Iâ—dicum the Court of Judges and Rulers which is called The Congregation of the mighty Psal. 80.2 So that the true sense of the place is the secluding of those persons from bearing any office or rule in the Common-wealth of Israel whereby they might be members of those Courts which did represent Israel The same sense is given by Lyranus Cajetan Oleaster Tostatus and Lorinus And which is more to be thought of Ainsworth himselfe expoundeth it so and further sheweth that it cannot be meant of joyning to the faith and religion of Israel or entering into the Church in that respect because Exod. 12.48 49. Num. 15.14 15. All strangers were upon their circumcision admitted into the Congregation of Israel to offer sacrifices and by consequence to enter into the court of the Tabernacle which also appeareth from Levit. 22.18 Num 9.14 The point being now cleared from the holy Scriptures we shal the lesse need to trouble our selves in the search of prophane Authors yet Pasor findeth Demosthenes using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro concione magnatum As for that common expression of Divines that the Elders are the Church representative wee desire not to wrangle about names so that the thing it selfe which is the power and authority of the Officers sitting and judging apart from the people be condescended upon Yet let us see upon what grounds the name of a representative Church is by this man so superciliously rejected First hee saith that no godly no nor reasonable man will affirme that this representation is to be extended to any other acts of religion than these which are exercised in the governing of the Church But quo warrantâ— shall a man be both ungodly and unreasonable for affirming that the Elders may and ought to represent the Church where they serve in preferring a petition to the King and the Parliament for a Reformation or in bearing witnesse of the desolate condition of the Parish through the want of a ministery or in giving counsel to a Sister Church though these bee not acts of governing the Church Well be it as he saith what great absurdity shall fellow then forsooth it appertains to the people primarily and originally under Christ to rule and govern the Church that is themselves But who saith he will so say of a government not personall but publique and instituted as the Churches is Surely they who think the power to be originally in the people might here easily reply that this is no more strange than to say that the power which is primarily and originally in the body of a Kingdome is exercised by the Parliament which is the representative therof But because many learned men deny the power of Church government to be originally in the people though others and those very learned too doe affirme it therefore to passe that I shall serve him with another answer For as we can defend the authority of Presbyteries and Synods without wrangling about the name of a representative Church so can we defend the name of a representative Church without debating the question whether the people have the power originally or not May he therefore bee pleased to take notice of other grounds and reasons for the name of a representative Church as namely First what the Elders with the knowledge and tacite consent of the Church doe approve or dislike that is supposed to be approved or disliked by the whole Church which importeth that the Church is in some sort represented by the Senate of Elders Secondly as wee say wee have seene a man when haply wee have seene nothing but his head or his face which maketh him knowne unto us whence it is that Painters represent men unto us oft-times onely from their shoulders upward so doe wee discern know a visible political Church when we see in the Senate as it were the head and face thereof the officers being as eyes eares nose mouth c. to the Church that is being the most noble and chiefe members whereby the body is governed Thirdly the Senat of Elders is said to represent the Church because of the affinity and likenesse betwixt it and the Senate which representeth a City or some inferior civil Corporation affinity I mean not every way but in this that the government is not in the hands of all but a few and that those few were chosen with the consent of the whole Corporation Fourthly and if for these reasons the Eldership of a particular Church may be called a representative Church there is much more reason for giving this name to a classicall Presbytery or to a Synod provinciall or nationall for these doe result out of many particular Churches being made up of their Commissioners His second reason he taketh from the nature of representations alleaging that if the Elders in their Consistory represent the Church then whatsoever they either decree or do agreeing to the Word of God that also the Church decreeth and doth though absent though ignorant both what the thing is and upon what grounds it is done by the Elders and this how consonant it is to Papists implicit faith he leaveth it to wise men to consider This argument is as much against the representations of Kings and States by their Ambassadours and Commissioners it is against the representation of Churches by the Consistory of Elders and so all the wisdome of Princes and States in their Embassages shall turne to implicit faith because according to this ground what the representing doth within the bounds of his Commission that the represented doth implicitè And now I shall leave to be considered by wise men these vast differences betwixt the Papists implicit faith and the case of our Churches governed by Elderships 1. The Church assenteth not to that which the Consistory of Elders decreeth or doth except it be agreeing to the Word of God as the Reasoner himselfe saith but