your heart and the uncharitable issue of it SECTION VIII Mr. Lockyers Objections he maketh to himself and his Answers thereto considered section 1 MR. Lockier having discharged that bitter foregoing invective against the opposers of his way comes to propound and answer some Objections against himself choised out and formed at his own pleasure Five in number whereof two only are in causâ Were there no other Arguments worthy of his consideration besides these to be found in Orthodox Writers opposite to his way If he thinks not it will seem he hes not read such Writers on this purpose as he might and ought for clearing of himself and others If he knew others why did he not assay to clear them also I think he had not will to present before his hearers all Arguments brought against his Doctrine least he should not ridde his feet well of them and something thereof might have stuck to such as was judicious Whatsoever hes moved him so to passe them over we hope it shall shortly appear he had some cause rather to passe them in silence then to hazard grappling with them it was his prudence so to do But let 's see these he hath and his answers to them section 2 Obj. 1. Why But they gather Churches out of Churches whom you plead for Why I thought the Dispute hitherto ye have been on was not about persons and their practises but about a dogmatick point Had we been propounding Objections to you we should not troubled our selves with these extrinsecall ones taken from prejudices against persons abaters of your Doctrine But should more directly pointed at the throat of the cause it self Yet we think all Godly Orthodox men in the Christian World besides your selves will judge that the Godly Ministers of Christ in this Iland have just cause to lay this practice of picking out of Orthodox Churches in which Jesus Christ is soundly Taught Sacraments administred according to their institution and are by the most judicious of your own way confessed to be true Churches from which it is not lawfull to make separation such Professours as by Gods blessing upon his Ordinances in these Churches have gotten most good to make up of them Churches to your selves All Orthodox Christians will judge this justly laid to your charge as a Schismatick practice having no warrand or president in the Word of God tending to the begetting of heart-burnings divisions hatred amongst Christians yea these of nearest relations Husband and Wife Parents and Children Magistrats and People to the hindring and no wayes to the promoving of the Work of Reformation But see what is said to this section 3 Nay it is but Churches out of a Church Gospel Churches out of a legall Nationall Church and the one being abolished there may be yea there ought to be a departing from it and a gathering out of it unto the order which God hath instituted so we finde Churches gathered out of that Church of the Jews Gal. 1. 22. And whether he meaneth by being in Christ meerly according to profession see 1 Thes 2. 14. Ans 1. The citation of the 1 Thes 2. 14. for clearing what is meant by being in Christ mentioned Gal. 1. 22. is a digression from the purpose of the Objection and hath been sufficiently answered before 2. You gather Churches say you out of a Church not out of Churches This is strange are not the Church of Edinburgh and the Church of Aberdene Churches Again if it be a fault to gather Churches out of Churches shall it be no fault to gather Churches out of a Church majus minus non variant speciem Ay 't is a legall Nationall Church he meaneth such as the Jewish such a Church is abolished therefore 't is no fault yea we ought to gather c. For Answer We may consider a Nationall or Provinciall Church of a threefold sort and notion 1. Wherein all of the Nation are bound to a publick and solemn typicall service and Worship to be performed in one place chosen by God under the inspection of one Visible Pastor or Priest who in Worship and Sacrifices doth hold forth and represent the whole People of the Nation 2. Such a Nationall and Provinciall Church in which many particular Churches are united and subjected unto one Church as they call it Mother or Cathedrall Church and depend upon a Visible Pastor who is Pastor and Ruler of all other Pastors and particular Churches in the Nation or Province And wherein the Inferiour Churches enjoy Divine Ordinances and Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction of that Mother and Cathedrall Church or that Provinciall or Nationall Pastor 3. Such a Nationall Church wherein many particular Churches are joyned and united together under one Visible Church-Government wherein all are equally and collaterally concerned and have equall interest for the use and exercise of all these Ordinances which are necessary to the Visible Ministeriall Government of these Churches and mutuall Ecclesiasticall fellowship in it and edification and preservation by it Now a Nationall Church in the second notion is not nor ever was an Ordinance of God but a meer invention of men and Antichristian tyrannie overthrowing the power granted by GOD to the Churches and Pastors A nationall Church of the first notion and sense was indeed an Ordinance of God Such were the Jews but instituted and to continue for a definite time viz. untill the fulnesse of time should come and then it was abolished and evanished And a Church Nationall in this sense was legall But a Nationall Church in the third sense is not a legall or typicall Church and Ordinance But moralis perpetui juris Such was the Jewish under the Old Testament in point of Government and Ecclesiastick Discipline They were many particular Churches and Synagogues â—hich did in diverse places celebrat the Morall Worship of God and the exercises of Doctrine Discipline and Church-Government Acts 15. 21. Acts 13. 15 16. Luke 21. 12. John 12. 42. All which were joyned and united under one Nationall Visible Ecclesiastick Government This Visible Church-ship so to speak of the Church of the Jews as
Concerning CHVRCH-GOVERNMENT And what is said for Confirmation thereof I Have been I confesse well long upon the Examination of Mr. Lockiers Lecture because I found not so clear and distinct handling of that mater in others as I could have wished and I thought it expedient that in regard he speaks with so great a deal of confidence in it and others made so much noise of it and this new-fangle itching-ear'd age is ready to take with every new fancy busked up with gay words and like children to be carried about with every wind of doctrine In this regard I thought it expedient the more fully to discover the weaknesse and unsatisfactorinesse of his alledgeances therein I shall not need nor mind I to insist so largely upon the Appendix * I mean as to every particular Question handled here For here are more particular questions handled The mater therein touched viz. What is the proper subject of Ecclesiastick Authority and Government And whether there be an union of more Congregations and Churches under one common Presbytery has been already so learnedly and fully cleared by others that it were but needlesse labour for me to insist on it And I confesse I mervail much that Mr. Lockier should have presented the world with so sory a discourse upon these maters as I think every judicious Reader will perceive this Appendix to be when as there are abroad so learned Tractats and Debates on them Alwayes we must be at the pains to animadvert upon this part of the Stone too else the world should be made believe we were fell'd dead with it But we shall do it as briefly as to particulars as we may and shall refer M. Lockier to such Pieces as are written already for further businesse and work to him as occasion shall require Mr. Lockiers APPENDIX SECTION I. section 2 HIs first Assertion is this That the Eldership which is within the particular Congregation is not in most weighty things to exert power without the consent and approbation of the Church whereof they are By things most weighty I mean these things which are most essentiall to the state of a visible Church as admission of Members ordination of Officers and excommunication of either section 3 'T is worthy Observation how the Author manages this mater of his first Assertion the point he propounds to be proven is that the Eldership of a Congregation may not in most weighty maters exert power without the consent and approbation of the Church and for proof of this his first Argument SECT 2. is an allegeance that the power of the Keyes was primarly given to the Church of believers as the subject thereof Math. 16. 16. which allegeance he is pleased to passe with a very light and slight shew of a proof as if it were a mater of small Debate Whether thus he has done from deliberate and advised policy to shun Debate upon that which is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Question about Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction and to make his common Readers the more favourable to his part as pretending only to dispute for interest of consent and approbation to them in acts of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastick of greatest concernment and indeed as mans pride naturally carries him with a desire to have a finger in rule so it is a plausible subject to speak for it to him or if he has done it from some other principle I will not determine Let the judicious Reader conjecture what he thinks most likely Only I must say it seemeth to me a very strange and irrationall way of procedure to take so great pains and make so much adoe as Mr. Lockier doth here in pleading for a certain condition of persons formall interest and concurrence in acts and the exercise of jurisdiction and to make this the Question or conclusion to be insisted on And mean while to take it almost for granted without proof or at most in a slight overly word to alledge that they are chiefly invested with that power and authority from which these acts must flow when as he knoweth at least might have known that his adversaries not only deny but by many considerable Arguments goes about to demonstrate that that condition of persons never were invested with never received such a power or authority from him to whom it belongeth originally Mr. Lockier does just here as if a Papist or Jesuite going about to Dispute the Controversie concerning the Popes supremacy should be taken up all along the Dispute in bringing some topical Arguments that this and that and the other act of supremacy as calling of oecumenicall Counsels to be presiding in them finall and infallible determining of controversies in Religiō c. ought to be performed by the Pope of Rome And mean while should misken the Question if ever Christ gave him a grant of power and authority to perform these things but only suppose it be so or content himself to cite for it as it were in transitu Tibi dabo claves or Pasce oves meas as if it were out of question clear that these places held forth a soveraigne power and authority over all things and persons Ecclesiastick in Peter yea and in every Pope of Rome bestowed on them by Christ I think a judicious adversary might well laugh at a Papists disputing after such a manner And so may any judicious man at M◠Lockiers manner and method of disputing here contending much in some topicall Arguments to prove that the people ought to have an hand in such and such acts of Government and mean while slight proving that they have the power and authority to govern granted them by Christ I think a rationall disputant would have laboured first and mainly about this And indeed were this made once clear we should soon be at an agreement about the acts and exercises of government once prove the forme or habit to be in such a subject and there will be no question about the acts thereof whether they be competent to that subject or not If any man shall say for him here that by shewing such and such acts to be competent to the people it is proven consequently à posteriori that the habit or power from which these acts do flow is in them I answer if that had been his intention so he might have done But then he should not alledged the inexistency of the power as a medium to prove that these acts are competent to them as he doth in his 1. Arg. for this is nothing else but to run in a round but we must apply our selves to follow his method section 4 To speak a word then to the first Assertion I will not question the an sit or being of the subject of this Assertion Whether there be de jure and of Divine institution an Eldership or Presbyterie within a particular Congregation i. e. a Colledge of Elders belonging to one single Congregation by it self having power of Government and exercising Ecclesiastick
is good Acts 17. 11. 1 Iohn 4. 1. 1 Thess 5. 18. and the like judgement of discretion we grant to them in relation to other parts of worship section 13 Fourthly as to the exercise of Ecclesiastick Discipline and the censure of offenders and particularly Excommunication We grant 1. that privat professours are by the Word of God to exhort and reprove offending Brethren yea and to admonish their Governours if negligent and remisse Colloss 4. 17. but this we say is an act not of authority and jurisdiction but of charity 2. They are to complain to the Church of such as are obstinate in their offences against their privat reproof and admonition but neither is this an act of authority and jurisdiction formally but only preparatory thereunto it is not gradus in re but gradus ad rem of authoritative Ecclesiastick Discipline 3. When a person is sentenced by the Presbytery unto Ecclesiastick censure For example Excommunication they are to obey that sentence and by avoyding the person as a Publican and heathen put it in execution not in an implicit and blind but rationall obedience and assent for they must do it 1. Out of clear knowledge of faith in themselves of the justice of the sentence in materia juris that the offence for which the censure is inflicted is by Gods appointment in his Word so censurable 2. That the person is guilty of the fact for which he is censured so that if the person do not acknowledge and take with it by confession the manner and means of probation of it ought to be signified to them in the generall at least And if they can alledge any just reason against the justice of the sentence either as to the point of law or to the mater of fact they ought to be heard and admitted Nor do we deny but that privat professours being desirous upon just grounds and for their clearing in giving obedience in such maters may and ought to be admitted to hear and be witnesses of the leading and deducing of such processes By all these it may evidently appear how injurious an insinuation that is of the Author wherewith he asperseth Presbyterians that to wit by their way the managing of all things in the Church is so committed wholly to the Presbytery that the people are left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills impropriating this power to themselves This way of managing the Government of Christs Church and binding people to implicit and blinde obedience we abhorre as Antichristian usurpation and tyranny And the Author in aspersing us with it has dealt either uningenuously or ignorantly section 14 The thing we say is this that in these things of Government admission of Members ordination of Officers exercise of Discipline authoritatively to act vote and judge as Judges authorized with Christs Authority belongeth not to privat persons or the body of professours joyntly with the Eldership which is the the thing Mr. Lockier plainly asserteth afterward SECT 6. init but involveth in a mist in propounding his assertion at first for what end he knoweth best himself but only to Christs Officers the Rulers set over his Church Thus having cleared up the meaning of the Question we have in hand with the Author here come we now to consider his Arguments for his Assertion SECTION II. Examination of Mr. Lockiers 1 2 3 4. Argument section 1 FIrst saith he because the power of the Keyes was not at first given to Peter as an Apostle or as an Elder but as an Beleever The consequent he would infer must be this Ergo that the Elders must not in these weighty maters of Government admission of Members ordination of Ministers censures exert power without the authoritative joynt acting and concurring of the Church i. e. the body of professours therein with them Ans 1. If this consequence be good then it must follow as well that Ministers cannot exert power of authoritative Preaching the Gospel but with the joynt authoritative concurrence of the people in Preaching with them For certain it is that the power of Preaching the Gospel is comprehended in these Keyes given to Peter as well as the power of censures c. and therefore if it follow the power of the keyes was not given to Peter as an Apostle nor as an Elder but as a Believer Ergo the Elders cannot exert power in ordination censures c. without the joint authorative concurrence of the body of Professours therein it must follow also Ergo they cannot exert power in preaching the Gospel without their joynt authoritative concurrence therein and so when the Minister preaches all the people must authoritatively preach with him else his preaching is null 2. But waving this and granting it were true that the power of the keyes was first given to believers and so to Peter not as a Minister but as representing Believers I do not see how it must of necessity follow that the body of Professours must act authoritatively jointly with the Rulers in the exerting of that power For we may suppose it was given to the body of the Church not formally but radically and virtually to be by them derived to Rulers to be formally exerted by these only and then the consequent will not follow as suppose it were true which many Politicians and with them some Divines maintain which yet for my self I cannot see solide proof of that the power of Civile Government is first given of God by a naturall right unto the body of people yet from this it followeth not that no Magistrates elected by people must exert power of Government without the joint authoritative concurrence of the people with them Then when ever a King is to exert an act of Government or a Parliament they must do nothing unlesse the people sit down upon the Throne or in the house with them and thus no doubt sundry Divines in former times when they say that the power of the Keyes were given first to the whole Church of beleevers are to be understood to have meant that this power was given to them not to be formally inherent and abiding in themselves to be exerted and exercised by them But virtually by them to be setled upon such persons as they should designe for Ministeriall offices in the Church by whom only it is to be formally exerted and exercised which yet is a mistake section 2 But let 's see how the Author proves his antecedent viz. That the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as an Apostle or as an Elder but as a Belâ—ever Only by the way first 't is worthy observation that these of the Independent way are not at agreement among themselves yea nor some of them with themselves touching this mater of the first subject to which the power of the Keyes was given as we see marked in their own expressions by the learned Mr. Caudrey in his scheme of contradictions and contrarieties in the Independent way
subjoyned to his vindiciae vindiciarum I shall here note some few of them to this purpose for the Reader who may be has not the book at hand 1. The keyes were given to Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a Believer So the sense is most sit the Keyes pag. 4. The power of the keys is given to Peter not as an Apostle nor as an Elder but as a professed believer The way Peter received not the Keys meerly as a Beleever but as a Beleever publickly professing his faith The way cleared P. 2. fol. 39 9. It appears that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternitie with the Presbytery ibid. and the way cleared Part. 2. pag. 22. A particular Church of Saints professing the faith i. members without Offificers is the first subject of all the Church Offices with all their spirituall gifts and power The keys pag. 31. 9. As the keys of the Kingdom of heaven be diverse so are the subjects to whom they are coÌ„mitted diverse The Keyes pag. 11. So Lockier here but that he addeth not professed The Apostles were the first subject of Apostolicall power ibid. 32. A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned ibid. pag. 47. Not believers as believers but believers Convenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment Hook Surv. P. 1. p. 203. 9. The power of the Keyes belongs first to a Congregation of Covenanting beleevers Hook Surv. Part. 1. pag. 219. The power of the Keyes is in the Church of beleevers as the first subject ibid p. 195. That conceit is wide to make one first subject of this power and yet others to share in this power not by means of that for this is to speak daggers and contradictions ibid. section 3 Now see the Authors Argument upon the confession of his faith had he this trust bequeathed to him Mat. 16. 16. Therefore to the Church of Believers and believing with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal was the Keyes of power primarily given and to the Elders in the second place as exerted out of this first estate and as Officers and Servants of it Answ And first note somewhat upon the consequent section 4 1. The consequent as here inferred is much different from that which is propounded in the beginning of the paragraph there it was propounded thus the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as c. but as a beleever here it is the Keyes of power the former expression supposing there were such a distinction of Keyes as Keyes of power and another sort of Keyes different from these being indefinite may import both but the latter importeth a specification of a definite sort of Keyâ—s What means this variation That the Reader may understand this mystery the better 't is to be observed that when as hitherto in the Church of God by the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven being understood the Ordinances of Jesus Christ which he hath appointed to be administrate in his Church or the power of administring these Ordinances under himself these Keyes have been distributed unto the Key of Knowledge or Doctrine which is the preaching of the Gospel taking in therewith the Sacraments as the Appendicles and seals of the Gospel and the Key of Jurisdiction or Discipline which consists in Censures and absolution from Censures Independents of late have forged new sorts of the Keyes whereby they have confounded themselves and wound confound the whole Church of Christ in the mater of its Government They tell us there is 1. a Key of Knowledge or Faith the first subject whereof is every Believer whether joined to a particular Congregation or not 2. A Key of interest power or liberty which is in all the Brethren of a particular Congregation And 3. a Key of Rule and Authority which they say is in the Elders of a particular Church or Congregation The meaning and refutation of these new forged Keyes see in Jus Divin of Church Govern part 2. c. 10. pag. 108 109. c. and Mr. Caudreys Vindiciae clav c. 2. per tot Now when Mr. Lockier in the consequent of his Argument speaks of the Keyes of power it would seem he must understand that second kinde of Keyes For I know no other going under that name amongst Independents Yet may be by a new conception of his own he means that all power of government distinguished from the Preaching of the Word and Administration of Sacraments exercised in ordination of Ministers and dispensation of censures Again see another great variation At first he propounds that the Keyes were given to Peter first as a beleever This may import and as spoken there by the Author without any explication cannot be otherwise understood but that it doth import that they were given to him as a single beleever but now in the consequent inferred in the pretended proof he sayeth thus they were given first to the Church of beleevers this is a society of persons collectively and unitedly taken and not persons singly 2. Where shall we ever read the Elders or Ministers called the Officers and Servants of the Church that is as Mr. Lockier meaneth by way of relation to the Church as a Superiour or Mistresse deputing and imploying them to officiat and act in her place We find indeed they are called the servants of the Church of beleevers by way of relation of a means to an end for their good 2 Cor. 4 5. 1 Cor. 3. 22. as Angels or Ministring Spirits sent forth to Minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation Heb. 1. ult But they are only Christs Officers and Servants by way of relation of Deputs to officiat and imployed to serve unto a Superior and Master deputing to officiat and imploying to serve in his place and are set over the Church by him section 5 But now consider we how this consequent is proven The Argugument as propounded by the Author is Enthymematick and must suppose another premisse beside that which is expressed which must be true as well as that expressed to make the consequence good Now I humbly desire him to give us that suppressed and supposed premisse Verily keep him to one syllogisme and it is impossible to do it observing the rules of good Logick and reason But it may be done may be by two processes Well then they must be these for ought that I can conceive if he can do it otherwise and better let him do it and we shall consider of it the first is this that which was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith was given to him as a Beleever But the Power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon the confession of his faith Ergo c. then taking this conclusion for a ground of the second it must be thus That which was given to Peter as a Beleever was given to the Church believing with such a faith as Peter believed But to Peter as a
denotating the body of beleevers only as contradistinguished from all Officers and Ministers and so is not speaking of Peter as comprehending or representing all Officers and Ministers but of Peter under the imaginary notion of a Pope or Head of the Church and as standing in contradistinction both to the body of beleevers and also to all Inferiour Officers and Ministers even conveened in a Councell and so of the Church as comprehending all Inferiour Officers and a generall Councell of them And here because some are ready for the Independent Tenent concerning the first subject of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction to alledge the judgment of the Parisian Theologs at and after the time of Councells of Basil and Constance affirming the Church to be that first subject it is to be observed carefully besides that these Theologs means not a particular Church but the Universall Church That the Question which they had in hand with their adversaries the Papaline flatterers was not between beleevers as such and all Officers and Ministers as such but between the Universall Church as comprehending Inferiour Officers and that as conveened in a generall Councell on the one part and the Pope of Rome on the other Whether the precedency of Ecclesiastick power and jurisdiction was seated in the Pope or in the Universall Church so considered as we have expressed This was the state of the controversie and that for which the Parisian Doctors stood was the latter of these This is clear to all that have read any of these Doctors Writings upon that mater So that to alledge their Assertion concerning the first and supream subject of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction for the Independent Tenent in this Question which is between a particular Church of beleevers on the one part as contradistinguished from all Officers and Ministers and Officers of the Church upon the other is very impertinent section 8 His second Argument SECT 3. is thus Elders are set over the Church by the voluntary choise of the Church whereof they are such Officers who choose them to be their Ministers in the Lord and may depose them again if they prove unworthy of such a station Therefore have they no absolute power over that Church to which they are servants but in the nature of guides to direct them in the wayes of the Lord and so long as they go right to be honoured and followed but if otherwise to be admonished and if impenitent to be rejected i. e. Excommunicated as they whose sins follow after to judgment Now such judgment could not be exercised upon Elders if such an exempted power be taken to themselves without the Church but might do what they please with the Church in which they are Servants and the Church not able at least not sufficiently able to do any thing to them which is to make them Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. 3. Answ Here is much impertinency in the conclusion inferred and in the antecedent bare Assertions begged but not proven and never will be 1. The conclusion propounded in the Assertion was that the Elders in a particular Church are not to exert power in most weighty maters as admission of Members ordination of Officers Excommunication without the consent and approbation of the Church i. e. without the judiciall concurrence consent and joynt authoritative vote of the members Now that which is inferred as the conclusion here that they have not an absolute power over the Church an exempted power to do what they please with the Church I appeal to all rationall men to give their judgement if this and that be all one Why May it not be that the Elders or Officers set over a particular Church may exert power in putting forth such acts of Government without the joynt authoritative consent and vote of the members of that Church and yet notwithstanding not have absolute power over that Church an exempted power to do with the Church what they please Yes verily for notwithstanding that they may in their exerting of power of these acts of Government 1. Only act Ministerially and adstricted to a certain definite rule over which they have no power And 2. if they in their exerting their power deviat from that rule and act contrary to the direction thereof the members may have liberty upon discerning by the privat judgement of discretion to refuse obedientiall consent to them 3. And there may be an authoritative power over and above them to which they may be countable who may authoritatively correct and redresse their deviation and to which the people may have recourse for that â—ffect And if so then their exerting of power in the maters of Government tho without the joint judiciall and authoritative consent and vote of the members therein is not an absolute power an exempted power to do with the Church what they please And so indeed it is in our Doctrine The power it allowes to Elders and Officers to exert acts of Goverâ—…ent without joint judiciall authoritative consent of the members is a Ministeriall power adstricted to a certain and soveraign rule of Christs Laws set down in his Word It allowes to people a liberty yea asserts it to be their duety to prove in the judgement of privat discretion if the Officers in their actings of Government deviat from or crosse the rule or not And in case they do not to give their obedientiall consent therunto And that there is authoritative power above the Elders of a particular Congregation c. So that the Author deals not ingenuously enough in insinuating such an aspersion upon our Doctrine that by it is given to the Elders of a Church an absolute power over the Church an exempted power to do with the Church what they please But now judge if the Independent way in that strain of it followed by our Author be not guilty of giving a power very like this to members over Officers When as it allows to the members or the greater part of the members of a particular Congregation which may be 3. or 4. to censure depose Excommunicat all their Officers which must be 3. at least by a supream Independent Authority without any Superiour Authority on earth left to have recourse to for redresse were their proceeding and sentence never so unjust this I am sure is very absolute exempted and lordlylike indeed Well then correct the conclusion as it is inferred here and reduce it to the more modest and ingenuous terms of the Assertion section 9 The antecedent or proof which the Author brings in this Argument for his Assertion and is very confusedly set down in effect is made up of these Assertions 1. A Church by their voluntary choise not only choise their Elders But 2. makes i. e. ordains them in their Office 3. May depose them again the Elders are the Churches servants by way to wit of relation to her as a Mistresse 4. The Elders are only guides to lead the Church to wit as a Chair-man or Moderator in a Judicatory
