of Elderships and Presbyteries of more Congregations consociated that they may lawfully be and of diverse sorts is confessed But there are these points especially concerning them of which there is controversie between us and our Brethren section 4 The 1. is concerning the nature of their power over the severall Congregations or Churches consociated in them Our Brethren of the Independent way attribute no other power unto them but of counsel perswasion to informe and hold forth unto the Churches what is commanded by the Word of God to exhort perswade them to their duty to obedience of what they find commanded in the Word But allow them no authority and jurisdictionall power to enjoine their determinations from the Word authoritatively under pain of Ecclesiasticall censures So Mr. Hooker in the forecited place pag. 2 3. 't is true he calls this power of counsell by the name of Authority And so Mr. Lockier from him Sect. 30. but an authoritative power of meer counsell advice and persuasion may be justly counted a Chimaera But we shall not contend about names Call it authority or power or what you will the thing it self is nothing else but brotherly counsell which hath no binding force formally as issuing from the Presbyterie But bindeth meerly vi materiae materially in regard of the thing which is propounded by them as it is a Scripture truth or command as is confessed by Mr. Hooker And this is no more then one Brother may do towards another and one sister Church may do to another Mr. Cotton in the Keyes ch 6. seemeth to attribute more power to a Synod They have sayeth he power not onely to give light and counsell in mater of truth and practice But also to command and enjoine the things to be believed and done The expresse words of the Synodicall letter imply no lesse Act. 15. 27. It is an act of the power of the Keyes to binde burdens and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the maters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the authority of the Synod which being an ordinance of Christ bindeth the more For the Synods sake This in the letter of the words is a flat contradiction to what Mr. Hooker sayeth He sayeth they have only a power of Brotherly counsell Mâ— Cotton not only that but also to command and enjoin He sayeth they bind only materially because what they determine is either expressed in or infallibly collected out of the Word Mr. Cotton not only materially but also formally from the authority of the Synode Yet I conceive for all such fair words in the intention and reall meaning of the Author little more is understood than what Mr. Hooker sayeth at most nothing more but a Doctrinall power which is competent to any single Pastour as M. Caudrey sheweth Vindiciae clav c. 6. pag. 53. We on the contrare assert that by warrand of the Word of God the Presbyteries of associated Churches Classicall or Synodicall have a power and authority of Spirituall jurisdiction whereby they authoritatively discerne maters Ecclesiasticall and impose these decrees under pain of Ecclesiastick censures and may inflict Ecclesiastick censures upon the disobedient and refractory in the particular Congregations within the combination or association Only let it be observed here that this authoritative and juridicall power we attribute to such Presbyteries of discerning maters Ecclesiasticall and imposing their determinations under pain of censure is not Autocratorick and absolute binding absolutely by vertue of their authority But Ministeriall and adstricted in its determinations to the rule of the Word of God So that that obligation formall which floweth from the authority of the Judicatory into the decree in actu exercito presupposeth that materiall obligation of the thing decreed as contained in the Word of God else it hath not place section 5 2. Point of Controversie is that the Independent Brethren doe not allow the standing use of such associated Presbyteries But only occasionall We assert that by warrand of the Word of God some such Presbyteries are of standing use as standing ordinary juridicall Ecclesiasticall Courts We say that Classicall Presbyteries in the ordinary settled case of Churches are necessary standing Courts for administration of Ecclesiasticall Government and also that Superiour Presbyteries Synodicall may be warrantably of standing use where and when conveniently moe Presbyteriall or Classicall Churches may have and injoy actuall combination as of Yearly Provinciall Synods as in the Churches of the Low Countries are more frequent Provinciall Synods and yearly Nationall Assemblies as in the Churches of this Kingdome of Scotland 3. Point is concerning subordination of lesser Assemblies to greater The Independent Brethren deny altogether subordination of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour as juridicall Ecclesiasticall Courts Albeit they acknowledge that difficulties arising in a particular Congregation in matters of Government there may be a going out to an Assembly of more Churches and if need be full satisfaction and clearing not being found there there may be a going forth yet to a greater and more large Assembly Yet they say that is elective and only by way of reference and arbitration and only for counsell and direction and assert that a particular Congregation is the supream Ecclesiasticall Juridicall Tribunall under Jesus Christ upon earth So that a person although wronged by an unjust sentence there as they are not in their determinations infallible suppose sentenced to Excommunication which cutteth him off from the benefit of Church Ordinances and fellowship of Christians in all the Churches of the World he may have no appeal from their sentence to another Superiour Judicatory to have his processe juridically recognosced and the injurious sentence rescinded but must ly under it without any Ecclesiastick remedy till death unlesse that particular Congregation be pleased themselves to revoke their sentence So doth Mr. Hooker tell us Survey par 3. c. 3. pag. 40 41 43. and par 4. pag. 19. We on the contrary assert that both the Law of Nature and the positive Law of God revealed in his Word both in the Old and New Testament holdeth out to us a juridicall subordination of lesser Assemblies Ecclesiasticall unto greater so that appeals may be made from Inferiour and lesser to Superiour and greater Assemblies That it is both against the Law of nature and the positive Law of God to place a supream Independent Ecclesiasticall juridicall power in a particular Congregation yea or in any lesser Assembly when as a greater and Superiour is to be had and may conveniently be had We assert also that that series and gradation of this subordination which is acknowledged and maintained by Protestant Churches viz. of Congregationall Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies is lawfull and agreeable to the Word of God section 6 Whereas there are these three principall points of Controversie concerning the matter in hand The thing Mr. Lockier propoundeth to dispute against
but in his immediatly preceeding words he has done that the decrees of this Synod were binding only materially as matters revealed in the Scripture and not formally can withall Answer this Question affirmatively that this Synod had an authoritative power as such an Ordinance as a Synod Erit mihi magnus Apollo nay I shall say Mr. Lockier can make contradictories agree well enough See we then his Answ to this A forrain Eldership rightly constituted hath particular authority i. a power of preheminent and prevailing counsel though not a power of jurisdiction to constrain their results to be practised or to censure Ecclesiastically in case persons who have the result of things produced by them do not follow them They have as an Ordinance of God a power of preheminent and prevailing counsel That is their result ought to be preferred and prevail more upon our hearts then what Interpretation other single persons and ordinary helps ordinarily afford Answ First here ere I come to the main businesse note shortly some few things 1. We never attributed authority to a forrain Eldership over any persons or Churches Mr. Lockier here saying that a forrain Eldership hath peculiar authority if his meaning be according to his words if he understand authority indeed that is an Eldership extrinsecall to Churches yet hath peculiar authority over them goeth farther then ever Presbyterians did and indeed goeth clearly contrary to truth and in terms speaketh very like the Prelatick way which attributed to a forrain Eldership the Prelate and his Cathedrall authority over all the Churches in the Diocaese But indeed his words and his sense agree not