there is no such limitation in the Papists implicit faith 2. The Consistory of Elders doth not presse any thing upon the Church imperiously or by naked wil and authority without any reason as the Church of Rome doth with those from whom she requireth implicit faith 3. The Papists know not what those things be which they beleeve by implicit faith so that such a faith is rightly called mera articulorum fidei ignorantia a meere ignorance of the articles of faith but the decrees of our Elderships whereunto our Churches do consent are made knowne unto them 4. Our Churches are by the judgement of Christian discretion to examine all things propounded unto them even the decrees of the Elders whereas Papists may not examine what the Church propoundeth or commandeth 5. Papists by their implicit faith beleeve whatsoever the Church beleeveth because they think the Church can not erre but our Churches conceive not only their particular Elderships but oecumenicall councels to be subject to error Come we now to his third generall reason whereby he laboureth to prove
dead in sinnes to be meant but holy men who being indued with faith in God and walking in his obedience God authorising them and the Church his Spouse chusing and calling them undertake the government thereof that they may labour to the conservation and edification of the same in Christ saith Iunius A ruling Elder should pray for the Spirit and gifts of his calling that hee may doe the duties of his calling and not bee like him that played the Souldan but a Souter hee must doe his office neither 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and pro forma hee himselfe being Parcus Deorum caltor infrequens nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doing all through contention and strife about particulars Si duo de nostras tollas pro nomina rebus praelia I may say Iurgia cessarent pax sine lite foret Nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Empiring and Lording among his brethren and fellow Elders Whosoever will bee great among you let him bee your minister and whosoever will bee chiefe among you let him be your servant saith the onely Lord and Head of the Church Nor yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 setting himselfe only to do a pleasure or to get preferment to such as he favoureth Nay nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 onely by establishing good orders and wholesome lawes in the Church but he must carry himselfe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 serviceably and ministerially for as his Function is Officium and Iurisdictio so it is Munus a burdensome service and charge laid upon him That a ruling Elder may bee such a one as hee ought to bee two sorts of duties are requisite viz. duties of his Conversation and duties of his Calling The duties of his conversation are the same which the Apostle Paul requireth in the conversation of the Minister of the Word That he bee blamelesse having a good report not accused of riot or unruly vigilant sober of good behaviour given to hospitality a lover of good men just holy temperate not given to wine no striker not greedy of filthy lucre not selfe-willed not soone angry but patient not a brawler not covetous one that ruleth well his owne house having his children in subjection with all gravity one that followeth after righteousnesse godlinesse faith love patience meeknesse c. These and such like parts of a Christian and exemplary conversation being required of Pastors as they are Elders belong unto ruling Elders also This being plaine let us proceed to the duties of their calling For the better understanding whereof we will distinguish with the Schoole-men a two-fold power the power of Order and the power of Jurisdiction which are different in sundry respects 1. The power of Order comprehendeth such things as a Minister by vertue of his ordination may doe without a commission from any Presbyterie or Assembly of the Church as to preach the Word to minister the Sacraments to celebrate marriage to visite the sicke to catechise to admonish c. The power of Jurisdiction comprehendeth such things as a Minister cannot doe by himselfe nor by vertue of his ordination but they are done by a Session Presbytery or Synod and sometimes by a Minister or Ministers having Commission and authority from the same such as ordination and admission suspension deprivation and communication and receiving againe into the Church and making of Lawes and Constitutions Ecclesiasticall and such like whereof we boldly maintaine that there is no part of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction in the power of one man but of many met together in the name of Christ. 2. The power of Order is the radicall and fundamentall power and maketh a Minister susceptive and capable of the power of Jurisdiction 3. The power of Order goeth no further then the Court of Conscience the power of Jurisdiction is exercised in Externall and Ecclesiasticall Courts Fourthly the power of Order is sometime unlawfull in the use yet not voide in it selfe The power of Jurisdiction when it is unlawfull in the use it is also voide in it selfe If a Minister doe any act of Jurisdiction as to excommunicate or absolve without his owne parish wanting also the consent of the Ministery and Elders of the bounds where he doth the same such acts are voide in themselves and of no effect But if without his owne charge and without the consent aforesaid hee baptise an infant or doe any such thing belonging to the power of Order though his act be unlawfull yet is the thing it selfe of force and the Sacrament remaineth a true Sacrament Now to our purpose We averre that this twofold power of Order and of Jurisdiction belongeh to ruling Elders as well as to Pastors