he might as well in the proposition spoken what he sayeth of Sisters whether little ones or of stronger but of tender consciences as of Brethren And it is no lesse sin to offend the one then it is to offend the other But now see we how the consequence of the proposition is proven for as much saith he as persons may be taken in and cast out and Officers be set up and pulled down concerning either of which they can have no distinct knowledge or at least no sufficient ability to hinder because decisive sentence lyes altogether in the Eldership 〈…〉 â—lbeit only the Eldership exert power authoritatively in these 〈◊〉 and sentence decisively yet professours notwithstanding this may have sufficient knowledge for their privat and obedientiall consent and concurrence with the sentence of the Eldership as we have cleared before And so that part of the proof of the connexion of the proposition that if the Eldership only without the Church of beleevers exert power authoritatively the Elders cannot but offend c. because if so the members cannot have distinct knowledge concerning these things c. this is null it seemeth the Author was sensible and therefore passeth from that former part to the second with that or at least which usually signifieth a tacite passing from that which has been said before and a betaking to what followeth to be said They can have no distinct knowledge or at least saith he no sufficient ability to hinder c. But 2. here lurks a principle of the grossest Levelling that I have heard of and abrogating all Government but of a confused multitude if privat professours the body of a Congregation must have joynt authoritative consent and vote with their Rulers in acts of Government because it will offend them that they have not sufficient ability by their judiciall and authoritaive interposing to hinder the acting of the Eldership the decisive sentence lying altogether in the Eldership Then I say it is as good a consequence that a Major and common Counsell of a City must not act without the joynt authoritative concurrence and vote of the body of the Citizens lest they be offended for want of sufficient ability to hinder by their judicial and authoritative interposing the actings of the Major and Counsell Again see the clear strength of this proof comes to this much the people ought to have a joynt authoritative consent and vote with their Rulers the Eldership Why Because they cannot but be offended if they have it not For to have ability sufficent to hinder judicially and by authoritative vote of this way of hindering he must be understood to be now speaking and that is all one thing Now I say there being in case of the Eldership of a particular Congregation erring and going wrong superiour authority to which people may have recourse for authoritative hindering or redressing of the errour and wrong acting and withall a liberty granted to the people upon evident discerning in their privat judgment the errour 〈◊〉 the Eldership to withhold their obedientiall consent to the wrong sentence which is sufficient to keep them from being accessory unlesse it were first clear that by Gods appointment they have a command calling and warrand also to interpose by a judiciall vote to hinder it whith now in this Argument is the conclusion to be proven and not to be supposed if they be offended because they cannot and has not place to hinder it by their own judiciall and authoritative concurrence and vote with the Eldership the offence is not given but taken section 13 But saith he neither is the offence taken but given how proves he that For as much as in these great transactions the benefit or hurt of every member is not only equally but mainly concerned The transaction of other things which are meerly prudentiall are not of generall concernment or not of so great generall concernment no doubt do properly and determinatly belong to that power which the Church doth institute within themselves as their eyes and hands more conveniently decently and expeditiously to deal with Answ 1. A power as eyes c. i. e. Officers instituted i. e. made and ordained by the Church within it self is a begging of a part of the Question and a dream unknown to Scripture which teacheth us that Christ hath set such Officers in the Church and as for the instituting or ordaining of particular persons into these Offices either he doth this himself immediatly as to extraordinary Officers or by the Ministry of other Officers as to ordinary Officers tho the designation of the persons to these Offices may be by the choise of the whole Church 2. Not Officers only but the whole Church are eyes by Mr. Lockiers Doctrine attributing to the whole Church joynt authoritative concurrence with the Officers in acts of Government And where is the rest of the body if all be eyes 3. It could been wished that the Author had expressed what are these transactions meerly prudentiall or not of generall concernment or not of so great generall concernment which he saith belongeth properly and determinatly to the Officers or Elders Which had he done I doubt not but we should have seen either maters of meer order no wayes importing any such power or authority as Church Officers have attributed to them in the Word of God But only such as a Chair-man or Moderator of a Judicatory may do in relation to its judiciall proceedings who yet as such hath no authority over the Judicatory Or some of them to be such transactions as are of as great generall concernment as any can be I remember Hooker Surv. Part. 3. c. 3. pag. 41 42. amongst other things gives to the Elders as properly belonging to them in mater of censure and Excommunication the Examination of the cause and dogmaticall propounding of the sentence and sayes that the fraternity has no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure propounded by them then they have to oppose their Doctrine delivered in Preaching of the Gospel and so that the one is as binding as the other If these be not transactions more then meerly prudentiall of very great generall concernment I professe I know not what is Nay I affirme it and it is evident that hereby greater power is given to two or three Elders in a particular Congregation then ever Presbyterians attiibuted I say not to the Elders of a particular Congregation but to any Classicall Presbytery of many combyned Congregations For by the way of Presbyterians when a Classicall Eldership has given forth sentence of Excommunication there may be an appeal to a more ample and Superiour Judicatory for judiciall recognition and redresse But here by this Independent way power is given to two or three Elders to propound the sentence of Excommunication which the fraternity are bound to joyn with as much as to obey their Preaching and there is no superiour remedy of judiciall recognition and redresse left to the party
meet for acts of Government in Christs Authority and in the latter supposes a great mistake for the promise of Christs assisting presence for judiciall and authoritative discerning and judging runs not equally along with the gift of discerning simply But with his calling and commission to govern That loe I am with you to the end of the world as to Acts of Government is not made to persons having the gift of discerning simply tho never so many of them met together But to persons who beside their gift are invested with his Commission Therefore you must shew that persons have a Commission and Calling beside their gift to exert Acts of Ecclesiastick authoritative judging Or to speak of expectation of the Lords presence to assist their judging let them be never so many is to bid men presume to act with expectation of his assisting presence without a promise There may be more of Christs presence expected to assist a few having a Calling and Commission from himself in exerting Acts of Government Then with a huge multitude though having gifts enough but wanting Commission If it shall be said that private Professours have a Commission to judge authoritatively with the Eldership in these maters of Ecclesiastick Government 1. Then the medium of this Argument is passed from for it alleageth no more but the gift of discerning to prove they ought to concur in authoritative judgement 2. This is but said and begged not proven Shew us the authentick grant of that Commission This much for the first part of the Argument in this Section he addeth further thus section 15 The Scripture again saith that variety of gifts are given to the Church as Christ will and when he will and where he will and by what door and by what mean hand he will for the good of the whole and light comes in some times from a little crany and hole when large windows are close shut up and not one window leaf opened all the while businesses of great weight are in debate So that the greatest cannot say to the least I have no need of thee All this help to the good of the whole would be void if the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Presbytery and the people left out to see and judge implicitely by their eyes and wills who thus impropriat power Answ 1. Here is a foule misrepresentation of the Presbyterian Doctrine as if it allowed nothing to the people but a Popish implicit blinde obedience to the Elderships decrees See this aspersion discovered and wiped away before in our first SECT and the Author in his own conscience knowes may know this is a wrong Further when Christ has by his institution appropriat a power to a certain order and he has as to Pastors and Doctâ—…s the ordinary publick authoritative Preaching of the Word so to Elders in common the power of Discipline for these alone to exert such power is no impropriation But 2. To the Argument propounded here I say 1. If it hold good as in the former it will follow that women must not be excluded from joynt authoritative concurrence in exerting power of Government with the Elders more then men in the Church Why Women have their share of the variety of gifts given to the Church and some of them a greater share then many men and light may come in by such a weak hand as a woman when c. And so all this help of their share of gifts will be made void if the managing be committed wholly to Elders and other men in the Congregation and they left out only to see c. And the very like Argument may by proportion be framed for admitting all privat persons in a Common-wealth to concur authoritavively in the Civill Government with Magistrates â— Take this Aâ—…ument in plain and full form it must stand thus to prove the Authors Assertion propounded SECT 1. and intended 〈◊〉 the conclusion here If the Eldership or Rulers of the Church exert power in these acts of Government without the joynt authoritative consent and vote of the people or other members then the help which may be had to the whole by that share of that variety of gifts bestowed by Christ upon the Church which is in the other members should be made void But this ought not to be Ergo nor that Now I deny the consequence of the proposition the share of that variety of gifts given to the Church which is in privat members may be of good use and help for the good of the whole tho all of them do not concurre authoritatively in exerting or exercising acts of Government of the Church May not privat members make their share of gifts forth-coming and helpfull for the good of the whole by observing instructing exhorting admonishing and provocking to good works one another in the privat extrajudiciall way of charity Ay but it may be said the help of these gifts in them to the good of the whole in the way of authoritative acts of Government is made void Answ This supposeth that these gifts of privat members are given to them by Christ to be exerted for the good of the whole in the authoritative acting of Government and that the authoritative actings of Goâ—…ment are appointed by Christ to be managed and caried by the formall influence and concurrence of these gifts given to privat members And this is to suppose and so to beg the thing in Question Yet further we say the gift that is in privat members may be forth-coming to the good of the whole which is to be effected by the acts of Government exerted by the Elders albeit themselves concurre not with the Elders judicially and authoritatively in these acts as by admonition of offenders and informing the Rulers of the stubborn offenders which is helpfull by way of preparation â—o the good of-the whole by acts of Government Also by charitative admonition of the Elders themselves if they be â—…misse or partiall or otherwayes wrong in exerting acts of Government by proving in the judgement of privat discretion the actings of Government exerted by the Governours and accordingly giving their obedientiall consent thereunto section 16 As for that mutuall help and need of the severall members of the Church in relation to one another for the good of the whole spoken of 1 Cor. 12. and hinted by the Author 't is impertinent to this purpose For to omit many things which might be brought to clear this from that Chap. this one is sufficient That 't is evident the Apostle is not speaking there of the mutuall need mutuall help and mutuall concurrence of the members of the body by making their severall gifts forth-coming in judiciall Acts of Government for the good of the whole As if when the Apostle saith the eye cannot say to the hand nor the head to the feet I have no need of you i. e. one member whether greater or lesse cannot say to another I have no need of
thee i. e. every one hath need of another his meaning were every one has need of another in authoritative judiciall actings of Government and therefore we must all whatsoever members we are help the good of the whole by concurring in such authoritative acting No such thing But he is there for remedying the abuse of gifts amongst the Corinthians amongst whom there was bestowed great variety of gifts and for preventing Schisms which might be occasioned and produced thereby Amongst many other considerations presented by him for that purpose he is I â—…y shewing generally that the Spirit having distributed variety of gifts in the Church not giving all to every member but some to one and some to another there is no member can stand alone by it self buâ— needs the help of another and the gift thereof whether it be a gift for ruling or for some other operation And 〈◊〉 it is that some of the gifts spoken of by the Apostle there are soul as belongeth not to these acts of Government nor are contributive of light for directing in going about and exerting them As for example the gift of healings the 〈◊〉 of speaking with tongues But would the Author yet duely 〈◊〉 the Apostles Doctrine along that Chapter I am perswaded he might therein find as much as does very clearly evert his Assertion 〈◊〉 to privat professours and members of the Church the 〈◊〉 â—he Keys and joint authoritative judiciall concurrencâ— with the Eldership in the acts of Government Nay I think that one Chapter contains as much as overâ—urns all the Independent Brethrenâ— new way and modell of Churches besides many particulars in 〈◊〉 contrary to severall particulars of this new way that one generall so clearly held forth in it of an Universall Visible Church is â—nough to batter it all to the ground as might be evidenced were it our purpose here But for the present to the paâ—ticular we are now upon doth not the Apostle there as also Rom. 12. declare the Visible Church in the constitution thereof to be a body not similar consisting of parts all homogeneall or of the â—ame nature quality and operation such as water fire and the like are But dissimilar as mans body is consisting of severall heterogeneall parts or members of diverse functions gifts and operations some as eyes some as ears c. some to be Rulers some to be ruled But if all must joyn in the judiciall and authoritative actings of Government all are Rulers all are eyes and if so where are the ears The nature of the body of the Visible Church as it is declared to be constitute by Christ is quite altered into another kind by this means SECTION III. Mr. Lockiers 5th Argument prosecuted from SECT 6. to SECT 11. inclusive discussed section 1 FIfthly saith he SECT 6. in these weighty things forementioned Censures Ordinaâ—ions c. The Scripture is expresse that the whole Church should be joyntly authoritative about them and not the Presbytery or Eldâ—…ship of the Church alone Hitherto we have had some Theologicall reasons such as they are brought by the Author for his Assertion How he has acquite himself in these for his intended purpose we leave it to all impartiall Readers to judge Yet what ever weaknesse be in these if he can bring us expresse Scripture for his Assertâ—on if one expresse Scripture we are ready to yeeld See then now how he makes good this undertaking only Reader take notice here what it is for which he undertakes to bring expresse Scripture That the whole Church should be joyntly authoritative c. if the whole Church then Women and Children are no part of the Church or they also must be joyntly authoritative in these maters of Government Either here is an hasty unadvised expression Or an uncouth undertaking that no sober man I believe will joyn in with him to bring expresse Scripture for Women and Childrens joynt authoritative concurrence in the maters of Church-Government which in effect is as much as to undertake to bring expresse Scripture contradicting it self But come wâ— to see how this undertaking is made good in these severall particulars that Scripture is expresse that the whole Church wâ—ether men of age women and children all together or men alone ought to be joyntly authoritative in these actings section 2 As for censures the command of Christ is that we tell the Church Mat. 18. 17. which word I judge doth mean the whole Church and not the Eldership only unlesse I could find the Church thus used in Scripture for the Presbytery only If it should be said that Church here meaneth the Jewish Synedrion and so by propâ—rtion the Eldership of the Gospel Church To this he Answereth two things 1. That the Synedrion was instituted for civill affairs Numb 11. 17. and then takes some pains to clear that these Officers mentioned in that place weâ—e only Civill Officers notwithstanding that they are said to have received a Spirit whereby they Prophesied and then concludes that to make a proportion between a Civill station to an Ecclesiastick is not regular 2. I see no reason saith he from the context why it should be thought that the Jewish Representative of â—ne kinde or other should be meant their convenâ—… judicum or their conventus Ecclesiastici c. Ans 1. Mr. Lockiers judgement concerning the meaning of the word Church I judge saith he may have its own due respect as the judgement of one man But 〈◊〉 must give us leave to have reâ—…â—oo 〈◊〉 judgement of the many Ancient and Modern 〈◊〉 for the 〈◊〉 part except of late untill Morellius 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 â—…ose have understood by the Church 〈…〉 the Elders and Rulers of the Church 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherf â—oaâ—gable plea cap. 8. p. 88. to whoâ— we might â—…de many moe 2. If so be that the word Church be of such signification as that it has been ordinarlyâ— used to signifie a â—…dge of Rulers and so migâ—… be applyed to signifie a Colledge 〈…〉 â—rgument to say the word 〈…〉 else 〈◊〉 Scripture is used for the Presbytery or Eldership only Ergo neither is it so used here in this place By a 〈◊〉 consequence one might say when it is said 1 Cor. 11 10 〈…〉 ought to have power on her head the word power cannot mean a covering as a signâ— of subjection to the power of the 〈◊〉 a double meâ—…â—… of the thing signified for the◠〈…〉 one Correlatum for another because the word powâ—… 〈…〉 found other where in Scripture used in this meaning Sure if that consequence be good the genuine true meaning of many places of Scripture wherein words are found taken in such meaning as they arâ— not to be found taken in else where should be overturned If a word in some particular passage of Scripture may in congâ—uity of speech bear such a particular sense and to take it in that particular sense in that particular place is not contrary to the Analogie of faith nor puts a sense upon the
passage contrary to any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture may consist with the purpose of Antecedents and Consequents in the context It may well be Intâ—…ret in such a particular signification in that particular place thâ— it could not be found in that same signification in any other place of Scripture Much more if the purpose intended in the Text and some circumstances to be found in the context be such as requires it to be taken in such a signification Now to the presâ—… purpose in hand 1. The genuine grammaticall signification of the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such as may well be applyed to signifie a coâ—…tion or Colledge of Rulers and certain it is that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftener then once in Scripture used for the convention 〈◊〉 Colledge of Judges or Rulers as Psal 82. â— 1. 2. To take the word in such a sense here for the Colledge of Church Rulers the Eldership puts no sense upon the place contrary to the Analogie of faâ—…or any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture lâ—t Mr. Lockier shew us any thing of this kind What is brought by him a little after from 1 Cor. 5. 4. shall be considered in its place 3. â—here is nothing in the antecedents or consequents or in the context of the place inconsistent with it Yea 4. The purpose spoken of in the Text and circumstanâ—… are such as seeme to requâ—… it to be taken in such a signification â—…y I will â—ot say that the purpose or circumstances will force us to take the name of the Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the visible society of Christians as well privat professours as Rulers Yet this I will say that such is the purpose and such circumstances are in the context as permits not all and every one Universally who are coprehended under â—…signification otherwise to be taken in as the definit persons to whom that dilation of offences and inflicting of censure spoken of there doth belong but that must be the Rulers alone I like well the judicious observation of Cameron in his praelect on the place pag. 26. Edit Salmur in 4. where after that he has said sundry things before upon the use of the word Ecclesia at last has these words which I think speaks the most genuine meaning of the place Aâ— haec omnia illud accedit c. to all saith he that hath been spoken this may be added that these things may be said to be told to the Church which are told to these who are with authority over the Church for as the body is said to see when as only the eyes do see so the Church is said to hear that which these only hear who are as it were the eyes of the Church noâ— that the Rulers are vicarii or substitutes of the Church as the eyes are not vicarii or substitutes of the hands and feet But as the body is a certain whoâ—e whereof the severall members have their severall functions in the very like manner the Church is aâ—… body that consists of the compaction of more members to each of which belongeth their proper functions so that when one presents an object to be seen by the eye he is said to present it to the body so he that dilaâ—eth a matter to the Colledge of Presbyters he seemeth to dilate it to the Church whereof that Colledge is a part so far he judiciously section 3 Now take the name of the Church in that sense that is competent to the whole body of Christian Professours yet that all and every one of the body signified by that name cannot be taken as the definite person to whom these actions spoken of here belongs as formally concuâ—…ing therein I prove 1. because the actions here spoken of as belonging to the Church are Acts of Government and Authority yea Acts of highest authority and power receiving of publick judiciall delations judging upon them authoritative commanding amendement of the offence inflicting of publick even the highest censure of Excommunication upon disobedience But cleat it is from Scripture that not to all and every one members of the Visible Church for example women and children are Acts of Government and Authority formally competent and therefore these things ascribed here to the Church cannot be understood to be ascribed to the whole Church Therefore I think Mr. Lockier must either say one of these two that of the whole Church women and children are no parts or that women and children must have an hand and concurrence formally in receiving publick judiciall delations c. or else he must correct that Which word Church Math. 18. 17. I judge doth mean the whole Church and expound it of all men of age in the Church Professours as well as Elders and then give us leave to ask him where he can finde the Church so used for only men of age professing excluding women and children And to use his own Argument if he cannot finde it so used otherwhere in Scripture how can he judge it to mean so here But 2. that the persons here designed cannot be all and every one of the Church that are men of age but must be the Rulers or Eldership only I prove 1. by an Argument ad hominem upon a ground acknowledged confessed and practized by these of the Independent way themselves well observed by worthy Mr. Baillie Disswasive from Err. par 1. c. 9. p. 192. they to whom offences are to be told immediately after the two or three witnesses in a private way are not heard are intended and meant here when Christ saith tell the Church But the Elders alone without the people concurring with them are these to whom offences are to be told and delated immediately c. Ergo. the Major or first Proposition is clear in the Text The Minor or Assumption is their own confession and practice See Hooker Surv. Part 3. c. 3. p. 36. maters are first brought to the Elders they must judge whether the maters be of weight or worth examine the cause call witnesses take depositions yea and at last ere ever the people give any vote propound the sentence dogmatically which the people are oblidged to obey in the same way that they are oblidged to obey their preaching of the Gospel So then either our Brethren must acknowledge that under the name of the Church here Tell the Church are intended the Elders alone or their doctrine and practice of bringing scandals first to the Eldership thus as we have seen must of necessity be not only groundlesse beside Scripture warrand but directly contrair to the Scripture in hand And here it is remarkable that the learned and godly Mr. Parker albeit he be of a judgment contrary to us touching the first subject of the power of the Keyes yet is forced to acknowledge with us that in these words Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church in the beginning of the Verse is meant the
Eldership onely De Polâ—… lib. 3. c. 15. Ecclesiam primo loco consideratam in his verbis Praecisè partem Aristocraticam id est Presbyterium significare existimamus Tho in the next immediately following words If he will not hear the Church he will have the people as concurring with the Presbytery to be understood which is exceeding strange to me But 2ly that which we have affirmed That it is only the Eldership whom Christ definitely intends under the name of the Church there and not the people as to concurre authoritatively with them in the acts spoken of in the place besides that Argument ad hominem there be many other solide reasons both from the circumstances in the place and from the nature of the purpose spoken of in it comparing it with other places of Scripture speaking of the same purpose to demonstrate that Assertion Being resolved to be as short as we can conveniently in this part of our Examination in regard the purpose herein treated is so learnedly and largely handled already by others we spare inserting of these reasons here and refer the Reader for satisfaction in the point in hand to Mr. Rutherfurds peaceable Plea C. 8. desiring also Mr. Lockier if he think fit to assay an answer to his Arguments there for that which we have asserted As for Mr. Lockeirs insisting so much to refutâ— these who say that Christ in that direction tell the Church and if he will not hear the Church c. meant the Jewish Synedrion or Judicatory then standing the it were granted which he intends that Christ meant not that yet it gives â—o advantage to his cause that not the Elders alonâ— of the Christian Church but the whole people must be understand by it Certaine it is that Christ in giving these directions concerning Ecclesiastick proceeding in the mater of publick scandals and câ—nsures in the Christian Churâ—… at least alludâ— to the maner and oâ—…er of proceeding in thâ—â—ewish Church aboâ—… maters of judgement and censures and to their Synâ—…ry or consistory with which his hearers were well acquainted that so they might the better understand his mind concerning the order he was now apoinâ—… in the Christian Church and that is sufficient foâ— our purpose For certain it is that in the Jewish Church maters of judgement and censures were never authoritatively managed by the people but onely by their Rulers and Elders Now Christ speaking to his hearers in a form of speach known to them and alluding to that way of Judicature in use amongst them hitherto what else could they understand by tell the Church but tell the Elders of the Congregation see Bez. great annot on the place So we need not insist upon examination of his two Replyes to these who say that by the name of the Church here is meant first the Jewish Synedrion and then by proportion the Eldership of the Christian Church which was to be afterward Yet this much I may say that Mr. Lockier has but weakly refuted these Therefore a brief word to each part of his reply to them section 5 To the first viz. that the Synedrion was instituted for Civill Affaires between man and man Mr. Lockier might known that these men he speaks against here could answer that beside the Synedrion instituted for Civill Affaires there was another Ecclesiastick distinct from that Civill for things Ecclesiastick and considering that so many * See these cited by learned Gillespy Aâ—rons Rod book 1. c. 3. learned men much studied and acquainted in the Jewish antiquities have asserted this Ecclesiastick Sanâ—hedrin distinct from the Civill and given so many considerable reasons for it I wonder much that Mr. Lockier could come forth with a naked Assertion of the contraâ—e without the least shaddow of proof As for that he speake for clearing of Numb 11. that these Officers mentioned there were Civill is not â—o purpose 〈◊〉 these Authors Because they grant these spokâ—… of there 〈◊〉 Civill Rulers but they bring other places foâ— thâ—â—…her Ecclesiastick Court If Mr. Lockier would make it out that there 〈◊〉 no â—…nhedrim amongst the Jews buâ— for Civill Affairs he 〈…〉 well to take into consideration and solidely answer what 〈…〉 for the conâ—rate by that 〈…〉 Aaroâ—… Râ—d book 1. c. 3. througâ—… 〈…〉 must pu◠〈◊〉 in mind that he will find a 〈…〉 Godwyn B. D. not only assâ—…ing upon the like grounds 〈◊〉 Gillespyâ— that distinct Ecclesiastick Couâ—… â—n his Moses and Aâ—ron lâ—… 5. c. 1. but also expresly affirâ—ing that this of our 〈…〉 the Church was spoken with relation to it His worâ—… are â—emarkable and worth the inserâ—… â—ag 199. The Office saith he of the Ecclesiastick Court was â—o put a difference between things Holy and unholy and between clean â—…d 〈◊〉 Lev. 10. 10. and to determine appeals in controversâ—… of difficultie It was a representative Church 〈…〉 Ecclesiae Matth. 18. 17. Because unto them belong◠〈…〉 of Excommunication belike this Learned man has not been of Thomas Goodwin B. D. his mind touching Ecclesiastick Government For sure I am that which he sayeth here is as contrary unto the Independent way as one part of a contradiction to another section 6 As for the other part of his reply SECT 7. I will not contend for it positively that Christ meant the Jewish Ecclesiastick Court It is enough for him that he speaks of the order of Judicature to be in the Gospel Church with allusion to that of the Jewish and so as proportionall to it But me thinks Mr. Lockier reasons but weakly against them that sayes it is directly meant There is saith he nothing foregoing or following that gives any leaning langwage this way But much to 〈◊〉 and signifie that he speaks of that Church which should speeâ—…â—ake place to wit the order of the Gospel Church Ans 1. Mr. Lockier so speaks here as if these who Interpret that tell the Church of the Jewish Ecclesiastick Court did so understand it of this as to exclude the â—…der of the Gospel Church from the meaning of it This is a mistake or a misrepresentation of their mind for they comprehend both under it as is known aâ—… so Interprets the direction as for the present time relating to the Court of the Jâ—wish Church which was then in present being and enjoyning the same course by Analogy to be taken by Christian then they should have Churches set up 2. Tho I will not say 〈◊〉 â—ere is ground in the words to prove demonstratively that 〈◊〉 saying 〈◊〉 the Church meant it of the order of the Jewish Church directly and so was â—…cting his present hearers in case of sucâ— offences mentioned there to have recourse to their Ecclesiastick Court Yet I cannot judge so basely of learned Divines that have understood so as to think they would of meer will without any expression in the words seeming to incline or leaning that way and indeed there are in the context two things especially which seems not improbably to
