any thing of that kind to the uncertainty of an occasionall meeting 3 The Apostles were freely present in any Presbyterie where they were for the time because the oversight and care of all the Churches was layd upon them Pastors and Elders were necessarily present therein and did by vertue of their particular vocation meete together Presbyterially whether an Apostle were with them or not No other sense can the Text suffer but that by Presbyterie we should understand consessus Presbyterorum a meeting of Elders and so doe Camero and Forbesse themselves expound it Sutlivius objecteth to the contrary that the Apostle Paul did lay on hands upon Timothy which he proveth both from 2. Tim. 1. and because extraordinary gifts were given by that laying on of hands Ans. There is an expresse difference made betwixt Pauls laying on of his hands and the Presbyteries laying on of their haÌ„ds Of the former it is said that Timothy received the gift which was in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the laying on of Pauls hands but he received the gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie as Didoclavius noteth But saith Sutlivius Timothy being an Evangelist as you hold how could hee be ordained by the Presbyterie Ans. 1. Though the Presbyterie did neither give him ordination to bee an Evangelist nor yet conferre by the laying on of their hands extraordinary gifts upon him yet did they lay on their hands as setting to the the Seale and Testimony and commending him to the grace of God even as certaine Prophets and Teachers layd hands on Paul and Barnabas and Ananias also before that time had laid his hands upon Paul 2. The Presbyterie might ordaine Timothy to be an Elder If so be he was ordained an Elder before he was ordained an Evangelist 3. If the testimony of the Presbyterie by the laying on of their hands together with the Apostles hands in the extraordinary mission of Timothy was required much more may it be put out of question that the Apostles committed to the Presbytâ—ry the full power of ordaining ordinary Ministers But it is further objected by Sutlivius that this could not be such a Presbyterie as is among us because ordination and imposition of hands pertaine to none but the Ministers of the word Ans. 1. The children of Israel laid their hands upon the Levites we would know his reason why he denyeth the like power to ruling Elders now especially since this imposition of hands is but a gesture of one praying and a morall signe declaring the person prayed for 2. Howsoever our practice whâ—ch is also approved by good Divines is to put a difference betwixt the act of ordination and the externall right thereof which is imposition of hands ascribing the former to the whole Presbytery both Pastors and Elders and reserving the latter to the Ministers of the word yet to bee done in the name of all Thus have we evinced the Apostles meaning when he speaketh of a Presbyterie and this Consistory we find to have continued in the Christian Church in the ages after the Apostles Jt is certaine that the ancient Bishops had no power to judge any cause without the presence advice and counsell of their Presbyters Conc. Carth. 4. can 23. Field Forbesse Saravia and Douname doe all acknowledge that it was so and so doth Bellarmine de Pont. Rom. l. 1. c. 8. Of this Presbytery speaketh Cyprian Omni actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium c. Of the Presbytery speaketh the same Cyprian lib. 2. Ep. 8. lib. 4. Ep. 5. Ignatius ad Trall and Hierom in Esa. 3. Wee finde it also in conc Ancyr can 18 and in conc Carthag 4. can 35.40 Doctor Forbesse alledgeth that the word Presbytery for fifteen hundred yeares after Christ did signifie no other thing in the Church then a Diocesan Synod But herein if hee had understood himselfe he spake not so much against Presbyteries as against Prelats for a Diocesse of old was bounded within one City Tumque jampridem per omnes provincias per urbes singulas ordinati sint Episcopi c. saith Cyprian It was necessary to ordaine Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Chrysostome speaking of the primitive times yea in Country Villages also were Bishops who were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rurall Bishops whose Episcopall office though limited yet was allowed in the Councell of Ancyra can 13. and the Councell of Antioch can 8. 10. Sozomen recordeth that the Village Majuma which was sometime a suburbe of the City Gaza was not subject to the Bishop of Gaza but had its owne proper Bishop and that by the decree of a Synod in Palestina The Councell of Sardis can 6. and the Councell of Laodicea can 57. though they discharged the ordaining of Bishops in villages lest the name of a Bishop should grow contemptible did neverthelesse allow every City to have a Bishop of its owne What hath Doctor Forbesse now gained by maintaining that the bounds of a Presbyterie and of a Diocesse were all one They in the Netherlâ—nds sometime call their Presbyteries Diocaeses and many of our Presbyteries are greater then were Diocesses of old Wee conclude there was anciently a Presbytery in every City which did indeede choose one of their number to preside among them and to lay on hands in name of the rest and hee was called the Bishop wherein they did more trust the deceiveable goodnesse of their owne intentions then advert to the rule of the Word of God These things premitted I come now to that which is principally intended viz. by what warrant and quâ— jure the Classicall Presbyterie among us made up out of many neighbouring congregations should be the ordinary Court of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction at least in all matters of highest importance which doe concerne either all or any of those congregations For resolution hereof we must understand 1. That causes common to many congregations ought not to be judged by any one of them but by the greater Presbytery common to them all 2. It is to bee supposed that particular congregations at least the farre greatest part of them have not in their proper Elderships so many men of sufficient abilities as are requisite in judging and determining the cases of the examination of Ministers of ordination deposition excommunication and the like 3. When one appealeth from a particular Eldership out of perswasion that hee is wronged by the sentence thereof or when that Eldership finding its owne insufficiency for determining some difficult causes resolveth to referre the same into a higher Court reason would that there should be an ordinary Court of a Classicall Presbytery to receive such appellations or references 4. Congregations which lye neare together ought all as one to keep unity and conformity in Church policy and government neither ought one of them be permitted to doe an
the conâ—esâ—ion of our opposites for ruling Elders THE office of Ruling Elders is not onely maintained by 〈◊〉 Cartâ—right Aâ—â—rsâ— Bucerâ—â— and others whom our opposites will call partiall Writers let him who pleaseth read the commentaries of Martyr 〈◊〉 Gualther Hemmingius Piscator Paraus upon Rom. 12.8 1 Cor. 12.28 Aretius on Act. 14.23 Zepper de Polit. Eccles. l. 3. c. 1. 12. Bullinger on 1 Tim. 5.17 Arculâ—rius on Act. 14.23 Catal Test verit col 103. Osâ—and cent 1 l. 4. c. 11. Chemnâ—t exam part 2. pâ—g 2â—8 Gerard. loâ— Theol. tom 6 pâ—g 363 â—64 Muscul. loc com de Eccles. c. 5 Bucan loc com â—oc 42. Suetanus de Discipl Eccles. part 4 c. 3. Polanus Synt. l. 7. c 11. Zanchius in 4 praecep col 727. Iunius animad in Bellâ—r cont 5. l 1. c 2 Danaeus de Polit. Christ. l. 6 p 452. Alsted Theol. cas pag. 518.520 Sopingâ—us ad bonam fidem Sibrandi pag. 253. c. The Professours of Leyden Synt. pur Theol. Disp. 42. and sundry others whose testimonies I omit for brevities cause it is enough to note the places The Author of the Assertion for true and Christian Church policie pag. 196.197 citeth for ruling Elders the testimony the Commissioners of King Edward the sixt authorised to compile a booke for the reformation of Lawes Ecclesiasticall among whom were the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely They say Let the Minister going apart with some of the Elders take counsell c. Voetâ—us citeth to the same purpose Marlorat Hyperius Fulke Whittaker Fenner Bunnius Willet Sadeel Lubbertus Trelcatius both the one and the other yea Socinus and the Remonstrants Besides we have for us the practise of al wel reformed Churches and the Confessions of the French the Belgicke and the Helveticke Churches to be seene in the harmony of Confessions But what will you say if the adversaries of ruling Elders be forced to say somewhat for them Whitgift confesseth not onely that our division of Elders into preaching Elders and ruling Elders hath learned patrons but also that the Christian Church when there was no Christian Magistrate had governing Seniors and elsewhere he saith I know that in the Primitive Church they had in every Church Seniors to whom the government of the Congregation was committed Saravia lendeth them his word likewise Quod à me c. Which is not disputed by mee in that meaning that the Belgicke Churches or any other which doe with edification use the service of these Elders should rashly change any thing before that which is better bee substitute Againe speaking of the government of ruling Elders he saith Quod ut c. Which as I judge profitable and good to bee constitute in a Christian Church and Common-wealth so I affirme no Church no Common-wealth to bee bound thereto by Divine Law except perhaps necessity compell or great utility allure and the edification of the Church require it Loe here the force of truth struggling with one contrary minded Hee judgeth the office