For his peculiar authority is no authority as we shall see anone 2. We say yet it is but an odious feigned description of that power of jurisdiction we attribute to Synods and other associated Presbyteries when it is called a power to constrain their results to be practised as we have discovered it before 3. It is yet a grosser misrepresentation that we attribute unto such Presbyteries a power to censure persons Ecclesiastically in case they have the result of things produced by them and do not follow them Did ever any Persbyterian say such a thing as this that a Synod or Presbytery has power to censure persons who have their results by them and does not follow them For example that a Synod in Scotland hath power to censure persons in England or France that have their results by them and does not follow them or that any Presbytery hath power to censure persons of the Church within the bounds of their association who may be have their resultâ— by them and not follow them If this has been said out of a mistake and ignorance we pity it and wishes the Author to know our Doctrine better ere he take upon him to represent it to others If it has been of purpose to render our Doctrine odious let his own conscience judge what sort of dealing this is section 13 But to come to the purpose in hand Mr. Lockiers clear and plain answer at last to this place of Act. 15. 28. is that that Synod exercised no power of jurisdiction but a power of counsell or advice only He calls it indeed a peculiar authority But when he makes it to be but counsell that is to give it a bare name for credits sake And to deny it the thing of that name Counsell or advice is but an act of charity and if good of wisdom and prudence and not of authority 'T is no other act but that which one man may do to a Church one brother to another one woman to another yea as Mr. Rutherfurd saith Abigail to David a maid to Naaman That the Author saith it is a power of preheminent and prevailing counsell that it ought to prevail more upon our hearts than the interpretation of single persons and ordinary helps availeth not For preheminent counsell is still but counsell and so that which is attributed to the Synod differeth no wayes from that which is competent to any single persons to do or one sister and equall Church to another but only gradually And suppose a company of Christians Pastors or others met together not Synodically being persons of known piety and understanding in maters of Religion their counsell would be such a preheminent and prevailing counsell that it ought to be preferred and prevail more with our hearts then the interpretation of single persons So hereby there is no peculiar authority or power granted to that Synod as such an Ordinance of God If yet it shall be said that their counsell is preheminent and prevailing ought to prevail more upon our hearts c. not only upon this ground that they are many pious and understanding men and liker to find out the minde of God in his Word then single persons But also because they are such an institute meeting a Synod To this I cannot see how Mr. Lockier can say this having but now told us that the decrees of the Synod bind materially as being the will of God but not formally as the result of the Presbytery For what else is it to say that their results ought to prevail more upon our hearts because the result of such men as a Synod but that they are binding formally as the results of the Synod 2. If there be a preheminency or power of prevailing in the decree of a Synod so that there is an obligation upon our hearts to be more prevailed with over and above that preheminency and power of prevailing which is in the counsâ—l of a company of pious and understanding men met occasionally not in a Synod which certainly ought to be preferred and to prevail more with our hearts then the interpretation of single persons I would ask what is that different power if it be not a juridicall power and consequently of censure upon disobedience For if it shall be said it is not juridicall power but only dogmaticall or doctrinall then I say this is competent to every single Pastor For a truth of the Gospel taught and delivered by a single Pastor ought to be beleeved and obeyed i. e. bindeth to obedience and faith not only because it is Gospel but because it is doctrinally taught by a Minister and so that preheminent and prevailing power shall differ from the power of a single Pastor but only gradually and is the very same in kinde and so no peculiar authority or power of a Synod as such an Ordinance of God But now whereas Mr. Lockier asserteth that this Synod at Jerusalem Act. 15. had not nor did exercise a juridicall power but only a power of counsell or advice We assert the contrair which is abundantly proven by sundry learned Writers treating upon this subject and maintained against all Objections made to the contrair by Opposites We refer the Reader for satisfaction to these namely Mr. Gillespy Assert of the Govern of the Church of Scotl. Part. 2. c. 8. Aarons Rod Book 2. c. 9. Arg.
Discipline although I know men Learned and much excercised in the study of the Questions concerning Ecclesiastick Government are of the judgement that there is not such an Eldership or Presbyterie And I confesse 't is right hard to finde in Scripture either precept or example for it But I shall going along with Mr. Lockier in the acknowledgment thereof note but some few things upon the attribute of his Assertion There be three things therein contained 1. the acting spoken of viz. exercing of power 2. the object of that acting most weighty things 3. The limitation of that acting about this object as competent to the Eldership section 5 For the first Mr. Lockier speaketh so here as he would seem to grant to the Eldership some power and exercing of it about these weighty maters providing it be with consent and approbation of the Church i. e. the society of Professours they are in But verily by his way the Eldership as contradistinguished from other professours and as the Eldership has no power nor can exert any power at all I mean power of authority in these maters All their part is meerly to preside and moderate the meeting of the Church and as a Moderator or Chair-man to propone and state a Question Ask and gather the votes and declare the sentence concluded by the votes of the collective body of the Church conveen and dismisse the meeting Or at most as a Committee of a Judicatory to prepare maters for publick cognition and sentence All which is no Authoritative power I think therefore that Mr. Lockier would have dealt more candidly to have plainly said the Eldership can exert no power at all in these maters This belongs to the collective body of the Church and their part is only to preside and moderat the meeting in exerting its power But such plain language which yet speaks the truth of his way is too plainly dissonant to the language of Scripture which speaketh of Church Officers as Governours of and to be over the people and having the rule over them and many such other things attributeth unto them which importeth another kind of thing then meer presiding moderating or being the mouth of a meeting or a preparatory Committee section 6 For the second why does Mr. Lockier here restrict his assertion to these maters of greater weight Does he grant that yet they may exert power in maters of lesse weight without the consent and approbation of the Church Nay he cannot For 1. most of his Arguments following if they prove ought to his purpose they prove the Eldership cannot exert power in any maters of Ecclesiastick Government without the consent of the Church whether of greater or smaller weight Yea 2. in his last Argument to prove they cannot exert power in these greater maters he assumeth that they may not do it in smaller maters For saith he Sect. 11. Pag. 81. if in lesse things the Eldership may not act alone surely not in greater What then needed this restriction of the object in the Assertion section 7 But now what are these maters most weighty He tell us these things which are most essentiall to the state of the Visible Church And then reckons up particularly these three admission of Members ordination of Officers and Excommunication of either To passe that expression of most essentiall importing degrees in essentiality which Philosophy will not admit as telling us that essentia rei non recipit magis minus I do humbly conceive that the fixt Preaching of the Word of God and right administration of Sacraments are as essentiall to use his words to the state of the Visible Church as any of these particulars mentioned Nay they are much more essentiall there may be a true