The power of Jurisdiction is the same in both for the power and authority of all Jurisdiction belongeth to the Assemblies and representative meetings of the Church whereof the ruling Elders are necessary constituent members and have the power of decisive voycing no lesse then Pastors Howbeit the execution of some decrees enacted by the power of Jurisdiction belongeth to Ministers alone for Pastors alone exercise some acts of Jurisdiction as imposition of hands the pronouncing of the sentence of excommunication the receiving of a penitent c. Are not these things done in the name and authority of some Assembly of the Church higher or lower Or are they any other then the executions of the decrees and sentences of such an Assembly wherein ruling Elders voyced The power of Order alone shall make the difference betwixt the Pastor and the ruling Elder for by the power of Order the Pastor doth preach the Word minister the Sacraments pray in publike blesse the Congregation celebrate marriage which the ruling Elder cannot Therefore it is falsly said by that railing Rabshakeh whom before I spoke of Ep. pag. 7. That the ruling Elders want nothing of the power of the Minister but that they preach not nor baptise in publike congregations yet other things which the Pastor doth by his power of Order the ruling Elder ought also to doe by his owne power of Order And if we would know how much of this power of Order is common to both let us note that Pastors doe some things by their power of Order which all Christians ought to doe by the law of Charity Things of this sort a ruling Elder may and ought to doe by his power of Order and by vertue of his election and ordination to such an office For example every Christian is bound in Charity to admonish and reprove his brother that offendeth first privately then before witnesses and if he heare not to tell it to the Church Levit. 19.17 Matth. 18.15.16.17 This a ruling Elder ought to doe by vertue of his calling and with authority 1 Thess. 5.12 Private Christians ought in Charity to instruct the ignorant Joh. 4.29 Act. 18.26 to exhort the negligent Heb. 3.15 10.24 25. to comfort the afflicted 1 Thess. 5.11 to support the weake 1 Thess. 5.14 To restore him that falleth
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
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
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
upon the same string The first is thus If those Churches planted by the Apostolique institution had power fully in themselves immediatly from Christ to practise all his ordinances Then have all Churches the like power now But the first is true Ergo. The third thus Whatsoever was commanded by the seven Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves that no Church of God must now omit But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the seven Churches to bee practised by each of them c. The fourth thus If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within her selfe to exercise Ecclesiasticall Government then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves But the first is true Ergo. The sixth thus If the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all ordinances in that Church then may the Eldership of every particular congregation administer among themselves all Gods ordinances But the first is true Ergo. Now for answer to these First I simply deny the connexion of the proposition of the fourth argument because it argueth à genere ad speciem affirmative from the exercising of ecclesiastical Government to the exercising of it independently Neither hath hee said any thing for proofe hereof Next the Reader will easily perceive that both in the first and sixth Argument his citations in proofe both of the propositions and assumptions have not so much as the least colour of pertinency and farre lesse of proofe In both these arguments when he would prove the proposition he speaketh to the assumptioÌ„ contrariwise But these things I delight not to insist upon only I shall give two Distinctions any one of which much more both of them shall make these arguments wholly improfitable unto him First I distinguish his propositions That power authority which the Church of Corinth the seven Churches of Asia and other Apostolicall Churches had to exercise Ecclesiastical government in and for themselves the like have all Churches now which are of the like frame and condition but the most part of particular Churches now are of a different frame and condition from the Apostolique Churches and so have not such fulnesse of power as they had Put the case that the Apostolick Churches were no greater then might and did ordinarily assemble together into one place for the worship of God yet since by reason of the troubleâ— of those times which suffered not the Christians to spread themselves abroad all the countrey over but confined them within Cities and safe places those Churches were not planted so thick and neare together as that they might have the conveniency of Synodical consociation hence it appeareth that they might do many things in and by themselves which particular Congregations now having the conveniency of consociation with neighbour Churches ought not to do in and by themselves But this I have said gratis having in my former Treatise at length declared that the Apostolick Churches at least the most and principall of them were greater then could assemble ordinarily in one place of worship and that they were served with sundry both Pastors and Elders that therefore our Parochiall Churches ought not to be in respect of the points in question compared with their Churches nor our Parochiall Presbyteries with their Presbyteries The second distinction which I have to propound is concerning the