Invisible Church is the greatest part in Heaven and they which are in earth as one with them as one entire universall body whereof Christ is the Head are not capable of c. Ans 1. That part of the universall Church which is in Heaven is impertinently brought on the stage here Christ is speaking of those that are yet to be built or are a building therefore we say He is speaking of such as are on earth 2. Albeit that part of the Invisible Church that is on earth be not capable of visible and limited Discipline formally considered as such i. e. as the Invisible Church nor yet collectively considered as one intire body yet the Invisible Church materially i. e. these that are the Invisible Church being also a part of the Church visible and considered distributively in parrs may be capable of visible Discipline David Peter John and the rest who make up the Church Invisible as they are also outward Professours with others are capable of visible Discipline O! then you will say why Are they not spoken of here I will build my Church as they are a visible Church Ans It doth not necessarly follow for to persons standing under diverse considerations one thing may be attributed according to one consideration and another according to another section 3 As to his 2d. Observation 1. It is contrair in it self to Truth that the visible Church is to consist only of such as have a faith he means fidem quâ creditur or taken subjectivè for we shal grant it of faith quae creditur or taken objectivè which flesh and blood cannot reveal i. e. true saving faith The Church may consist of such as have not that faith and the Author addeth not here his qualification of so far as men can judge neither can it be admitted here 2. Qualifie it as he will it is a meer violenting of the Text sundry Interpretations by diverse have been given on these words Vpon this Rock will I build my Church but I think few or none ever before our Author gave such an interpretation as this The visible Church shall be constitute only of such as have true saving faith in them so far as men can judge Certainly whether we take the Church Invisible or the Church Visible to be meant here under the name of the Church Mr. Lockiers sense cannot have place For 1. Understanding by the name of Church the Church Invisible in that sentence Vpon this Rock will I build my Church Christ is not speaking of gathering and constituting a certain incorporation or society in the state and condition of such an incorporation or society and how persons of whom it is to be made up must be antecedently qualified that they may be capable of admission to be constituent members thereof but speaking of his own act of efficacious grace put forth in deed with the Ministry of the Gospel upon the hearts of some persons whom he cals his Church because they are called out from amongst the rest of the world to himself which doth not suppose them antecedently having faith and taking them as such state them in a society But indeed is the very giving to them that faith and stating them in an impregnable condition of grace and salvation Whether by this Rock we understand that faith which Peter confessed or Christ the object of that faith or Peter himself considered in regard of his Ministry of the Gospel or the Gospel Preached by him as some of the Orthodox do certainly this is the meaning of building the Church upon the Rock supposing that which I do incline most to with the most part of Reformed Divines that by the Church is meant the Church Invisible 2. If by the name of the Church here be understood the Church Visible as some later Orthodox Divines have expounded it namely judicious and learned Hudson in his acurate and elaborate Vindication of the Essence and Vnity of the Catholick Visible Church Yet it will little avail Mr. Lockiers purpose 1. Because it is a particular Congregation and the qualification of members to be admitted thereunto that he is speaking of all along under the name of a visible Church But supposing this place to speak of the visible Church it cannot be understood of a particular visible Church or Congregation but must of necessity be understood of the Catholick visible Church because it is such a Church as is to stand firm and impregnable that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it but any particular Church may be prevailed against 2. Taking the name of the Church so here the meaning of the whole sentence upon this Rock I will build my Church is nothing else but this as the learned Author but now cited well observeth that the Profession and Doctrine of this Truth that the Messiah is already come that this Jesus is the Messiah this Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God the Doctrine and confession that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh 1 Joh. 4. 2 3. and the beleeving that I am he saith Christ Joh. 8. 24. is the foundation whereon the Church of the New Test is to be built out of all which nothing more can follow as to the qualification of members of the visible Church of the New Test then this that when as the Jews under the Old Test beleeved in an indefinite Messiah to come now under the New Test none can be of the Christian Church but such as beleeves and confesses that the Messiah is come c. Now I appeal to all the Orthodox World if Mr. Lockier his commenting upon this place be not a forcing of the Text. As for what he addeth that to a body thus constitute i. e. a Visible Church so constitute as he hes been saying is the power of the keyes given and both these represented and personated to us in Peter To passe I cannot well understand how it can be said that the power of the keyes could be represented and personated in Peter possibly the Church might be represented and personated in him This belongeth not to our present Question and therefore we passe it now trusting with the Lords assistance afterward to evidence that both assertions viz. that the power of the keyes were given to a Church Visible I mean the collective Church and so to it is as the subject and that Peter in receiving them here did represent and personat the Church are groundlesse section 4 The next shadow or hint is Rev. 11. 1 2. And there was given me a Reed c. Hereupon the Author maketh much adoe 1. He layeth down grounds by Interpreting particulars in the words 1. Saith he by the Temple is meant the Visible Church the state and welfare of which though most infested of any publick condition shall not be left and ruined but be carefully looked to and raised from its corruptions intrusions and ruines made by unsound men This is confirmed by a Testimony of Marlorat hunc in