Visible Church where these are tho Excommunication be wanting and that admission of members Mr. Lockier speaks of unknown to the Primitive Apostolick times It has been the constant Doctrine of Reformed Divines that the sound Preaching of the Word and right Administration of Sacraments are necessary to the being of a Church and exercise of Discipline only to the well-being Some Churches have no Excommunication which though we approve not in this yet because they have the true Doctrine of the Gospel taught and professed in them and the Sacraments therewith administrat right for their substance God forbid we should account destitute of the most essentialls to speak so with him of a true Church Now if the Preaching of the Word be a thing most essentiall to the state of a Church as certainly it is must the Ministers of Christ not Preach any Doctrine as the Doctrine of Christ without the consent of the Church i. e. of the professours to whom they Preach Must it be first propounded to them to have their vote and sentence passe upon it and upon that Preached I conceive Mr. Lockier will not own such theologie 2. That admission of members which â—e meaneth here is so far from being one of these things most essentiall to the state of a Visible Church that as he and others of his mind conceive it 't is but a meer new device unknown in the preceeding ages of the Church and without ground in the Word of God He means admission into the fellowship of this or that particular Church or Congregation by a Church Covenant as they call it which he conceives to be that which formally gives Visible-Church-Membership and that it must be upon such qualification as he has been disputing for in his Lecture But as there is no warrand in the Word of God for such qualification as necessary to Visible-Church-Membership as has been cleared in our former part so it is a plain mistake that admission unto the fellowship of this or that particular Church is that which formally makes one a Visible Church Member And that it is founded upon another mistake which is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Church way of the Independent Brethren viz. that there is no Visible Church Catholick or Universall but that a particular Congregation is the only Church The truth is profession of the true Faith and of subjection to Ordinances with the seal of baptisme compleatly makes a man a Member of the Visible Church else such were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without and so but of the world of heathens and strangers which is absurd and admission in this or that particular Congregation gives him only the opportunity of exercise of his Church-membership and the priviledges thereof whereunto he had right before hic nunc all which has been so cleary evinced by judicious and learned Mr. Hudson in his Vindication of the Essence and Vnity c. that any man that will not wilfully shut his eyes against the light may be fully convinced thereof So then as for admission of Persons into this or that particular Congregation it is not a mater of so high essentiality to the state of the Visible Church And for that wherein solemn admission into the state
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
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
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
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
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
have power and authority graâ—en upon them and are such names as not only heathen writers but also the Greek Version of the Old Testament by the 72. and the Originall of the New Testament are wont to give to politicall Officers to expresse their politicall power and government now all these titles and denominations are attributed to Christs Officers in his Church as cannot be denyed And are not any where in Scripture attributed to the whole Church or any other member of the Church whatsoever besides Church Officers Nay they are ordinarly attributed to the Officers in contradistinction to the body of the Church But see we what the Author answers section 8 Minuta's saith he first in generall in Parables must not be fastened on but principalia what is their main scope Ans What And are all these names given to Christs Officers in his Church nothing else but parables Or are they Parables at all taking them as titles or names given to the Officers in the Church I have thought a Parable as we take it now in the Scripture sense to be narratio rei verae vel verisimiliter gestae ad simile significandum seu explicandum as Pareus describeth Math. 13. 3. i. e. a narration of a thing truly done or probable to signifie or explain a like thing and not a simple term or title given to a thing Indeed some of them no doubt are metaphoricall But a simple Metaphor for ought I know is not a Parable And I pray when the Apostle saith Rom. 12. 8. He that ruleth let him do it with diligence And 1 Corin. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church governments And 1 Thessal 5. 11. Know those that are over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Lord and other such places is the Apostle in these places speaking parables But be it so that the Author takes a parable for a simple Metaphore Will any man but the Author say that all and every one of these forementioned names are attributed to the Officers of Christ in the Church only Metaphorically and none of them in a proper signification Indeed some of them I confesse are Metaphoricall as Father Pastors or Shepherds Stewards But withall others of them as Presbyters in the politicall sense of the word Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as properly and univocally attributed to them as unto such as in the civil Common-wealth have the same names attributed to them The Philosopher tells us Categor c. 1. that these are Synonyma and so participate a name properly which have not only the name common but also the same definition accommodate to thâ—t 〈…〉 â—o it is here as 〈…〉 Ecclâ—siaâ—… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 a comâ—… 〈…〉 indued 〈…〉 â—ay of 〈…〉 â—…ndent 〈◊〉 will no◠〈…〉 same 〈…〉 being 〈…〉 proâ—… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 Church â—o import in thâ—… 〈…〉 authority 〈…〉 we 〈…〉 to his mor◠〈…〉 section 9 Elders 〈…〉 should 〈…〉 not absolute â—ow 〈…〉 power is to make th◠〈…〉 self and oâ—hers 〈…〉 as being 〈…〉 stock Ans 〈…〉 brought by 〈…〉 â—…urch of the 〈…〉 borrowed â—rom the 〈…〉 â—…ether Ecclesâ—…stick 〈…〉 â—…at can be said to â—lude the 〈…〉 â—…tive power of Government 〈…〉 abundantly dâ—shâ—d by 〈…〉 â—…d Book â— c. 9. pag. 〈…〉 his read I wonder â—ow 〈…〉 sâ—ry answer he hat◠〈…〉 Author hath on this purpose 〈…〉 him adding what 〈…〉 true that the 〈…〉 which of thâ—m yâ—u 〈…〉 Rulâ—… of the Woâ—d 〈…〉 â—o more 〈…〉 to direct 〈…〉 â—…sell or 〈…〉 the Rul◠〈…〉 having 〈…〉 others 〈…〉 rules aâ—… 〈…〉 superio◠〈…〉 as Beza 〈…〉 vit no◠〈…〉 word 〈…〉 â—xim◠〈…〉 Sep◠〈…〉 â—the◠〈…〉 thâ— is 〈…〉 use 〈…〉 of Government 〈…〉 Church 〈◊〉 it 〈…〉 Mr. Loâ—â—… 〈…〉 the only 〈…〉 â—…me name 〈…〉 whic◠〈…〉 way of counsell and 〈…〉 of â—…wer and 〈…〉 to all the Church 〈…〉 way of 〈…〉 to authority and 〈…〉 simple 〈…〉 forth of â—…ght 2. 〈…〉 this 〈…〉 â—…uted to the Office 〈…〉 were to makâ—… 〈…〉 â—…erse exposition 〈…〉 think the Authorâ—… 〈…〉 â—representing oâ—… 〈…〉 â—ording 〈…〉 unto 〈…〉 â—steriall not 〈…〉 but also limited 〈…〉 â—…sts 〈…〉 people 〈◊〉 obligâ—… 〈…〉 of the wor◠〈…〉 simple direâ—… 〈…〉 and perswasâ—… 〈…〉 â—governâ—… 〈…〉 â—…all Go◠〈…〉 Presbyteriaâ—… 〈…〉 not meerly 〈…〉 â—reater knowledg◠〈…〉 â—an of knowledg◠〈…〉 â—oer of 〈…〉 Erastian sayeth 〈…〉 â—differ one from an other 〈…〉 â—ost contrary to common 〈…〉 â—…ment 2. I would 〈…〉 who le body of the 〈…〉 then meeâ— diâ—ection 〈…〉 â—thoritative power of government 〈…〉 that their power over 〈◊〉 absolute 〈…〉 â—ver their â—aith I think◠〈…〉 say that 〈…〉 Ministeriall and such 〈…〉 very place 2 Cor. 1. as in v. 24 â—…ed by the Author he affirâ—… of himself and other Officers that they did not take unto themselves a 〈…〉 power ovâ—… 〈…〉 of the Church So in the 〈…〉 Officers had a 〈…〉 then of meer 〈…〉 To spare you 〈…〉 power to corâ—… 〈…〉 â—…oved to have 〈…〉 Go we on with the 〈…〉 section 10 They ar◠〈…〉 such 〈◊〉 should use diligent inspeâ—… 〈…〉 to the â—…ck that none go astâ—… 〈…〉 â—…oof consolation c. 