of ruling Elders profitable and good yet not of divine right yet hâ—e â—cknowledgeth that necessity utility and the edification of the Church maketh us tyed to it even by divine right But if it be profitable and good why did he call in question the necessity at least the utility and the edification of it can one call in question the utility of that which is profitable he would have said the truth but it stucke in his teeth and could not come forth Saelâ—vius de concil lib. I cap. 8. saith that among the Jewes Seniores tribuum the Elders of the Tribes did sit with the Priests in judging controversies of the Law of God Hence hee argueth against Bellarmine that so it ought to bee in the Christian Church also because the priviledge of Christians is no lessâ— thâ—n the priviledge of the Jewes Câ—mero tells us that when the Apostle 1 Coâ— 6. reproveth the Corinthians for that when one of 〈◊〉 had â— matter against anothâ—â— they 〈…〉 the Saints to bee â—udges 〈…〉 noâ— by the 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 mâ—ltitude sedeos qui in Ecclesia constituti craâ—t ut vacarent gubernationi Ecclesiae that is â—hose who were ordained in the Church to give themselves to the government of the Church My Lord Craigtanne finding the strength of that Argument that if beside the Ministers of the Word other grave and wise Christians may be present in the greatest Assemblies and Councels of the Church why not in Presbyteries also answereth that indeed it is not amisse that the wiser sorâ— among the people be joyned as helpers and assistants to the Pastors providing that this their auxiliary function be not obtruded as necessary This is somewhat for us but we say further if it be necessary in Oecumenicke Councells for no lesse doe the Arguments of our Divines in that question with the Papists conclude then is it necessary in Presbyteries also CHAP. XI Doctor Fields five Arguments against ruling 〈…〉 HIS fiâ—st Reason that shewed 〈◊〉 to thinkâ— there were 〈◊〉 any 〈…〉 Church is because Bishops Presbyters that preach and minister the Sacraments and Deacons howsoever they much degenerated in later times yet all still remained in all Christian Churches throughout the World both Greeke and Latine in their names and offices also in some sort But of these ruling Elders there are no foot-steps to bee found in any Christian Church in the World nor were not for many hundred yeares whereas there would have beene some remaines of these as well as the other had they ever had any institution from Christ or his Apostles as the other had To this wee answer 1. If the Christian Churches throughout the World had wanted ruling Elders longer then they did yet prescription can be no prejudice to the ordinance of God 2. After that the golden age of the Apostles was spent and gone exact diligence was not taken to have the Church provided with well qualified Ministers but many unfit men yea sundry heretickes entred into that sacred vocation whereby it came to passe that corruption and errour overflowed the Churches as both Eusebius proveth from Aegesippus and catalogus testium veritatis from Irenaus Might not this be the cause of changing the office-bearers and government of the Church 3. In the Roman yea in Prelaticall Churches there are scarce any foot-steps at all of the offices of preaching Presbyters and Deacons as they were instituted by the Apostles The Apostles ordained Presbyters to preach the Word to minister the Sacraments to governe the Church and to make use of the keyes But the Popish and Prelaticall Presbyters have not the power of the keyes nor the power of Church government for it is proper to their Prelates as for the other two they are common to their Deacons for they also doe preach and baptise The office of the Popish Priest standeth in two things to consecrate and offer up the body of Christ and to absolve
matters the matters of law and judgement which are called the Lords matters because the Lord was the author of their civill lawes what a crazie device is this did not matters of peace and warre come under the civill lawes which God had delivered to the Jewes as well as any matter of judgement betwixt man and man and what can bee more plaine then that the Lords matters or things pertaining to God when they are differenced from other matters are ever understood to bee matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Quapropter wherefore saith Iunius the Readers are to be warned whosoever they bee that consult the histories of ancient times that where they read the name Synedâ—tum they wisely observe whether the civill Assembly or the Ecclesiastical be meant of because that name was confused and indistinct after the times of Antiochus But notwithstanding that in these latter times all good order had much degenerate and growne to confusion yet it seemeth to me that even in the dayes of our Saviour Christ the Civill and Ecclesiasticall courts remained distinct let me say my opinion with all mens leave and under correction of the more learned that night that our Lord was betrayed he was led to the Hall of Cajaphas where there was holden an Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim which asked Jesus of his Disciples and of his doctrine received witnesse against him and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy Mat. 27.57 Mark 14.53.55 Ioh. 18.19 Nothing I finde in this Councell why we should think it civill for as touching the smiting and buffeting of Christ Mat. 26.67 Luk 22.63 some think it was by the servants of the high Priests and Elders after that they themselves had gone home left the Councell howsoever it was done tumultuously not judicially and tumults may fall forth in any Judicatory whether civill or Ecclesiastical As for the sentence which they gave Mat. 26.66 He is guilty of death it proveth not that this was a civill Court for just so if an incestuous person should bee convict before an Assembly of our Church the Moderator might ask the Assembly what thinke ye and they might well answer He is guilty of death away with him to the Magistrate Shortly then the matter debated in this nocturnall Councell was meerly Ecclesiasticall and the accusation of sedition and making himselfe a King were not spoken of till he was brought before Pâ—â—at But there was another Sanedrim convocat in the morning Mat 27 1. Mark 15.1 Luk 22 66. and this seemes to have been not Ecclesiasticall but Civill 1. because they meddle not with the triall of his doctrine nor any examination of witnesses thereanent only they desire to heare out of his own mouth that which hee had confessed in the other Councell viz. that he was the Christ the Son of God whereupon they take counsell how they might deliver him to Pilate which was the end of their meeting 2. Mâ—â—k saith They bound him and carried him awâ—y to Pilate 3. The Ecclesiasticall Councell had already done that which they thought pertained to them for what should they have convened again Some say that aâ—l the high Priests Scribes and Elders were not present at that nocturnall councell and that therefore they convened more fully in the morning But that the nocturnall Councell was fully convened it is manifest from Mat. 26.59 Mark 14.53.55 4. This last Councell led Jesus away to Pilâ—te and went themselves with him to accuse him before Pilate of sedition and of making himselfe a King Luk. 23.1.2 Mat. 27.12 5. They complain that the power of capitall punishment was taken from them by the Romans importing that otherwise they might have put him to death by their law Ioh. 18.31 Now D. Fields last reason is For that all Fathers or Councels mentioning Elders place them betwixt Bishops and Deacons and make them to be Clergy men and that in the Acts where the Apostles are said to have constitute Elders in every Church Pastors are meant is strongly confirmed from Act. 20.17.28 where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are commanded to feed the flocke of Christ over which they were appointed over-seers whence it followeth inevitably that they were Pastors We answer 1. Ambrose speaketh of Elders which were not Pastors 2. Beza Gualther expound the place Act. 14.23 where the Apostles are said to have ordained Elders through every Church of ruling as well as preaching Elders 3. As for that which he alledgeth from Act. 20. Beza Iunius and the Professors of Leyden hold that the names of Bishops and Pastors are common both to ruling and preaching Elders and that the Scripture giveth these names to both howsoever in Ecclesiastical use for distinctioÌ„s cause they are appropriate to teaching Elders Surely the ruling Elder both overseeth the flocke and feedeth the same both by discipline and by private admonition and for these respects may bee truly called both Bishop and Pastor 4. How small reason hee hath to boast of the Fathers we have already made it to appeare 5. It is a begging of the question to reason from the appropriation of the name of Elders to the Pastors CHAP. XII The extravagancies of Whitgift and Saravia in the matter of ruling Elders THese two Disputers doe not as D. Field altogether oppose the government of ruling Elders but with certain restrictions about which notwithstanding they differ betwixt themselves â—hitgift alloweth of ruling Elders under a Tyrant but not under a Christian Magistrate but â—ayeth they cannot be under an Infidell Magistrate Me thinkes J see here Sampsons Foxes with their tailes knit together and a firebrand betwixt them yet their heads looking sundry waâ—es To begin with Whitgift he saith in one place I know that in the primitive church they had in every church seniors to whom the Government of the Congregation was committed but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrate c. In another place My reason why it the Church may not bee governed under a Christian Magistrate is it may under a Tyrant is this God hath given the chiefe authority in the government of the Church to the Christian Magistrate which could not bee so if your Seigniory might aswell retaine their authority under a Christian Prince and in the time of peace is under a Tyrant and in the time of persecution for tell me I pray you what authority Ecclesiasticall remaineth to the civill Magistrate where this Seigniory is established Hee who pleaseth may find this opâ—â—ion largely consuted by Beza de Presbyterio contra Erasmum and by I. B. A. C. polit civil Eccles. Jn the meane while I answer First T. C. had made a sufficient Reply hereunto which Whitgift here in his defence should have confuted but hath not viz. That if the Seniors under a Tyrant had medled with any Office of a Magistrate then there had beene some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church the Office of a Senior or at least so much as