Prelaticall or Papall tyranny â—et all indifferent men judge When as we put the authoritative and judicall Power of censures in the hands of the Eldership or Rulers of the Church onely we make not people meer spectators or witnesses of what is done But give unto them a rational obediential consent so that they are not oblidged to give their obedientiall consent and concurrence to the Elderships acts if they find theâ—… not agreeable to the Word of God And your own most judicious and best advised make the dogmaticall determination of censure which they ascribe to the sole Eldership as obligatory upon the people for their obedience as we do the Presbyteries sentence and as their Preaching of the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. whereas in the Presbyterian way inferior Elderships are countable for their proceedings to Superior more ample and larger Elderships and incase of grievance by the sentence of an inferior appeal and recourse may be had to a Superior more ample which is far from the Prelaticall or Papall way wherein the procedure is from moe to fewer till you come to one A Lord Metrapolitan or an universall Pope but in your way three Elders giving a dogmatical determination with four or five private brethren concurring with them as they are obliged to obey their determination as much as their Preaching of the Gospell may Excommunicate a man and are accountable to none on earth in a Church way to recognosce or â—edresse if they do amisse and if they should deliver souls enough to Satan unjustly there is none on earth that can authoâ—itatively call them to an account in a Church way to say to them What do you Now let the World judge whether of these two be nearest a * See a sad instance of this related by M. Caudrey vindic vind Epistle to the diss Papall power three Elders with some few private brethren having supreame Power on earth to Excommunicate persons unaccountable uncorrigible by any Superiour on earth Or some Presbyters acting in subordination to a larger Presbytery to whom recourse may be had for recognoscing their proceedings and sentence and rectifying it if amisse and if these haply fail then recourse may be had yet to a Synode may be consisting of a hundred Ministers and as many or more choise Elders of all the Churches of a whole Province Yea and if haply th◠〈◊〉 a failing there recourse may be had to a Synode of severaâ—â—undreds of the choice Ministers and Elders of all the Churches of a whole Nation I say again â—et all indifferent men judge whether of these wayes be nearest to the Papall Power 2. It s a foul misreprâ—sentation that our Interpretation of the place 1 Cor. 5. 4. is the very Doctrine of Iesuits of Rheâ—s We confesse we say as they because therein they say with the truth that authority of giving sentence was not in the whole multitude of the Church and that the Power of binding and loosing was not given to the whoâ—e Church at the subject but for their good as the end and in this they say righter then they that say the contrare which they falsly ascribe to all Protestant Divines But the Rhemists Jesuites puts that power in the hands of the sole Prelates Officeâ— that were never of Gods appointing excluding all other Ministers of Christ we with the Word of God disclaiming all Prelates maintain it to be in all the Ministers and Elders of the Church to â—e exercised by them conjunctim Rhemists with other Papists make their Prelaticall power and authority lordly soveraigne dictatorian tyrannicall oblidging the people to absolute blind obedience We give no power to Elders but Ministeriall the actings and determinations whereof ought not to be received by people in a way of blind obedience but may and ought by them be tryed and proven in the judgement of private discretion whether they â—e agreeable to their rule the Word of God or not 3. When as Mr. Lockier sayeth that Gods people are deprived of their best liberties when they have not joint authoritative concurrence and vote in the Acts of Government but these are only in the hands of the Eldership and that is a bondage to them and that 't is little oddes under whom they have this bondage one Prelate or many Presbyters 1. I think upon more serious advice and deliberation he will take up that word againe where hee calls liberty of judiciall authoritative voteing in Acts of Government the best liberties of the people of God I think he will find they have liberties much better then that But 2. does Mr. Lockâ—…r indeed account it a depriving of people of their Liberties and a bondage to be under the Government of Rulers with whom they may not all and every one of them joyn 〈◊〉 â—…tively in the Acts of Government Certainly this principâ—…â—s under his words here and beleeve tho it may please Levellers well for it is just their language yet it will not â—ellish very well to such as have the present Government in their hand â— When he sayeth that Presbyters take power to themselves without the word viz. in acting in Government without joynt authoritative concurrence of the people and therefore may justly have the same title with other usurpers c. we say the Author buâ— begs the Question that they take that power without the 〈◊〉 which he has not yet proven nor ever will The Word of God being clear for it that they are Rulers set over the Church to govern them and people commanded to give obedience unto them in that relation â—nd therefore to call them as 〈◊〉 whom Jesus Christ never appointed to be Rulers over his Church usurpers is nothing else but to call good evill and light darknesse section 11 The Authors second instance to make out his generall Assertion undertaken SECT 6. is taken from the proceedings of the Synod of Jerusalem Acts 15. Where the Apostles themselves were present and diverse Elders with them the matters being of great consequence as well for faith as practice Yet nothing was done in the beginning carrying on or ending of the same but with interessing the Congregation and the Brethren their names being to the Letters they speaking in the Assembly they having satisfaction by Argument and not overborn by Authority and these joining their assent in sending back chosen Messengers from amongst them as Judas and Silas to other Churches they were the Apostles Elders with the whole Church that joyned in it Acts 15. 22 23. If at any time the Church might been left out it might have been at such a time aâ— this when the inspired Apostles were present and in matters of this nature yet would they not leave such an example to future Churches of such a way Ans Were Mr. Lockiers cause he pleadeth for never so good yet I must crave leave to say it is ill managed in this instance If I have not ground to say so I â—ave to impartiall men to
had constituted or ordained Matthias to be an Apostle but barely thus Seeing God had chosen and ordained him they accepted him by orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ With this Interpretation agreâ—… that of the learned Nedder Dutch Interpreters in their Annotation upon the place All this 〈◊〉 election they did acknowledge and accept for good And is it 〈◊〉 â—…mmonly by Divines made one of the Characters and Properâ—… 〈…〉 of Apostles 〈◊〉 the â—ad their calling to that function not by the ordinarie 〈…〉 Ministry of men Buâ— extraordinarly and immediately from Christ himself As Paul alledges for himself â—o prove his Apostleship Gâ—… 1. 1. Paul an Aostle not of men this is common to all Ministers nor by men i. e. the interâ—…ening Ministry of men but by Jesus Christ But one word more here That of Mr. Lockiers one would think that the Lords pointing out the man had been enough but least this might prove a meanâ—…â—o justle out the priviledge of the whole Church seemeth to me to say no more very inconsiderately said What more could the Lords full constituting Matthias an Apostle without any interveening Act of the Church prove a means to justle out the priviledge of the Church in maters essentiall than his sole immediate both electing and ordaining all the rest of the Apostles Mark 3. 13 14. section 16 His second Scripture for the peoples formall concurrence in ordination is Acts 14. 23. â—nd when they had ordained them Elders in every Church On which the Author for his purpose commenteth thus 1. On the Margent he rejecteth the opinion of some tho learned men that sayeth here was no ordination but onely an election and giveth a reason why there behoved to be ordination because there was Fasting and Prayer joined with the action 2. Then in the body sayeth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hand and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Attollo to * Not attollo but tendere extendere i. e. to stretch forth lift up Which sheweth what this ordination was in the formality of it That the Apostles in and with every Church of Beleevers where they came did make suffrage who should undergo this great Office of Eldership in such Churches and so joyntly with each Church and not by distinct exempted power above them was this work done according to * In that place is no patern for ordinary ordination of ordinary Elders see before the first paterne Acts 1. for to apply this only to the Apostles in number but two is improper to the nature of the word for two to lift up their hands Suffrage is not a thing to be managed by two as fencing cannot be done by one Answ I grant that here was ordination though I think Lockiers Argument brought to prove it is but weak viz. because Prayer and Fasting was joyned Why may not Fasting and Prayer be joined with other actions besides ordination with election the nature of the businesse it self affords a 〈◊〉 â—oncludent Argument It was a calling of men to a Ministeriall â—…ffice in the Church of Christ and this cannot be done ordinarly without ordination 2. The Author gives us such a description of ordinaâ—…on of Elders as confounds and makes it â—ust all one with election viz. did make suffrage who shall undergoe the office What is this but election Yet in these two Sections he distinguishes election and ordination and brings them as two distinct instances of Ecclesiastick maters wherein he will have the Church of Beleevers to have authoritative concurrence But 3. more diâ—…ctly to the point in hand the whole strength of the Authors reason here to prove that the private Beleevers in these Churches concurred formally with the Apostles in the ordination of these Elders lyes upon the grammatication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to give suffrages by streaching forth or lifting up of the hand and so must here be understood that the Elders were ordained by suffrages And suffrage is not a mater competent to two which was the number of the Apostles imployed in this businesse to which 1. Let that force of the word be taken in here and the place rendered when they had by suffrages ordained or constituted yet as Mr. Gillespy well observeth Miscell c. 4. p. 57. out of Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 3. § 15. * Calvins words pondering the same signification are clear that the act of ordination was onely by Paul and Barnabas Creabant ergo ipsi duo Sed tota multitudo ut mos Graecorum in electionibus â—rat manibus sublatis declarabat quem habere vel the sense may be this Paul and Barnabas did make and ordain Elders according to the suffrages of the Churches themselves that is they ordained such as the Churches by their suffrages elected and desired So here are involved two acts 1. Election which is the only act performable by lifting up of the hand in suffrage and in that we grant the people concurred 2. Ordaining and constituting which was not done by lifting up of the hand in suffrage But laying on of the hands as a signe of separating the person to the Office And this we say was done only by Paul and Barnabas But 2ly Albeit that former answer does sufficiently overturn all Mr. Lockiers reasoning from this place Yet I confesse I see no necessity of reâ—dering the word here thus made by suffrages For how ever it be true that the use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arises from that manner of suffrage â—…ed amongst the Grecians either in choosing of persons or â—aking oâ— Laws and it be ofte◠〈◊〉 â—sed to signifie expresly the 〈◊〉 oâ— suffrages in such matters 〈…〉 iâ— is â—nown to any that has anâ— knowledge in the Greek Language that sometimes it is used to signifie simply the aâ—… of conâ—tuting or making and 〈…〉 â—eâ—her of a Law oâ— person in an Office not expresly 〈◊〉 the manner or way oâ— doing by suffrages or lifting up oâ— the 〈…〉 And thus simply the Old Latine â—…erpreter â—enders iâ—â—n this place câ—m constituissent illis per singulas Ecclesias Presbyteros c. and I think hardly can it with congruity of speech be otherwayeâ— rendered here For certainly the substantive to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the â—…t is Paul and Barnabas and can be no other can be none of the people or privat Disciples as is most evident to any man looking upon the Text and therefore by this word must here be understood an act done by the two alone which cannot be formally suffrageing for as Mr. Lockier sayeth well that can not be done by two but another unlesse ye will Interpret the word in such a figurative sense as I doubt much it shall be found in the like anâ— otherwhere in the world viz. thus and when they Paul 〈◊〉 Barnabas had by suffrages made to them i. e. the Disciples Elders that is when they had
caused them to make by suffrages to themselves Elders Now let any man judge if the Author has brought us expresse Scripture for private Believers formall and authoritative concurrence in the act of ordination of Elders And whereas he addes in the close of his Section By these two first examples are other Scriptures which speak of ordination as if they did attribute it to the Elders onely to be Interpret if other answers proper to such places cannot be found out I Answ If he find not out more proper answers for these places then to expone them by these two examples it may easily be perceived by what has been said that he is at a weak passe in maintaining his point undertaken And I pray tell us why such places of Scripture as plainly attributes the act of ordination to Presbyteries onely should be expounded to take in the people with Elders by these two examples wherein yet their is no demonstrative ground brought to evidence that the people had formall hand in ordination of the Officers mentioned in them And not rather these two examples or practiseâ— seeing it is not expresly said in them that the people concurred in the ordination be expounded by such places wherein the acts of ordination is expresly attributed 〈◊〉 Eldership alone I vâ—rily â—hink that to any understanding man the latter of these two will seem most rationall As for Arguments proving that â—ot the people but only the Officers of the Chuâ—…h â—…ve the power of ordination See these Authors often mentioned section 17 To close up this inducâ—ion of particulars Finally saith he SECT â—… I might instance in lower matters which would strengthen thâ— Argument for if in lesse things the Eldership may not act alone surely not in greater Answ 1. If Elders may not in lesser maters act without joint concurrence of the people what needeth that restriction in the Assertion first propounded not in most weighty things 2. It is a very weak Consequence In lesse maters they may not act alone Ergo not in greater Some persons may have the managing of great maters laid upon them by speciall commission from such as have supream authority to commissionate in these maters and yet have no speciall commission laid upon them to manage lesse maters Mens capacity to act alone or not alone but with others in such maters ariseth not from 〈◊〉 â—uantity or weight of the maters but from Commission and waâ—…â—nd granted by him that hath supreme power and authority over those things But let 's briefly see these particular instances of lesse things alledged by him here section 18 As in Letters recommendatory saith he they were not directed to the Eldership of such a Church but to the whole Church of which they were to be received So Paul recommended Phebe to the Church of Corinth 't was to the Church of Rome Rom. 16. 1 2. So John wrote to the Church concerning certain brethren that were to be received by them onâ— Diotrephes the Elder which stood upon his sole authority in this and such like things and used the Keyes at his own pleasure to keep out and cast out as he would is noted with this mark not to be of God but of Satan for this very thing and one that had not seen God Answ What poor stuffe is here to the purposâ— in hand 1. Directing of Letters commendatory to persons Eldership or Church is not their actings but the actings of some others that 〈◊〉 the Letters and I may say their passion But if it 〈…〉 recommendator◠〈◊〉 not be at all directedâ—â—to◠〈◊〉 â—…ceived by the Eldersh◠〈◊〉 but the whole Church 〈◊〉 â—…fesse this is a strange Assertioâ—â—nd he that will beleeve 〈…〉 ofâ— is too too credulous 3. The matâ—er that Paul recommend Pâ—ebâ— for to the â—oman Christians was a duty of common Christian love to intertain her kindly as a Christian to assist her as they could in her affairs at Rome a duty jure naturali incumbent to all Christians both conjunctly and severally And so the recommendation foâ— that on her behalf might well be directed to all Elders and people But interest of concurring in actings of Church Government being not juris naturalis but juris positivi persons must be sure of speciall warrant and vocation for concurring in them So that 't is but a very sick consequence if Letters of recommendation for such purpose as these for Phebe may be or if ye will ought to be directed to the whole Church then ought the whole Church also to concur in actings of Church Government and juâ—isdiction He must have a good head that will make it out 4. As to the instance of Diotrephes Mr. Lockier is I conceive in a mistake when he supposes that â—…ving of these Brethren for which Iohn did write to the Church was to receive them into the state of Church membership they needed not that they were Church members yea it seems Ministers before and an act of the Keyes It was a receiving of them into duties of Christian kindlinesse and charity v. 5 6 7. but what is all this of Diotrephes to the purpose Because Diotrephes one Elder usurped sole authority to himself alone in the Church made peremptor acts inhibiting the members to receive unto duties of Christian charity stranger-Christians did tyrannically at his own pleasure Excommunicat-persons and that for disobeying his unjust acts if he for this was marked not to be of God but of Satan not to have seen God must the same mark be put upon the Colledge of Elders in the Church if they all jointly and equally act authoritatively in matters of Ecclesiastick Government and jurisdiction without the authoritative concurrence of the whole CongregatioÌ„ yet not according to their own pleasure but according to the Rules of Gods Word nor yet pressing upon the people blind and absolute obedience but reserving to them the liberty of their judgement of discretion must they for this be Classed with Dâ—otrephâ—s 'T is evident Mr. Lockâ—… â—…liquely reaches this blow at Presbyterians but they need no◠〈◊〉 it I will spare what I might say to this Only this much 〈◊〉 â—e give better proof then yet we have seen for popular concurrence in Acts of Ecclesiastick Government I can judge no otherwise of suâ—… bitter hints as these then as is said of Diotrephes words vers 10. of that Epistle SECTION IV. Mr. Lockiers Argument from common Testimony SECT 12. considered and Answered section 1 MR. Lockier having alledged first reasons next some expresse Passages of Scripture wherein how he has acquit himself we leave to be judged by the impartiall discerning Reader in the last place Take saith he common consent for this truth i. e. his Assertion no truth that the whole Congregation are to have joint authoritative suffrages in all maters of greatest weight i. e. all acts of Ecclesiastick Government By common consent he must mean the testimony of Ecclesiastick Writers and now I pray what testimonies of Ecclesiastick Authors
brings he Just two one of yesterday I may say jugling in the businesse and another nothing to the purpose see we them both section 2 First In the first times this was so well known and so frequent in practice that Bishop Whitegift himself one that wanted not wit nor learning nor any other help and setting all his strength to maintain a These contrary to what we are upon yet is constrained to confesse that in the Apostles times the state of the Church was democratiall or popular the people or multitude having hand almost in every thing Defence pag. 182. which word almost doth sute with the thing I am upon For indeed as I have said in all weighty matters the whole body had their joint voice as hath been before proved Answ 1. That Whitegâ—ft set all his strength to maintain 〈◊〉 These contrary to what 〈…〉 presâ—…ation of the maâ— mind The 〈…〉 was that the 〈…〉 Government and juâ—… 〈…〉 hands onely of th◠〈…〉 â—…lats excluding no◠〈…〉 all other Presby◠〈…〉 Church 2. By theâ—… 〈…〉 wherein he saith that 〈…〉 â—nown and frequenâ—… 〈…〉 he means 〈…〉 of the Church 〈…〉 themselves 〈◊〉 or therewith taking in the next 〈…〉 the â—hurch If 〈◊〉 mean the latter I conceive he would â—one much better to 〈◊〉 cited some Writers of these times themseves saying so much then taken the matter upon report from Whitegift But let him if he can produce any Ancient Writers Ecclesiastick of these times either speaking for his Tenet in dogmate or relating any practice thereof in the Church of these times This he will never be able to do If he mean the former 't is true Whitegift sayes so that in the Apostles times the state of the Church for outward Government was popular But 1. Whitegift withall for upholdâ—…â—he power and Government of Prelats in the Church of England excluding all other Church Officers maintains most falsly and perniciously there was no particular form of Government appointed by precept in the New Testament But that the determination of this is 〈◊〉 the power of the Civil Magistrate the chief and principall Governour of the Church in his judgement And therefore granted for his own design that the people had sometimes an hand in matters of Government accidentally because of the want of Civil Magistrates to establish Rulers 2. Who had hand in acts of Government of the Church in the Apostles times can be known best by Scripture it self and no otherwayes câ—…ainly If Mr. Lockier has brought forth any Scripture holding forth either by precept or practice that the body of the people ought or did concur formally and authoritatively in acts of Government tho he has assayed to do and sayes here he has proveâ— it I leave to the Readers to judge Whitegift would never alledge precept of Scripture for this and for practice I find none alledged by him but in the mater of Election of Officers which is no act of government or authority and yet he alledgeth that neither in that did they alwayes concur which I conceive to be an untruth To close this let Mr. Lockiers ingenuity bâ— observed here in speaking for a popular and 〈…〉 of the Church by his applauding of â—his 〈…〉 Whitegifts Independents commonly refuse altogether that the Government they maintain 〈…〉 and professe a disclaâ—… of Moâ—…llius for this But 〈…〉 it is no other And 〈…〉 Author â—ere is ingenuous in tâ—king with and applauding that name For why should not a true thing have iâ—… own name section 3 His second testimony iâ— the Canon of the Councell of â—aodieâ—… â—0 years after Christ yea and 4. if not 8. years more ordaining that the people after that should have no hand in the choise of their Officers unlesse it formerly had What meaneth this Canon â—aith he unlesse formerly it was so that the people had hand in it Answ Let it be so that this Canon doth import that formerly the people had hand in Election of their Officers as we grant they 〈◊〉 ought to have and have with us Election is no act of Ecclesiastick Authority or â—…risdiction nor makes one a Church Officer as was said before But what is this to the purpose His undertaking was to bring common testimony to prove that in the first times of the Church the body of the people the whole Congregation had joint authoritaâ—…ve suffâ—age with the Officerâ— in all maters of greatest weight i. e. in all acts of Ecclesâ—…stick Govâ—…ment is it not a very sufficient making out of this to 〈◊〉 one Canon of one Councell indirectly importing that they â—…d hand in one act and that no formall act of Government and Authority And is this all the common testimony we must be content with Now when as all acts of Ecclesiastick power authority and government in Scripture designed by the Keyes are comprehended in these 1. Publick Preaching of the Gospel 2. Administration of the Seals or Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper 3. Ordination and authoritative sending of Officers 4. Dispensation of Discipline Excommunication and Absolution I would have the Author producing to us common testimony for the peoples concurring joyntly and authoritatively in these or any of them in the first times of the Church section 4 What followeth in this SECT of the Authors is but a flist of big empty words added unto weak reasoning to startle silly Readers to which shortly 1. Whom he meaâ—s by his superintendents once and again reckonâ—… 〈◊〉 with 〈…〉 and Bishops I know not well he may be pleased 〈…〉 That Bishops and 〈…〉 did piece by 〈…〉 of God many 〈◊〉 â—pirituall liberties and 〈◊〉 of Christe is certain But any 〈◊〉 testimony as he 〈…〉 by him very little of this appeareth as appeate very evidently 3. In representing the servants of God that are 〈…〉 new devised modell of popular Government of the Church under the name of the children of these Metropolitans and Bishops is both an unjust and ridiculous slander I beleeve these Hierarchicall Lords never did nor ever will look upon Presbyterians as any of their kinde 4. To order the Church of CHRIST as that therein his Officers and Ministers rule his People under him by his ordinances according to the rule of his Word that the people over whom they are set obey them in the LORD is not the taking from people any thing for which these that teach and hold by that wâ—y need to repent nor know we any words of GOD spoken against them for that way And for â—ans words without Gods Word they stand not Nor have they cause to take any works or blowes or bloods of their body you have taken too much upon you to pronounâ—… upon their soul blood think Sir upon Rom. 14. and let your heart 〈◊〉 you for this as inflicted by God on that account tho they 〈◊〉 they have sinned against him and desires therefore to bear his indignation If men has given them blowes and shed their blood upon that account let them look to
it and Sir take heed your hands be not defiled with it As indeed in this Book ye breath out somewhat that way not once And for your out-cry O Lord how low shall we be c. to it as intended by you I must say to you as Job to his friends upon somewhat the like unjust challenges against him and misconstructions of Gods rods upon him Will ye speak wickedly for God And talk deceitfully for him is it good that he should search you out Or as one man mocketh another do ye so mock him But now Sir look upon the pollutions and layings waste of his dwelling place in England at this day which makes all the Churches abroad the World to lament the case of it and see whether the Presbyterian way or that way you stand for has effected them And I beleeve ye may say it was not without a Providence of 〈◊〉 that ye uttered this exclamation in that 〈◊〉 you have â—…red it in How low shall Wâ— be erâ— Wâ— lay 〈…〉 heart SECTION V. Mr Lockiers Answers to some Objections made against his Assertion from some Passages of SCRIPTURE SECT 13 14. Examined section 1 MR. Lockier now proceedeth to propound against his Assertion and to Answer some Objections and in wisedom chooses a few of many that are extant to the World in Presbyterian Writers of al 's great weight as these he has picked out and propounds some of them in as slender a way as he can that the force of them may appear as little as may be But see we them and his Answers to them as they are section 2 Object First is from 1 Tim. 4. 14. Here is mention mâ—… of a Presbytery or Eldership by the imposition of whose hands and by no other conjuâ—… Timothy was ordained Therefore the Presbytery wholly without the Church may exert power authoritative in most weighty matters and 〈◊〉 and govâ—… the Church alone This place we conceive will carâ—… 〈◊〉 this and more too even a Classicall Presbytery or a Presbytery of moe associat Churches But for the present consider we his answer as to the point in hand The Presbytery here saith he cannot be meaned of an ordinary Eldership which hath its ordination from men because it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to an extraordinary Now such was Timothy to wit an Evangelist And therefore comes not under our Dispute but is to be ranked with extraordinary Apostolicall acts and ordinations to extraordinary Offices which are ceased of which nature sec Acts 13. 43. section 3 Answ 1. Whether this was an ordinary Eldership i. e. A Colledge of ordinary perpetuall Elders or extraordinary yet it was an Eldership and not the people that performed this act of ordination as he himself yeelds What then is become of his Assertion in the preceding Section That iâ— these first times of the Church the whole body 〈◊〉 â—ear theâ— joint â—thoritative voice in all maters of greatest weâ—ght And Sâ— â—… 10. even in an ordination of aâ— extraoâ—dinar Officer of grea◠〈◊〉 then an Evangelist 〈◊〉 Wherein he alledge thâ—…â—at lest it might have proved a 〈◊〉 to lustle out the priviledge of the â—hole Church in maters of essentiall concernment he was enstated aâ—ongst the Apostles themselves not by the â—…ffragâ—… of some i. e. the Apostles alone but by the sâ—ffrages of the whole Church 2. If the Presbyteâ—… here cannot be meaned of an ordinary Eldership what was it I hope the Author will not say with some Pâ—pish and Prelaticall writers that it was an company of Bishops that were both Elders and more then Elders I conceive he can mean no other thing but that same which the Author of the Queries concerning ordination Qu. 19. that they were some other Apostles or Apostles fellows together with Paul who 2 Tim. 1. â— is said to have â—ayed his hands on Timothy and that Apostles are called Elders and a company of Apostles are called a Presbytery or an Eldership I say it seemeth the Author can conceive no other thing to be meant for he sayeth it must be an Eldership that had not * And yet he himself above Sect. â—0 Such exâ—raordinaâ—ie Elders might have their ordination from man le facto Maâ—hias had his so So that by this â—e â—ayeth here Matâ—ias tho an Apostle could not be one of this Eldership ordination from man But this coâ—ceit is so abundantly answered by Mr. Gillespy of worthy memory Miscell c. 8. pag. 104. seq that little needeth to be added to what is said 〈◊〉 him I shall here briefly touch at some particularâ— given in Answer to this 1. Suppose the Presbytery in this place 1 Tim. 4. 14. to be an Assembly of Apostles yet nothing shall be gained thereby to Mr. Lockiers cause For the name Presbytery or Eldership being purposely chosen in this Text which mentions laying on of hands in ordination will prove that the Apostles did it as Elders and as an act of an Assemby of Elders not as a thing peculiar to them as Apostles For no rationall man will imagine that the Holy Ghost intending to expresse some extraordinary thing which the Apostles did as Apostles and which belongs not to ordinary Elders would in that very thing purposely call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Assemby of Elders 2. That the Presbyterie here is not an Assembly of Apostles but of Elders who were not Apostles may be proven 1 By comparing this Text with 2 Tim. 1. 6. The gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands If it had been an Assembly of Apostles that had laid their hands on Timothy and so joined with Paul in that action Paul had not thus distinguished his laying on of hands from that of his fellow Apostles as if the gifts of the Holy Ghost had been given to Timothy only by the laying on of his hands and not by but with the laying on of the hands of his fellow Apostles Of this difference of the Phrase in the one Text and the other see this same worthy Author pag. 101. 2. Apostles and Elders are ordinarly distinguishing names in Scripture the latter signifying the ordinary perpetuall fixed Rulers in the Church So that it must be but a devised fiction to leave the ordinary notion of the word Elder which signifies an Office diverse from the Apostleship and to take the Eldership here for an Assembly of Apostles Nay we do not find at any time in Scripture the name Elder given to the Apostles at least never to them or any of them as Apostles contradistinguished from other Officers 'T is true Peter 1 Epist 5. 1. calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But from that very appellation the worthy Author we are now borrowing from doth excellently reason and for our purpose against Mr. Lockier here I need not transcribe his words seeing the Book is common the Reader may have recourse to it self and have much satisfaction See pages 105 106 107.