〈…〉 â—…ops or Lording Presbyâ—… 〈…〉 dominantes in Ecclesiâ—â—… 〈…〉 â—…stle doth not by that 〈…〉 ove◠〈◊〉 in◠〈…〉 or Lording Presbyteâ—… 〈…〉 Church by force and violence Mr. Lockier but stand 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Presbyterians in 〈…〉 â—…tation of the tâ—rme upon them and fights 〈…〉 own 〈…〉 We 〈◊〉 no other sort of powâ—… 〈…〉 to Presbyterâ— over the Church than he 〈…〉 to the Congregation and Presbyters joyntly 〈…〉 particular member Unlesse he will with State-sycoâ—…t â—rastiaâ—… deny all Ecclesiastick rule and government and I 〈◊〉 he will not say this is Lording or Lordly rule dominiering by 〈…〉 violence The Question between Presbyterians and Independâ—… is not touching the nature of Ecclesiastick power of government in it self whether Lordly domiâ—ering or not but touching the Subject in which it is and by which it is to be formally exâ—…sed whether the Officers of the Church or the whole collective body of the Church We say the Officers or Elders only and that the nam◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing a ruling power and authority given to them by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradiâ—…ction to the body of the Church proveâ— this which is not infringed by what is said by Mr. Lockier here For â— when as he â—…yeth that they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of diligent inspection waâ—…fulnesse heed taking to the flock that none go astray for want of counsell 〈…〉 consolâ—… 〈…〉 whether be means inspecâ—… 〈…〉 over 〈…〉 â—…hibiting reproof consoâ—…on 〈…〉 a not-authoritative 〈…〉 we have our point For 〈…〉 by that name and the 〈…〉 â—guished from the rest of 〈…〉 that the power of râ—…ing is only 〈…〉 by them only If he say the later 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 to every single Beleever 〈…〉 11 12. Coloss 3. 16. Galat. 6. 1. and 〈…〉 might have the name of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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—
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
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
of it Like as if the Congregation be not fixed by its self in its constitution and Officers that Command intends the bringing of the matter at first to an Eldership common to more Congregations As also if the matter to be judged be of publick and more common concernment then of one Congregation that same Commandement warrands by analogie and proportion the bringing of the matter first to some more large Presbytery or Colledge of Elders then the Congregational as the first Judicature to cognosee judicially upon it But withall let it be so observed that when Christ instituteth this order that offences when they cannot be removed otherwise should be brought to the Church that is to an Ecclesiastick Judicature he sayeth not that they may not in any case proceed further for judiciall cognition and sentence upon the mater then to the first Judicature to which the judiciall cognition of it belongeth Nor is there any ground in his words whereupon this can by good consequence be inferred In a word there is nothing in this Text either against the juridicall power of larger Eiderships then Congregationall such as are Classicall Presbyteries and Synods Nor against the subordination of Congregationall Elderships to the jurisdiction and authority of such larger Elderships But upon the contrary there is in them solid ground whereupon both have been clearly demonstrat by severall Presbyterian Writers and discussed all contrary exceptions and reasonings upon the place for shortness I refer the Reader to Answ of the Assembly of Divines to c. pag. 178. Guliel Appoll Considerat of certain Controversies cap. 6. pag. 94 95. and pag. 127. Spanhem Epistol ad Dav. Buchan Class 3. Arg. 2. Huds Vindicat. of the Essence and c. pag. 156 157 158. and pag. 164 165. Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right cap. 10. pag. 310. seq section 8 To what the Authors adde that no where do we read in the Gospel of jurisdiction in relation to censure committed to Classicall Presbytery Answ 1. If the meaning be no where in the Gospel do we read this power committed by a formall precept to Classicall Presbytery by name or specifically by it self it may be granted without prejudice to what we assert and I pray where will these Authors read in the Gospel this power committed to the Eldership of a single Congregation specifically and that as they maintain Independently and supreamly 2. It is sufficient for us if we read in the Gospel this power of Jurisdiction committed to the Officers and Rulers of the Church as united together in Collegio either in one single Congregation or over more Congregations combined and associat together as is most convenient for exercise of their Ecclesiastick communion And this we read Mat. 18. 17 18. for there Discipline and Ecclesiastick jurisdiction institute by Christ is committed unto the Officers and Rulers of the Church as united in Collegio Not to Officers of a single Congregation only as united but unto the Officers of the whole Catholick Visible Church of Christ as united in lesser or larger combinations even to an Oecumenicall Assembly Because the power of Jurisdiction and Discipline Ecclesiastick there is instituted and intended by Christ to be a remedy against all scandalls and offences in his Church but all and every sort of scandall falling out in the Visible Church of Christ cannot be so remeeded or removed by the Colledge of Officers in a single Congregation They can only be a means for remedying and removing this way scandalls and offences concerning their particular Congregation and therefore there must be understood as intended here by Christ larger Ecclesiasticall Assemblies and Judicatures to exercise Discipline and Jurisdiction for remedying offences and scandalls which Congregationall Elderships cannot reach 2. It is sufficient if we read in the Gospel approven examples of larger Presbyteries then Congregationall Classicall or Synodicall authoritatively governing and exercising Acts of Rule over more particular Churches We read of such a Presbytery as we call Classicall in Jerusalem Ephesus Corinth Ruling authoritatively more Congregations as has been demonstrat by severall Learned men See namely Assembly of Divines in their Answer to c. upon the proposition 3. of Presbyteriall Government Ius Divin par 2. c. 13. We read also an example of a Synod exercising such power and authority Act. 15. section 9 With this last instance doe these Authors meet thus All the power we find exercised by the meeting at Jerusalem Acts 15. is dogmaticall the people and Brethren having their interest likewayes which the Congregationall Divines willingly yeeld all the certificat they use is if ye do these things ye shall do well but do not threaten those that disobey with Excommunication Ans These things here alledged to elude this place of Scripture have been often dashed For the present briefly 1. These Authors speak warrily in calling that Assembly at Jerusalem by the generall name of a meeting and not a Synod It seemeth here they remembred that what whereas some Congregationall men acknowledges it to have been a Synod as Cotton cited before P. 2. and Mr. Lockier others finding that not so advantagious for them deny it and say only a reference of one particular Church of Antioch to one particular Church of Jerusalem as the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly at Westminster Papers of the Assemb pag. 128. and therefore have chosen a name that might serve both and so displease neither But that it was a Synod see cleared by Jus Divin P. 2. C. 14. 2. Suppose it did not exercise a criticall power or power of censure yet it followeth not that it had not a power of censure to exercise On the contrary the dogmaticall power of a Synod being of another sort then the dogmatical power which is competent to a single Pastour this being only concionall and an act of the power of order this is juridicall and an act of the power of jurisdiction and of the Key of Discipline it carieth along a power of censure with it Tho this be not alwayes put in actuall exercise when the other is There may be and ofter is need of a juridicall determination of a case by a Judicature when there is not occasion of exercising of censure by that Judicature as is evident 3. It is contrary to clear truth that all the power that Synod exercised is dogmaticall For besides their exercising a dogmaticall power in confutation and condemnation of the Haeresie taught by the Judaizing Teachers and vindication of the truth about the great point of Justification by faith alone without the works of the Law They do also exercise a diatacticall power for healing the scandall of the weak Jews especially and their alienation of mind from the Gentile Christians who neglected their ceremoniall observances by making and enjoining a practicall canon ordaining the Gentiles to abstaine from some things that might any wayes occasion their offence And also a criticall power or power of censure against the schisme or 〈◊〉