a certain singular one thing But this I doubt Mr. Lockier will grant A Visible Church Catholick existing really one And however it is not his purpose here to alledge that Peter received the Keyes as personating the Universall Church Visible For the thing he would be at and must prove is that all the Keyes and exercise thereof are given to every one particular Church or Congregation singly and within it self If he say he means a particular Visible Church I ask which is it of Rome or Corinth or Ephesus If any one of these definitely what then becommeth of all the rest Nay but will he say not any one particular Visible Church definitely but indefinitely any and every one But 1. His words are that Peter in this mater personated the Church Visible which in propriety of speech seemeth to me to note a determinate and definite individuall but passing this 2. It cannot be a particular Visible Church whether definitely or some certain one or indefinitely for any one Because as Mr. Lockier himself sayeth the Church that Peter personated is that which Christ saith ver 18. that he would build upon the rock that the gates of hell should not prevail against it But this is not any particular Visible Church but either the Church Invisible of the elect and redeemed ones or the Church Visible Catholick Because any particular Visible Church may be prevailed against 3. That Assertion Surely this particular here used to wit the Pronoun of the second person twise in the sentence thee and thou is not in vain but to set forth that every Gospel Church c. is I may say an Assertion of such boldnesse without proof as any man of understanding may wonder that a modest man should have uttered it before men that have not sold away their judgments to be slaves to any mans dictats What Must our Saviours speaking to Peter here in the singular number be in vain unlesse hereby he intended to set out every particular Congregation and surely it must be so and we must believe it surely to be so because Mr. Lockier saith it tho he do no more but say it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is enough Is there not another possible Reason to be given of this that Christ in this giving of the Keyes directs his speech particularly to Peter but this that Mr. Lockier deviseth so that his speaking to Peter thus particularly must be in vain if this Reason be not taken to make it to purpose Know we not that long agoe Cyprian in his treatise de Vnitate Ecclesiae has given another reason of this which I conceive any judicious man will think much more purpose-like then Mr. Lockiers Quamvis saith that Ancient of this matter Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur His meaning is that Christ at first spake singularly to Peter in giving the Keyes that he might set forth the unity of the Church spread throughout the whole World We know also that our learned Countrey-man Camero in his praelect on the place gives yet another Reason of Christs thus speaking to Peter singularly which he very probably confirmeth by sundry circumstances in the Text and severall other considerations from other places which I need not insert here but refers the Reader to the Author himself Yea I see not reason why it should be thought that Christs speaking to Peter in the Singular Number should be thought to be in vain unlesse some mysticall signification had been intended thereby Christ having asked a Question of the Apostles in common and Peter one for all the rest having made the answer might not Christ i◠his reply upon the answer speak singularly to Peter without intending any mysticall signification thereby but his speaking in such a way behoved to be in vain I confesse I see not this 4. Mr. Lockier saith here in this Assertion that this particular is used i. e. Peter is particularly spoken to to set forth that every particular Congregation of believers united in a visible organical body for Gods worship c. which is as much as to say that Peter in receiving the Keyes personated every particular Congregation united as a visible organicall body But then 1. How consisteth this with that which he asserted upon the first Ass Sect. 2. That the Keyes were given at first to Peter not as an Apostle nor as as Elder but as a Believer and that in him the Keyes were given to a Church of believers as believing primarily and to the Elders in the second place as exerted out of that state and as servants of it Here they are given to Peter as personating a Congregation of beleevers united as an organicall body and so as personating both simple beleevers and Elders There they are given to Peter not as an Elder nor representing Elders but as a believer and personating beleevers as beleeving 2. If Peter in receiving the Keyes personated a Congregation of beleevers united as an organicall body for Gods Worship that is as now constituted of people and Officers Then who must exercise the Keyes in relation to a Congregation wanting its own organs Ministers and Elders Go we on section 5 And for the Key of Excommunication saith he which is so much denyed to the particular Congregation the Church of Corinth is blamed by the Apostle that they did not this of themselves without him and his urging of them much more without a Collegiat Church sentence Answ True the Church of Corinth is blamed that they did not this of themselves But that the Church of Corinth was but an single Congregation and not a Presbyteriall Church composed of several particular Congregations under one Presbyteriall Government should been proven and not barely alledged or supposed