word onely others he permits onely to consent unto that which is done by them Saravia alloweth grave and learned men to sit with the Ministers of the word yet not as Iudges but as Counsellors and Assessors onely Tilen will not say that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church ought to call any into their Councill but that they may doe it when there is need Against whom and all who are of their mind we object 1. The example of Apostolicke Synods Matthias the Apostle after Gods owne designation of him by the lot which fell upon him was chosen by the voices not onely of the Apostles but the other Disciples who were met with them Act 1.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Simul suffragiis electus est as Arias Montanus turneth it For the proper and native signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Lorinus sheweth out of Gagveius is to choose by voices The Professors of Leyden have noted this consensus Ecclesiae per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the election of Matthias Cens. in Confess cap. 21. Jn the Councill of Hierusalem Act. 15. we find that beside the Apostles the Elders were present and voiced definitively for they by whom the Decree of the Synod was given forth and who sent chosen men to Antioch were the Apostles and Elders Gerard Loc. Theol. com 6. n. 28. and thâ— Profess of Leyden cens in conf c. 21. understand that the Elders spoken of v. 5. 6. were the ruling Elders of the Church of Hierusalem joyned with the Apostles who laboured in the word Other ProtestaÌ„t writers understand by the name of Elders there both preaching and ruling Elders The Brethrent hat is the whole Church heard the disputes and consented to the Decrees v. 21 22 23 Ruling Elders behoved to doe more then the whole Church that is voice definitively Lorinus the Jesuite saith that by the name of Elders there wee may understand not onely Priests but others besides them Viz. antiquiores anctoritate praecellentes discipulos Disciples of greatest age and note And this he saith is the reason why the vulgar Latine hath not retained in that place the Greeke word Presbyteri but readeth Seniores 2. Wee have for us the example of Ecclesiasticall Courts among the Iewes wherein the Iewish Elders had equall power of voicing with the Priests and for this we have heard before Saravia's plaine confession 3. The example of ancient Councils in the Christian Church Constantine in his Epistle which he wrote to the Churches concerning the Nicene Councill saith I my selfe as one of your number was present with them the Bishops which importeth that others of the Laity voiced there with the Bishops as well as he and hee as a chiefe one of their number Euagrius lib. 2. cap. 4. saith that the chiefe Senators sate with the Bishops in the Councill of Chalcedon And after he saith The Senators decreed as followeth The fourth Councill of Carthagâ— c. 27. speaking of the transportation of a Bishop or of any other Clergie man saith sane si id Ecclesiae vtilitas fiendum poposecrit decretâ— Pro eo clericorum laicorum Episcopis porrecto in praeseÌ„tia Synodi transferatur The Decrees of the Synod of France holden by Charlemainâ— about the yeare 743. are said to have beene made by the King the Bishops the Presbyters and Nobles Many such examples might we shew but the matter is so cleere that it needeth not 4. The Revieu of the Councill of Trent written by a Papist among other causes of the Nobility of that Councill maketh this one that Lay-men were not called nor admitted into it as was the forme of both the Apostolicke and other ancient Councils shewing also from sundry Histories and examples that both in France Spaine and England Lay-men vsed to voice and to judge of all matters that were handled in Councils alleaging further the examples of Popes themselves That Adrian did summon many Lay-men to the Lateran Councill as members thereof that in imitation of him Pope Leo did the like in another Councill at the Lateran under Otho the first and that Pope Nicholas in Epist. ad Michael Imperat. acknowledgeth the right of Lay-men to voice in Councils wherein matters of faith are treated of because faith is common to all The same writer sheweth also from the Histories that in the Councill of Constance were 24. Dukes 140 Earles divers Delegates from Cities and Corporations divers learned Lawyers and Burgesses of Universities 5. The Protestants of Germany did ever refuse to acknowledge any such Councill wherein none but Bishops and Ministers of the word did judge When the Councill of Trent was first spoken of in the Dyet at Norimberg Anno 1522. all the estates of Germany desired of Pope Adrian the 6. That admittance might be granted as well to Lay-men as to Clergie-men and that not onely as witnesses and spectators but to be judges there This they could not obtaine therefore they would not come to the Councill and published a booke which they entituled Causa cur Electores caeteri confessioni Augustanae addicti ad CoÌ„cilium Tridentinum non accedant Where they alleage this for one cause of their not comming to Trent because none had voice there but Cardinals Bishops Abbots Generals or superiors of orders wheras laickes also ought to have a decisive voice in Councils 6. If none but the Ministers of the word should sit and voice in a Synod then it could not bee a Church representative because the most part of the Church who are the hearerâ— and not the teachers of the word are not represented in it 7. A common cause ought to be concluded by common voices But that which is treated of in Councils is a common cause pertaining to many particular Churches Our Divines when they prove against Papists that the election of Ministers and the excommunication of obstinate sinners ought to be done by the suffrages of the whole Church they make use of this same argument That which concerneth all ought to be treated of and judged by all 8. Some of all estates in the common-wealth voice in Parliament therefore some of all sorts in the Church ought to voice in Councils and Synods for de paribus idem judicium A Nationall Synod is that same to the Church which A Parliament is to the Common-wealth 9. Those Elders whose right we plead are called by the Apostle rulers Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 and Governours 1 Cor. 12.28 therefore needs must they voice and judge in those assemblies without which the Church cannot be ruled nor governed Jf this be denyed them they have no other function behind to make them Rulers or Governours of the Church Rome was ruled by the Senate not by the Censors and Athens was governed by the Arâ—opagus not by the inferiour Office-bearers who did only take heed how the Lawes were observed But let us now see what is objected against this power of Ruling Elders to voice
knoâ—ledge â—nd at least tacite consent of the Congregation it selfe then doe we not onely sufficiently and abundantly preserve the liberty of the Congregation while as not the Pastor or Pastors thereof alone but sundry Ruling Elders also representing the Congregation doe manage the affaires aforesaid the Congregation withall understanding thereof and consenting thereto Tacitè if not Expressè I doe not thinke but those of the Separation at this time will easily assent to this resolution and reconcilement of the controversie and so much the rather because I beleeve they themselves doe seclude from the exercise of jurisdiction in the Congregation both children under age because of their defect of Judgement and women because they are forbidden to speake in the Church and whether they seclude any other I know â—ot but since according to their owne Tenets some must be secluded and the power given to the Church must in the exercise of it be restrained to some in the Church it is better to say with Aegidius Hunnius that when Christ remitteth us to the Church Mat. 18.17 He meaneth the prime and chiefe Members which represent the Church that is Pastors aâ—d Elders then to say that he sendeth us to the whole body of the Church One scruple more may peradventure remaine They will say it is well that we require the churches consent before any waighty matter which concerneth all be finished but what if this consent be not had Whether may the Eldership cut off an offender renitente Ecclesia For their satisfaction is this also wee say with Zepperus Quod si Ecclesia c. But if the Church saith he will not approve the sentence of Excommunication nor hold it valid and they see many disagreeing among themselves and schismes and greater evills in the Church to follow this sentence of Excommunication the Elders shall not proceed to Excommunication but shall