assumptions of the arguments now in hand The Apostolick Churches did indeed ordinarily exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all the ordinances of Christ in and for themselves yet so that when the occasion of a Synode did occurre for determining a question which was too hard for particular Churches and was also common to many Churches in that case they did submit themselves to the authority of he Synod Which hath also before beene made plaine from Act. 15. To practise all the ordinances of God in a Church is one thing and to practise them independantly so as nevâ—r to be subject to the authority of a Synod is another thing My antagonist doth after take it for granted saith that all learned men have granted that the Churches of the Apostolick constitution were independant bodies But whence are you Sir that would make your Reader beleeve there are no learned men in the Churches of Scotland France the low-countries and the other reformed Churches which have the governement of Presbyteries and Synods conceiving it to be most agreeable to the Apostolicall patterne Have you put out of the category of learned men all Protestant writers who in the controversies about Councels dispute against Papists from Acts 15.2 Why did you not among all your imeprtinent allegations cite some few of those learned men who grant the Apostolick Churches to have been independant bodies But we must heare what more you have to say Your first eight and tenne arguments are in like manner coincident The first you frame thus Such actions the Church may lawfully do wherein no law of God is broken But there is no law of God broken when particular Churches do in and among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances Ergo. The eight thus Whatsoever governement cannot be found commanded in the written Word oâ— God ought not to have any place in the Church of God But the Government of Presbyteries and Synods over many particular congregations cannot be found commanded c. The tenth thus It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ hath set forth in the new Testament But to subject particular congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves is to adde c. Now the word independantly must be added to the assumption of the first argument else it cannot conclude what he affirmes and we deny for there is no question but particular Churches may exercise in and among them selves all Gods ordinances in those cases and with those distinctions which I have spoken of before part 2. chap. 2. This being cleared I deny the assumption in all these three arguments I expected proofe for it but he hath given none except that it cannot for shame be denied I had thought it rather a shamefull thing for a writer to trouble his Reader with arguments which he cannot make good But what saith he to the professors of Leyden who hold the institution of Synods not to be humane but divine which they prove from Mat. 18. Act. 15. Nay what is more ordinary in Protestant writers then the applying of those words Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them unto Synods and Councels and hence they condemne the popish Councels in so much that Bellarmin Salmeron and other Jesuits have in this contradicted all our writers telling us as these men doe that our Saviour meaneth not of Councels in these words Moreover that
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
Ecclesiasticall Republike of which sort of things the diversity and subordination of Ecclesiasticall Courts was one doth belong by the same reason to the Christian Church I say further though the Common-wealth and civill Policy of the Jewes be not in all points a patterne to our civill Policy yet I am sure it is no errour to imitate the civill policy of the Jewes in such things as they had not for any speciall reason proper to them but are common to all well constituted Common-wealths and so wee may argue from their Common-wealth that it is a good policy to have divers civill Courts and the higher to receive appellations from the Inferiour as it was among them Shall wee not by the very like reason fetch from their Ecclesiasticall Republike diversity of Spirituall Courts and the supreame to receive appellations from the Inferiour because so was the constitution of the Jewish Church and that under the common respect and account of a politicall Church and not for any speciall reason which doth not concerne us CHAP. VIII The fourth Argument taken from Acts 15. THE example of the Apostolicall Churches Acts 15. maketh for us The Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia being troubled with the question about the Jewish Ceremonies the matter was debated and disputed at Antioch the chiefe towne of Coelosyria where Paul and Barnabas were for the time It is very probable that some out of the other Churches in that Province as also out of the Churches of Cilicia were present in that meeting and conference for they were troubled with the very same question no lesse then the Church of Antioch Howsoever the matter could not be agreed upon in that meeting but a reference thereof was made to a more generall assembly at Hierusalem and for that effect Paul and Barnabas and others with them were sent thither All this is cleare by comparing verse 2. with 23. Hereupon the Apostles and Elders did synodically come together at Hierusalem and decided the question giving forth decrees to be observed by the particular Churches Acts 15.6.28 and 16.4 We will not dispute what sort of Synod this was only that it was a Synod with authority over many particular Churches and Congregations and whereunto the meeting at Antioch whether it was provinciall or Presbyteriall only did referre the determination of the question about Jewish ceremonies