Church-Government is a Democratie all are Elders and Officers and Pastors and Teachers and Rulers alike and then what needs different names and stations when these as to distinct power signifie nothing Ans We do justly charge that way of Church Government maintained by the Author and his Associates with this that it sets up such a Democratie or popular Government in the Church condemned by the French Church in Morellius Which also Independents themselves would fain seem to disclaime but it will not be for them The Author is pleased in his wisdome to propound the Argument for evidencing this as slightly as he could But let him take it thus That Government in the Church wherein albeit there be such as bear the name of Officers and Rulers yet not only all the power of Government is placed in the body of the people as in the first and proper subject thereof and not in their Officers But also the whole body of the people formally and authoritatively concur and act in the exercise of all the acts of Government at least all acts of jurisdiction so that all maters of this kind are caried and determined by the authoritative suffrage consent and dissent of the people nothing therein being left to the Officers as Officers but to preside and moderate the body of the people in their authoritative acting or may be to prepare and ripen maters for their authoritative decision and to be their mouth to declare the sentence determined by their authority yea and wherein the body of the people may authoritatively call all the Officers to a judiciall account judicially cognosce upon their Administration censure degrade yea and Excommunicate them all together such a Church Government must needs be Democraticall or popular and therein all are Rulers and therein different names and stations signifie nothing I say not simply but as Mr. Lockier as to any distinct power of Authority If any will deny the connexion of this proposition I beseech such to give a description of a popular Government Sure I am that the very Government of Athens it self the most popular and Democratricall that we read of was never more popular then that which we have expressed in the Antecedent or first part of the proposition But now the Church Government maintained by the Author and his Associates is such in every one of these points expressed as is undenyably evident both by their Doctrine and practice Ergo c. section 3 Now what answers the Author to this Objection He brings us a number of words clouted up unhandsomely enough out of Hookers Surv. Par. 1. c. 11. which I think not worth the while to insist particularly upon Briefly the summe of all comes to this He tells us there is a power of Judging to take in and to cast out Members to exert Office he means to confer Office or to degrade from Office which he calls essential or fundamental power And there is the maner of managing this and exerting it He expresseth it also To declare act and exercise judgment in the name of the rest which he calls organicall power and Potestas Officii particularis And tells us that that former power is common to the whole Church Elders and fraternity The latter is in the Elders yet I cannot understand how this can stand with what he saith that it lyeth formally in one But be it so And so their to wit the Elders power is distinctly usefull and significative Ans To passe by here the exagitating of that distinction of a power essentiall and a power organicall the absurdity whereof in Philosophy might be shown abundantly might we stay upon every such triffle and other such minutias Here to the main purpose in hand 1. To talk of and suppose a power of judging in taking in and casting out investing Officers and degrading them belonging to the people and also exercised by them formally meaning as he doth of authoritative judging is but a supposing and begging the main thing in Question The place 1. Cor. 5. 12. proves it not Tho the Epistle be written to the whole Church of Corinth yet not every command and direction there relates to all and every one in that Church as to act formally in the work commanded or required We say that command of casting out the incestuous person judicially respects the Officers of that Church only See this made good by Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right pag. 36 37. Gul. Apollon Consider of certain controv c. 4. pag. 64 65 66. Mr. Lockiers Argument to the contrary is weak The Apostle sayeth cast out from among you But the incestuous person was not only amongst the Elders but among the people What a poor Argument is this Then it should follow that the Women and the Children should judicially and authoritatively voiced in the Excommunication of the incestuous person For he was not only amoâ—gst the men but also amongst the Women and Children These sure were a part of the people So then certainly the Apostle here cast out from amongst you tho Writing to the Church of Corinth in generall in the Epistle yet in this particular command must be understood to be spe king with relation to such in the Church as were invested with a morall capacity of power and authority to act that which he was commanding 2. When he sayeth the power of judging is common to the whole Church Elders and fraternity it s but a fallacy as to Elders For in effect Elders as Elders by his way have no power of judging As such they have only the manner of managing the judgement 3. When he expresseth the act of essentiall power as he calleth it competent to the whole Church thus Some to judge and then the act of the Originall or Officiall power thus Some to declare act and exercise that judgement I would aske him what he meaneth by acting and exercising judgement Either it must be the determining of the judgement But that is nothing else but judging it self which belongeth to the essentiall power of the whole body Or he must understand the execution of the sentence as for example shunning the company of the Excommunicat But that is no act of Office-power nor of authority but is common to all the Church Men and Women Or he must understand the publick uttering and pronouncing the sentence of judgement But that is just all one with declaring and to call this acting and exercising of judgement is very abusive speaking Except these words be used otherwise in English Language then I know of But 4. The chiefest thing I would observe is that the Author in saying much to the objection propounded has said just nothing but in effect yeelded it wholly For when as he sayeth that the power and exercise of judging to wit authoritatively for of this and not of judging by way of privat discretion is the present discourse belongeth equally to all the Church and that the matter of managing this only belongeth to the Officers
what is this but as much as if he had said in formall terms 'T is true I yeeld it the Government of the Church is Democraticall And as for that he sayeth that seeing the Elders have in their hands the manner of managing the judgement therefore their power is usefull and significative and not uselesse and nothing from the whole True it is not simply uselesse and nothing significative But sure I am it signifies nothing as to any power of Authority and Government A Mr. Speaker or Presidents part in a Parliament a Prolocutors or Moderators in an Assembly is not simply uselesse and nothing significative but it is just nothing significative as to Authority or Government section 4 2. Obj. But is not this confusion for all to have an hand in these great things This absurdity is most justly charged upon your way of Government It is confusion to speak so both formally and effectively First I say formally For when as the Lord has instituted his Visible Church to be a body organicall consisting of dissimilar parts some as eyes some as feet some as hands some to rule and some to be ruled some to be over others to command and govern in the LORD some to obey in the LORD This way makes all in the Church to be Rulers and all to be ruled all to command and govern and all to obey all to be eyes and also all to be feet and all to be one member and so the whole not to be a body to wit organicall and dissimilar Yet more it hath yet a greater confusion inâ—t by attributing the judiciall determination of all maters of Government and Jurisdiction to the suffrages of the people who by Scripture are these who are to be ruled and to obey and are as the feet and the hands in the naturall body Indeed it maketh these who ought to be ruled to be the Rulers contra Sets the feet above the head c. 2. Effectively it cannot but in the exercise of it produce many confusions Was there ever a Democraticall or popular Government to this day but it did so And is not that the evil of popular Government in regard of which it is by all intelligent Politicians postponed both to Aristocraticall and Monarchicall Government and scarce accounted worthy the name of an allowable Government But see we the Authors Answer section 5 No 'T is not confusion The Church being considered as an organicall body the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsecally in the whole and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place and way As for instance in the naturall body of man the sensitive faculties are all in the soul originally and the soul it solf is in the whole body fundamentally tota in toto c. So that the senses are radically and potentially in all the soul and the soul radically and potentially in all the body and yet these senses act only by such powers I humbly conceive this to be a sault of the Printer and that it should be parts as are fit to act by as seeing by the eye and hearing by the eare And the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work The hand to work and the feet to go section 6 I humbly conceive the Author had done better to have spared his physiologick simile here and am of the mind some of his late associats here will not comply with his physicall conceptions whatever they esteem of his theologicall Tenets How the sensitive faculties may be said to be all in the soul originally radically and potentially I can understand The meaning being that the soul is the effective principle from which these faculties proceed by way of issue or emanation as they call it to have their subjectation or inherency in their severall respective organs and to say this is not incongruous But how the soul can be said to be in the whole body fundamentally radically and potentially I cannot well understand That the soul may be in some one part of the body as in the heart which some or brain which others have thought substantially and informative and in the whole rest of the body virtually and operativè as the Sun which is substantially and locally in the Heavens is in the Earth by its influence and operation This I can conceive and it is not altogether incongruous to say so though I think it be not true But to say the soul especially the soul of man is in the whole body fundamentally radically and potentially is such a soloecisme to speak so in philosophy as I think we shall hardly meet with one grosser amongst men of any knowledge For then not only does it follow that the soul must be by way of information only in some part of the body which tho false yet is not so untollerable but also that the whole body is the effective principle from which the soul is produced and issues by way of emanation into that part of the body which it is supposed to inform Now how absurd this is in Philosophy yea in Divinity let any judicious man consider of it But yet I further wonder that the Author when he is expressing this his way of the souls being in the whole body to wit fundamentally radically c. he brings for it that common saying amongst the Schooles totain toto tota in qualibet parte For indeed that is the proper expression of their Doctrine who maintain that the soul is in the whole body essentially and informativè and withall that it is in it as a spirituall forme indivisible without extension of parts But to passe this and to come to our present purpose I verily think Mr. Lockier could not made choise of a fitter comparison to make good and establish the Objection against his way which he pretends to answer then that same he has pitched upon and his own very words condemns him He sayeth the Church is to be considered as an organical body So it is indeed and this will make for us as we have shown before Next whereas he sayeth that it being so considered the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsecally in the whole and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place and way as in the naturall body the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally c. To this 1. Suppose it were true that the power of governing were in the whole body of the Church fundamentally or originally yet it can not be said that each organ formally acteth the acts of Government For governing being an organicall act in a politicall body thence it should follow that all the organes were but one organ and the body of the Church were no organicall body But a similar body As if each member in the naturall body did formally act seeing all the members were eyes or one eye And so where were the body To say that however that each member acteth in their acts of
governing yet each acteth orderly in his distinct place viz. privat Christians in their place Elders in their place and station Yet this takes not away the absurdity For seeing Mr. Lockier will have all and every one in the body of the Church formally and authoritatively to act in the acts of Government it followes that all and every one of them are formally Governours and Rulers the privat Christians as well as the Elders and there is no distinction between them at all as to governing except of meer order in acting Certainly if all and every member of the naturall body did formally elicit the act of seeing albeit that part of the body which we now call the eye were supposed to act therein in some respect somewhat distinctly as to order from the rest of the parts Yet all the rest of the parts were as formally and properly an eye as it Therefore as it were madnesse to say that in the naturall body each member doth formally act seeing So it is exceeding absurd supposing the Church to be an organicall body and some of the organes whereof it is composed are rulers governing and commanding in the Lord to whom subjection and obedience in the Lord is to be given by the rest and are as the eyes in the naturall body Yet to say that all and every member in the Church hath a formall authoritative hand or influence in the acts of governing 2. See the incongruity of the Authors comparison The power sayeth he may be fundamentally in the whole viz. body For he is speaking in the immediatly preceeding words of an organicall-body and yet each organ c. for instance the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally c. What incongruity is this to propound in the generall of power fundamentally in a whole body organicall And then for an instance oâ— simile to tell us of powers or faculties in the whole soul originally Is the soul an organicall body But may some say the Author saith the sensitive faculties are in all the soul fundamentally and radically and the soul radically and fundamentally in all the body and so would by consequence say that the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally and radically Answ 1. 'T is a very grosse absurdity to say that the soul is in the whole body fundamentally and radically or potentially as we have shown before It is formally and by way of information in the whole body 2. It is a grosse inconsequence the sensitive faculties are in all the soul and the soul is in the whole body Therefore the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally Nay they are fundamentally and radically in the soul and therefore are not fundamentally and radically in the body neither whole nor part But are formally and by way of inhesion in their respective parts or organs of the body 3. I would fain know of the Author what he does make in the Church answerable to the soul in the naturall body and so that wherein the power of governing is fundamentally and radically as the sensitive faculties of the naturall body are fundamentally and radically in the soul Is it the whole Church as comprehending both people and Ministers That is the body Or is it the people That is a part of the body The truth is Mr. Lockier is at a losse here with his simile Jesus Christ as King of the Church is unto the Church as the soul in the naturall body And the power of governing is fundamentally and radically in him and not in the body of the Church And therefore 3. to make use of the last words of his similitude for which we thank him as making clearly against himself and for us as the sensitive faculties are radically and fundamentally in the soul and act only as he sayeth well by such parts as are fit to act by as seeing by the eye and hearing by the ear and the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work The hands to work the feet to go So to give the apodosis which he had no will to expresse Ecclesiastick organicall powers such as the senses are â—n the naturall body as the power of governing teaching administrating the seals are fundamentally in Christ the King of the Church and act only by such parts as are fit to act by Rulers Teachers and Ministers These are the proper organs of those works section 7 The fifth and and last Obj. he meeteth with is this The Elders of the Church are called overseers stewards shepherds fathers All which in their analogy hold forth a peculiar and sole power to do things fathers govern alone so overseers c. As to this propounding of this Argument 1. We speak not for a peculiar sole power to do things indefinitely in Elders But for a sole power of authoritative acting in maters of Government and not excluding or denying unto people a private judgement of discretion to try and prove the actings thereof by the rule 2. The Author leaves out some of the names and titles given to the Elders which use to be alledged in this Argument besides the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guides leaders conducters governours Heb. 13. 7 17 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thessal 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governments or Governours the abstract being put for the concrete 2 Cor. 12. 28. 3. Because the Author is pleased to propound the Argument from this ground in the softest way for his own advantage we desire the Reader will be pleased to take it thus These persons and these only in the Church have power and authority to govern and consequently are to exercise formally acts of Government to whom in the Scripture by the Spirit of Christ are appropriated such names and titles which do import the power and authority of governing But to the Officers of the Church are such names appropriat as importeth power and authority of Governing Ergo c. For the major or first proposition I think it may be clear to any of it self And if any shall be so wilfull as to deny it I would ask him as doth the learned Authors of jus divin of Church Government Par. 2. pag. 170. to what end and for what reason are such names and denominations importing power and authority of Government appropriated to some persons i. e. given to them and not to others if not for this end and reason to distinguish them that are vested with authority to govern in the Church from others and to signifie and hold forth a duty or work incumbent to them and not to others The assumption see evidenced at length in jus divinum of Church Government Par. 2. pag. 171 172 173. the summe is this These titles Elder Overseer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conducter Governour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward Pastor Governments Ruler are names which generally
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the 〈…〉 Spirit of God gives it to Elders as contradiâ—… 〈…〉 from single Beleevers but also from the whole â—lack 〈…〉 â—hy would the Spirit of â—od give thiâ— name to Eldeâ—… 〈…〉 â—…guished from the whole flock if thereby were 〈…〉 out whaâ—â—is common competen◠〈…〉 and ought to be â—one by every single 〈…〉 Lockier reckoning up the acts whereby the 〈…〉 are to 〈◊〉 the flock That none so far◠〈…〉 none 〈◊〉 â—…presseth some only and 〈…〉 â—…der an c. I would ask him 〈…〉 beside 〈…〉 expressed doeth he intend by that 〈◊〉 here be understoâ—d exercise of discipline and censures 〈◊〉 â—…ons going astray or â—one astray if otherwise they cannot 〈…〉 or reclaimed and reduced I believe they must by this meâ—… 〈…〉 by these expressed take heed that none go astray 〈…〉 â—nd is not this not only aâ— act of Government but even of correâ—…ve jurâ—…diction O! but may he say they are not to do this â—ct by themselves but to have a care that it be done by the whole body of the Church But I pray how by telling the offences of 〈…〉 the Church or giving joint vote as other Professors in the 〈…〉 it comes under publike cognizance and judgement Ay 〈…〉 â—his may and ought to be done by the Authors way by any other Professours in the Church besides the Eldeâ— â—nd so nothing is left to them in regard of which that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be more pecuâ—…ar to them than any other Professours section 11 The Aâ—… 〈…〉 â—…seers and 〈…〉 â—…thers as 〈…〉 â—…ked in 〈…〉 â—…her which 〈…〉 â—en rather 〈…〉 ashiâ—… his Disâ—… 〈…〉 and sâ—l◠〈…〉 are so Rule◠〈…〉 But 〈…〉 to thâ— Châ—… 〈…〉 that tâ— thâ—… 〈…〉 â—…y o◠〈◊〉 â—…d 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 But 〈…〉 as a Brother 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 or inâ—… 〈…〉 â—…y to conâ—… 〈…〉 of Ruling and Goâ—… 〈…〉 power nor alone to exercise 〈…〉 â—…in conâ—…ction 〈…〉 Shepâ—… 〈…〉 â—…cive that Mr. Lockier as he 〈…〉 so he will not deny that th◠〈…〉 only of the Church are so called 〈…〉 theâ— only â—ut the rest of the Profâ—… 〈…〉 in the power and acts oâ— Ruâ—… 〈…〉 it i◠〈◊〉 to give the 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 as much and much â—ore o◠〈◊〉 thing 〈…〉 â—hem 'T is true indeed that Elde◠〈…〉 â—hood with the rest of Professours but 〈…〉 in another thing then that power which is signified by the names of Ruâ—…â—verâ—eers c. i. c. the power and authority of governing For were it that that they are 〈…〉 â—ood in this 〈…〉 why are they not all 〈…〉 â—verseers c If they 〈…〉 the name The thing 〈…〉 the rest of Pâ—of◠〈…〉 â—…ession of 〈…〉 â—eing of 〈…〉 tell 〈…〉 â—…siastick Goverâ—… 〈…〉 â—qually in the 〈…〉 of Governâ—… 〈…〉 calâ—… 〈◊〉 Overseâ—… 〈…〉 tha◠〈…〉 Go◠〈…〉 â—at then 〈…〉 Elder◠〈…〉 conâ—… the 〈…〉 meeting 〈…〉 vote◠〈…〉 intimate 〈…〉 the whol◠〈…〉 â—…te conâ—lude 〈…〉 â—…er for which 〈…〉 over the Church 〈…〉 as in the 〈…〉 And as the faâ—… 〈…〉 exercised by 〈◊〉 And 〈…〉 of seeing 〈…〉 part of the 〈…〉 â—…vernment 〈…〉 Rulers 〈…〉 so in and 〈…〉 â—…sed by any other â—art of the 〈…〉 the Authâ—r 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christâ— washing his 〈◊〉 feet to illustrate how the Elders organicall power of Government should not prejudge destroy or take away the peoples equall sharing in a power of Government which â—e calleth fundamentall which yet is by his way as 〈…〉 of Government as any Rulers in the World haâ—… 〈…〉 acteth in the exercise of Government When I 〈…〉 confesse I was amazed and could scarcely believe my own eye 〈◊〉 that such a thing could be Writen by an understanding 〈◊〉 â—dverting to what he did Write As wâ—ste in Chriâ—… 〈…〉 that as relateth â—o the purpose he has 〈…〉 before viz. that Elders organicall power of Government â—ould not take away the peoples equal share of fundâ—… 〈◊〉 aâ— he calleth it nor the exercise thereof 〈…〉 and his Disciplâ—… Brethren or a Brother-hood 〈…〉 of mutuall and equall power fundamentall of Government Mr. Lockier I know will abhorre a thought of this Hâ— Christ saith himself was thâ—… sole Ruler viz. Soveraign and 〈◊〉 and Law-giver Or waâ— Christ here condescending to 〈…〉 of Government together with his Disciples Neither 〈…〉 he â—ay Washing of feet is an act very 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 Or was hâ— by abasing himself to wash his Disciples feet 〈◊〉 him â—ow they being to bâ— Officers of his Church should 〈◊〉 the acts of Government in the Church viz. that they should â—n the exercise thereof take in joyntly with them the whoâ—…â—…ople Sure we find no intimation of such an intention by 〈…〉 in the Text And the thing it self in the matter 〈…〉 of such a lesson that I think never man till 〈…〉 would imagined such a thing intended by it Besides an 〈…〉 is a peculiar action of that same kind with that for which iâ— iâ— given to be an example done for direction to do the like 〈◊〉 washing of feet is an action very far different from exeâ—…ise of Government but is it not evident enough from Christs own â—…pounding â—f that fact John 13. 14 15. that his intention thereby was to give to his Disciples and in them to all Christians an example of 〈◊〉 and charity amongst themselves and that every one of them should be ready to the meanest and basest duties whereby they may â—e serviceable and helpfull to another Now what is this to Mr. Lockiers purpose here if this be not I know not what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 section 12 This which we have considered is all that Mr. Lockier answereth to the Argument for proving the power of Ecclesiastick Government to belong to Christs Officers in the Church only and not to the whole body of Beleevers or Professours taken from the names and denominations importing power and authority of Government given by the Spirit of God in Scripture to the Officers but never to the people then to them in contradistinction to the people And all that he has said as is it is but weak in it self as we trust we have made evident so he has therein passed by a great part of the Argument having neglected sundrie of these Titles and altogether miskenned the Passages of Scripture which by Presbyterians use to be produced for them and are urged upon the point as containing much ground for their Doctrine besides the names or titles given therein to the Officers I humbly desire the reader our Author if he will be pleased to be at the pains to consider what M. Gillespy hath to this purpose Aarons Rod Book 2. c. 9. wherein he proveth that there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Government in the hands of the Church Officers see there Arg. 1 2 3 10 11 19 20. But now are these Objections brought by the Author and as slightly propounded as he might and I may say Answered just so Are these Isay all the materiall Arguments thaâ—
he could find used by Presbyterians to prove the power and authority of Ecclesiastick Government to be in the hands not of the people but only of the Church Officers I cannot think he will say so if he has been at the pains to Read them Why then has he passed others in silence if he minded to give his rationall Readers satisfaction touching his Tenet in this Question We refer the Reader to see these touched at by the Author here more pregnantly managed and others besides them in Jus Divin of Church Government part 2. c. 10 and c. 11. Sect. 2. Gul. Apollon Considerat of certain Gontrov c. 4. Spanhem Epist to David Buchan q. 2. Mr. Ruth Peaceable Plea and Due Right Now come we to Mr. Lockiers second Assertion SECTION VII Mr. Lockiers 2. Assertion touching Presbyteries of many particular Congregations combined whether Classicall or Synodicall and their power considered and the true state of the Controversie touching this matter between Presbyterians and Independents layed forth section 1 IN the former Assertion the Author would throw the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven the power of the Government of the Church out of the hands of them whom Christ has appointed to be Rulers over the Church his Officers to put the same in the hands of all and every one of the people And in the second he would so put them in the hands of one particular Congregation may be of seven or ten persons For of so many may a Church be compleatly constitute by their way as that they shall exercise all that power even to the highest acts thereof Independently as the supream Tribunall in Ecclesiastick Government under Jesus Christ upon earth So as that if there should be any errour committed by such a particular Congregation suppose the greatest errour or heresie in Doctrine maintained by it or a man unjustly Excommunicated and casten out of the Church there is no Ecclesiastick authoritative remedy under Heaven to redresse such an errour No Ecclesiastick Judicatory to which a grieved person may have recourse by appeal for Authoritative recognition or redresse of his grievance But see we his Assertion section 2 That Presbyteries or Elderships without the particular Congregations exercing authoritative and coercive power over it are an invention of man Having thus propounded his Assertion He explaines the subject of it thus By Presbyteries or Elderships without the Congregation I mean such an Eldership as is chosen out of severall particular Congregations assuming to themselves superiour and decisive power over them Afterward he calls it forrain Eldership SECT 20. And so forth in the rest of his Book And then again undertaking to explain the nature thereof sayeth I find among our Brethren themselves that Elders and Brethren sent and impowered from their severall Congregations respectively to transact and conclude such and such Ecclesiastick affairs within such a limited bounds ex sua potestate are a forrain Presbytery A note or two upon these things and then we shall more clearly and distinctly set forth the true state of the Controversie and what is our Doctrine therein 1. Whereas he propounds to himself to Dispute against the Authority of an Eldership or Presbytery without the particular Congregation i. e. as he calls it afterward forrain to the Congregation he but enters in a conflict against his own fiction And whereas he sayeth SECT 20. that he finds amongst their Brethren he means Presbyterians that a Presbytery sent from severall Congregations is a forrain Presbytery I humbly conceive for ought I can remember of any of them he wrongs them exceeding much I do not remember of any Presbyterian that acknowledges the Presbytery of severall Congregations associat in Government to be a forrain or extrinsecall Presbytery to these Congregations Nor is it so indeed It cannot be called a forrain Presbytery to all the Congregations associat under it Because it is made of their own severall Elderships Nor yet can it be forrain or externall to any of them Because every one is a part of it and in it as a part of the whole As a Parliament cannot be called a forrain Judicatory to the whole Kingdom whereof it is the Parliament nor unto any of the severall Cities or Counties which are parts of the Kingdom and are in the Parliament by their Deputies or Commissioners as parts constituents thereof Indeed the Prelate and his Cathedrall consistory taking to themselves the Government and Jurisdiction over all Congregations in the Diocese were an externall forrain Judicatory to these Churches because they excluded the other Congregations and their Elderships from all collaterall concurrence and copartnership with them in the Government But the Presbytery we speak for is made up of the Elders of the severall Congregations which it governs as intrinsecall collaterall parts constituent thereof and therefore cannot be called forrain to these severall Congregations 2. When as he expresseth the power of these Presbyteries against which he propounds this dispute under the name of coercition calling it a coercive power He seemeth on purpose to choise an odious word to render it suspicious by the very name For the word of coercing in the common use mostly seemeth to import outward bodily or civill force exercised upon persons or things to stop and represse their actions ipsis etiam renitentibus we ascribe no such power unto Presbyteries But a power of executing spirituall censures which have no externall force upon persons yea nor Physicall neither but only Morall as administred by the Eldership Tho they may be accompanied by God With a Physicall I mean a reall operation upon the persons either in mercy or judgement And if at any time those who are for Presbyteries over more Congregations speaking of their power call it coercive they mean no other thing but a power of Spirituall jurisdiction exercised in Spirituall censures such as the Author himself and these of his way attributes to particular Elderships of a single Congregation together with the Congregation over every member thereof If the Author had dealt ingenuously with us he should not used such a word without explanation of the thing he knoweth we mean But now let 's see the clear state of the controversie in this mater section 3 The subject in generall whereupon the Question runneth between us and the Independent Brethren is a Presbytery or Eldership of more Congregations then one Concerning which there are some things confessed and uncontroverted where of we should take notice in the first place that we may the better see where the difference and contoversie lyeth 1. 'T is confessed by our Brethren themselves that consociation of more particular Churches or Congregations in one Presbytery or Eldership is lawfull and usefull Hooker Surv. p. 4. c. 1 2. 2. That these consociations are and may be of severall sorts and degrees some lesser some greater Classes Synods and these Provinciall Nationall Oecumenicall Idem Ibid So then there is no controversie about the being simply