patiently suffer what cannot with the good leave of the church be amended In the meane while they shall publikely and privately admonish and exhort So saith Zanchius that without the consent of the church no man ought to be excommunicated The B. of Spalato and before him Augustine hath given the reason hereof because the end of excommunication cannot be attained if the Church doe not consent thereto for the end is that the offender may bee taken with feare and shame when he findeth himselfe abhorred and accursed by the whole Church so that it shall be in vain to excommunicate him from whom the Multitude in the Church refuse to abstract their communion I conclude that in such cases though the Pastors and Elders have the power of jurisdiction it is not to exercise the same CHAP. II. Of the independencies of the Elderships of particular Congregations WEE have now rolled away one stone of offence but there is another in our way It were most strange if the collective body of a Congregation consisting it may bee of 10 20 30 or 40 persons according to the grounds of these with whom we deale should bee permitted to exercise independently all Eccleasisticall Jurisdiction but it is almost as great a Paradox to say that the representative of every Congregation which is the Eldership therof consisting it may be of a Pastor and two or three Ruling Elders ought independently to exercise the foresaid jurisdiction in all points I am debtor to D. Field for answering one of those questions before propounded concerning Ruling Elders and here it falls in my hand He asketh whether the power of Church-government and jurisdiction doth belong to the Pastor and Elders of every Congregation or to the Pastors and Elders of many Congregations joyned together in a Common Presbytery I beleeve his expectation was that while as we would sayle through betwixt the Caribdis of Episcopall tyranny and the Scylla of popular Anarchy wee should not know hoâ— to direct our course but should certainly either bee swallowed up in the waves of mighty difficulties or split our selves upon hid Rockes of division Our danger I hope is not so great as he did imagine for we hold that the particular Elderships of severall Congregations have their owne power and authority of Church-government but with a subordination unto the common or greater Presbytery whose power is superior and of a larger extent First then we shall take into consideration the bounds of the power of particular Elderships and how the same may be said to be independent and how not for this purpose I shall give foure distinctions out of Parker and to these I shall adde other foure of my owne The first distinction is betwixt things which are proper and peculiar to one Congregation and things which are common to many the former pertaineth to the particular Eldership the latter to the common Eldership Whence it commeth that in Scotland the cases of ordination suspension deposition and Excommunication are determined in the greater Presbyteries because it doth not concerne one Congregation alone but many who be taken into the common Presbytery and who be put out of the samâ— neither doth the Excommunication of a sinner concerne onely one Congregation but the Neighbouring Congregations also among whom as is to be commonly supposed the sinner doth often haunt converse Cyprian speaking of the admission of some who had fallen and who had no recommendation from the Martyrs to be received againe referreth the matter to a common meeting and his reason is because it was a common cause and did not concerne a few nor one church onely See lib. 2. Ep. 14. The second distinction is betwixt Congregations which have a competent and well-qualified Eldership small Congregations who have but few office-bearers and those it may be not sufficiently able for Church-government In this case of insufficiencie a Congregation may not independently by it selfe exercise jurisdiction and not in re propria saith Parker 3. He distinguisheth betwixt the case of right administration and the case of aberration whatsoever liberty a Congregation hath in the former case surely in the latter it must needs be subject and subordinate If particular Elderships doe rightly manage their owne matters of Church-government the greater Presbytery shall not need for a long time it may be for some yeares to intermeddle in any of their matters which wee know by experience in our owne Churches 4. Hee maketh a distinction betwixt the case of appellation and the case de nulla administratione mala praesumpta Though the particular Eldership hath proceeded aright though it consist of able and sufficient men and though it bee in re propria yet if one think himselfe wronged and so appeale then is it made obnoxious to a higher consistory for saith Parker as the Councill of Sardis ordaineth audience must not bee denyed to him who entreateth for it So saith Zepperus speaking of the same purpose cuivis integrum quoque sit ad superiores gradus provocare si in inferioris gradus sententia aut decreto aliquid
who have received Christ to salvation hath right and title to enjoy him in his politicall ordinances by their own exercising of all Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and that independently this is more then either hath been or can be proved Object The union betwixt Christ and his Church is as strait and immediate as the union betwixt the Vine and the Branches betwixt the Head and the Body betwixt the Husband the Wife Therefore every true Church of Christ hath direct immediate interest in and title to Christ himself the whole new Testament and every ordinance of it Answ. The strait union betwixt Christ and the Church expressed by these comparisons cannot bee understood of the Church taken politically for then the union betwixt Christ and the Church might be dissolved as often as the Church ceaseth to bee ordered and governed as an Ecclesiastical Republick It is therefore to be understood either of the invisible Church or at most of the visible Church taken metaphysically or entitatively But I adde withall it is to be likewise understood of every faithfull Christian so that not onely every true Church but every true member thereof by vertue of this union hath direct and immediate title to Christ and to the benefit of all his ordinances for his edification and salvation This is all which the Argument can conclude and it maketh nothing against us Object If all things be the Churches even the Ministers themselves yea though they be Paul Cephas and Apollos then may every Church use and enjoy all things immediately under Christ. But the first is true 1 Cor. 3.24 Therefore c. Answ. Neither can this prove any thing against us for when the Apostle saith All things are yours whether Paul c. He is to bee understood not onely collectively of the Church but distributively of every beleever who hath right to the comfortable enjoyment and benefit of these things so farre as they concerne his salvation And in like manner I may say to the members of any particular congregation All things are yours whether Sessions or Presbyteris or Provinciall or Generall Assemblies And what wonder God is our Father Christ our elder brother the holy Ghost our Comforter the Angels our keepers heaven our inheritance It is therefore no strange thing to heare that as the supreame civill power so the supreame Ecclesiasticall power is appointed of God in order to our good and benefit that it be not a tyranny for hurt but a ministery for help These are the objections alledged for the independent and absolute power of congregations But this is not all Some seeme to make use of our own weapons against us making objection from the forme of the Jewish Church which wee take for a plat-forme They say that the Synagogues of the Jewes were not as the particular Churches are now for they were not entire Churches of themselves but members of the nationall Church neither could they have the use of the most solemne parts of Gods worship as were then the sacrifices That the whole nation of the Jewes was one Church having reference to one Temple one high Priest one Altar it being impossible that the whole body of a Nation should in the entire and personal parts meet and communicate together in the holy things of God the Lord so disposed and ordered that that communion should bee had after a manner and in a sort and that was by way of representation for in the Temple was daily sacrifice offered for the whole nationall Church So the names of the twelve Tribes upon the shoulders of the Ephod and upon the Breast-plate and the twelve loaves of Shew bread were for Israel signes of remembrance before the Lord. That now the Church consisteth not as then of a Nation but of particular Assemblies ordinarily communicating together in all the Churches holy things whence it commeth that there are no representative Churches now the foundation thereof which is the necessary absence of the Church which is represented being taken away in the new Testament That besides all this if wee take the representative Church at Jerusalem for a paterne then as there not onely hard causes were opened and declared according to the Law but also the sacrifices daily offered and the most solemne service performed without the presence of the body of the Church so now in the representative Churches such as Presbyteries and Synods consisting of Officers alone there must be not onely the use of jurisdiction but the Word and Sacraments whether people bee present or not for how can there be a power in the Church of Officers for the use of one solemne ordinance out of the communion of the body and not of another Answ. 1. To set aside the sacrifices other ceremonial worship performed