It is answered by some 1. That the reason of sending Paul and Barnabas to Hierusalem was to know whether these teachers who pressed the observation of the ceremoniall Law had any such commission from the Apostles and Elders as they pretended 2. That there is here no Synod nor assembly of the Commissioners of divers Churches for there were no Commissioners from the rest of the Churches in Iudea Galilee and Samaria mentioned Acts 9.31 nor from the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Act. 14.23 neither were Paul and Barnabas and the rest who went with them Commissioners to represent the Church of Antioch but messengers only to make narration of the case 3. Not only the Apostles and Elders but the whole Church at Hierusalem met together 4. If the resolution which was given be considered as the judgement of the Church at Hierusalem it was only her advice to her sister Churches if otherwise considered it was a decree absolutely Apostolicall and divine Scripture by infallible direction from the holy Ghost and for that reason imposed upon all the Churches of the Gentiles though they had no Commissioners there These answers had need to be stronger before that so many Fathers Councells and Protestant Writers who have understood the matter otherwise should all bee put in an error To the first wee reply that the reason of sending Paul and Barnabas to Hierusalem was not so much to know whether these teachers had commission from the Apostles and Elders to presse the keeping of the Law of Moses as to get a resolution of the question it selfe verse 2. about this question Now the question was not what commission the Apostles had given to those teachers but whether they should be circumcised after the manner of Moses verse 1. To the second we say that if Paul and Barnabas were messengers to make narration of the case certainely they were more then sufficient messengers and there was no need of others to be joyned in message with them so that it appeareth the rest who were sent with them were Commissioners to represent the Churches which sent them Neither is it credible but that all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which were in the same case with the Church of Antioch did send their Commissioners also to Hierusalem for otherwise how could the Apostles and Elders have so certaine and perfect intelligence of the case of those Churches verse 23. Beside it had beene a great neglect in those Churches if they had not sent some to Hierusalem as the Church of Antioch did for if it was expedient which Antioch did they ought no lesse to have done it their case being the same Moreover it may be collected from verse 3. that the other Churches through which Paul and Barnabas passed in their journey did send some companions along with them to joyne with them in their errand and to give their consent in the meeting at Hierusalem unto that which was to be concluded This is the observation of Cajetan Mentzerus Calvin Gualther and other Interpreters upon that place Lastly it is no way probable that the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem together with those who were sent from the Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia and the other Churches through which Paul and Barnabas did travell would come together without acquainting the rest of the Churches of Judea which were so neare at hand and might so easily send their Commissioners to Hierusalem To the third wee reply that it cannot bee proved from the Text that the body of the Church of Hierusalem was present but rather it appeareth from verse 6. that they were not present as hath been said before And though it were granted that they were present yet Master Robinson saith that they did no more then consent to the decree To the last answer it is containe that the conclusion of that meeting at Hierusalem was not a naked counsell and advice but a decree imposed with authority upon the Churches Acts 15.28 and 16.4 and 21.25 And whereas it is affirmed that the decree was meerely Apostolicall and that the Elders did no more then consent thereto even as the brethren did this is manifestly against the Text for Acts 16.4 It is said of Paul and Silas as they went through the Cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the Apostles Elders that were at Hierusalem And Act. 21.25 all the Elders speaking to Paul say as touching the Gentiles which believe wee have written and concluded that they observe no such thing That this was spoken by al the Elders is plain from v. 18.19.20 So then
the Elders did decreee ordaine and conclude these things to bee imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles and not the Apostles only Now the Elders of the Church of Hierusalem had no authority to impose their decrees upon all the Churches of the Gentiles with whom they had nothing to doe as Mr. Robinson saith truely Since therefore these things were imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles as the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem this doth necessarily import that there were in that meeting delegates and commissioners from the Churches of the Gentiles which did represent the same CHAP. IX The fifth Argument taken from Geometricall proportion AS is the proportion of 3. to 9. so is the proportioÌ„ of 9. to 27. of 21. to 81. c. This rule of Giometricall proportion affoordeth us a fifth Argument for the point in hand If we should grant the government of the Church to be popular then by what proportion one or two are subject to a whole congregation by the same proportion is that congregation subject to a provinciall or a nationall congregation I meane if all the congregations in a province or a nation were assembled into one collective body as all the males