their ordinary power But 1. tho it be true that they were together in Jerusalem by Gods command waiting together for the powring out of the Holy Ghost Yet it follows not that by accident they did joyne in Collegio for that businesse Because being together by Christs institution they were to joyne together in managing the affairs of the Church They were bound and it was necessary that they should do so 2. True what was done might have been done by any one of them alone had they been alone But it followeth not that being all in one place where they might joyn together hic nunc any one of them might do it alone Nor does it follow either that they acted as Apostles because any of them might have done it alone Any of the Apostles might alone by decisive sentence determined the controversie Synodically concluded Act. 15. yet the Author will not for this say that in that businesse the Apostles acted as Apostles The next thing I note is a great mistake of our mind concerning the nature of the Presbytery ruling over more Congregations then one That it should be a combination of appropriate Elders to severall particular Churches which these Acts 1. were not but generall Officers We do not think it is necessary to the essence of such a Presbytery that it be made up of Elders appropriated to several fixed Congregations We say at the first where there were more Professours then could meet in one Congregation their Pastours and Elders did teach and rule them in common not being distributively appropriated to the severall Congregations and that yet in some Cities where there are more Congregations it may be so as it is at this day in some Protestant Churches Tho we think that now in the ordinary condition of the Church it is convenient that Congregations be fixed and have their severall fixed Officers Therefore we say further what ever use be to be made of the present passage Act. 1. in the Question in hand it is but a poor Argument the Author insinuateth There was not here concurring Elders of other Churches this of Jerusalem being the first and only Gospel Church Ergo there was not here a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations then one it doth not necessarily follow For that very Church of Jerusalem might be made up of severall Congregations nor can the contrary be proven the number of names set down v. 15. will not prove it because it cannot be demonstrate that that was the whole number of Christians in Jerusalem section 5 The second Scripture he meeteth with is Act. 4. 35. For as many as were Possessours of lands c. sold them and brought the price and layed it down at the Apostles feet And how this place will maintain a * This nick-name the Author wil put in at every turn which we desire may be as often rejected as wrongfully given to the Presbytery we speak for forraine coercive Eldership I do not yet under stand Answ Here againe is a grosse mistake or a wilfull wronging of his adversaries I know none that alledges this place by it self as an intire Argument to prove the Presbytery we speak for the truth as to the use of this passage by Presbyterians in this controversie is this They alledging the instance of the Church of Jerusalem for a patern of more Congregations than one under one governing Presbytery and for making out this alledging that Scripture holdeth forth 1. That Church to consist of more Congregations then one 2. That yet these are called one Church 3. That over these Congregations called one Church was one Presbyteriall Government in common To prove the last of these points whereof the Argument consisteth alledging that the Scripture mentioneth the Officers of that Church as meeting together in common for acts of Government they bring this place for one instance of an act of Government for which they were met viz. to take charge of the Churches goods and of the due distribution thereof See Jus Divinum of Church Govern part 2. pag. 210. Now see we his answer if it hath any thing to infringe that for which this is indeed alledged section 6 The Apostles though they had a capacity over many Churches yet then there were not many Churches when this was done Ans Yes Sr there were many more than one Church I mean more particular Congregations even in Ierusalem see this proven as by sundry others so particularly by the Assembly of Divines in their third proposition concerning Government and their answers to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren and by the Authors of Jus Divin 2. part pag. 193 194 195 196. seq and the exceptions brought to the contrare by your strongest heads fully cleared I wonder the Author should so contemne his Readers as to obtrude his bare Assertions upon them in a mater concerning which he knows so much reason hath been brought as is extant to the contrare of what he affirmeth If he hath any new exceptions against the proofs of that particular which hath not been brought by these of his side before him he would done best to have produced the same Or let him do it yet and we shall take them into impartiall consideration 2. And this capacity to wit that the Apostles had over many Churches was as they were Apostles and not as ordinary Elders Answ That a capacity to act acts of Church Government over many Congregations simply was competent to them only qua Apostles and so not competent to ordinary Elders is a maine part of the Question in hand and should not be begged or nakedly affirmed but proven section 7 3. And in this mater they did an extraordinary thing because the Officers fit for this work were not yet ordained Answ What is this And was the Apostles receiving and ordering these alms the doing of an extraordinary thing Sure it was not extraordinary in the nature of the acts For then it should not be an act competent to any ordinary Officer in the Church which is confessedly false it being an ordinary act which may be and is dayly done by ordinary Officers Nor yet can it be said to have been an extraordinary deed as done by such Officers the Apostles The Author indeed imports this in his reason Because the Officers fit for this work were not yet ordained so he would say the Apostles were not fit Officers for that work and therefore their doing of it was extraordinary but either they were not fit Officers in point of qualification and endewment requisite to manage that work and this I think the Author will not say Or they were not fit in point of vocation to exercise such an act But as little reason has he to say this because altho that businesse was not the proper act of their Apostolick vocation and office nor the maine and principall work thereof and therefore say they Act. 6. 2. It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God
and serve tables And therefore it was necessary some Officers should be ordained who 's more proper and chief work it might be to see to that businesse Yet certainly the Apostolick office containing in it eminently the power of all inferiour Officers in the Church it was an act formally belonging to their office and no Question even after these ordinary Officers were appointed particularly to attend that businesse yet the Apostles did not then altogether cease from joining in acting thereanent where they might conveniently without hindring their main work the preaching and spreading of the Gospel section 8 But in all this where are joint voices and suffrages of Officers Elders and Brethren of diverse particular Churches commissionated to this work to make up this Presbytery we speak of Answ There was joint acting of Officers of more Congregations than one the many Congregations whereof the Church of Jerusalem did consist whether they were distinguished and fixed in Members and Officers or not is all one and these Officers Elders to these Churches the Apostles who as they were Officers so were Elders too and acting as Elders because in a mater competent to ordinary Elders and jointly 2. Brethren not Officers may be present in such a Presbytery and speak and give their consultative judgement orderly But as no constituent parts of this Presbytery in our judgement nor according to the truth 3. When the Presbytery of more Congregations than one is made up of all the Elders of these Congregations assembled together personally a particular commission for that is not necessary Indeed in such Presbyteries as all the Elders of the severall Churches meet not personally but by some of their number delegated it is as in Synods necessary that these who make up such a Presbytery be commissionated from their severall Churches respectivè Yet by that commission they get not power simply to act the acts of Government therein that they have by their ordination to their office but a particular warrand and call to act that power hic nunc for the good of the Churches in the combination section 9 In the same SECT viz. 25. from what he has answered to the former passage he labours to answer other two places 1. That Act. 6. 3 4 5 6. about the choosing of Deacons and their ordination To which his answer is The Apostles as extraordinary persons layed hands on these But what appears from hence of such an Eldership excerped and commissioned from severall Churches as Presbyterians now assert and use is yet to find Answ 1. I wonder that Mr. Lockier should obtrude upon us such a naked Assertion that the Apostles did lay hands upon and ordain these Deacons as extraordinary persons i. e. as Apostles and not as Elders without making the last essay of answer to that reason brought by the Reverend Assembly of Divines against the dissenting Brethren asserting the same Ans to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren pag. 52. I present it here in their own words that the Reader may consider if it be not of such weight as Mr. Lockier had cause to take it unto consideration if he had not thought fitter to dictate to then by light of reason to convince the judgement of his Readers As for that ordination Act. 6. we doubt not to say that in it they did act partly as Apostles partly as Elders In constituting an office in the Church which was not before they did act their Apostolicall authority But in ordaining unto that office men whom the Church had chosen they did act as Presbyters And we doubt not but that our Brethren will herein concur with us For if they will not say that they did herein act partly as Apostles and partly as Elders they must say they acted either only as Apostles or only as Elders If only as Elders thence it will follow that all Elders have power not only to ordain men but to erect new Offices in the Church If only as Apostles then hence is no warrand for any Elders so much as to ordain men unto an office But I yet wonder so much the more at this Assertion of Mr. Lockier here remembering what he had delivered before SECT 10. where he drawes an Argument from ordination of Elders performed by the Apostles for regulating the ordination of Elders in Churches now and thereupon alledging tho groundlessely that the Apostles in ordination took in the people to concurrence with them concludeth that now also they ought to concur formally in that act If they had acted as extraordinary persons as Apostles the people could not concur jointly with then in such an act nor could it been an Argument brought as a patern in ordinary Now if they acted not by their extraordinary office and power in ordaining Elders what reason is there to say that in the ordination of these Deacons they acted in that way 2. As to that but what appears from hence c. We say supposing that the Church of Jerusalem was made up of many Congregations and these Congregations were one Church which are proven from other Scriptures we find from hence for proving such a Presbytery as we speak for Officers of these Congregations meeting together for Government and joining in an act of Government ordination of Church Officers viz. The Apostles doing this and that as Elders which is the thing it is brought for by Presbyterians Which tho-by it self makes not a full medium to prove that Presbytery yet with the other suppositions taken with it makes very much to prove it section 10 2. Place is Acts 20. 28. The Elders there are shewed not to be Elders of many Churches which Paul sent for but the Elders of the Church v. 17. of one Church of the Church of Ephesus and charging them to attend to the stock and not to flocks ver 28. here is no joynt veice of various commissioned Elders Answ To passe that some of his own the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly once in their Reasons against the instance of the Church of Ephesus make these both Elders and flocks to whom the Apostle speaketh to be of all Asia not only of Ephesus where no doubt there were more particular Churches To passe this because indeed these same Authors a little after when it may serve their turn they confine them to Ephesus We grant 't is true they were Elders of one Church the Church of Ephesus But withall we say that one Church was not one single Congregation but made up of more then one and consequently was one Presbyteriall Church This is proven by sundry Learned particularly by the Reverend Assembly of Divines in their instance of the Church of Ephesus and all the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren brought to the contrare fully discussed in their Answers threunto As for the Authors Grammaticall Argument they are called Elders of the Church in the Singular Number not Churches and they are bid attend the flock not flocks Ergo it was but one single
Congregation ' tisfilly and might well be said among Children but may blush to come out before understanding Men. By this Argument when our Saviour sayeth upon this Rock will I build my Church And the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. He hath set in the Church First some Apostles c. And Ephes 5. He loved his Church and gave himself for it Because it is in the Singular Number Church not Churches in all these places Therefore it must be only one single Congregation meant in all of them When as it is indeed the whole Catholick Church and not any particular singular Congregation So the name flock in the Singular Number why may it not be taken collectivè for such a flock as contained in it diverse particular flocks as Gen. 33. 13. yea and in the very present Metaphoricall sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12. 32. little flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 10. 16. one Sheep fold tho both in the Singular Number yea and in the latter place with the Cardinall number added to it one signifieth the Church Catholick and so comprehendeth many particular Flocks Folds and Churches As to M. Lockiers last words in this Sect. here is no joint voice c. indeed we grant that in that meeting there was no joint voting of Elders Because these Elders then were not meet to act in Government but had been sent for by Paul to receive direction from him concerning the managing of their charge But supposing that which is proved from other places that there were more single Congregations in Ephesus then one we find here these Congregations held forth to be one Church and there were many Elders over these many Congregations as one flock one Church And that is enough for our purpose The next place he meeteth with and which he calleth one of the most weighty indeed it is so weighty to the purpose we are on that it crusheth the new supream Independent Tribunall erected by our Brethren in single Congregations is that concerning the Synod Act. 15. 28. To this the Author Answers 1. Here sayeth he is an Eldership of severall Churches indeed met But as touching the coercion of their power as such excerped Eldership enforcing their results upon other Churches this is the other thing to be brought in to make up the businesse we Dispute against Answ First 't is well Mr. Lockier acknowledgeth that was an Eldership of severall Churches even a Synodicall Presbytery a Synod as himself calls it afterward Sect. 29. Some of his side have said otherwise the Dissenting Brethren in their Reasons against the Assemblies allegation of Acts 15. for subordination of Synods That Ass was not a formall Synod but only a reference by the particular Church of Antioch unto this particular Church of Jerusalem and no other But we think Mr. Lockier speaketh the truth that it was a Synod 2. We must here again note his invidious misrepresenting of our Doctrine We do not ascribe to that or any other Synod a power of coertion to enforce their results upon any but an authoritative juridicall power to enjoyn authoritatively their determinations agreeable to the Word of God and to censure the disobedient and disorderly with meer spirituall censures as admonition Excommunication which import no enforceing â— propriety of speech Nor do we say that that or any other Synod hath power thus authoritatively to enjoyn their determinations upon other Churches we say they have this power only in relation to these Churches associated in the Synod and none other So not that which Mr. Lockier sayeth but this is the other thing to be brought in to make the Presbytery we speak for what ever it be that he Disputes against which oftentimes is his own fiction an juridicall power authoritatively enjoining its determinations and which may censure with spirituall Ecclesiastick censures the disobeyers and disorderly And this we doubt not will be found in this place Act. 15. section 11 After this the Author pretending to be clear and full in answering this place he premitteth two things which Reverend Hocker hath also Survey Part. 4. c. 1. 1 That the Apostles tho they were extraordinary Officers yet in this meeting they did not act as such because they joined with them ordinary Churches what ordinary Churches is contradistinguished unto I know not well and Officers and all Disputed and enquired And so here was left a samplar to all succeeding generations In this we agree with him Only by the way we note that we see not why he should have said before Sect. 25. that in the ordination of Deacons the Apostles acted as extraordinary persons seeing there also they joined the Church with them in the election of the persons to be ordained His 2. premisse is that the sentence decreed in that Synod was not Scripture because they decreed it as still it was when the Apostles moved by the proper Spirit of their Apoâ—…olicall station according to that 2 Pet. 1. 21. but what they decreed was by debate found out to be either expresse in Scripture or undenyably deduced from thence So by one of these wayes was found to be Scripture and was therefore decreed and injoyned by them upon others And then goes out a while in clearing this which we need not insist on And to passe other things that might be noted in this second premisse granting both what would he infer hereupon That in the close of Sect. 28. So that what they produced by debate was materially binding for asmuch as what they produced was for the matter of it no other but the will of God but not formally as the result of such a Collegiat Eldership Answ This last followeth not upon any thing in the former premisses For tho their decrees were not Scripture because decreed by them but decreed by them because found to be Scripture or agreeable to generall rules of Scripture and therefore injoined by them to the Churches It followes indeed that their primary and fundamentall obligatorinesse is materiall And were they not such they could not formally as decrees of the Synod be obligatory or binding But it doth not follow that simpliciter they are not binding formally as decrees of the Synod The obligatorinesse of decrees of a Synod formally as decrees of a Synod is secundary subordinate and regulate but for that it is not no obligatorinesse at all Yea one of his own contradicts him in terminis in this Mr. Cotton speaking of the decrees of this very Synod Keyes c. 6. this binding power is not only materially from the weight of the matters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the Authority of the Synod section 12 But come we to his clear Answ he brings it in by way of reply to an Object Had then this Synod no authoritative power at all For what end then is the Ordinance This indeed is a pertinent Question propounded by the Author to himself And if he asserting as
21. Papers of the Assem of Divines Ans to the Reas of the Dissenting Brethren against the instance of the Church of Jerus Jus Divin of Church Govern by the London Ministers Part. 2. c. 14. Mr. Rutherfurd due Right of Presbyteries pag. 355. At length treating upon this place Spanhem Epist ad David Bucan class 3. rat 3. There is so much said by these to this purpose that I need not increase the bulk of this Book by setting down any Reasons here against Mr Lockier if he will be pleased to take unto his consideration what is already said by them he may do well Come we to his Reasons brought to prove that this Synod exercised only a power of counsell not of jurisdiction Of four brought by Mr. Hooker Survey Part. 4. c. 1. pag. 13 14. he borroweth two 1. Is made up of two processes the first whereof is this These decrees are said to bind these to whom they are sent But they were sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles This is evident saith Mr. Lockier Acts 21. 25. as touching the Gentiles that believe we have written and concluded that they observe c. Ergo they did bind all the Churches of the Gentiles Answ To this 1. for the Major where is it so said I cannot remember any place of the story where this is said If he and Hooker from whom he hath this mean that we say and confesse this that the decrees of the Synod bind all these to whom they are sent that we never said If it be understood of binding as Synodicall decrees A Synod in one Nation may send their decrees unto Churches of another Nation as was ordinary to do in the Primitive times yet we say not that the decrees of a Synod of one Nation binds the Churches in another Nation though may be the mater of them binds them 2. For the minor If the meaning be as it must be that the Argument may speak to the purpose it is intended for that they were sent by way of Synodicall decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles as certainly they were to some we deny it the place cited Act. 21. 25. proves it not For it speaks of the Gentiles indefinitly and clearly relates to the Letter written Act. 15. where the very inscription bears that so they were sent only to the Gentiles in Antioch Syria and Cilicia v. 23. 'T is true Paul and Barnabas delivered the decrees to others as they went through the cities Act. 16. 4. but it is not said that they were sent to them by way of Synodicall decrees as they were to these other Churches But grant that one way or other they were sent also to the rest of the Churches of the Gentiles that is that it was the will and intention of the Synod that as occasion should serve they should be delivered to them and we shall also grant the conclusion of this first processe in some sense that they did bind all the Churches of the Gentiles See we what Mr. Lockier will infer upon this in his next processe section 15 Now these saith he i. all the Churches of the Gentiles had no Commissioners delegated to that Synod Therefore what the Synod did could not bind them by way of authoritative jurisdiction because where is no delegation of Commissioners there is no right of jurisdiction They did bind them only by way of counsell and materially as things clearly held forth in the Word of God Answ If Mr. Lockier when he sayeth now these had no Commissioners there c. if he mean this Universally that none of the Churches of the Gentiles had Commissioners there it is clearly false If he mean only that some of them had no Commissioners there it is true and we grant that the decrees of the Synod did not bind these Churches by way of jurisdiction and formally as decrees of the Synod but materially But hence it followeth not that they did not bind at all nor any by way of jurisdiction For some Gentile Churches had their Commissioners there and were Members of the Synod Antioch Syria and Cilicia these two last if they had not yet they might and ought to have had and it is most probable they had and so these Churches might be bound by them by way of jurisdiction and formally for ought that is brought in this Argument and they did so bind them as is abundantly proven in the Authors cited before section 16 I cannot here passe by the Observation of the two Syllogistick moulds whereinto Hooker casts this last processe that Mr. Lockier has borrowed from him in the place of his Survey last cited The 1. is this The decrees of a Synod bind only such by Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction who delegate messengers to the Synod But the decrees of this Synod bind more then these who delegated messengers to it to wit all the Churches of the Gentiles Therefore it did not intend to bind by Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Truely 't is a pity to see a Godly man beguiling himself in such maters with such illogicall sillie Arguments I will not stay to exaggerate this to the full who sees not the grosse peccancy of this And if the Author would have concluded formally and right upon his premises the conclusion should have been this Therefore the decrees of this Synod did bind more Churches then such as it did bind by Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction And this he shall have granted by us without contradiction but also without any advantage to his cause His second mould which he sayeth is more plain is this These who send the decrees of the Synod to such Churches who never sent their Commissioners thither They send only by way of counsell But this Synod sent their decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles who nâ—ver senâ— their Commissioners thither Ergo they sent only by way of counsell This is as louse for mater as to his point in hand as the former was peccant in forme For as to the Major The Synod which send their decrees to Churches who never sent at least ought to have sent their Commissioners thither send only by way of counsell to these Churches true indeed But if the meaning be that that Synod which sends their decrees to such Churches as never sent their Commissioners thither send only by way of counsel to all to whom they send them this is as easily denyed as it is affirmed and I believe it shall be long ere we hear a proof of it Then to the Minor That this Synod of Jerusalem sent their decrees to some Churches of the Gentiles that never sent their Commissioners thither let it be granted Yet it is as certain some to whom they sent them bad their Commissioners there as members And so for the 〈◊〉 it may be granted that this Synod sent their decrees to 〈…〉 only by way of counsel But from nothing in the Argument doth 〈◊〉 follow that they sent them only thus to all to whom they sent them
the Churches of God in the times of these famous ancient Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon wherein as in many Provinciall Synods of these times it is well known Orthodox Divines that had publickly and zealously appeared before against the Haereticks of these times did unquestionably sit and vote as Judges in the very controversies they had appeared parties in But yet to put this mater closser â—ome to Mr. Lockier Suppose in one of his Independent Congregations one or two or more members should vent Haereticall Doctrine and labour to instill it into and infect therewith their fellow members I think he will not deny but the Elders of that Congregation yea and every particular member ought to contend against them for the truth in privat refute and condemn their errors and their Schismatick practises Now I think he will not deny except he will deny altogether that there can be any Ecclesiasticall Judicature to condemn errors juridically and authoritatively but these Elders and private Christians though a contrair party to the supposed erroneous persons yet may in the meeting of the Congregation assembled as a Judicatory and Court sit and vote as Judges upon the mater in controversy with their antagonists If this may be in a Congregationall Judicatory and yet not against equity nor conscience nor rule why may it not be so in a Synod too section 20 The last place that Mr. Lockier meeteth with and saith is frequently used by the Presbyterian Brethren is 1 Tim. 4. 14. to which place he saith that he hath spoken somewhat before on the first Assertion which he repeats here That it was not an ordinary Eldership because of the reason he gave there and addes that being an Eldership of extraordinary Officers not praecisely from such and such particular Churches but such as were equally of all as of any one 't will not amount to the nature of a patern and binding praecedent to build upon Answ 1. This place is not so frequently urged as Mr. Lockier pretendeth for this purpose to prove an associate Presbytery over more Congregationâ— then one The thing it is usually urged for is to prove that the Government of the Church whereof Ordination is a principall part is in the hands of Officers and not in the body of Professors and this it doth clearly prove Yet 2. We conceive considerable grounds may be brought that it was a Presbytery not only not of one Congregation this Mr. Lockier himself acknowledgeth but also of ordinary Elders for the most part of severall particular Congregations For 1. There is not an example can be brought from Scripture of the Eldership of one Congregation performing Ordination nor any rule that may warrand such a practice when association with other Congregations may conveniently be had And there is in Scripture example of Ordination by a Presbytery over diverse Congregations as in the Church of Jerusalem where were many Congregations as has been often demonstrated against all exceptions that has been alledged That that Presbytery which ordained in Jerusalem was the Apostles extraordinary Officers is nothing to the contrair Because therein they acted not as extraordinary Officers but as ordinary Elders as hath been shewed before 2. Guliel Apollon reason to this purpose Consider of certain Controv Cap. 6. 9. 2. is very considerable This ordination of Timothy seemeth to have been done in the Church of Lystra as thâ— Belgick Interpreters observe upon the place from Act. 6. 1 2 3. 't is said there that Paul would have him to go forth with him v. 3. viz. to serve with him in the work of the Ministry of the Gospel And v. 1. it is said he had a good report from the brethren of Lystra and Iconium what else could that report be but a testimony of his piety and understanding in the Scriptures of which the Apostle speaketh 2 Tim. 3. 15. which the Apostle requires of a person to be called to the Ministry and seemeth there to be mentioned as given in relation to Timothiâ—s calling thereunto And in this we see the brethren of Derbâ— and â—…ium with these of Lystra concurring as actors under whom are included also the Churches of the Region roâ—nd about as may be gathered from Acts 14. 6. Thâ—… considerationâ— are I conceive of some weight to incline us 〈◊〉 think this Presbytery as iâ— was not Congregationall so was not extraordinary As 〈…〉 Mâ— Lockiâ—r alledgeth to the contraiâ— i. e. to that â—e 〈…〉 Assertion 1. We answered it sufficiently thâ—… 〈…〉 Reader back to our 5. SECT 2. To the little thing added here we say Albeit the Officers making up this Presbytery were not precisely from such and such particular Churches as I conceive his meaning were not fixed and appropriated Officers of particular Congregations which yet cannot be proven yet they might have been a Presbytery of more Congregations such as we stand for Fixednesse of Presbyters to severall particular Congregations is not necessary by any positive divine institution Again though all the members making up a Presbytery were extrordinary Officers and so such as were of all Congregations as well as of one which yet was not the case of this Presbytery yet joining in Collegio in an ordinary act as Ordination they might be a patern and binding pracedent to build upon else from that Ordination Acts 6. can no warrand be deduced for Ordination of Officers by the Elders in ordinary Hitherto we have seen and considered Mr. Lockiers pursuing of his first Medium used against authoritative Presbyteries over more Congregâ—tions then one Let the Reader judge how he has made it good by what we have answered and what we have referred to for further satisfaction in others SECTION IX Examination of his 2d Medium pursued in his SECTION 34 35 36 37. section 1 His second Medium is that such a Presbytery opposes the word His Argument here comes to this much in summe The Scriptures give in their testimony not one or two but in plenty that what power of jurisdiction or ruling an Eldership hath it hath it in the same extent it hath its Pastorall power and no further Yea that an Officers Pastorall power exceeds in extent his Ruling power rather then è contra Therefore a Presbytery over more Congregations then one which extends the Pastors ordinary ruling power beyond the extent of his ordinary Teaching doth oppose the Word of God Answ When aâ— this Argument which is but a limme of that first large â—re brought by thâ— Dissenting Bâ—ethren against the Assemblies third Proposiâ—…on coâ—câ—…ning Presbyteriall Government and all the confirmationâ— thereof brought by these same Brethren hath already received so considerable answers from the Assembly of Divines in their Papers extant to the World I wonder why Mr. Lockier should present it again to us here so barely without taking these answers to consideration or assaying to infringe them any wayes Unlesse it has been his purpose to deâ—pise all his Readers Well we refer the Reader