at Jerusalem the Synagogues among the Jewes had Gods morall worship ordinarily therein as Prayer and the reading expounding of the Scriptures 2. Whatsoever the Synagogues had or whatsoever they wanted of the worship of God they had an Ecclesiasticall Consistory and a certaine order of Church government else how shall we understand the excommunication or casting out of the Synagogue the Rulers of the Synagogue and the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue of which things we have before spoken I will not here dispute whether every sin among the Jewes was either appointed to be punished capitally or else to bee expiated by sacrifices but put the case it were so this proveth that no excommunication or Ecclesiasticall censure was not then necessary for beside the detriment of the Common-wealth by the violation of the Law which was punishable by death and beside the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and guiltinesse before God the expiation whereof by the death of Christ was prefigured in the sacrifices there was a third thing in publike sinnes which was punishable by spirituall censures and that was the scandall of the Church which could not be taken away by the oblations of the delinquent but rather made worse thereby even as now a publike offender doth not take away but rather increase the scandall of the Church by his joyning in the acts of Gods worship so long as there is no Ecclesiasticall censure imposed upon him neither yet to speake properly was the scandall of publike offences punishable by bodily punishments but the Church being a politicall body had her owne Lawes and her owne censures no lesse then the Common-wealth 3. As the Synagogues were particular Churches politically so all of them collectively were one Nationall Church politically governed by one supreame Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim which is the representative wee meant of in our Argument 4. But if we take the Nationall Church of the Jewes metaphysically there was no representative thereof unlesse it were all the males who came thrice in the yeare to Ierusalem The daily offering of Sacrifices was not by a representative Church but by the Priests and though there were twelve loaves of Shewbread before
Governement But Presbyteriall Government secretly smileth because while she was ready to say much more for her selfe he did not put her to to it lest himselfe should have been put ad metam non probandi But he particularizeth himselfe and telleth us he hath unfolded the weaknesse of our grounds and disproved our pretended proofs The truth is that the best of them the most of them he hath not touched He addeth that hee hath proved out of the Word of God the liberty of the people in choosing thâ—ir own officers This may be added â—aute but caste I am sure it is not He would make the world beleeve that Presbyterians are against the peoples election of their officers which is a calumny He saith he hath annexed certaine arguments proving Presbyteriall Governement to be contrary to the pattern which Christ hath left in the New Testament These arguments shall be answered with no great difficulty In this place I shall only say a word of them in generall The man hath a notable faculty of proving that wherein the Presbyterians do agree with him and passing that wherein they disagree from him Many humane testimonies and citations of writers he mustreth together to make a simple reader beleeve that many are of his judgemenâ— But I find none of them all except two or three to affirme any thing which we deny But why hath he taken all this paines He will present it forsooth to the Kings most excellent Majestie and to the right honourable Lords and the honourable house of Commons now assembled in Parliament As if it were to be expected that a popular and independant forme of Church government in every Congregation which should most certainly open a doore to a thousand remedilesse confusions may obtaine his Majesties royall assent or the acceptation of the High Court of Parliament Nay brother seek some other friends to your cause for if wise men be not too too much deceived the King and the Parliament in their great wisdome do fore-see that whensoever Episcopall government shall be removed another form of Provinciall and nationall Church government must needs succeed unto it Now to come to the substance of his discourse first hee maketh a quarrell against the Presbyteries of particular Churches which are in Scotland called Sessions then against all higher Consistories in the Church As for the Presbyteries of particular Churches he judgeth them three wayes defective First he requireth that all who are admitted into the company of Elders even the governing or ruling Elders should be apt to teach and able to exhort with sound doctrine and convince gainesayers and that not only privately or in the Consistory but in the publick assembly also if not exactly yet competently Answ. 1. Though ruling Elders ought to teach exhort rebuke c. both in the Consistory and privately from house to house as the case of every family and person doth require which is all that can be drawne from those alleaged places to Timothy and Titus if so be they ought at all to be extended to ruling Elders yet there is no place of Scripture to prove that they ought to teach publikly in the Congregation 2. That expression if not exactly yet competently is somewhat mysterious 3. Ruling Elders are expresly distinguished from those that labour in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 and from these that teach or exhort Rom. 12.7 8. 4. If ruling Elders shall â—each publikly in the congregation ex officio and with cure of soules as they speak why shall they not also minister the Sacraments which are pendicles and seals of the word and therefore committed to those who are sent to the publick preaching of the Gospell Matth. 28.19 5. Though he speak here only of ruling Elders yet I doubt he requireth of at least will permit to all men that are members of the Church the same publick teaching and prophesying in the Congregation The second defect which he wisheth supplied is that the temporary ruling Elders may be made perpetuall and for life which he enforceth by foure reasons This I assent unto providing he admit a distinction betwixt the office it selfe and the exercise of the same The office of a ruling Elder ought to be for his life no lesse then the Pastors yet must we not condemne those Churches which dispense with the intermission of their actuall attendance for a certaine space and permit them to exercise their office by course as the Levits did of old whose example himselfe here taketh for a patterne The third thing he saith is of most moment He doth complaine that the Elders do not administer their publik office publikly as they should but only in their private Consistory He doth permit them indeed to meet apart for deliberation whereof we shall here afterward but he will have their Church-office which in the Lord they have received to be executed publickly in the face of the Congregation 1. Because an office publick in the nature ought also to be publick in the administration 2. Because the reformed Churches cannot know their Elders whether they be good or bad except by heare-say 3. Because otherwise the Elders can not ministerially take heed to the whole flock as they are warned to do Acts 20.28 Ans. 1. Ruling Elders do execute their office not only in the Consistory but from house to house throughout al the bounds of the CoÌ„gregation which may easily make theÌ„ known to that Church where they serve whether they be good or bad 2. Their Consistoriall sentences in all matters of importance such as ordination Church censures excommunication c. are made knowne to the whole Church 3. He passeth a short censure upon the reformed Churches The reformed Churches is a great word but this man maketh a moat of it 4. The place Acts 20.28 cannot helpe him for ruling Elders do feed and oversee the whole flock both by discipline in the Consistory and by taking heed to all the sheepe severally as every one hath need and in that respect may be called both Pastors and Bishops Beside I doubt he can prove that place to be meant of ruling Elders He He goeth on to make plaine what hee hath said by descending to some particulars in which the Elders office sâ—emeth especially to consist and these are saith hee The admitting of members into the Church upon profession of faith made and the reproving and censuring of obstinaâ—e offenders These are the most frequent publike administrations of the office of Ruling Elders And what of them hee saith as they leave the execution of these things to the Elders alone in the setled and well ordered state of the Church so doe they deny that they can be rightly and orderly done but with the peoples privity and consent His restriction to the setled and well ordered estate of the Church I cannot understand Hee had done well to have explained what hee meaneth by that not setled nor well ordered state of the Church