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-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
mortuorum adhuc usque non crederent c. where it is most evident that this learned and godly Father expounds these titles of saints c. given to the Church of Corinth not of all and every one but of a part thereof and that upon this very consideration that there were amongst them persons guilty of such wickednesse as are afterwards fallen upon by the Apostle to whom his minde is these titles were not competent But waving the Authority of men let us consider the things themselves and see if the Authors have not as it would seem strained themselves here to make this consideration appear light unto them Then 2. Let it be observed that in the account of these grosse wickednesses that were amongst the Corinthians alledged as a ground against their assertion that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were such as were judged true Saints in the positive judgement of charity by the Apostles some maine grosse faults are omitted and some of them reckoned up are minced by them First I say some are omitted as for example vain carnall abuse unto ostentation of the gifts of the Spirit with which the Apostle meeteth 1 Cor. 12 13 14. vile envying traducing and labouring by all means to disgrace and bring in disgust amongst them the blessed Apostle and his Ministry Read 2 Cor. 10. and 11. and 12. and consider what was the practices of these amongst the Corinthians against whom the Apostle vindicates himself and say if they were such as the Apostle judged true Saints nay does he not in expresse tearms Cap. 11. ver 13 14 15. say of them that they were false Apostles deceitfull workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ Satans Ministers transforming themselves as the Ministers of Righteousnesse whose end should be according to their works Martyr in loc Eos non omni notitia Dei exuit sed tantum loquitur de ea notitia quae salutaris est ad regenerationem conducit ignorare autem Deum hoc nomine se satis declarabant quod resurrectiomè inficiahantur Again some of them reckoned up are minced Not only were there amongst them intemperance simply but coming drunk to the Lords table 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. and 't is spoken of as a thing ordinary and habituall in them not simply committing of fornication but impudent slighting of it as little or no sin at all as appears 1 Cor. 6. not simple questioning as they Interpret it i. e. doubting about the Resurrection but downright positive denying of it 1 Cor. 15. How say some among you that there is no Resurrection of the dead How could the Authors hearts endure to parallel such habituall drunkennesse and whoredome with Lots and Davids lapses through the surprizall of such temptations as they were under Such hereticall denying of a most fundamentall point of Religion the Resurrection from the dead with Peters denyall of a mater of fact his knowledge and acquaintance with Christ which yet was a grievous sin on the mater under the violence of a temptation as if these former as well as these latter were to be accounted but infirmities of Saints Nay albeit I deny not but atheisticall doubtings may arise and infest the hearts of gracious ones which yet are a torment to them yet I see not how a formed deniall of that fundamentall point of the Resurrection now since Christs Resurrection and so clear and full revelation of the Gospel can be consisting in the heart with true saving faith And is it not upon this very account that the Apostle speaking to these Corinthians in that 15. cap. vers 34. sayeth some he means of their Church as the Nether Dutch Notes well observe have not the knowledge of God i. e. they have not saving knowledge of God 2. What shall we yet say that the Apostle judged all and every one in the Church of Corinth truely gracious Saints 3. As to that a man who once spoken of as Gaius c. 1. 'T is true that such a man though he be overtaken with a grosse infirmitie and therefore be censurable and censured with the censure of Excommunication yet is not for that to losse the estimation we had of him before upon such grounds but what is this to the purpose in hand Have the Authors shown us or can they shew us any evidence or proof that these mentioned in the Corinth as guilty of these grosse wickednesses were such as Gaius is said to have been approven of the truth it self yea or positively in charity judged true Saints and Regenerat To suppose this as the Authors do but suppose it here is nothing else but to suppose and beg the thing in Question without any proof of it 2. I conceive the Authors are in a mistake when as they take that 2 Thes 3. 5. esteem him it is admonish him in the text as a brother to import necessarily the accounting a man one truely Regenerat For in Christianity as there is a speciall brotherhood in regard of communion in Regenerating grace so there is a common brotherhood in regard of common profession of Christian Faith and Religion and it is sufficient to understand a brother in that place in that more common notion and relation as is evident by the opposition there made to an enemy Tho I think the Apostle there is not so much speaking of the state of the man censured what it is or ought to be judged As what the affection and cariage of these yet in the Church ought to be towards him for his good Thus we have seen and considered the first ground brought by the Authors for their Thesis taken from the examples of the Churches founded by the Apostles and the confirmation brought to hold it up Their is ere they come to the next this word casten in but this is not our case our Churches are overflowed with a deluge of prophane Atheists who have been such from their birth to this present hour which I can no otherwise look upon in this place of their Epistle but as an untimous eruption of despite against their mother Church Afterward such as it is it might have come in its place when they come to speak to the point of their practice of separation from this Church But here in this place of their Epistle they are upon the question de jure of what members Churches Visible ought to be constitute what is it to this purpose that these Churches have de facto such and such persons in them But now to their second ground John say they thought not a bare verball profession sufficient ground to admit persons to Baptisme These who came to him to be Baptized unlesse he saw joyned with it fruits meet for Repentance and upon this score he could not I conceive it should be * For if it be he could not it must be meant de jure as we say illud possumus quod de jure possumus For to deny that Physicè
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
under Heaven 4. If any maters of generall concernment wherein the benefit or hurt of every member is concerned must be authoritatively transacted not by the Eldership alone but by the members joyntly with them I see not why all maters of generall concernment ought not to be so also Magis minus non variant speciem But to come to the point wherin lyeth the proof of that that it is an offence given and not taken when the members are offended because they cannot by judiciall and authoritative vote hinder the sentence of the Eldership the decisive sentence lying only in the Elders If because in these transactions the benefit or hurt of every member is generally and greatly concerned Therefore it is an offence given if they have not such power of judiciall concurrence and vote in the sentence Then I say women also must have this power and if they offend for want of it as they are as ready as men to offend if they have not power to get their will the offence is given and not taken Because women being members are comprehended under that every member and their benefit or hurt is concerned as well as mens The Author will never be able to avoid this upon his medium 6. If because in these transactions the benefit or hurt of every Member of the Church is generally and greatly concerned when they are offended because they cannot by judiciall and authoritative joint vote hinder the sentence the decisive power thereof lying only in the Elders the offence is not taken but given and therefore they ought to have such vote then say I by as good consequence it followeth because in the great transactions in civill Government suppose by a Major and his counsell by a Parliament the benefite or hurt of every member of the city or Common-wealth is generally and greatly concerned If the Members offend that they cannot by joint authoritative vote hinder the sentence the decisive power thereof lying