not wanting cryes comming up to the ears of the LORD by oppression of persons in managing of the Independent power of Congregations Sure I am it is more apt an hundreth fold to cause such cryes 'T is a remarkable Story Mr. Caudrey hath to this purpose in his Epistle before his Vindic. Vindicia in the fourth instance of mischievous consequences of the Independent way I need not transcribe it but refers the Reader to the place But now seeing Mr. Lockier directeth this bitter charge against the thing it self in its own nature so he propounds in the beginning of his third Reason we shall comfort our selves in this that it is no new thing and ought not to seem strange to us that sin is imputed to the truth and pure Ordinances of God by adversaries and Gods anger alledged to be drawn on by cleaving to the same We remember how Hezekiah was upbraided upon this account Is 37. 7. 10. SECTION XI Examination of Mr. Lockiers 4th Medium pursued from his SECTION 40 to 47. section 1 HIs fourth Medium is that a particular Congregation is compleat and sufficient in it self without an associate Presbytery over more Congregations Whereby he intends to prove such Presbyteries uselesse and a device of man and no divine institution because God would not appoint uselesse things His Argument fully set up is this If every particular Congregation rightly constituted and compleated hath sufficiencie within it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ to Ordaine to Excommunicate without the larger Elderships then larger Elderships are uselesse But every particular Congregation rightly constitute and compleat hath sufficiencie within it self c. Therefore c. Answ Ere I reply particularly first we would understand what the Author doeth understand by the compleatnesse of a particular Congregation and what may be understood by having sufficiency within it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ for the former I conceive the Author meaneth a particular Congregation to be compleat in its constitution when as beside the body of private Prosessours there is in it an Eldership made up of all the integrall parts thereof Pastours or one Pastour Teachers or one Teacher at least and some competent number of Ruling Elders three at least so many Officers according to our Brethren make up a compleat Eldership for a Congregation For the other we would consider that by sufficiencie to exercise the Ordinances of Christ we must understand not only a competencie of gifts and abilities of wisedome and understanding for exercising such and such acts But also power and authority by a divine warrand institution and call A private gifted man may have the competencie of gifts for Preaching the Gospel Administration of Sacraments yet he hath not simply sufficiencie to exercise that Ordinance because he hath not power and authority by calling from God to do it These premised for Answ 1. The major Proposition is a grosse non-sequitur and injurious to the wisdom of God in his Ordinances for there may be for a certain end a mean appointed of God which is by it self sufficient for effecting that end simply and another mean appointed of God for that same end and yet this is not uselesse because the other is sufficient Because this may be for the better more easie more safe effecting of it Manifold instances might be given of this the promise of salvation or of the blessing of Believers is of and by it self sufficient enough to give assurance to the Children of God of the immutability of Gods counsell and purpose of their salvation Was therefore the oath added to the word of promise uselesse God forbid it should be said it is added of superabundant good will that we might have the more aboundant assurance and consolation Heb. 6. 17 18. So the Preaching of the Gospel is of it self a mean sufficient of faith and salvation Are therefore the Sacraments and Discipline uselesse God has appointed in his Church means for his spirituall works therein not only sufficient but aboundant not only for their esse simpliciter but also for their bene esse yea for their optimum esse So that although a particular Congregation have sufficiencie to exercise all these Ordinances of Christ yet larger Elderships of more Congregations associated together may be of much and singular good use for the better or best performance or exercising of them for exercising them with lesse danger of erring and miscarying with the more authority and to the begetting of the more reverence respect and obedience in people So Mr. Lockiers major which he neglects to prove but supposeth as if it were without Question is rotten and false and consequently the whole frame of his Argument by this fals to the ground so that we need not insist upon the minor or assumption But 2. here I would ask Mr. Lockier What if a particular Congregation be not compleat have not an entire Eldership of its own I suppose Pastour and Teacher be removed the Ruling Elders only remaining or all of them being removed in this case whether has the particular Congregation sufficiencie in it self to exercise these ordinances to Ordain to Excommunicate If he Answer yes as it is most absurd and contrary to the Scriptures of God to make a Church exercising the publike Ordinances of Christ without the Officers and Ministers of Christ So if so what needed him propound the Argument of a Congregation compleat If he Answer no May not a Classicall Presbytery be of use here Else how shall their ordinances be exercised to them For certainly there will be a necessity of exercising some of them of Ordination at least But see the minor also section 2 A particular Congregation rightly constituted and compleated as was expounded before having with the body of Professors a Pastor Teacher and a competent number of Ruling Elders three may be the number hath sufficiency in it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ to Ordain to Excommunicate by it self without forraign we say larger associated Presbyteries Ans 1. We conceive that a particular Congregation may be compleat in Mr. Lockiers sense i. e. having an Eldership intier in all parts thereof such as is an Eldership consisting of one Pastor one Teacher and three Râ—…ing Elders five in all who may be have not sufficiency of abilities as is requisite for due and safe exercising these Ordinances of Ordination and Excommunication But 2. Suppose they had competency of gifts for managing the exercises of these Ordinances yet we say they have not sufficiency in themselves to exercise them without an associate Presbytery where they may conveniently associate because they have not authority and warrand from God in his Word to do it I say where they may convenâ—…ntly associate For we deny not but a particular Congregation being in such a case that it cannot enjoy association with other Churches through a physicall impossibility or impediment in this case of necessity may as it is alone exercise such acts
case ordaine or Excommunicate But we say that when there are more Congregations to associate with and when association may be had they should not performe these acts alone but in an associate Presbytery And we make not the principall ground of this that the Eldership of a particular Congregation is not sufficient viz. for gifts and ability for exercising these acts although there be a ground of necessity of it ordinarly from this It being seldome that in particular Congregations there will bee found Elderships sufficient for managing these maters For although the Eldership of a particular Congregation were very sufficient this way yet we say they ought not to exercise these acts by themselves without an associate Presbytery at least they ought not to do by themselves independently without subordination to larger associate Presbyteries as Mr. Lockier intends because the Scripture doeth not warrand Christ hath not instituted this but the contrare Now his reason following being founded upon this mistake in his Objection which we have cleared there is no great need to insist in following it especially considering it is nothing else but the same in very words with the second reason by the Dissenting Brethren to prove the minor of their first reason against the Assemblie of Divines their Proposition touching Ordination and you have it fully considered and answered by the Assemblie in their answers see their Papers pag. 195. 196. might not Mr. Lockier have read their answer and either spared the presenting us with that reason anew again or given it with some new strength against the Assemblies answers to it exedit miseros crambe repetita section 7 He further proceedeth thus Sect. 44. If one particular Congregation so constituted as is before mentioned be not sufficient to exercise the full power of the Keyes without a forraine still we must bid you correct your nick naming things and say an associate Presbytery then the first Church to wit that of Jerusalem was lame in its power till others were erected And Antioch lame in its power because but one Church in association with it and answerably they made lame work And other Congregations which were scattered up down in Pontus Cappadocia c. Which in all likely-hood by distance of place and by violence of Heathens were in an utter incapacity to any standing associate Elderships were all lame and could not supplie the mortality of their Ministers and Officers and so must indeed sink from a defect intrinsecall being not able to relieve themselves without a forraine an associate power Ans 1. From that which is said by the men Mr. Lockier disputes against it to wit that Elderships of particular Congregations when they may associate with others have not sufficiencie by divine warrand to exercise acts of jurisdiction of publike and common concernment alone and by themselves without the concurrence of associate Elderships much lesse without subordination to them doeth not follow that the Eldership of one single Congregation when there is but that one existing in the world such as he supposeth that of Jerusalem to have been at the first Or if a single Congregation when though there be others existing in the Word yet it is under a Physicall incapacity by some insuperable impediment to associate with others such as he supposeth these Congregations in Pontus Cappadocia c. have been are so lame and imperfect that they cannot in that case when necessity requireth or may not exercise these acts 'T is granted in these cases they may Yet this we say withall a Congregation in such a condition though it be not in such a case of absolute imperfection that it cannot perform necessarie acts of Government for its own preservation yet it is not in so compleat and perfect a state of Government as when it may be and is associate with others for exercise of Government this is sufficient to this reason Onely 2. there is one or two particulars would be noted 1. While as he supposeth that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single Congregation if he mean all the time till other Churches in other places were erected the supposition is beside the truth as has been proven by the Authors we referred to before upon this mater Yet I doubt much if it shall be proven that at any time when there was a Government in it that it was but one single Congregation 2. As to that he sayeth of Antioch by that one Church wherewith it was associate I conceive that he means that of Jerusalem but first how will he prove that it was not associate also with the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Sure there is great likely-hood that it was at least in that Synod at Jerusalem considering that the Synodicall letter is directed to them and it jointly again the very Church of Jerusalem at that time at least was not a single Congregation but a Presbyteriall Church consisting of more particular Congregations as the Authors mentioned have proven and so was Antioch too See â—us Divin of Church Govern P. 2. c. 13. p. 204. Further did not Mr. Lock before acknowledge that meeting at Jerusalem to be a Synod oftner then once whether it was an association of two Churches or more this he acknowledged that it was a Synod 't is true he would have it to have been only consultative and not juridicall But it sufficeth my purpose in calling to mind his acknowledgment which is to shew that he doth very impertinently bring in the Church of Antioch in this Argument seeing he confesseth it to have been in such an association as made up a Synod which is an associate Presbytery superior to a Classicall Presbytery section 8 To that we said in the Answer to this Reason Mr. Lockier would it seemeth say somewhat in the close of this SECT 44. To say that in extraordinary cases unordinary things may be done is little to the satisfaction of a tender heart especially in divine things who is apt to believe that God hath so shaped his publick Ordinances which are injoined to be used in all places that places shall not be a standing let to put his people continually to run beside the instituted rule To this 1. In extraordinary cases to do things unordinary I mean as to the course appointed by a positive law may be with very good satisfaction to a most tender heart that is a well informed and rightly tender heart and not a superstitious heart Have ye not read saith our Saviour Math. 12. 4 5. what David did when he was an hungred and they that were with him how he entred into the house of God and did eat the shew-bread which was not lawfull for him to eat neither for them which were with him but only for the Priests It was an unordinary thing for David or any other men not Priests to eat the Shew-bread Yet in that extraordinary case when David and his company were hungry and no other bread was to be had let their hearts be
never so tender if rightly informed as they did eat so with good satisfaction they might eat it And generally what is not ordinarily to be done by a positive laâ— in an extraordinarie case when necessity requires may be done and a tender heart have good satisfaction in the doing of it even in things divine 2. The nature and constitution of Gods Ordinances is not estimat and defined according to what shape the hearts of men are apt to conceive he has put upon them but according to what his own word saith of his will concerning them It was yeelding to this aptitude of mens hearts in conceiving Gods shaping of Ordinances that baptizing by private persons and even midwives did spring from into the Church of God 3. The ordinary and expresse rule that we speak of that single Congregations should not exercise acts of jurisdiction of publick and common concernment by themselves alone without associat Elderships relates to the case when association may be had But when association cannot possibly be had as if a Congregation be in a remote Iland or divided from all other Churches by some other insuperable impediment of fellowship we say that in that case of necessity it is the ordinary rule to that Congregation to act as it is alone by it self If it shall be said seeing when it is that way alone it may exercise these Ordinances within it self then if other Congregations being in a capacitie to be joined with it may not exercise them alone it is abridged off the former liberty it had before when it was alone by it self I answ this is no abridgement of its liberty but only a strengthening of their power in things of common concernment As suppose there being five Elders in a Congregation while as they are only these five they may act in the Government of that Congregation Yet if other fix be added to them they may not now act without these yet this is no abridging of any liberty they had but a strengthening of their power The truth is that a Congregation in an incapacity of association with other Congregations exerciseth and dispenseth all these Ordinances within it self not as being one single Congregation but as being the whole Church A Congregation in such a case is as if there were not another Congregation in the world and that is to be the whole Church interpretativè Just as there being in a Congregation five Elders only these five act all things belonging to Elders in the Congregation not because they are such a definite competent number but because they are the whole number Because if they did act as being such a definite number they could not admit any moe to joyne with them in the work section 9 Further it is saith he confessed by our Brethren that the Judicatures of Classes and Congregations do not differ specifically but only in extension Then if they differ only in extension the intrinsecall power of the Elders of the Congregation is the same with the Elders of Classes And then there is no specificall act that the one puts forth but the other can put forth too as occasion shall require can Ordain and Excommunicate as the Collegiat Church and so is the Congregationall Church compleat if the Classicall Church be Answ 1. Mr. Lockier is not well enough acquainted it seemeth with the judgement of all Pâ—esbyterians concerning the difference between Congregationall and Classicall Elderships when as he sayeth that they confesse there is no specificall or formall difference between them if he were acquainted better with them he would find some to be of that mind that tho there be Elders of a single Congregation yet that there is not a Presbytery of a single Congregation having power to exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and I confesse it is hard to find any pattern in the Word of God of such a Presbytery But 2. When as he sayeth that in the confession of Presbyterians they differ only in extension he mistakes the judgement of the most part of all Presbyterians who and that indeed according to truth hold that the power of a Classicall Presbytery as to the exercise of Government not only reaches a larger object i. e. differs in extension but also more acts of jurisdiction as Ordination Excommunication which the Eldership of a single Congregation as one single Congregation cannot exercise and that is to differ intensivè But I suppose all were granted which is asked here that Classicall Presbyteries differ not specifically from Congregationall that their power of jurisdiction differs only extensivè that there is no specificall act exercised by the Classicall but the Congregationall may exercise in it self when occasion requires and so that it is compleat this way which is just such compleatnesse as we mean when we say that a Boy is a compleat Man tho all this were granted does it hereupon follow that larger associate Presbyteries juridicall are uselesse devices of men No wayes as has been shewed before Altho it were granted that the Eldership of a particular Congregation may exercise all these specificall acts there may be many cases wherein it may be not only expedient but necessary that the matter be judged and determined by an associate Presbytery as when it is a matter of great difficultie when other Congregations are much and nearly or equally concerned when there is division and difference in the Congregationall Eldership or Church that the matter cannot be agreed upon and determined amongst themselves when there is an appeal propter malam administrationem vel malam administrationem praesumptam c. section 10 Finally SECT 46. If the particular Church had not been compleat to do its own work without a forrain an associate Eldership the Apostles would have mentioned something of this combineing of Elderships and when this might been surely the Church of Christ durst not neglect the use of it And yet we find not the one and do find the other the Apostle when he took his leave of the Church of Ephesus commends it not to associat Elders but both Elders and people as one flock to the grace of God Act. 20. 32. Answ 1. Let it be so that the particular Church is compleat to do its own work Yet 1. Is not every Congregation as a part of the whole body of the Visible Church of Christ to look to the work of fellow members and parts and of the whole according to its measure and proportion of power Should one member say to another I must see to my own work Ought I to care for thee Are there not matters of publick and common concernment 2. No particular Church is politically so compleat as to do every work of its own in every case as has been shewed but it will in this stand in need of an associat Superiour Eldership 3. It hath been abundantly proven by the Authors we referred to before that Scripture is not silâ—nt but often mentioneth the thing of associated Presbyteries and all
exceptions made to the contrary abundantly confuted 4. What Mr. Lockier has found or not found we know not nor stands on it but he might have found a Presbytery over more Congregations then one in Jerusalem Antioch Corinth Ephesus and he cannot deny but he has found the Church of Antioch making use of an associate Synodicall Presbytery at Jerusalem and that that Presbytery was more then consultative even authoritative and juridicall has been proven But I think what ever he conceives that he has found of a Congregationall Eldership exercising jurisdiction Ordaining or Excommunicating by it self he shall hardly point us to the place of Scripture where he found the instance of it what he saith of the Elders and Church of Ephesus from Acts 20. has been answered before SECTION XII Reply to Mr. Lockiers Answers to some Objections from SECTION 47. to the end wherein separation from not onely this Church of Scotland but all the Protestant Presbyterian Churches as Idolatrous is driven at section 1 MR. Lockier having hitherto gone about as he could to maintain that the power of the Keyes and Government of the Church of Christ ought not to be in the hands of Officers and Governours set over the Church in the Lord by the Lord himself but in the hands of the whole Church and that in the hands of every particular Congregation independently and supremely without association in or subordination unto any common Ecclesiastick Government which how well he has asserted and maintained we leave it to all understanding impartiall Readers to give their judgement he applyes himself to Answer some Objections against the things he has handled as he sayeth But what Objections are they I pray none of those which are brought directly against the points maintained by him before this Likely he found these too hard for him to grapple with and therefore thought it his wisedome to passe them rather by in silence And the Objections he brings are onely some things which he conceived might been said against his designe in casting this Little Stone at Presbyterian Churches to drive all good Christians if they might be affrighted to separation from them A wicked and shamefull designe especially for a man professing Godlinesse to have set before him I mind not here to insist or enlarge myself upon the Question of Separation from Churches not onely because other learned men have spoken abundantly and well upon that purpose namely my Reverend and Learned Collegue in the Ministrie and Superiour in the society wherein I live Mr. Rutherfurd in his Peaceable Plea and Due Right But also because I find nothing brought by this Author upon the mater worth the staying upon in handling that mater I shall onely give some few notes upon some things the Author I think out of hear of passion hath vented himself in section 2 Having Sect. 47. objected to himself thus You seem to be for separation from a Presbyteriall Church We find no separation but in case of Idolatry To this Sect. 48. he answers thus in summe That not only heathens had their idolatry as Dagon but also Christians theirs as a supreme Bishop over all Churches which he insinuateth to have been the Papists Idolatrie Alas he might have given other instances of their Idolatry then this as their worshiping a breaden god Crucifixes Relicks Saints departed Images c. then a supreme Bishop or Archbishop over the Church in such a Nation the Prelaticall Protestants Idol he would say and then a combination of Bishops over Churches hereby meaning an associat Presbyterie or Assembly Presbyteers Ruling more Churches odiously calling them Bishops that to him is also Idolatry So that command 2 Cor. 6. 17. come out from one kind of Idolatrie is come out from all Or else that rule binds only to separate from Heathnish Idolatrie What is not warranted by the Word is an Idol Answ We shall not deny but that whatsoever is practized in the Worship of God or set up as an Ordinance without Gods warrand in his Word may be comprehended under Idolatry taking Idolatrie in a large sense but that every thing set up or practized in the Worship of God or in Ordinances is such Idolatry as is a ground sufficient to separate from a Church wherein it is practized as no true Church is a conceit in it self without warrand of the Word nay directly contrare to the allowed practise of Gods people in the Word both in Old and New Testament This conceit of Mr. Lockiers is very Brounisme and rigide Separatisme ingraine But of this and the place 2 Cor. 6. 17. see enough in the Reverend Author whom I last mentioned But as for association or combination of Churches under a common Presbyterie it is warranted in the Word of God and so is his Ordinance as has been abundantly proven and what Mr. Lockier has brought to the contrare we trust has been sufficiently refuted And therefore let him consider his account he has to make to Almighty God for so atrocious a calumnie as his branding it with the name of Idolatrie and involving all the Reformed Orthodox Churches of Jesus Christ in the fearfull crime of Idolatrie And as for his pressing separation from all the Reformed Churches as Idolatrous I shall say no more but bring some Godly men amongst Independents themselves giving testimony against him Hear Mr. Hooker speaking in the name of the Divines of new England of the Congregations of old England I would sayeth he intreat the Reader that if he meet with such accusations that we nullifie all Churches beside our own that we are rigide Separatists c. such bitter calumnies a wise meek spirit passeth by them as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion That which that Godly man in name of many other Independent Brethren with him intreats may not be believed to be thought or said by them accounteth it an unworthie and groundlesse aspersion Mr. Lockier with open mouth ownes and proclaimes that and worse Then we see what the Dissenting Brethren in the Assemblie of Divines say of their keeping communion with Presbyterian Churches Papers given in to the Honourable Committee c. pag. 29 30. holding communion with neighbour Churches in baptizing our Children as occasion may fal out in absence of Ministers in their Churches by occasional receiving the Communion in their Churches Also our Ministers to Preach in their Congregations and receiving theirs also to Preach in ours as Ministers of the Gospel as mutually their shall be a call from each other when we have any cases hard and difficult for our selves to advise with the Elders of their Churches in case of choise of Elders to seek the approbation and right hand of fellowship from Godly Ministers of their Churches and when an Ordination falls out to desire the presence and approbation of their Elders with our own In case any of our Churches miscarry through mal-administration to be willing upon scandall taken by their Churches to give an account as unto Sister Churches
and much worse I will not say the worst that might be said but shall rather pray God to be mercifull to you in this matter so blinded with prejudice and transported with passion far otherwise then becometh a man professing to have the meek and wise Spirit of Christ 1. If speaking so broadly he mean of Presbyterian Churches through the World as indeed your discourse here for pulling them down and separating from them runneth generally without any exception or limitation that for their matter three parts of four are naught prophane atheists c. What bold and blind conjecturing is this 2. If ye mean only the Church of Scotland and that therein three parts of four are naught prophane atheists both Elders and people Yet I say who art thou that judgeth another mans servant No doubt many amongst us are nothing such as they ought to be and it has been alwayes so for the most part in Churches from the beginning But that they are so many and so grosse prophane atheists both people and Elders for a man that is a stranger to the most part of our Churches Elders and people thereof to pronounce so peremptorly is more then he dare answer to God or his own conscience upon second considerat thoughts 3. Suppose it were so indeed that three of four in Churches were naught yet supposing in Churches there be the true Doctrine of the Gospel Preached the Sacraments for their substance and essentialls agreeable to their institution the acts of worship for matter pure must therefore Gods people separat from those Churches and the true Ordinances and Worship of God therein Or must the Churches be pulled down and plucked up root and branch Shew us warrand either of precept or practice for this in the whole Word of God Nay the strain of Prophets Apostles and Christ himself are clearly as the Sun-shine against it How often was it so with the ancient Church that we may say more then three parts of four were prophane and naught And yet did not the Godly and the Prophets of the Lord continue in the exercise of the Ordinances and Worship of God in that Church Was it not so in the Church of the Jews in the time of Christ being amongst them upon earth Did ever Christ for that require his Disciples to depart and separat from that Church Or did he not himself never a white the lesse continue in the Church communion thereof Yea when in glory writing a Letter to the Church of Sardis of whom he testifies that they had a name that they were living but yet were dead and that there were but a few names there which had not defiled their garments Yet his wise and meek zeal is not for pulling down and rooting up and separating from the Church Communion in his Ordinances and Worship But that is his direction v. 2 3. Be watchfull and strengthen the things which remain and are ready to die Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard and hold fast and repent 4. But suppose that de facto in some Churches the generality of persons Elders and people were so grosse and abominably prophane that there were no living for godly ones amongst them is this a good Argument to prove that the very species and kinde must be destroyed and plucked up root and branch Unlesse that Mr. Lockier could shew that the way of Presbyterian Churches of it self in its very kind allowes Churches to be constitute so of persons notoriously prophane and atheists that will not follow But if he shall say this we will avow it to be a slander 5. When as he will have our Churches to be destitute of a right forme because they are not united by way of their Church-Covenant but are knit together only by situation and by forrain forensicall Elderships And upon this account will have them no Churches but only carcasses of Churches It is utterly false that we make situation or cohabitation in place or a forrain Eldership the form of our Churches We say according to the Word of God that the form which gives the being to the Universall Church Visible and unto every member thereof is the profession of and entering unto that generall Covenant with God in his Son Jesus Christ and whereby every Christian is oblidged and engaged to walk in all the wayes of God and perform all duties towards God and other Christians in all their relations required of them according as God giveth opportunity and occasion to perform and exercise them As for Mr. Lockiers Church-Covenant distinct from that generall Covenant with God in Christ as the form of a particular Church giving it the being of a Church and right to the Ordinances of Christ 't is nothing else but a new device of men having no warrand of precept or example in the Word of God either of the Old or New Testament And his un-Churching of our Churches for want of such a Covenant as this is like many other things in this peece has more boldnesse in it then understanding or reason Concerning this matter of the Church-Covenant See Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right of Presbytery Caudrey Review of Mr. Hookers Survey cap. 4. Gul. Apollon Consider of certain Controversies section 6 Mr. Lockier going on yet more to vent his Brounisticall separation objects to himself thus SECT 54. But will no my protest serve the turn If things be corrupt in the Church and I protest against them may not I go on with that Church As for instance If they take in corrupt members or admit corrupt or impenitent communicants And I protest against those may I not go on and partake with these and yet be innocent and enjoy as much presence of God in his Ordinances as if all were holy and good To which he answereth SECT 55. 1. If protesting were only words then such a thing will do But to say the precious should not mingle with the vile and yet the man doth this daily and continually is not to protest but to mock and dissemble Because here is not a meer passivenesse in this man as to the going on in that thing which he protests against 2. Again in practical things t is not so much a mans word as his practice which gives the dislike If a man of an idolatrous Church should stand up and protest against the Masse and yet still go to Masse I doubt how well this would please God or deliver him from guilt Naaman implicitely protests against the idolatry he had practised that he would worship no God but the God of Israel and did he continue to bow down Yes say some but he begs pardon for it But most aptly in our last English Annot. The word being rendered in the time past Pardon that I bowed down 3. Protesting is a piece of revenge which is the vehemence of Repentance and the clearing of ones self which how well this will accord with halting and halving is worthy of deep thoughts of heart Can two