in the stewards name but in his masters who only out of power did conferre it on him But now lest any should conceive of him and those of his side that they either exercise amongst themselves or would thrust upon others any popular or democraticall Church governement therefore he desireth the Reader to make estimate both of their judgement and practice in this point according to these three declarations First he saith they beleeve that the externall Church governement under Christ is plainely aristocraticall and to be administred by some choyce men although the state bee after a fort popular and democraticall In respect of the latter he saith it appertaines to the people freely to vote in elections judgements of the Church in respect of the former that the Elders ought to governe the people even in their voting in just liberty by propounding and ordering all things and after the voting of the Church solemnly executing either ordination or excommunication Behold how he runneth upon the rocke of popular governement even whiles he pretendeth to have his course another way God send us better pilots I remember I have read in sundry places of Bodin de repub that the state is oft times different from the governement But sure I am this anti-consistorian maketh not only the state but the governement of the Church to be democraticall that in the superlative degree for the governement is democraticall at least composed of a mixture of aristocracy and democracy which is the most that he dare say of the Church governement where the people have the liberty of electing their owne officers and rulers and where the Senat so farre observeth the people that they may not passe the finall act in any matter of importance without the knowledge and tacite consent o the people though the people doe not vote in the Senat nay though the Senat doe not vote in the hearing of the people Now this seemeth not enough to those with whom wee have now to doe They will have the people freely to vote in all judgements of the Church And what is that but the very exercise of jurisdiction by the people which is the democracy of Movellâ—s condemned by Parker himselfe who maketh the exercise of ecclesiasticall power proper to the Rulers of the Church though he placeth the power it selfe originally in the whole Church Let it further be observed what difference these men make betwixt the Elders and the people in the governement of the Church That which they make proper to the Elders is only the propounding and ordering of matters and the excuting of some solemne act in name of the Church This is no more then belongeth to the moderator or Praeses in any consistory But they will have the matter to bee determined according to the most voyces of the people And so the new forme of Church governement which is here laid before us is a mere democracy with many moderators which is the most monstrous governement that ever was heard of His second declaration is that the Elders may and ought at times to meet apart from the body of the Church for deliberation This if hee meane only of that which hee specifiâ—th the preparing of things so as publikâ—ly and before the people they may bee prosecuted with most conveniency It is no more then what many require in moderators of Synods to whom they think fit that some Assessors or Coadjutors be adjoyned for deliberating in private upon the most orderly and convenient prosecuting of purposes in publike which as it hindereth not the governement of Synods to be aristocraticall so neither doth the deliberation of the Elders in private hinder the governement now in question to be democraticall But if he meane generally that the Elders may deliberate apart upon everything whatsoever which is to be voyced by the people then I aske by what reason doth he seclude from the deliberations those who are to voice for to give being and force to an Ecclesiasticall decree by voycing is more than to deliberate upon it whence it is that Papists give to Presbyters a deliberative voice in Councels but not a decisive voice and we also permit any understanding godly man to propound a matter to a Synod or to reason upon it though none have power of suffrage but the Commissioners of Churches So that he had greater reason to seclude the people from the voyces than from the deliberations His third declaration comes last and that is that by the people whose right in voting they thus stand for they understand not women and children but only men and them growen and of discretion Before hee did object to us that neither in Scripture nor in Greeke Authors the name Church is used for the assembly of sole Governours and to this I suppose I did give a satisfactory answer But good Sir be pleased mutually to resolve us where you have read in Scripture or in Greek Authors the name Church setting aside all representatives of Churches and Assemblies of sole Governors used for men alone and them growen and of discretion secluding women and children for now I see your reserved Glosse upon those words Tell the Church Tell all the men in the Parish that are growne and of discretion you must not take so much upon you as to expound that Text by a Synecdoche which none that ever wrote upon it before your selves did imagine and yet challenge us for expounding it by another Synecdoche following Chrysostome Euthymius Faber Stapulensis and many late Interpreters who understand by Church in that place the Rulers of the Church which are the noblest part of the Church I shall shut up this point with the words of Hyperius who saith that we must not understand by the Church the whole multitude Sed potius delectos c. But rather certaine choice Elders noted for their learning and godlinesse in whose power the Chuâ—ch will have to bee the judgement in such like causes which is proved from that that Matth. 18 after it was said â—ell the Church it is added where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And 2 Cor. 2. he saith Sufficient is this censure inflicted by many We have now done with the Elderships of particular Churches but there is another blow which I perceive is intended against classicall Presbyteries and Synods provincial and national for the due power by which my opposite would have the Church to be governed hee layeth before us in this Assertion that every particular visible Church hath from Christ absolute and intire power to exercise in and of her selfe every ordinance of God and so is an independent body not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of it selfe And this he will prove by ten Arguments but I shall not need to multiply answers as hee doth arguments because many of them are coincident The first third fourth and sixth doe all hit
commandement whereby we stand obliged to follow the example both of the Jewish Church in the Old Testament and of the Apostolicall Churches in the New Testament in such things as they had not for any speciall reason which doth not concerne us is transgressed by the withdrawing of Congregations from subjection unto Synods Of which things I have said enough before It is now but a poore begging of that which is in question to object that the governement of Presbyteries and Synods hath no warrant from the Word of God Come we then to examine his other Arguments His second he composeth thus If Christ in Mat. 18.17 where he saith Tell the Church doth mean a particular Congregation then hath every particular Congregation an intire power in and of it selfe to exercise Eclesiasticall governement and all other Gods spirituall ordinances But the first is true Ergo for the proposition he citeth some Writers who do not speak of such a connexion as he had to prove The assumption he proveth thus That Church which Christ intendeth in Matth. 18. hath absolute power in and of it selfe to perform all Gods ordinances But Christ intendeth in Mat. 18. a particular Congregation Therefore every particular Congregation hath absolute power c. How bravely doth he conclude the point Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici We will not examine our examinators logick we know what he would say and we woulâ— have him to know againe that Christ in Mat. 18. meaneth indeed some sort of a particular Congregation but neither only nor independantly Nay he meaneth all the Consistories of the Church higher and lower respectively as Parker conceiveth whose words I have before set down and to this sense the threed of the text doth leade us for as in the preceding words there is a gradation from one to two or three more then to the Church so is there a gradation by the like order and reason in the Consistories of the Church Tostatus upon this place acknowledgeth that Diae Ecclesiae reacheth as far as to an oecumenicall Councell when particular Churches erre in their determinations or when the cause is common to all the Churches for example when the Pope is to be condemned His seventh argument followes in my order and it runneth after this manner Such offices and callings without which the Church of God is coÌ„pleat and perfect for government are superfluous and humane But the Church of God may be compleat perfect for government without Presbyteriall and Synodicall offices and callings Ergo. I answer by a distinction Such offices and callings without which the Church of God are according to the course of Gods ordinary providence or at all times and in all cases perfect and compleat for government are indeed superfluous and humane But that such offices and callings without which the Church by the absolute power of God or at some times in some cases is perfect compleat are superfluous humane we utterly deny Now for the point of Synods I shall produce no other witnesses then those which this Disputer here taketh to be for him Whittaker acknowledgeth of Councels that Secundum ordinariam providentiam necessaria sunt ad bonam ecclesiae gubernationem according to ordinary providence they are necessary for the well governing of the Church Parker acknowledgeth Synods to be sometime necessary in the Church and he giveth example of the Councell of Nice without which the evils of the Church in the daies of Constantine could not have bin remedied The ninth Argument remaineth which is this That government which meerly tendeth unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power is unlawfull But the government of Presbyteries and