altogether in these Governours the offence is not taken but given And therefore they ought to concur jointly and authoritatively in these transactions with their Governours Here is again Levelling backed with reason such as it is 7. Therefore to Answer directly 't is but a loose and false principle that in all transactions in which the benefite or hurt of persons is concerned all persons whose the hurt or benefite is therein concerned if they offend that they have not sufficient ability to hinder sentence by their joint authoritative vote the offence is not taken but given and therefore they ought to have such joint authoritative concurrence and vote Nay it tends to the eversion of all Government and bringing in meer Anarchy and confusion Yet 8. I think from this rightly understood may be inferred somewhat which Mr. Lockier would consider in the mater of his next Assertion For if all whose benefite or hurt is greatly concerned in Ecclesiastick transactions ought to have authoritative joint concurrence in these transactions then when as in some main transactions in a particular Congregation for example Excommunication many others benefite or hurt is greatly concerned beside these who are Members of the Congregation it must follow that these others ought to have power of joint authoritative concurrence in these transactions or at least some for their inrerest ought to have such power And this I conceive will amount to the overturning of the supreme Independent tribunall as Mr. Hooker calls it Part. 3. c. 3. of single Congregations and setting up an Ecclesiastick authoritative Judicatory over more Congregations section 14 Arg. 4. SECT 5. Because the spirit of discerning both respecting persons and things is not consined as a peculiar to the Presbytery or Eldership of the Church but the same gift may be in a great measure in some of the Members and a greater gift when all are joined together in the name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge of a conjunct strength of saints what mighty things and glorious are spoken in Scriptures That they shall judge the world Angels much more able to judge their own affairs This is the one part of this sections Argument There followeth another of which afterward Now to this 1. If this Argument hold good then again Women at least some Women ought to have judiciall concurrence and vote jointly with the Eldership in transactions of Government Why the spirit of discerning may be in as great measure in some Women as in some Men and the greater will the gift be when they with the Men are gathered together and I think it will not be denyed that Women will be a part of the Saints who are to judge the World and Angels 2. Upon the same ground by proportion it followes because many private men may have the same gift of discerning in a great measure that is in Magistrates in the Members of Parliament Yea may be in a greater measure in some of those then is in many of these and there is a greater gift when all is joined together Therefore all such discerning men must have joint authoritative consent and vote with Magistrates with the Parliament in the Acts of Government Here is again pleading for Levelling 3. Because some men may be have as great a measure of knowledge and understanding for teaching the Word as Ministers it followeth proportionally upon that ground that such men may and ought to Preach authoritatively as well as Ministers and as Socinians some Remonstrants and Separatists teach a gifted man needs not an outward calling to be a Minister His gift is a calling sufficient 4. To answer directly to reason from a gift of discerning in maters coming under Acts of Government to actuall right and power to concur authoritatively in these Acts of Government is a grosse and palpable non sequitur Let a man never have such a measure of a gift for exercising Acts of Government or publick authority he must besides have the warrand of Commission or calling to exert them else if he take upon him to exert them he is but an intruder as all men will grant that are not against both Scripture light and light of nature and for turning all Affaires Civill and Ecclesiastick into a Chaos of confusion 5. Whereas the Author saying their wil be a greater gift when all Officers and private professors are joined together viz. in these Acts of Government in the name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge We grant that when all private Professours with the Church Officers are joined together possibly there may be a greater gift of discerning by way of aggregation then when the Officers are alone But whereas withall it is tacitely supposed that all may meet in the name of the Lord i. e. in his Authority and may the more expect his presence for assisting the discerning judging in these maters of Government in the former he begs the thing in question we deny that they do all
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
judge by these things following â— Let the maters handled and concluded in this Synod be objecâ—…ly of never so â—…caâ— consequence Yet by Mr. Lockiers 〈…〉 prosecution of his 〈◊〉 Assertion namely SECT 30. and 〈◊〉 The Synods Act and determination thereupon was meer counsell and no authoritative juriâ—dictionall decree Nor could they do any more but counsell and 〈◊〉 by the Independent Doctrine which 〈…〉 truth But from this ad hominem If 〈…〉 with Apostles and Elders in a mater of meer counsell and advise What is that to the purpose now in controversie Because privat Christians may joyntly concur with â—…ders in Acts of counsell does it follow that they must also joynt 〈◊〉 â—…thoritatively concur with them in authoritative juridicall Acts of Government â— When he saith that nothing was done in the bâ—ginning carrying on or ending of these maters but with interessing the Congregation and the Brethren 1. Why does he here use so ambiguous a word as interesâ—ing the Congregation and 〈◊〉 not plainly and speciâ—icallâ— but with joynt authoritâ—tive concurrence of c. may theâ— not be a interessing of persons in the managing of such a publick procedure and yet without their authoritative concurrence viz. to be witnesses of the justnesse of the procedure that they may have the more clear satisfaction in their consciences in giving their obedientiall concurrence to have their consultative advice upon the businesse to have their privat tho not authoritative approbation Mr. Lockier in all this Section does not once mention their joynt authoritative concurrence because as I conceive he thought the act of the whole Synod to be no authoritative juridicall act 2. Whom means he by the Congregation without whose interessing in the whole businesse nothing was done Whether the Congregation of Jerusalem alone or also the Congregations and Brethren of Antioch Syria and Cilicia The latter cannot be said as is evident and to say the former First is nothing to make out his purpose Because these other Churches being as much if not more concerned in the maters that were to be concluded in the Synod if nothing could be done without the interessing or joynt concurrence of the Congregation and the Brethren of Jerusalem with the Elders these other Congregations and Brethren ought as much and more to have been interessed and joyntly to have concurred Again nor yet can it be that all thâ—… Congregation or Church of â—…rusalem could â—e so 〈◊〉 to concur jointly in acting and voting that businesse in 〈…〉 with the Apostles and Elders which yet Mâ— Lockie◠〈◊〉 say first the beleevers in â—erusalem were so numerous that they could not all conveen with the Apostles and 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 and in one place to act and vote in the 〈◊〉 Theâ— could not all meet together at once in one place for ordinary acts oâ— Worship and so were indeed a Presbyteriall Church as is demonstrat irrefragably by sundrie Mr. Rutherfurd The Assembly in their Answers to the Dissenting Brethren Jus. Divi◠〈◊〉 Church Government and others And therefore the whole Church mentioned v. 22. must not be understood of the whole Church of Beleevers in Jerusalem but of the whole caetus Synodious the Synodicall multitude the Synodicall Church section 12 But to answer directly we acknowledge and maintain that not only this meeting was a proper Synod but also the determination thereof was authoritative and juridicall and as to that which Mr. Lockier intendeth here that the Congregation privat Brethren jointly concurred with the Apostles and Elders in the determination Granting that the Brethren mentioned were privat Christians out of office 1. These were not the whole Churches concerned in the businesse that was determined which yet he must say if he would say any thing to his purpose intended in his first Assertion as has been shown yea nor all the Church of Jerusalem as hath been also shown 2. We deny that these privat Brethren concurred with the Apostles and Elders authoritatively in the determination of the sentence They gave at most but their privat assent and approbation which we grant may be given unto privat Christians in any Synod That they had not authoritative definitive vote seemeth clear from somewhat expressed in the history it self of â—…at Synod observed by Mr. Rutherfurd peace plea. c. 14. p. 213 First these only had definitive vote who met together Synodically to consider of the Question But these were only Apostles and Elders c. 15. v. 7. Non dicit Lucas convenisse totam Ecclesiam Sed eos qui ratione officij erant legittimi judices Calv. com in loc again the Canons of the Synod are denominated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees which were ordaiâ—…d by the Apostles and 〈…〉 Jerusalem c. 16. 