walk together c. 4. And our Brethren when they protest against an Assembly do not submit unto it section 7 Here is sweet stuffe forsooth very Brounisticall separation ingrain'd That if any things be corrupted in a Church suppose wicked and scandalous persons be retained therein and admitted to Ordinances albeit therein be the true Doctrine of the Gospel Preached and worship for the acts thereof and other Ordinances for their substance right Godly Christians must separate from such Churches and may not in the very instituted Ordinances of Christ and true exercise of worship joyn with such Churches wherein such wicked persons joins with them This is the drift and upshot of this passage as any discerning man may perceive tho it be very intricately and confusedly expressed We shall not need to fall upon a refutation of this vile errour which has been so learnedly and fully refuted of old by the Orthodox Ancients especially Augustin and Optatus in Donatists by the first Reformers in the fantastick Anabaptists See particularly Mr. Rutherfurds Learned Disputes on this purpose in his Peaceable Plea and in his Due Right of Presbytery I shall for the present note but some few things on that which Mr. Lockier hath here section 8 And first to the propounding of the case in the Object as it is so generally and comprehensively expressed If things be corrupted in the Church and I protest against them may I not go on with that Church We owne not the affirmative of it We acknowledge that it is not lawfull to go on with any Church in the practice of things that are corrupt in it 2. We acknowledge further that there may be such corrupt things in a Church or a society taking unto them the name and profession of a Church as that it is not lawfull to go on with such a Church or join with them in Church communion at all as where the Worship is grossely idolatrous or Doctrine is publickly taught or professed contrary to the very foundation of Christianity But bring the case to the particular corruption instanced by the Author and then we say that if in a Church through negligence or loosnesse of discipline corrupt members be admitted or wicked scandalous persons be admitted to the Communion the Godly indeed ought in an orderly way to testify against such a corruption to say to Archippus to the Minister and Rulers take heed to your Ministry to mourn for such abuses in the Church But ought not to separat from that Church and the exercise of the true Worship and Ordinances of Christ therein But may go on and partake with that Church in warranted acts of Worship participation of the Sacraments in the exercise of all Gods instituted Ordinances and yet be free of the sin of corrupt fellow partakers of these Ordinances and of the sin of Rulers sinfully admitting such enjoy Gods presence in the Ordinances as well as if all joining with them were holy and good and to say that other mens wickednesses in abuse of Ordinances prejudices or defiles these Ordinances to me using them aright for my self and testifying against mourning for others abuse thereof is a wild errour contrary to the stream of holy Scripture both in the Old and new Test as has been abundantly demonstrated by these I last mentioned section 9 Now for his exceptions against this To the first to protest against a thing as evil and wicked and yet daily and continually to go on in the acting of that thing and practizing it is indeed a wicked mocking of God and man But daily and continually to go on in the exercise of a lawfull and necessary duty in the company of wicked persons against whose wickednesse I do testifie and does all that is incumbent to me in my station is not to mock or dissemble nor to do the thing I protest against I am but a mere passive or has no concurrence to the wickednesse of others But there is here in Mâ— Lockiers words a grosse supposing or begging of the very thing mainly in Question viz. That if wicked persons be admitted to fellowship in a Church as to the communion of the Lords Supper that the thing a Godly Christian ought to protest or testifie against is all joyning in the Ordinance when such wicked persons are joining therein with them This is a very begging of the thing in Question and utterly false The thing the Godly ought to testifie and protest against is the wickeds presuming to abuse the Ordinance and the Rulers sinfull permitting them so to do But to say he does or should protest that no Godly person ought to use the Ordinance of God or performe warrantable Worship when wicked persons either thrust themselves in with them or negligent Rulers permits them so to do is to suppose the thing in Question and is unwarrantable yea contrare to the current streame of the practise of the Godly under the Old and New Testament both yea to the practise of Jesus Christ himself in the Church of the Jews To his second exception 'T is true in practicall things it is not so much a mans word as his practise which gives the dislike But the Question is whether the performance of a lawfull and necessary duty of worship or exercise of a true Ordinance of Jesus Christ for instance partaking of the Lords Supper to remember his death till he come againe when and where wicked and scandalous persons will thrust themselves in to do it prophanely or are permitted by Rulers so to do be such a practicall thing as I am oblidged to dislike as a thing unlawfull for me to do this is the Question the negative whereof we hold to be the truth of God held forth in his Word The instance produced by the Author for clearing this his second exception viz. of a man in an Idolatrous Church protesting against the Masse and yet still going to Masse is so grossely and absurdly impertinent that one may wonder how it could be alledged in this purpose by an intelligent man The Masse is even upon the mater one of the grossest Idolatries that ever was in the world And for a man to go to Masse when he pretends to protest to go against it is to adde to commission of Idolatry mocking of God and sinning against light professedly So that Mr. Lockier needed not make it a mater of doubting how well such a practise should please God or deliver the man from guiltinesse But what is this to participating of a true Ordinance of Jesus Christ for instance the communion of the Lords Table in a Church not Idolatrous but may be negligent and loose in the exercise of Discipline and permitting wicked scandalous persons to participate in that Ordinance when the Godly participating with them testifies against such abuse in the Ordinances Nay can it be freed from great rashnesse I will not say that which I might to parallel these two together But yet farther to bring in as a parallel
are against Anabaptists all their writings shew and how much they lay to our charge for ushering in and countenancing this Tenent Answ How we holding Baptism to be the seal and solemn admission of Visible Church members do gratifie the judgement and practice of the Anabaptists in that which is Anabaptism their excluding of Infants of Christians from Baptism I professe my self one that cannot see The Author would have done well to have assayed to shew us how that any way advantageth their Tenent Indeed he sayeth true that Presbyterians are much against Anabaptists Doctrine But would hereby fasten a peece of dottage upon them Because that being so much against that Doctrine they yet maintain a Tenet concerning Baptisme that much gratifies it but let him assay to clear this for it is not enough to say any one may see it What ground there is to looke upon his Tenet concerning the allowed matter of the visible Church as tending to Anabaptism we have shewed before in the 1. part of this Examination But it seems to me that in this place the Author does not a little gratifie the judgement of the totall enemies of Baptism and Socinians that accounts it needlesse amongst Christians While as he averres that there may be a Church he must mean a Christian Church else he speaks not to purpose before baptism and that even before they be baptized acting eminent Church acts as making to themselves Ministers If this to averre that persons may be a Church without baptism and men may be Ministers of a Christian Church without baptism if this Assertion be not advantagious to enemies of Baptism I leave it to the Authors second thoughts section 14 His last Ojection But since this opinion prevailed we see a vast toleration of all strange and damnable Doctrines This indeed is an heavy prejudice against your way and the thing in fact is too too palpably true and you could not here deny it but only goes about to extenuat yea and in a great measure to justifie it and so much the more sad is this charge against you that not only hath this thing eventually followed since your opinion has prevailed But it tends to this in the very nature of it while as it attributes to every single Congregation may be of seven or ten persons an Independent supream Ecclesiasticall power in matters of Religion so that if any such Congregation should hold and teach any Haereticall Doctrine there is no Ecclesiastick power on earth that can authoritatively interpose to reclaim or censure them And for the Civil Magistrate he say you must take heed how he useth his sword for a weed-hook in these maculis mentis But now briefly see we what the Author returneth in answer to this charge section 15 We are willing to be a terrour to evill works and as unwilling to be a terrour to good We are not so well skilled in divine things as to tell what every thing is in the bud We are patient more then some would have us till the bud blossome and bear and when we see the fruit naught upon all occasions we give our witnesse against it by dispute discountenance and otherwayes as we understand the Word to warrand us Answ Alas Sr are you so ill skilled in Divine things as that you cannot tell what these many vile errors vented and taught by many in these lands are which yet to this day are permitted without any terrour used against them and think you that terrour enough against such things to Dispute against them as for discountenancing them we professe we can find no discountenancing of any maintaining errors amongst us more then those that are most orthodox and for your other wayes of witnessing against them we know not what it is forsooth Sr a bold Haeretick will care much for all your Disputes yet I beleeve it is little testimony even this way that this Author has given against the grosse errours of the time let him shew if ever he has moved his tongue or imployed his pen against Anabaptism Antinomianism Arminianism Socinianism and other grosse errours which he knowes aboundeth amongst his Countrey-men both at home and in the Army in this Land as 〈◊〉 has done with much bitterness against the Government of the Church of Scotland which yet is according to the truth of God and if not he personally * I know not if Mr. Lockier has taken the Covenant yet the supream Representative of his Nation and many of the prime Officers of the Army stand bound by the Covenant and Oath of GOD to maintain and defend section 16 But saith he if Tares and Wheat must grow together into the World till the end thereof the Civill Magistrate had need to be wary how he useth his Sword for a Weed-hook in maculis mentis spots of the mind lest Presbytery get a by-blow amongst the rest Some mens weapons to fight in their quarrels are to us as Sauls Armour to David too heavy we cannot tell how to wield them Because we take a litle stone and a sling when others would take an halter and a crosse do we then give a vast toleration Not by might nor by power Civill but by Gods Spirit in his Word and other Ordinances we fight in these quarrels Which weapons the not so terrible to look on yet are mighty through God to east down strong imaginations of vain men Answ 1. They are not meer maculae mentis that we think the Magistrates Sword should medle with But to extenuat damnable Doctrines vented to the high dishonour of God and seduceing of souls from the Truth of God to the destruction of their souls under the name of spots of the mind favours little of the true zeal of God and to reckon in Presbyterie amongst these is to call light darknesse for which I pray God grant the Aâ—thor Repentance 2. If the Civil Magistrate must use the Sword to be a terrour to evill works either he must use it as a Weed-hook against such Haereticall Doctrines or you must say that Haereticall Doctrines are no evill works which is to contradict the Word of God in terminis Philip. 3. 2. 3. It is but an odious intimation that we would have an halter and crosse taken against the teachers of every erroneous Doctrine Indeed there be some blasphemous Doctrines and not a few of them in the time As a halter or a crosse is too little for the obstinat venters of them * I have heard with mine ears soÌ„e boldly avow that every man anointed with the spirit is as much a Christ as JESUS the Sonne of GOD. but there are others wayes whereby the Civil Magistrats might imploy their power for suppressing false Doctrines from being brought forth to the dishonouring of God if they were as zealous for Gods honour as they are for their own interest 〈◊〉 4. While as you do here take off the Civil power from medling with these strange and damnable doctrines and allowes
confession that the bearing in of these thoughts upon them at first has been from no good cause or principle Not from the Spirit of God unlesse they will say it has been by an immediate impulse or Enthusiasme For say they it was after a long times suppressing of them that they began to consult with the Word of God about them for that is as I conceive to bring them to the ballance of the Sanctuary 3. If implicitely they engaged themselves to the maintenance of the Government desined and settled in this Church sure then if they will reflect upon the nature and tenor of the engagement they may find themselves to have committed in the very act more sin than they insinuate here or I will name For let them look back again unto the Nationall Covenant and they shall find that they not only engaged themselves to the maintenance of the Religion professed in this Church in all the points thereof But also declared and protested themselves under Oath after due Examination of their own consciences in maters of true and false Religion to be throughly resolved of the Truth thereof by the Word and Spirit of God and therefore to believe with their hearts confesse with their mouth and subscribe with their hands I do indeed â—ear that many did run unto that Engagement without such conviction of mind upon clear warrand of Gods Word found by Examination of the maters And as to do this with so solemne and dreadfull an attestation of God that they did it upon conviction of conscience was horrible guiltinesse So it may wel be apprehended that God in his holy judgement has suffered many for the discovery of the falshood of their hearts may be in mercy to some may be in wrath to others to revolt from these their former Engagements I wish from my heart these Brethren so I will yet call them if they will yet be so called by us if it be true which they say now that they engaged implicitely whereas they protested before God that they did it upon through conviction they would consider this lay it to heart and yet againe bring their present way to the ballance of the Sanctuary I have been with others witnesse of some who having engaged in the cause of God in these lands and caried themseves therein for a long time resolutely and actively and having afterward foully lapsed into contrary courses when they have been brought to Repentance for their backsliding Have declared that they found that their back-sliding had arisen from this that their engaging in the cause at first and going on in it formerly was not upon conviction from grounds of the Word of God but implicitely and for by and extrinsecall respects 4. It is not competent to me to question nor will I question their diligence in seeking of God when they began to enquire about this matter tho it be a thing usuall now-a-dayes for men to set out naughtiest wares with this inscription after seeking of God but as for using of all helps they could have to be cleared I think some thing may be questioned For besides helps of mens Writings upon this purpose might they not have used the help of the advice of the Judicatories of this Kirk and represented the grounds of their doubting to some of them Acts of Generall Assemblies require this that before men vent any innovations in matters of Religion they should first peaceably represent their Reasons to the publick Judicatures And albeit they may haply say that the very matters they were questioning was the Authority of these Judicatories Yet humility if they had not overweening conceits of their own wits above the judgement of these Judicatures and charity if they had so much as they ought towards the Church wherein they were born baptized instructed some of them had been for some years Ministers and acting in association in the established Judicatures thereof might it seemeth led them to so much But if they accounted the Judicatures unworthy the consulting with might they not have used the help of conference with some of these precious and learned men whom they professe to reverence If they did consult with any of them before they were determined in the matter yea before they did vent their new judgement is more then I know or can learn But come we to their determination and the confirmation of it section 2 So far say they as we can see the Congregationall way comes nearer to the patern of the Word then the Classicall form Here it may be asked why they say only that the Congregationall way comes nearer to the patern and not simply that it is the way conform to the patern of the Word What does the Congregationall way it self come somewhat short of the patern and is there a third way distinct both from it and the Classicall that comes full up to it Is there here a reservation for a further light It may be we may hear somewhat of this ere all be done But go we on to their desinition or proposition of the Congregationall way To us say say it appeareth that Christ hath furnished a Congregation with their Eldership with compleat power of Jurisdiction and censure within themselves There are here two things asserted by the Authors which accordingly they intend to prove by their two Arguments respectivè afterward built upon the passage of Scripture which they cite 1. That by Christs appointment the power of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction and censure is in the Congregation i. e. the body of privat professours and the Eldership jointly both being to concur formally in the acting thereof and not only in the Eldership 2. That any one single Congregation with its Eldership has compleat power of jurisdiction and censure within it self supreamly and without subordination to any larger or superiour Preâ—…yterie But for further clearing of their minde here it were requisit they should explain these two things to us 1. Whom they mean by the Congregation contradistinguished from the Eldership whether the whole collection of Church-members or only men and those of years of discretion If the former then Women and Children must be joint with the Eldership in the power of jurisdiction and censures If this be their minde we would know it and they would speak it plainly If the latter then it is not the Congregation but some part of the Congregation with the Eldership that has the power of jurisdiction and censure or else Women and Children are not parts constituent of the Congregation and then let them tell me where shall they find the name of the Church in all the Gospel in this notion taken for the Eldership with the â—ale-professours of adult years excluding Women and Children 2. Suppose the whole Eldership of a Congregation be scandalous and censurable who has the power of jurisdiction and censure to exercise toward them If jurisdiction and censure should be exercised towards them as I suppose it should be who has it and
Office Nor do we deny but the people might be present at the handling of matters of faith in Assemblies be hearers and witnesses of the whole proceedings thereanent give their counsell and advice in consultation also testifie their assent and approbation to the determinations We grant also that Excommunication and loosing from Excommunication of persons was not performed without at least the tacit agreement and consent of the people â—hey are to concur activè and executivè to both And therefore when any person was to be Excommunicat the grounds and causes thereof were made known to the people And when persons Excommunicat were to be received again into the Church they were brought before the people to make their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 publick confession before them as we do in our Churches now but none of these nor all of them amounts to an authoritative and juridicall power of Government But as for such acts as belong directly to authoritative and juridicall Government as Ordination of Ministers judiciall sentencing persons to be Excommunicat or absolution from Excommunication giving of definitive sentence in publick determinations of controversies of faith or of matters pertaining to order and rites to be observed in the Church let our Authors produce any testimony or allowed practice of the peoples formall influence and concurrence in these if they would say any thing from that antiquity for an Ecclesiastick Government properly Democraticall either in whole or in part section 15 Hierome who was near these ages and better acquaint with their way then these Authors tells us in the generall in whose hands the power of Government was then in that remarkable and famous saying of his on the Epistle to Tit. c. 1. Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populo ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego vero Cephae Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur c. See what learned Chamier sayeth on this of Hierome lib. 10. de Oecumen Pontifc 5. § 22. Answering to Bellarmin his Arg. Respondeo ad primum etiamsi Aristocratia non sit totidem syllabis nominata tamen certò significatam his verbis Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur c. And he adds bonam autem fuisse id regiminis formam inde sequitur quod ab initio fuisse dicat Hieronymus cum in Ecclesiâ id sit optimum quod verissimum id autem verissimum quod primum Dicit etiam Hieron fuisse ex institutionis Dominicae veritate And mark in this same Learned Author whose words I am now citing that the very thing he undertakes to demonstrate in that c. 5. and some following both from Scripture and antiquity is that the government as well of particular as of consociat Churches was pure Aristocracy c. 5. § 1. section 16 More particularly 1. That ordination and imposition of hands which only is the authoritative act in the Calling of a Minister and that which conferreth Ministerially under Christ a Mininisteriall power was in these primitive times the proper and peculiar act of the Ministers of the Church or the Presbytery is so evident and clear to all that has read any thing of these times that it were waste of time and paper to produce testimonies for it Indeed we find in antiquity that after that once there began a constant praesident to be set up in the Presbytery with the name of Bishop which in Scripture is common to all Presbyters appropriat to him alone somewhat of the Act of Ordination began also to be peculiar to him and as he advanced in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preheminency above Presbyters so was the power of ordination more and more deferred to him or usurped by him alone and hence came that point of difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter of which Jerome in his time Quid facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter But that ever the people had any formall concurrence in ordination of Ministers is a thing unknown to antiquity section 17 2. That the power and exercise of the Keyes of Discipline of binding and loosing sentencing unto censure and absolution from censure also was only in the hands of the Colledge of Presbyters in those times of the Church is as evident to such as are any ways acquainted in them Origen Hom. 7. in Iosuam tertio admonitum resipiscere nolentem jubet ab Ecclesiae corpore desecari per Ecclesiae praesides The Centuriators Cent. 3. c. 7. tels us that then Jus tractandi de Excommunicandis aut recipiendis lapsis publice penes Ecclesiae Seniores erat qui ad eam rem convenire solebant and they cite for this Tertullians Apologetick The order then observed in receiving penitents that had offended by grievous scandalous sins is most clear for this they were first to compear before the Bishop and his Clergy i. e. the Presbytery wherein the Bishop then differed from other Presbyters ordine tantum non gradu by them the penitents cause was judicially cognosced the manner of satisfaction prescribed and enjoyned to them And having performed that and made their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the people they were actually absolved by the imposition of the hands of the Bishop and Clergy or the Presbytery Cyprians Epistles are full of testimonies to this purpose It were needlesse labour to insist in citation of them Only I think it worth the pains to produce one Passage whereby it may evidently appear that the way of absolving and receiving penitents was just as it is now in the Presbyterian Government as to the matter and substance It is in lib. 3. Epist 11. in Pamel Ord. Epist 46. from Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Cyprian concerning the return of some Confessours from the Novatian schism to the unity of the Church there Cornelius after he has related how these Confessours had expressed their desire of reconciliation to the Presbyters and taken with the faults laid to their charge in a privat and extrajudiciall way he proceedeth thus Omni igitur actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque qui hodie praesentes fuerunt ut firmato consilio quid circa personam eorum observari deberet consensu omnium statueretur Et ut motum omnium consilium singulorum dignosceres etiam sententias nostras placuit in notitiam vestri perferri quas subjectas leges His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt Vrbanus c. Et plerique fratres qui se iis adjunxerant summis precibus desiderantes ut ea quae ante fuerunt gesta in oblivionem cederent nullaque eorum mentio haberetur quod erat consequens omnis hic actus populo erat insinuandus ut ipsos viderent in Ecclesiâ constitutos Having related the peoples expression of their joy he sets down the confession which the penitents made Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. And then addeth istâ
eorum professione non moveremur Vt quod apud potestatem seculi erant confessi in Ecclesiâ constituti comprobarent Quamobrem Maximum Prespyterum jussimus locum suum agnoscere caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus I need not comment upon the place it speaks plain enough of it self what we are pleading for section 18 3. That the giving of definitive sentence in questions of faith or making Ecclesiastick constitutions and canons concerning order to be observed in the Church in these ages did ordinarily pertaine only to Ministers of the Church Bishops and Elders that though others privat Christians might be present hear and consult that yet these only did sit and vote as ordinary Judges is undenyablie clear by the Historie of all Councels that were then held in the Church I say ordinary For I deny not but that sometimes such as were not in any such Ministeriall office did also sit and concur in giving definitive sentence But these were not any whatsoever privat Christians promiscuously But eminent learned and pious men and having authoritie and calling thereunto either by antecedent agreement of the Churches that were to meet in the Assembly or by a subsequent assuming and calling of them by the Assembly it self Which was an especiall vocation unto the Ministeriall office ad tempus and in relation to these particular acts which were to be done in the Synode and in so far did exempt them è sorte out of the state of meer private Christians But that such as were meer privat Christians i. e. were neither ordinary Ministers nor had a speciall calling extra ordinem concurred to give definitive sentence in Assemblies was a thing unknowne See what Junius a man well versed in antiquitie sayeth to Bellarm Cont. 3. lib. 2. c. 25. n. 2. speaking in relation to ancient Councels Eorum qui Conciliis intersunt varia esse genera Esse audientes qui in Doctrina ordine ex auditione informantur Esse doctos qui ad consultationem adhibentur Esse denique Episcopos Presbyteros qui decidunt res ferendis sententiis And again Cont. 4. lib. 1. c. 15. n. 15. qui sine authoritate Ecclesiae adjunt eorum alii etiam consultationibus adhiberi possunt ut docti praetertim Ecclesiastici sed dicere sententiam definitivam non possunt section 19 I hear of two main Objections which use to be be made against what I have been pleading for and for the concurrence of the people in the exercise of the Government of the Church 1. That is alledged of the Magdeburg Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134. coeterum si quis probatos autores hujus saeculi perspiciat videbit formam gubernationis propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem fuisse To which may be added that of learned Whitak Cont. 4. q. 1. c. 1. sic partim Aristocraticum partim Democraticum partim etiam Monarchicum n. si velimus Christum ipsum respicere as he sayeth a little before est semperque fuit Ecclesiae Regimen Answ That these Authors called the Government of the Church either much like unto a Democraticall or in part Democraticall their meaning and intention was not that the whole body of private Professours did formally concur in the exercise of such acts as are formally authoritative and judiciall acts of Government which were requisite to make the Government formally and properly Democraticall either in whole or in part But only because of such things competent to them as we have mentioned § 14. which are no authoritative or judiciall acts of Government And first for the Magdeburg see how they explicate that which they say in the next following words Singulae enim Ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum Dei pure docendi Sacramenta Administrandi absolvendi excommunicandi Haereticos sceleratos ceremonias ab Apostolis acceptas exercendi aut etiam pro ratione aedificationis novas condendi Ministros eligendi vocandi ordinandi justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi In these words there are two things expresly observable to our purpose 1. That they in explicating the Democracy they speak of speak not of the power of single persons as to maters of Government but of single or particular Churches Singulae enim Ecclesiae say they parem habebant potestatem c. whereby it may easily and evidently appear that while they say that the Government of the Church was much like a Democracy they mean this not to take away the Government out of the hands of Christs Officers of the Church to put it in the hands of the whole people at least to joine these with them in the formall and proper actings of it But in opposition to that authoritative and juridicall superiority of any one particular Chutch over other particular Churches as the Prelaticall men pleaded for authoritative superioritie in their cathedrall Churches over all particular Churches in the Diaecese and the Papalins for an universall superioritie and supremacie in the Church of Rome over all other Churches in the world 2. It is to be observed that among other things which they reckon up as parts of the Church Government which they say was much like Democracie they put in the Preaching of the Word and Admistration of Sacraments which themselves before say and no man of sound judgment will deny are acts proper to the called Ministers of Christ Whence also it is manifest that they mean not a Democracie properly so called which putteth the formall power and exercise of Government in the hands of all and every one of the multitude which the Independent Brethren plead for And indeed will any man consider what the particular Churches were to which these Centuriators attribute private Synods Cent. 2. c. 7. pag. 130. wherein it may possibly be conceived that Democracie could have place especially and it may easily be perceived that they were such as the whole body of the people for whose right to concur in juridicall acts the Independent Brethren pleads could not possibly meet together in one or be present at once in their Synods when assembled for exercise of jurisdiction For most part at least of them which they call particular Churches were of such amplitude and so numerous that such an assembling of their whole body was not possible and in truth they were Diaecesan or Presbyteriall Churches and not such single Congregations as the Question between us and the Independent Brethren concerneth For mark it in that very place last cited speaking of these particular Churches and their private Synods they bring in the Romane Church for an instance And who knows not how numerous the Christians in Rome were become ere that time Adde to these things that these same Authors Cent. 3. c. 7. p. 151. say expresly that jus tractandi de excommunicandis aut recipiendis publice lapsis penes Seniores Ecclesiae erat and cite Tertul. Apolog. for it read also c. 6. ejusdem Cent. pag. 129 l. 30.