Synods as they now are doth meerly tend unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power Ergo. I did expect some strong proofe for the assumption of this argument but we must take it as it is He tels us out of Master Barlow that no man under the degree of a Prophet or an Apostle may prescribe Gods Church and children patternes Our Synods are further from prescribing patterns either of worship or Church government than himselfe is The patterne and whole manner of Church government is set down in the Scripture those circumstaÌ„ces excepted which are common to the Church with the Common-wealth and are therefore determinable by natures light Synods may not prescribe new patterns no more may particular Churches but Synods may in common causes and extraordinarily prescribe unto particular churches such things as particular churches may in particular causes and ordinarily prescribe to their owne members If he will beleeve Parker whom he thinks his owne the authority which particular Churches have severally is not lost but augmented when they are joyned together in Synods But we have before abundantly declared how Presbyteriall Synodical government doth not at all prejudge the rights of congregations As for that which here he addeth by way of supposition putting the case that Presbyteries Synods will not permit a congregation to reject some coÌ„victed hereticks nor to chuse any except unfit Ministers this is just as if one should object against Parliaments that as they are now they do meerly tend to the taking away of the right and liberty of the subject and then for proofe should put the case that Parliaments will protect and maintaine Monopolists Projectorers c. Now in this drove of arguments the drover hath set some like the weake of the flock to follow up behind The first two are blind and see not where they are going for it maketh nothing against us either that the Eldership of one congregation hath not authority over the Eldership of another congregation or that a minister should not undertake the care of more Churches then one His third that presbyteriall power is never mentioned in the Scripture is a begging of the thing in question is answered before yet I must put him again in mind of Parker who speaking of churches saith Legitur in Scripturis de conjunct a earuÌ„ auct oritate quando in Synodis congregantur We read in their Scriptures of their joynt authority when they are gathered together into Synods But there is a speech of Zuinglius against representative Churches which he may not omit Zuingâ—ius doth indeed justly aske of the antichristian prelats who had given them the name of a representative Church who had given them power to make Canons c. yet hee addeth de his duntaxat c. I speak of them only that are such others who put themselves under not above the Scriptures my writings shall nothing prejudge In the fourth place he objecteth that whosoever shall deny their assertion must hold two distinct formes of Church government to be lawfull one where particular congregations do in of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances the other where they stand under another ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves I answer it
is most lawfull for particular congregations in and of themselves to exercise all Gods ordinances according to the distinctions rules above mentioned but this is not repugnant to their standing under the authority of presbyteries Synods for which let us againe heare a tender friend of congregations Major quidem potestas est Synodi quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primea parochialis But goe we along His first argument is that for this reason among others the learned say the Pope is Antichrist viz. because he will have men to appeale from their owne Churches unto him and to stand unto his sentence and decree and doe not the presbyteriall assemblies Synods take upon them an authority much like to it Soft my master Soft Canno lesse serve you then to match our Church governemeÌ„t with the papall usurpations 2. I shall beseech you to remember 1. The Pope is one and receiveth appellations monarchinally a Synod consisteth of many receiveth appellations aristocratically 2. The Pope receiveth appellations from other nations beyond Sea presbiteries and Synods not so 3. The Pope will have his senteÌ„ce received as infallible presbyteries synods acknowledge themselves subject to error 4. The Pope acknowledgeth neither the Elders nor the Elderships of congregations which Presbyteries Synods do 5. The Pope acknowledeth no power ecclesiasticall on earth except what is subject to him yea derived from him and who will say so of Presbyteries Synods 6. The Pope receiveth appellations in other causes then ecclesiasticall Presbyteries and Synods not so 7. Synods are made up of the Commissioners of Churches The Pope neither hath any coÌ„mission himselfe from the Churches nor will admit the Commissioners of Churches to sit in judgement with him 8. Synods when they receive appellations are tyed to certaine rules of proceeding and judging especially the Scripture The Pope maketh his power boundlesse and exalteth himselfe above the very Scripture There shall be no end except I stop in time And what need I to make so many differences betwixt light and darknesse A sixth argument we shall now have what more meet and reasonable saith he then that every mans case be there heard determined where the fault was coÌ„mitted If this rule hold theÌ„ the ParliameÌ„t or privy Councell ought to go to every remote county corner of the kingdome to judge of such faults there coÌ„mitted as are proper for theÌ„ to judg His 7.8.10.11 arguments must be gone with silence for they run upon the robbing of congregations of their right the exercising of ecclesiasticall government in all the apostolique Churches our accoring with Papists the Hierarchy All which objections have been before repelled it is somewhat strange that the disputâ—r doth so often repeate the same arguments to make up the greater number A pretty art indeed like that of the young logician who would needs prove that the foure egs upon the table were five because two three make five In this second clause of arguments there is only one behind and that is that by the titles given to all particular coÌ„gregations viz. a kingdome a family a body a Queen c. it appeareth that all ecclesiasticall auctority ought to be in every one of theÌ„ distinctly wholly entirely Where let the reader observe that he maketh the meaning of that place Mat. 3.2 the kingdome of God is at hand to be this a particular congregation is at hand also that he expoundeth Eph. 2.19 Ps. 45. of a particular congregation which are meant of the holy Catholike Church But say that every particular congregation is a kingdome a family a body a Queene how proveth he that these names doe agree to every congregation in respect of her externall policy or ecclesiasticall government Nay say they doe agree in this respect yet in a thousand examples it is to be seen that one and the same thing is both totum pars the whole the part in different respects Whereof we have also spoken in the former treatise He concludeth that by this time he doth suppose the reader perceiveth that the Scriptures are every way for them and against the Presbyteriall governement you shall doe well Sir to thinke better upon it you have it yet to prove Therefore goe to your second thoughts and examine with me your not unexaminable examination Farewell FINIS Bishop Hall his assertion of Episcopacie by Divine right â—ag 208 209.2â—1 Pag. 146. Pag. 11. Pag. 17.18 In 1 Tim. 5. De vitâ— Const. â— lib. 1. cap. 44. Vide actae Syno Dord Sess. 25. Psal. 80 14 15. â—er 50.5 Whittak contr 3. de concil quaest 1. Cant. 6.4 Psal. 64 3. Math. 22.21 Rom. 14 23. Phil. 1.9 â— Tim. 2.7 Catal. test verit lib. 2. col 98. Oâ—iand cent 1. p. 8. Loc. theol â— 6 n. 37. Synod Turon 2. Can. 3. Syn. Constant. 6. can 69. Of Episcop by divine right pag. 2.12 Act. i. 26 d. 21. ca. cleros Dâ— clerie lib. 1. cap. 1. Bâ—ll prae fat ante lib. de clerie Bell. lib. 2. de mon. cap. 1. In 2.2.4.88 â—â—t 4. De gub ecâ—l pag. 28. M. Elias Hasen mullerus Hist. ordin Jeâ— pag. 68. Lib. 4. dist 4. Eccles. l. â— c. 3. Meum tuum Matth. 20.26.27 1. Tim. 3.2.3.4.5.6.7 c. 6.11 Tit. 1.6.7.8 Lib. 1. Ep. 9. Iun. Eccles. lib. 2. cap. 5. Mos. and Aaron ii 2. c. 2. Alsted Thesau Chro. pag. 265. Ferneius Theol. lib. 7. pag. 151.152 Marâ—yr loc com class 4. cap. 1. p. 745. Anno 58. n. 10. De divers grad minist Evang. cap. â— 1. p. 108. Ibid. p. 118. Ibid. p. 10â— 118 De repub Jud. lib. 1. c. 12. Bertram de Pol. Jud. cap. 16. saith that these Elders did continue among the ten Tribes even after the defection of Jeroboam Seniores erant qui in mores vitam piorum virorum c. Inquirebam reprehensionibus censur sque Ecclesiasticis animad â—ertebant Hoâ—um Seniorum reliquae Ecclesiae coetus actiones moderabâ—ntur Prophetae 〈◊〉 ut ad Prophetae dâ—mum al quando seniores convenirent 2 Reg. 6.32 In Jos. 20. quaest 3. Dâ— guber Eccles cap. â— p. 70.71 Praelect tom 1. p. 23. In 4. praecept col 741. Contr. 3. l. 2. c. 6. D. of Tract 17. â— 2. Div. 4. Ubi supra pag. 26. Loc. Theol. tom 6. p. 137. Num. 8 9.10 〈◊〉 of Ecclâ—s discip pag. 87. Exoâ— 12.3 verse â—1 2 Cor. 4.5 In illum locum Eccles. l. 2. c. 1. De Presbyt p. 87. â—oc com class 4. cap 1. p. 746. De gub Eccl. cap. 10. p. 204 Of the Church lib 5. cap. 26. Answer to the Admon p. 114.115 Temporis illius conditionoâ— de qu buslibet praefectis Paulum loqui oftendit quia tuncnulli erant pii Magistratus sed de Senioribus qui morum erant Censores saith Calvine upon Rom. 12.8 De Reg. prim p. 123. De diver grad minist Evang. c. 11. p. 115. De Presbyt p. 87.