of the Jewes did assemble thrice in the yeare at Hierusalem and as in the daies of the Judges the whole congregation of the children of Israel was assembled together in Mizpeh as one man from Dan even to Beersheba foure hundred thousand men to try the cause of the Levite and to resolve what to doe there-anent which meeting of the Nation was ordered by Tribes the Tribes by families the families by persons in that case any one particular congregation behoved to be subject to the generall congregation by the same reason whereby one man is subject to the particular congregation whereof he is a member because the whole is greater then a part and the body more then a member Now the same rule holdeth in the representatives of Churches whether we compare them with the collectives or among themselves If wee compare the representatives with the collectives then as one congregation is governed by the particular Eldership representing the â—ame by the like proportion are 14. or 16. congregations governed by a Classicall Presbytery representing them all by the same proportion are all the congregations in a province subject to a Provinciall Synod by the same ought all the congregations in a nation to be subject to a nationall Assembly all of them being either mediatly or immediatly represented in the same for as Parker saith well many Churches are combined into one in the very same manner as many members are combined into one Church If we compare the representatives among themselves then by what proportion a particular Eldership representing only one congregation is lesse in power and authority then a Classicall Presbytery which representeth many congregations by the same proportion is a Classicall Presbytery lesse in power and authority then a Provinciall Synod and it lesse in authority then a Nationall Synod So that the authority of Presbyteries whether Parochiall or Classicall being once granted this shall by the rule of proportion inferre the authority of Synods I know that Synods are not ordinary Courts as Presbyteries are but this and other differences betwixt them I passe the argument holdeth for the point of authority that Synods when they are have authority over all the Churches in a Province or a nation even as Presbyteries have over the congregations within their bounds CHAP. X. The sixth Argument taken from necessity WEE have another reason to adde and it is borrowed from lawlesse necessity for without a subordination among Ecclesiasticall Courts and the authority of the higher above the inferiour it were utterly impossible to preserve unity or to make an end of controversie in a Nation A particular congregation might happily end questions and controversies betwixt the members thereof and so keepe unity within it selfe and not so neither if the one halfe of the congregation be against the other but how shall controversies betwixt severall congregations be determined if both of them bee independent how shall plurality of religions be avoided how shall an apostatizing congregation be amended It is answered 1. If a particular congregation neglect their duty or doe wrong to another the civill sword may proceed against them to make them doe their duty 2. A particular congregation ought in difficult cases to consult with her sister Churches for so much reason dictats that in difficult cases counsell should be taken of a greater number 3. Sister Churches when they see a particular congregation doing amisse out of that relation which they have to her being all in the same body under the same head may and ought to admonish her and in case of generall apostacy they may withdraw that communion from her which they hold with the true Churches of Christ. But these answers are not satisfactory The first of them agreeth not to all times for in times of persecution the Church hath not the helpe of the civill sword a persecuting Magistrate will bee glad to see either division or apostasie in a congregation but so it is that Christ hath povided a remedy both for all the evills and diseases of his Church and at all times The Church as was said before is a Republike and hath her lawes Courts and spirituall censures within her selfe whether there be a Christian Magistrate or not The second answer leaveth the rectifying of an erring congregation to the uncertainty of their owne discretion in seeking counsell from a greater number And moreover if this be a dictate of reason to aske counsell of a greater number when the counsell of a few cannot resolve us then reason being ever like it selfe will dictate so much to a congregation that they ought to submit to the authority of a greater number when their owne authority is not sufficient to end a controversie among them To the third answer wee say that every private Christian may and ought to withdraw himselfe from the fellowship and communion either of one man or of a whole congregation in the case of generall apostasie And shall an apostatizing congregation be suffered to runne to hell rather then any other remedy should bee used beside that commonly ineffectuall remedy which any private Christian may use God forbid What I have said of congregations I say also of Classicall Presbyteries How shall sentence be given betwixt two Presbyteries at varience How shall a divided Presbytery be re-united in it self How shall an Hereticall Presbytery be reclaimed How shall a negligent Presbytery be made to doe their duty How shall a despised Presbytery have their wounded authority healed againe In these and such like contingent cases what remedy can bee had beside the authority of Synods CHAP. XI Objections made against the authority of Synods answered THey who dislike the subordination of particular congregations unto higher Ecclesiasticall Courts object