4. 21. 25. the particulars reckoned up 〈◊〉 Mr â—…ckier proves not the country 1. That their names waâ— in thâ—â—yhodicall Letters rather the Letterâ— were in their name generally For we read â—…thing of their particular subscriptions First this is no act of authority in it self Secondly Nor doth it necâ—ssarily impâ—… their authorâ—tative concurrence in the determination coâ—…luded in the sentence â—f the Synod and intimate by the Letters to the Churches For as Letters being Writen to a multitude consisting of persons of diverse capacities some publick and in office some privat without office may contain some things peculiâ—r to the one some things belonging to the other yea may recommend one businesse to both but to be acted by them according to their different capacities and stations So Letters as sent from such a composed company in name of all may contain some things as common acts of all in whose name they are written and some things as proper acts of a part of them or somethings as proceeding from all but in a different way according to their severall capacities as proceeding from some authoritatively and from others aâ— giving their privat consent thereunto which may adde more weight to the authoritative determination amongst others 2. For their speaking in the Assemb 1â— It is not said in the Text that they did speak The speech and Disputation that was in the Assemb for ought appears was amongst the Apostles and Elders before the Brethren Not by the Brethren what is said v. 12. that all the multitude kept silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves not that they disputed before the word as Mr. Caudrey well observeth vindic clav pag. 54. signifies no more but this that they were quiet or held their peace from noise or murmuring usuall with multitudes they hearkned attentively 2. Suppose they did speak propose and reason upon the matter as we grant that privat Christians may in a Synod in an orderly way so the 2. Book of Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland c. 7. that proves not â—…t they did vote authoritatively and definitively in the determination that they received satisfaction by reason proves it not neither That may be necessary and given to clear mens consciences in concurring by privat approbation and
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
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
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
in his Assertion is that which is asserted by us in the first point Yet some of his Arguments afterward used toucheth not at that but against the third a series of subordination of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour But come we now to consider his proofs such as they are and let the Reader have before his eyes the true state of the Question as laid forth by us SECTION VIII His first Ground brought against a Presbytery having Authoritative juridicall power over more Congregations prosecute by him Sect. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. Examined section 1 MR. Lockier undertakes by four mediums to prove that a Presbytery having juridicall power and authority over more Congregations is but an humane invention 1. Because they are without a foundation in the Word This he undertakes to make good by clearing these Scriptures on which such Presbyteries are built And brings in four Scriptures Act. 1. 15 23. Act. 4. 35. Act. 15. 28. 1 Tim. 4. 14. So that his first Argument comes to this much in full matter and forme If such a Presbytery over more Congregations had any foundation in the Word it were in some of those four places But in none of those hath it foundation therefore not at all in Scripture But now tho his assumption were granted and he did clearly evidence that in none of these mentioned places it hath sufficient foundation Yet I must say he does very grossely despise his Reader to say the least in his major proposition What did never Mr. Lockier read in Presbyteriall writers any other Scripturall grounds brought to prove such a Presbytery but these 4. places might he not at least have read sundry others Let him read them over again and I believe besides these mentioned he shall find other grounds of Scripture brought to prove such a Presbytery as he shall never be able to withstand the force of For instance let him consider the Argument grounded upon Matth. 18. 17 18. brought by Gul. Apoll. considerat of certain controv c. 6. p. 94 95. on which place Parker himself de Polit. Eccles lib. 3. c. 24. groundeth the authority of Synods 2. The Argument grounded upon 1 Cor. 14. 32. in that same Author pag. 98 99. 3. The Argument brought from what the Scripture holdeth forth concerning the Churches of Jerusalem Ephesus Antioch Corinth Assembly of Divines 3. Proposition concerning Presbyteriall Government with the defences thereof against the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren Jus Divin of Church Government Part. 2. c. 13. 4. The Argument grounded upon practice of the Church under the Old Testament in matter of Government wherein it was not paedagogicall and ceremoniall but essentiall and of morall conveniency and so perpetuall Gul. Appollon pag. 96 97. Did Mr. Lockier never Read these grounds of Scripture urged in this matter by Presbyterians that alledging here that such a Presbytery hath no foundation in Scripture and taking upon him to make out this by clearing such Scripture grounds as are brought for it passeth these in silence If not I wonder much he should come to handle this controversie having taken so little pains to be acquainted with his adversaries grounds Or if he has read them why has he passed them by without an essay to cleare them If he contemned them we tell him it is easier to contemne them then to answer them But come let us see the places he has been pleased to take notice of and what he hath upon them to the purpose section 2 The first is Acts 1. 15 23. c. The eleven Apostles here meet together and these as a supreame body over all others conveen the Church at Jerusalem dictat what and how to be done in that case of losse upon the Church which shews that there is a forrain put out that name as none of ours but a nick-name and miscalling of the thing feigned by your self authoritative Eldership over particular Churches Answ I do not remember of any Presbyterian Writer that bringeth this place as a full proof of a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations albeit may be some arguing from the Government of the Church of Jerusalem viz. 1. That that Church consisted of more Congregations then one 2. That these diverse single Congregations are held forth as one Church 3. That they are under one common Presbytery Governing them Some Isay may be bring that place jointly with others to make up a proof of that complex medium Let Mr. Lockier point us at the man that brings it as a full proof by it self 'T is an easie thing for men to devise at their own pleasure Arguments as used by their adversaries and then seem to get a victory over them when as indeed they are but fighting against their own fictions So we need not trouble our selves with following Mr. Lockiers Answers to this place Only I shall note some few things said by him in his Answers which are two section 3 In the first The station of the Apostles sayeth he was extraordinary to take care of all Churches Being therefore by this place Elders in all Churches might and did interpose their power in severall particular Churches And therefore what they did modo extraordinario is not competent to be exemplary extraordinary practises are not fit matter to make up ordinary precedents Answ That it