de ritibus circa claves and you will finde that the judiciall power of Discipline was not common to the people but proper to the Ministers only some interest therein was for honours sake given to Martyres 2 As to that cited from Whittaker that learned Theologue himself in the words immediatly going before these cited clears in what respect it is that he sayes the Government of the Church was alwayes in part Democraticall when he saith Si totum corpus Ecclesiae n. volumus respicere quatenus in electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia serebat ita tamen â—t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper à Presbyteris servaretur Democraticum So then he calls it partly Democraticall in this respect that the people had vote in the election of their Ministers which we grant the people ought to have and if any will in this respect call the Government of the Church in part Democraticall we shall not contend about the name only we will say that the election of Ministers being no more but the nomination or designation of a person to the Ministry is no proper or formall act of authoritative power The other Objection made use of is from Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 1â— in Pamel Ord. Epist 6. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi Donatus Fortunatus Novatus Curdius solus rescribere nihil potuiâ— quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine Consilio vestro sine consensu plebis * Pamâ—meae privatâ sententiâ meâ privatim sententiâ gerere Answ How far that grave pious and zealous ancient was from the Independent way of Church Government amongst many places in his Writings that one famous Passage in Lib. 1. de Vnitate Ecclesiae doth abundantly demonstrate and cleareth as with Sun-shine Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi c. to these words Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem And again a litle after from these words quam unitatem firmiter tenere c. to these quomodo Solis multi radii This place as it hews down the Antichristian Papall Monarchy so it is a clear testimony against popular and supream Independent Government in a single Congregation while as therein the Author so clearly asserteth the power of the Keyes to have been given by Christ and put in the hands of the Apostles in an equall society of honour and power 2. That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that this Catholick Church is but one charge Vnus Episcopatus cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur And that unitatem hanc firmiter tenere vindicare debent Episcopi qui in Ecclesiâ praesident ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum etque indivisum probent Then which nothing could be said more forcibly against that crumbling of the Church into so many single Congregations Independent in themselves and without all union and conjunction in point of Government But to the place in hand cited from Epist 10. lib. 3. Gulartius and Junius Notes on the place clear the matter well for us Nempe agebatur de aliqua electione quam Cypriano quidam è Presbyterio suggesseraâ— eo quod Ecclesia ex persecutionibus parte sui Presbyterii destituta esset Respondet nihil se in hac causa unquam facere voluisse quin Presbyterii Consilium plebis consensum adhiberet But what is the place and part of the people in election we controvert not Nay we say with the same Ancient Lib. 1. Epist 4. Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi And as he sayes afterward Eligendus Episcopus immaculatus integer praesente plebe c. But shew me a place in that Writer ascribing to the people formall concurrence with the Officers of the Church in any juridicall authoritative Acts of Government as in Ordination of Ministers sentencing persons to censure to Excommunication and absolving from Excommunication judiciall and definitive determination of controversies in Religion But now this Book having grown to bignesse beyond my intention at first I will insist no further but leave these Brethren I have been last speaking with my hearty desire to God on their behalf that he would shew them mercy to remember from whence they have fallen repent and do their first works FINIS
it which is not a little fault in determining contraverted points while as he speaks thus allowed mater of the Visible Church For mater of a Visible Church may be said to be allowed in a double sense or relation viz. either in regard of what is incumbent to a man himself by way of duty before God or in regard of what is requisite in him by way of qualification in the outward Ecclesiastick Court whereupon the Church may and ought to proceed in admitting him to the externall communion of the Church I confesse that none are mater of a Visible Church allowed in the former sense or relation but such as are not only so far as men most spirituall can discern or judge but also in very deed true converts and beleevers It s a mans duty in professing Christianity and adjoyning himself to the Church of Christ to beleeve with his heart as he professeth with his mouth otherwise he is matter not approven not allowed of God But I beleeve its another thing to enquire what is mater of the Visible Church allowed in the latter sense and thinks that advised men among our Brethren of the Independent way will say the same in the generall Yet I trow it shall be found afterward that the strength and stream of our Authors Arguments runs in the former and so are little to the purpose of the Controversie between us and our Brethren touching the mater of the Visible Church section 7 To make way for a more clear discovery of this and to the effect we may in the whole ensueing disput know what we are doing and not fight in the dark Andabatarum more it is necessary before we proceed further to open up and bound the state of the controversie which Mr. Lockier hes not done I cannot tell upon what intention or if upon any design at all and not rather out of pure neglect or some other such thing If he say he was Preaching to people and not Disputing in the Schoole and that therefore it was not needfull nor becoming Scholastically to state a controversie I Answ Whether in Pulpit or Schoole his purpose was to draw his hearers of this Nation from a Doctrine which they had learned and professed before the world to a new way Sure ingenuous dealing would have required that the Doctrine of this Church which he intended to refute and to take them off should been once at least plainly and simply propounded and presented before them This he doth not all along but in effect speaks so indirectly as if we allowed all meer professours whatsoever to be members of the Visible Church Well what he hes not done we shall endeavour according to our weaknesse to do and shall deal more liberally with his side then he hes done with ours Now then let these considerations be premised section 8 1. Let it be considered that this controversie is not about the Members of the Mysticall Invisible Church or of the Church according to its inward state but of the Members of the Visible Church as such or of the Church according to its external state The Church Mysticall Invisible or according to its inward state is the societie of men effectually called unto saving communion with Christ to which doth belong in the intention and purpose of God all the promises of spirituall blessings pertaining to life and salvation The Church Visible and considered according to its externall state is the societie of men professing true Christian faith and Religion for communion in the outward exercises of the Worship and Ordinances of God Admission of members into the Church Invisible is the work of God by the operation of the Spirit in Effectuall Calling and ingraffing men into Christ Admission of members into the Church Visible and according to its externall state is committed to the Pastors and Rulers of the Church who being men and so not seeing the inward constitution and condition of hearts must look at things obvious to the senses in their administration of this work Whence one may be orderly and lawfully admitted a member of the Church Visible who is not a member of the Church Invisible And about this our adversaries I conceive at least such as are most sound and intelligent amongst them will make no controversie Further it is to be observed that the question and controversie between us and the Independent Brethren much differs from that which is debated between the Papists and the orthodox concerning Church-members The state of thâ— controversie with Papists which they and namely Bellarmine involve with many Sophismes is truely and really this as the judicious Ames hes well observed Bellar. Enerv. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 1. thesi 10 others have not so well considered whether the whole multitude of professours comprehending as well unregenerate hypocrites and reprobats as true elect believers be that Church of Christ to which properly doth belong all these excellent things spoken of the Church in Scripture viz. that it is redeemed by Christ the Body of Christ the Spouse of Christ quickened acted and led by tâ—e Holy Spirit partakers of all the spirituall blessings so that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Albeit Papists dare not state the question in these terms yet the affirmative thereof is the thing they intend that they might obtain a Catholick Visible Church at all times illustriously visible infallible and unfailable and that there Romane is it But it is a far other matter that is debated between us and our present adversaries viz. what persons are to be admitted and accounted to belong to the Church Visible according to its outward state So that these who shall make use of Arguments used by Orthodox Writers in shewing that not wicked hypocrites and reprobates but only the elect true beleevers are members of Christs Church against us for affirming that all who outwardly do seriously professe the Christian faith are to be admitted and accounted members of the Visible Church they are clearly in a great mistake and impertinency section 9 2. Consider we are to distinguish Visible Church-membership in actu primo and in actu secundo I must crave leave to use these terms and shall explain what I mean by them By the actus primus of Church-membership I mean such a state and condition of a person as makes that now he is not to be reckoned and looked upon by the Church Pastors or Professours as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. without but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not as a stranger and alien but as a Brother 1 Cor. 5. 11 12. And consequently may and ought to be overseen cared for and fed by the Pastours and Rulers of the Church as a part of the flock and by private professours dealt with in duties of Christian fellowship according to their and his capacitie The actus secundus of Visible Church-membership is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fruitio i. e. the fruition and actuall use of Church priviledges ordinancâ—
and acts of outward Christian fellowship This distinction is of necessary consideration in this controversie For it is certain one may be actually a member of the Visible Church in actu primo and yet not actually injoy the use and exercise of all and every Church priviledge and ordinance whereunto Church-membership gives him a right in habitu Because unto the fruition of the actuall exercise of some priviledge and ordinance there may be required an especiall condition which may be a man wanteth through some physicall incapacitie or some morall defect As under the Old Testament persons that were undoubted members of the visible Church of Israel yet might for some legall pollution as an issue of blood touching of a dead body c. been debarred from the publick Assemblies of the Church and Sacrifices for a time untill they were cleansed from the pollution according to order instituted by God So also one who is an acknowledged member of the Visible Church being overtaken with a scandalous fault and not carrying himself obstinatly but submitting himself may be kept from the actuall exercise and use of some Ordinances untill the scandall be sufficiently removed yet still as is acknowledged on all hands continue a Church-member in actu primo and it hath been constantly held by Orthodox Divines untill Anabaptists arose that Children under the Old Test being born in the Church were then and now being born in the Christian Church are even while under the years of discretion members of the Visible Church Although neither then they were nor now are capable of actuall use and exercise of all Church-priviledges and Ordinances Therefore it is one thing to enquire what is requisite to constitute one capable of Church-membership simpliciter and in actu primo and another to enquire what is requisite to make one immediatly capable of actuall use and exercise of all and every Church-priviledge and Ordinance whereunto Church-membership doth entitle him section 10 3. Consider we must difference between that which is required of a man by way of duty in foro Dei that he may adjoyn himself unto Church-communion and participate Ordinances in such a manner as is necessary for his own salvation and approving himself to God and that which is required of him by way of qualification in foro Ecclesiastico that the Church may lawfully and orderly admit him to their externall communion and thereafter respect account and deal with him as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. amongst these that are within The reason of this distinction is clear because the duty of a man that will so adjoyn himself into the communion of the Church as is requisite for salvation and for approving himself therein to God doth no doubt reach formally and directly the inward man the frame and acting thereof But the qualification requisite in the Ecclesiastick Court whereupon the Church is to proceed in admitting or acknowledging men Church-members doth consist formally and directly at least only in somewhat outward and apparent to men For it is a sure rule de occultis non iudicat Ecclesia as is confessed by Hooker Survey Part. 1. c. 2. pag. 15. speaking of the same purpose and by Mr. Lockier himself pag. 55. section 11 4. Consider There is an holinesse relative or adherent and an holinesse absolute and inherent The holinesse relative and adherent consisteth in the separation of a thing from a common use and dedication of it unto some holy use or end Holinesse absolute or inherent consisteth in qualities or actions of a person agreeable to the Law of GOD. In the former way the stones of which the Temple was built are called stones of holinesse Lam. 4. 1. So the Temple it self the Vessels consecrated to the Worship of God the City of Jerusalem are called holy In like manner persons in a speciall way set apart for the Worship of God as the Priests and Levites and especially the High Priest are called holy In like manner the whole People of Israel are said to be holy Deut. 33. and to be sanctified by God Exod. 31. 13. Lev. 8. 8. and 21. 8. and 22. 32. Because to wit God by entering in Covenant with them had separated them from other people and Adopted them to be a peculiar People for himself in the same sense 1 Cor. 7. 14. The Children born of one Parent at least a beleever i. e. a Professour of Christian Religion are called holy because they are comprehended in the Covenant made with and imbraced by the Parents for themselves and theirs and so are to be esteemed as among Christians separated from prophane people and dedicated to God Again holinesse is either inward and true which consisteth in the inward renovation of the soul faith hope love and other supernaturall habites and their elicite acts Or externall which consisteth in the Profession of the true and Orthodox Religion and a conversation so far as comes under mens knowledge ordered according to the rule of Gods Commands as is competent to humane weaknesse i. e. without scandall at least contumacy and obstinacy in some given scandall and comprehendeth also in it that holinesse relative and of dedication Further it is worthy diligent observation here that when it is said the Church is a societie of visible saints this may be understood in a double sense for the Epithete visible may either be taken as a note signifying not the nature of the form which gives the denomination of Saints or holy but an adjunct thereof viz. the notoreitie and manifestation of it before men In which sense if it be taken in that description visible Saints are such as by outward manifest and evident signes and tokens are perceived and acknowledged to be endued with true inward holinesse and grace of regeneration Or it may be taken as a note signifying the very nature and kind of the form i. e. holinesse which giveth that denomination In which sense if it may be taken then men are said to be visible Saints in so far as they are adorned with externall holinesse although abstract from that internall and true grace of regeneration section 12 The state of the Controversie then lyeth in this to expresse it as plainly as I may what is requisite in a person as the necessary qualification in the Ecclesiastick Court whereupon he is to be received or acknowledged as a member of the Visible Church and is to be accounted as not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. among these that are without but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. among those that are within and so over whom the Pastors and Rulers of the Church should watch and care to feed him by the Ordinances of Christ according to his capacity and to whom private Christians ought to perform duties of Christian communion according to their stations viz. whether reall internall grace of regeneration repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ at least such evident signs thereof manifested and approven upon acurate examination
who must do it If some other Ecclesiasticall Court then should not a single Congregation have compleat power of jurisdiction within it self without subordination to any other Ecclesiastick Court in point of jurisdiction If the Congregation contradistinguished from the Eldership then the Congregation alone by it self has power enough of jurisdiction and censure and then what needed it be said the Congregation with their Eldership And indeed this is the way that some Independents goe In their judgement the Congregation of privat beleevers does choose ordain and make their Eldership and they may censure depose and Excommunicat all their Eldership So that these Authors when intending a description of the Congregationall way i. e. the Independent way they attribute the power of jurisdictiction and censure to the Congregation with their Eldership if they mean as their words seemeth to import and they must be understood unlesse they minded to aequivocat that the power of jurisdiction is given to these jointly and not to either of them severally either they have not been acquainted with the mind of all these of the Congregationall way or they have dissembled the latter of which I have not reason to impute to all these Authors The truth is the Authors of the Congregationall way are at a great deal of difference among themselves even to salt contradictions concerning the subject of the power of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction as Mr. Caudry has evidenced in the place cited by us before P. 2. Sect. Go we on to their probation of their Assertion They cite one passage of Scripture first telling us withall that there are diverse other Scriptures which they passe by But I beleeve it shal be long ere they let us see them viz. Mat. 18 15 16 17 18. and do build two Arguments on it according to the two things involved in their Assertion The former lyeth thus in their own words section 3 The Church there tell it unto the Church spoken of has compleat power of binding and loosing as is clear from v. 17. and 18. but the Church is not the Classicall Presbytery But the Eldership with the Congregation Therefore c. The Assumption is clear because it is not to be found in all the Gospel that a company of Elders whether of a Classis or a Congregation apart from the Congregation is called a Church Indeed a Congregation with Elders commonly yea and sometime contradistinguished from Elders ay sometime without Elders is termed a Church Act. 15. 4. 22 23. And Act. 14. 23. Now what an absurdity were it to reject the usuall acception of the word in the New Test and without any colour of reason to coine a sense which no where is to be found in all the Gospel though the word be most frequently used in it section 4 Answ To passe sundry things which might be noted upon this Argument and for brevities sake to insist only upon that which is materiall the drift of this first Argument tends to the probation of the former part involved in the Authors Assertion to wit that the power of jurisdiction Ecclesiastick is not in the Eldership or Officers of the Church but in the community of believers jointly with the Elders and the weight of the whole Argument lyeth upon the signification of the term Church And all which is said is but an old song that has been an hundred times dashed by worthy and learned men already See what we have said already upon the same alledgeance by Mr. Lockier above P. 2. Sect. 3. § 2. and 3. For the present I shall say but these things on it 1. When as these Authors say that in the New Testament the name of the Church is taken sometimes for the Congregation i. e. in their sense the community of beleevers with the Eldership jointly sometimes for the Congregation as contradistinguished from Elders and sometime for a Congregation without Elders and asserteth that here in this place it is to be understood in the first of these three acceptions to wit as it comprehendeth both Congregation and Elders I would gladly know how and by what Argument they prove that it is so to be understood here and not rather in one of the other two for the Congregation as contradistinguished from the Elders or for the Congregation without Elders For that we see only asserted by them but no proof of it brought Only this much they insinuat that it is commonly so used But that will not prove that so it must be taken in this particular place If they would assayed to bring any Arguments to prove that the name of the Church here must be taken not for the Congregation as contradistinguished from or without Elders but for the Congregation with the Eldership jointly I doubt not but we should found them all to be such as speaks power of jurisdiction and government in the Eldership as contradistinguished from the rest of the Congregation 2. What though the word Church be no where else in the New Testament used for the Elders or Governours of the Church as contradistinguished from the body of believers yet this is but a very weak Argument to prove that it is not so to be understood here so be that the genuine grammaticall signification thereof be such as may well be applyed as indeed the word answering to it in the Hebrew is frequently in the Old Testament applyed to signifie a Colledge or Society of Judges or Governours as contradistinguished from the people See Mr. Hudson Vindic. of the Essence and Vnity c. 'T is some rashnes in the Authors to call this sense of the word a coined sense Even prophane Greek Authors have used it in such a sense I mean for a meeting of Rulers Demosthenes used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconcione magnatum It is yet more then rashnesse I may say it is a great impudency that they say it is without any colour of reason taken in this sense in this place These Authors said before that they have used all helps they could have upon this controversie Now let them tell us did they never read in any Writers upon this controversie of Church Government who expones the word Church of the Eldership or Governours of the Church so much as any colour of reason brought by them for expounding the word in that sense How can they hold up their face and say this Did they ever read Beza his Annot. on the place Or Mr. Rutherfurds Peaceable Plea c. 8. Surely the help of these Authors they easily might have had Sure I am if they have read these to mention no moe they might have found some colour at least of reason brought for the Interpretation Nay let them but read the latter of the two over again I believe they shal find such reality of reason brought for it as they shall never be able to avoide Verily whether we take the word Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the societie
of Visible Christians generally comprehending private Professours as well as Rulers or not yet that not all and every one comprehended under that signification otherwise but only the Rulers are intended as the persons to whom the publike acts spoken of in the place receiving of publike delations of scandals and inflicting of censures does belong is here invincibly demonstrate because otherwhere in the New Testament these acts as all other acts of Ecclesiastick authoritative Government are committed and attributed unto the Officers of the Church as such Math. 16. 18. Iohn 20 21 22. 1 Tim. 5. 1 19. Tit. 1. 13. 1 Thess 5. 12. Heb 13. 7 17. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and accordingly to them as contradistinguished from the body of Professours are given names importing Government and authority But no where in the Scripture of the New Testament shall any man shew us either name or thing of Government given to private Professours We proceed to their second Argument whereby they would prove from that same place that any one single Congregation with their Eldership has power of jurisdiction Independent and Supreme and to take away all juridicall Ecclesiastick Courts larger than and Superiour to a Congregation Classicall or Synodicall section 5 The Church say they spoken of in this Text which has compleet power of binding and loosing is the first Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie to which belongeth judiciall cognisance of offences For if private admonition do not gaine the offender then the command is tell the Church But our Classicall Presbyterie is not the first Judicatorie to which appertaines judiciall cognizance of offences For first they come to Sessions and only by refers from the Sessions to Presbytories Therefore this Church here spoken of as having compleat power of binding and loosing cannot be the Classicall Presbytorie but the Eldership with the Congregation No where do we read in the Gospel of jurisdiction in relation to censure committed to Classicall Presbytery section 6 Ans 1. To the Assumption or second Proposition it seemeth these Authors have not well understood or been acquainted with the state and way of Presbyteriall Government settled in this Church and therefore have been too rash and hastie in condemning it or arguing against it before they understood it For 1. 'T is not only false which they say that the Classicall Presbyterie is not the first Judicatorie to which appertaines judiciall cognizance of offences but that first they come to Sessions c. If this be meant Universally of all offences Indeed offences committed by particular persons settled members of particular Congregations and as yet abiding within the bounds of the Congregation comes first to the Session or Eldership of the particular or single Congregation But there are many offences the judiciall cognizance whereof comes not first to a Session but to a Presbyterie yea may be a Synod yea may be to the Nationall Assembly When a private person having fallen into some scandalous sin and being conveened before a Session addes refractorinesse against the discipline and obstinacie to his former offence this is a new offence and the judiciall cognizance of this offence belongeth first to the Classicall Presbyterie So a Classicall Presbyterie is the first Judicatorie to which belongeth the judiciall cognizance Of an offence given by a Minister in the Administration of his calling Of an offence given by the Eldership of a Congregation and indeed supposing the first part of these Authors Assertion viz. that the power of jurisdiction is given to the Congregation with the Eldership jointly if they grant not an associate Presbytery to take judiciall cognizance of their offence they must exempt them from being subject to any judiciall cognizance at all For they cannot come under the judiciall cognizance of another single Congregation Of an offence wherein more single Congregations are alike concerned and many cases more I wonder that these Brethren did not rememher that the first judiciall cognizance of James Grahames offence of Seaforts and many other publick Malignant wicked practises was not by Sessions and from them came by reference to the Classical Presbytery but by the publick Assemblies 2. It is another grosse mistake too that these offences which comes to Sessions or Congregationall Elderships to be judicially cognosced upon and from them comes to the Classicall Presbyterie or to a Synode that they come only by râ—ferres from the Sessions to the Presbyteries For they come also by appeal of the party who is under the judiciall cognition of the Session upon mal-administration or supposed mal-administration They may also and do often come by way of authoritative visitation of Sessions and their proceedings by the Presbyterie section 7 2. To the Major or first Proposition 1. Suppose it were granted as it standeth yet it could not make fully against us to take away altogether associate juridicall Presbyteries of more then one single Congregation Because as we have shewn upon the Assumption such associat Presbyteries or Ecclesiastick Assemblies may be and must be the first Judicatories in many cases to which the judiciall cognizance of offences doth belong But 2. If the Major be taken in this sense the Church having power of binding and loosing is the first Judicatorie to which c. And it only taking it with the exclusive note as it must of necessity be taken to infer that negative conclusion Ergo a Classicall or associate Presbyterie is not that Church We deny it as utterly false having no proof from the Text. We say here that the Church invested with authority to cognosce judicially and inflict censure upon offences is the Rulers of the Visible Church Universall as joined in Collegio or assembled whether in the lesser and Inferiour Colledges or Assemblies as a Congregationall Eldership is in respect of all others a Classicall Presbytery in regard of Synods a Provinciall Synod in regard of a Nationall this in regard of a Synod of more Nations haply associate for Government to which as the first Judicatory matters may come for judiciall cognizance or in larger and superiour such as is a Classicall Presbytery in relation to a Congregationall a Synod in relation to a Classical Presbytery c. to which may be the matter cannot come at first or as to the first Judicatory having power of judiciall cognizance of it 'T is true that in such a case as our Saviour instanceth in the Text when offence is given by one particular member of a Congregation single and fixed in its constitution and proper Officers which fixing of single Congregations under appropriated Officers is not necessary by any divine institution For more Congregations may be have been as it seemeth in severalls of the primitive Churches and are at this day in some orthodox Churches served by the same Officers in common without violation of any divine institution Christs command Tell the Church intends that the matter should be brought to the Eldership of the Congregation as the first Judicature to which belongeth judiciall cognizance