things as are alike common to the Church and to the Common-wealth and have the same use in both whatsoever natures light directeth the one it cannot but direct the other also for as the Church is a company of Christians subject to the â—aw of God so is it a company of men and women who are not the outlawes of nature but followers of the same It is well said by one Hoc certissimum est c. This is most certaine that the Church is a certaine kinde of Republike for it hath all those things which all Republikes must need have but tâ—hâ—th them in a different way because it is not a Civill but an Ecclesiasticâ—ll Republike And againe Est ergo c. â—o that this Republike is much more perfect then all others and therefore cannot but have the things which they have that are in dignity farre inferiâ—ur to it So saith Robinson in his justif of separ pag. 113. The visible Church saith he being a politie Ecclesiasticall and the perfect on of all polities doth comprehend in it whatsoever is excellent in all other bodies politicall Now so it is that while as some hold the government of the Church to bee Monarchicall others Aristocraticall others Democraticall others mixed of all these they all acknowledge that the Church is a Republike and ought to bee governed even as a Civill Republike in things which are alike common to both of this kinde are Courts and Judicatories which doe alike belong to both and have the same use in both viz. for rule and government therefore as natures light doth undeniably enforce diversity of Courts in the Common-wealth some particular some generall some lower some higher and the latter to have authority over the former it doth no lesse undeniably enforce the like in the Church for de paribus idem judicium It cannot bee denyed that the Church is led by natures light in such things as are not proper to religious holy uses but alike common to civill societies at least in so farre as they are common to sacred and civill uses The Assemblies of the Church in so farre as they treat of things Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall after a spirituall manner for a spirituall end and doe consist of spirituall Office-bearers as the members constituent in as farre they are sacred and the Church is therein directed by the Word of God alone yet the having of Assemblies and Consistories and divers sorts of them and the lower subordinat to the higher all this is not sacred nor proper to the Church but common with her to the Common-wealth nature commending therein to the one what it commendeth to the other CHAP. VI. The second Argument taken from Christs Institution AS wee have Nature so have wee Christs Institution for us and this shall appeare two wayes First the fidelity of Christ both in his Propheticall in his Regall or Nomotheticall power was such that he hath sufficiently provided for all the necessities and exigences whatsoever of his Churches to the end of the world Therefore the Apostle calleth him as faithfull in all the house of God as ever Moses was who delivered lawes serving for the government of the Church of the Jewes in all cases Whence we collect that the authority of Classicall Presbyteries over the Elderships of particular congregations and the authority of Synods over both must needs have a warrant from Christs owne Institution because without this authority there are very important necessities of the Churches that cannot be helped For example in most congregations especially in Dorps and Villages when a Pastor is to be ordained the particular Eldership within the congregation can neither examine and try his gifts and his soundnesse in the faith which examination must necessarily precede his ordination nor can they discover him in case he be a subtile and learned hereticke nor yet can they pray in tâ—e congregation over him which is to be ordained and give him publicke exhortation and admonition of his duty God having neither given to the Elders of every congregation nor yet required of them such abilities What shall be done in this case Ainsworth would have the worke stayed and the Church to want a Minister till she be able to doe her workes and her duties which are proper to her Alas bad Christ no greater care of the Churches then so shall they be destitute of a Pastor ever till they be able to try his gifts and soundnesse and to exhort and pray at his ordination and how shall they ever attaine to such abilities except they bee taught and how shall they bee taught without a Teacher Now the power and authority of Classicall Presbyteries to oâ—dâ—in Pastors in particular congregations shall cut off all this deduction of absurdities and shall supply the Churches need I may adde another instance concerning the Classicall Presbytery it selfe What if the one halfe thereof turne to be hereticall or it may bee the major part They shall either have most voyces or at least the halfe of the voyces for them and there shall bee no remedy unlesse the authoritative determination of a Synod be interposed Secondly the will of Christ for Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies to bee over Presbyteries even as they are over the Elderships of particular congregations appeareth also in this He hath given us in the new Testament expresse warrant for Ecclesiasticall Courts and Assemblies in generall that such there ought to be for the right government of the Church Matth. 18.20 Where two or three are gathered together in my Name there am I in the midst of them Act. 15.6 And the Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this matter From these and the like places it is plaine that Christ willeth jurisdiction to bee exercised and controversies to bee determined by certaine Consistories and Assemblies Of the exercise of jurisdiction is the first place which I have cited to bee understood as the cohesion thereof with the purpose which went before sheweth Of determining questions of faith and enacting lawes concerning things in their owne nature indifferent is the other place to be understood as wee shall heare afterward So then wee truely affirme of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies in generall that power is commited by Christ unto them to exercise jurisdiction to determine questions of faith and to make constitutions about things indifferent in the case of scandall Now the severall sorts of these Assemblies are not particularly determined in Scripture but left to be particularly determined by the Church conforme to the light of Nature and to the generall rules of the Word of God And the particular kindes of Assemblies appointed by the Church conforme to the light and rules foresaid doe fall within the compasse of those precepts which are Divine-Ecclesiastica they are mixed though not meere divine ordinances Even as the Scripture warranteth times of fasting and times of thankesgiving shewing also the causes and occasions of the same and the right manner of
performance but leaveth the particular dayes of fasting and thankesgiving to be determined by the Church according to the rules of the Word In like manner the Scripture commendeth the renewing of the covenant of God in a Nation that hath broken it but leaveth the day and place for such an action to be determined by the Church according to the rules foresaid Now if the Church following the generall warrant and rules of the Word command to fast such a day to give thankes such a day to renew the covenant of God such a day these things are divine ordinances mixedly though not meerely and he who disobeyeth disobeyeth the commandement of God The like may be said of catechising and of celebrating the Lords Supper which are not things occasionall as the former but ordinary in the Church they are commended by the warrants of Scripture but the particular times and seasons not determined The like wee say of the order to be kept in baptisme and in excommunication which is not determined in the Word though the things themselves be The removing of scandals by putting wicked persons to publike shame and open confession of their faults in the Church hath certaine warrant from Scripture yet the degrees of that publike shame and punishment are left to be determined by the Church according to the quality of the scandall and the rules of the Word Now the Church appointeth some scandalous persons to be put to a greater shame some to a lesser some to â—ee oâ—e Sabbath in the place of publike repentance some three some nine some twenty five c. And if the offender refuse that degree of publike shame which the Church following the rules foresaid appointeth for him hee may be truely said to refuse the removing and taking away of the scandall which the Word of God injoyneth him and so to disobey not the Church only but God also Just so the Scripture having commended unto us the governing of the Church the making of Lawes the exercise of Jurisdiction the deciding of controversies by Consistories and Assemblies Ecclesiasticall having also shewed the necessity of the same their power their rule of proceeding and judging who should sit and voice in the same c. But leaving the particular kindes degrees times bounds and places of the same to be resolved upon by the Church according to the light of naturall reason and generall rules of the Word The Church for her part following the generall warrant and rules foresaid together with the light of nature hath determined and appointed Assemblies Provinciall and Nationall and to exercise respectively that power which the Word giveth to Assemblies in generall The case thus standing we may boldly maintaine that those particular kinds and degrees of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies are Gods owne ordinances mixedly though not meerely But what can bee the reason may some man say why the Scripture hath not it selfe determined these kinds of Assemblies particularly I answer three reasons may be given for it 1. because it was not necessary the generall rules of the word together with natures light which directeth Common-wealths in things of the same kind being sufficient to direct the Church therin 2. As sesons and times for the meeting of Assemblies so the just bounds thereof in so many different places of the world are things of that kinde which were not determinable in Scripture unlesse the world had beene filled with volumes thereof for Individua sunt Infinita 3. Because this constitution of Synods Provinciall and Nationall is not universall for all times and places for example there may be in a remote Island 10. or 12. Christian congregations which beside their particular Elderships have a common Presbytery but are not capable of Synods either Provinciall or Nationall Againe let there bee an Island containing forty or fifty Christian congregations there shall be therein beside Presbyteries one kinde of a Synod but not two kindes Besides the reformed congregations within a great Nation may happly be either so few or so dispersed and distant or so persecuted that they can neither have Provinciall nor Nationall Assemblies CHAP. VII The third Argument taken from the Iewish Church IN the third place we take an Argument from the example of the Jewish Church for as in their Common-wealth there was a subordination of civill Courts every City having its proper Court which did consist of seven Magistrates if we beleeve Iosephus the Thalmudicall tradition maketh two Courts to have beene in each City the lesser of the Triumvirat and the greater of twenty three Judges Beside these they had their supreame Consistory the civill Sanedrim which governed the whole Nation and had authority over the inferiour Courts So was there also a subordination of Ecclesiasticall Courts among them they had a Consistory in every Synagogue for their Synagogues were appointed not only for prayer and praising of God and for the reading and expounding of the Scriptures but also for publike correction of offences Acts 26.11 They had besides a supreame Ecclesiastical Court whereunto the whole nation and all the Synagogicall Consistories were subject This Court having decayed was restored by Ichoshaphat 2 Chron. 19.8 and it had the name of Sanedrim common to it with the supream civill Court. From this Court did the reformation of that Nationall Church proceed Nehem. 6.13 On the second day were gathered together the chiefe of the fathers of all the people the Priests and the Levits unto Ezra the Scribe even to understand the words of the Law And they found written in the Law c. Whether there was yet another Ecclesiasticall Court in the midle betwixt the Synagogue and the Sanedrim called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbytery Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 and made up possibly out of the particular Synagogues within the Cities I leave it to learned men to judge howsoever it is plaine from Scripture that there was at least a twofold Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes the Synagogue and the Sanedrim the latter having authority above the former Sutlivius denyeth both these and so would have us believe that the Jewish Church had no Eccâ—esiasticall Court at all As for the Synagogues he saith they treated of things civill and inflicted civill punishments and a civill excommunication That they inflicted civill punishment he proveth from Mat. 10. and 23. and Luke 21. where Christ foretelleth that his Disciples should bee beaten in the Synagogues That their excomunication was civill he proveth by this reason that Christ and his Disciples when they were cast out of the Synagogues had notwithstanding a free entry into the Temple and accesse to the sacrifices Answ. This is a grosse mistake for 1. the civill Court was in the gate of the City not in the Synagogue 2. He who presided in the Synagogue was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Acts 18.8.17 the rest who sate and voiced therein were called the Rulers of the Synagogue Acts 13.15 They who sate in the civill Court had no