pertained to the extraordinary Office of the Apostles as Apostles to exercise their power of Teaching and Governing in all particular Churches without any particular call we confesse it true But that their Ruling of more particular Congregations then one simply was extraordinary and that when they did this they did it modo extraordinario may well be confidently said but will never be proven And how will Mr. Lockier prove that there were no ordinary Elders with the Apostles in that meeting I think he shall find this an hard stick of work But passing these things now I would here ask him one thing Why is it that he bringeth this as a solution to this place Act. 1 Does he mean indeed that the Apostles acted in this matter modo extraordinario and according to their Apostolicall Office Why then did he before Sect. 10. alledge the managing of this matter of Matthias call as a ground and patern for ordinary ordination of Elders section 4 In his second solut I shall take notice of these things 1. That true it is the eleven Apostles were here together because they were commanded by Christ to abide in Jerusalem untill they were endowed with the Holy Ghost from above But there was nothing here done but any one of them might have done it I would ask what he intends by this Is his meaning that it was but by accident that they did act together in Collegio in this businesse and that they acted as Apostles only because what they did any one of them might alone have done what they did And therefore it is no wayes a patern for a Colledge of ordinary Elders acting jointly
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
Having briefly noted thus upon Mr. Hookers two Syllogismes we return to our Author section 18 In the close of this his first Argument for confirmation thereof he addeth thus That here they did acquiesce viz. in â—inding the Churchâ—… to which they sent only by way of counsel and materially and did not further meddle with any juridicall processe upon them appears by these pacifick words which would they were written not with ink and pen but with the spirit of the Lord upon all Presbyters hearts who are so turbulent in these 〈◊〉 Froâ— which if you keep your selves you shall do well Ans Mr. Lockier is here in a great mistake while as he insinuateth that if the Synod did not meddle with juridicall processe viz. as I conceive to censure upon them to whom they sent the decrees that it must then be said they acquiesced in meer giving of counsâ—ll 〈…〉 Court or Judicatory had no other act of authoritativâ— Jurisdictioâ— but processing persons to censure When as the making 〈◊〉 authoritative imposing of constitutions which indeed makes persons liable to censure in case of disobedience is an act of juridicall Authority though there be no processing personâ—â—o censure presently joined therewith And that 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 and authoritatively I mean Ministerially impos◠〈◊〉 â—…tions upon the Churches the they went 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 â—ny of them hâ—s been abundaâ—…ly proven by the Authoâ—… 〈…〉 2. Yea they did actually put â—orth a 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schisme and disseâ—… 〈…〉 Teachers by stigmatiâ—… 〈…〉 Teacherâ— and 〈◊〉 them by declâ—ring them 〈…〉 the Church â—oâ—…tters of souls and â—acitely 〈…〉 words unto whom we gave no such 〈…〉 â—o â—e 〈…〉 of the Apostles and Elderâ— of Jerusâ—… 〈…〉 to Preach this Doctrine Thâ—… 〈…〉 of censure and â—ended to more if they 〈…〉 incorâ—igible and obstiâ—…◠But 〈…〉 good earâ—est when as he sayeth 〈…〉 of the Synodicall Epistle to 〈◊〉 Churchâ—… 〈…〉 to these matters 〈◊〉 give couâ—sell 〈…〉 Churches and wish that for thâ— purpose they 〈◊〉 Wrâ—…en not with 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 c. as if forâ—ooth because the Synoâ—â—nd their decrees in an Epistle which was a respectfull way because they recommend the practice and obediâ—… of them by the goodnesse thâ—reof this did necessarily imporâ— they did not enjoin them by authority but only advised them by way of Christian counsell Verily such reasoning â—…red with such a â—hetoricall wish Would they were Written c. I think may blâ—sh in the present of any intelligent man As for that bitter â—ccuâ—…tion the Authâ—r gives in against all Presbyters he meâ—… Presbyteriâ—ns not Presbyters of his own way sure as turbuâ—ent persons we wish the Lord may lay it to his conscience but not to his charge For ouâ— selves it being cast upon us for no other cause but for standing to the maintainance and avowing of the Cause of Jesus Christ and the due authority of his Ordinances we shall â—…ntly 〈◊〉 our selves with that of his Blessed are ye when men 〈…〉 you and shall say all manner of evill against 〈…〉 for my sake so persecuted they the Prâ—pheâ—s which were before you section 19 His second reason aâ—…edged to prove this Synod did exercise only a power of counsell Sect. 3â— in 〈◊〉 iâ— this much The conâ—roversie decided in this Synod being between the Church of Antioch and some Judaizing Tâ—achers it is evident that one side in the Synod was a party to wit them of Antioâ—h Now for these who were a party and â—ontested against their opposites to be judge in their own cause and to be juridicall upon their Antagonists by their own power cannot equiâ—ably or conscionably be imagined It is saith Hooker against rule Answ I remember this very objection is one of the grounds of thâ—… Protestation and Declinator made by the Remonstrants against that 〈…〉 Reverend Synod of Dort Because to wit a great part of the Members of the Synod were their adverse party had by Preaching and Writing before condemned their Doctrine 〈◊〉 errour and that the Law of Nature doth not permit that 〈…〉 be judge in their own cause Which 〈…〉 unanimous suffrage of the 〈…〉 â—ull and the reasons whereupon they did 〈◊〉 it which are to be seen in the acts of the Synod â—ess â—9 do abundantly refuse this reason alledged to prove that this Synod 〈…〉 did only exercise a power of counsell and 〈…〉 authoritatively determine the mater 〈…〉 Not being willing to fill up much paper with transcriptionâ— I 〈◊〉 the judicious Reâ—der to the suffrages of these reverend and learned Diviâ—… themselves for more full satisfaction For the present brieâ—… it is a grosse mistake of our Author and Mr. Hooker from whom â—e hath it that these Commissioners of the Church of Antioâ—h members of this Synod if the Synod did juâ—…dically and authoritatively judg and determine in the mater that was before them did judge in their own cause if he mean their own proper private cause the â—…ter of their judgement was not the proper private cause 〈◊〉 any member of the Synod but the publick cause of GOD and his Church the doctrine of justificatiâ—… which the Judaâ—…ing Teachers did corrupt and the peace of the Church which they disturbed Now thâ— persons cannot be both an adverse party and Judge in their own private cause which concerneth themselves yet in a publick cause this may be Even in civill maters this may and must be in some cases The persons that constitute the supream Judicatory of a Nation suppose the Parliament they are both adverse party and Judge in publick causes as in maters of treason c. Especially this exception from that Maâ—ime which is alledged that persons cannot be both adverse party and Judge in their own cause must not have place in maters and controversies of Religion otherwise there could be no judiciall way at all for condemning false and haereticall Teachers For certain it is that all Ministers of Jesus Christ are oblidged by their Calling and the Commandement of God not only to teach and instruct the people of God positively in the truth â—ut also to reâ—ute the errors and stop the mouths of opposers and adversaries of the Truth so that when any broach and vent errors in the Church of God the Ministers of Christ must not stand neutrals and indifferent but must and ought both by word and wriâ— reâ—uâ—e â—nd 〈◊〉 them and be an adverse party to tâ—…m Must they therefore because they do their duty in opposing Teachers of errors in their severall particular stations be uncapable in an Assembly to judge and condemne these errors and abettors of them judicially Verily this were nothing else but to proclaim 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 spirits in the world to teach and spread 〈…〉 without any controlement in an Ecclesiasticall way And veâ—…ly this principle That persons that are an adverse party to false Teachers in maters of Religion cannot be Judgeâ— on the controversie between them and these Teachers was very far from the the thoughts of
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.