See the contrary proven by Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right pag. 460. seq the Authors of Jus Divin pag. 26. seq upon these grounds 1. The multitude of beleevers 2. The plenty of Ministers 3. The diversity of tongues and languages 4. The plurality of Churches mentioned therein 5. A Presbyteriall meeting of Prophets section 6 He proceeds to reason by way of removing an Objection thus If it be said they be fit to Preach and Administer seals but not to Ordain or Excommunicat because the particular Churches cannot make up a sufficient Eldership This is the Objection he frames to himself as if it were ours on which 1. We say not they i. e. the particular Congregation wholly taken are fit to Preach or may Preach But we say that any one Pastour rightly called is fit to Preach and administer seals his alone 2. We say not simply that the Eldership of a particular Congregation may not in any
be formed into these processes 1. The Church Visible is a building whereof Jesus Christ is the Rock and foundation Therefore the whole Visible Church and all parts of it consist of such persons as must be and bear upon him as a superstruction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superstructi Eph. 2. 20. And must be among themselves an uniforme congruous building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 v. 22. so as they may stand Then supposing that consequent this will be the second processe But such persons as have not true saving faith such as Peters cannot hold and bear upon Christ nor can they make up an uniforme congruous building that will stand how can the building stand whose materials have not a symmetry but antilogâ—… and antistasie not an agreement but a fighting with the foundation and one another Ergo they are not fit materials to constitute the Visible Church Ans Truely this reason let me say it without offence is a building that cannot stand let a man but touch it as it were with his finger and it will to the ground 1. If it prove any thing it proveth not only that de jure the Visible Church ought to be constitute of materials or members truely endued with saving grace and faith but also it is no true Visible Church which doth not de facto consist of materials all such i. e. truely in veritate rei endued with true saving grace and faith and then likely there was never in the world a true Visible Christian Church unlesse it was that of the eleven after that Judas hanged himself or may be that Acts 1. nor ever shall be in the world For suppose a Church consisting of members all which may be accounteâ— truely gracious so far as men can judge yet seeing mens judgements herein are not infallible some of them many of them yea most of them are not indeed truely gracious and believers Then say I according to Mr. Lockiers reasoning here how can these bear and hold upon Christ who have no faith And how can that building stand whose materials have not a symmetrie c. Let men judge of them what they will and how probably soever that helps not for they want the bond by which they should bear upon Christ and they have no symmetrie one with another 2. 'T is grounded upon a meer mistake or false supposition that the building built upon Christ as a Rock and foundation Eph. 2. 20 21. is the Visible Church as such Mr. Lockier saith well that it is confessed on all hands that Christ is the Rock and foundation stone but he could not say it is agreed upon by all that the Church Visible is the building that is said to be built upon that foundation growing up into a holy Temple c. Papists indeed say it is the Visible Church that they may draw all the priviledges of the Church Invisible which is the Mysticall body of Christ to the Church visible and by that means at least to their own stinking whore the Antichristian Roman Synagogue But Orthodox Protestant Divinâ—… have ever maintained the contrary that it is the Catholick Invisible Church of the elect that is the building built upon Christ as the Rock and foundation stone see Whittaker de Eccles in many places known to any that hath read him untill of late Separatists and Independents have joyned with Papists in this and drawn all the priviledges proper to the Church Invisible which is the Mysticall body of Christ unto every Independent visible Congregation Mr. Lockier should have proven and not meerly taken for granted that the Visible Church is the building built upon Christ as the foundation-stone seeing he knew that it was denyed generally by Protestant Divines The Visible Church according to its visible state is not the building but the work house wherein the stones are fitted for to be laid in the building and built up 3. Mr. Lockier supposeth in this Argument that the Visible Church i. e. a particular Independent Congregation must be a standing fast lasting house quae non deficiat which is not to fail and that perpetuity is the priviledge and property of it in this also joyning with Papists against whom all Protestant Divines maintain that to belong only to the Church of the elect or if to the Church Visible not to any particular but to the universall We grant then that any Church Visible is defectible and may indeed fall and that even upon that ground amongst others that there is not an uniformity and homogeneousnesse amongst all parts of it some are of the seed of the Woman really good some be at the best seemingly good and really bad and the seed of the Serpent and Mr. Lockiers way will not make it to be otherwayes and we confesse that it is by the finger of God that any Church is any long space kept standing Yet God will keep Visible Churches standing for all the asymmetry and heterogeneousnesse of members amongst themselves as to their inward spirituall eternall state so long as he has a work for gathering and building up his elect amongst them for whose sake it is that a Visible Church and his Ordinances therein are set up You will say but doth not God this by means Ans yea verily he useth means which he blesseth and maketh effectuall for that end to the keeping down of the evills that are in many and would be ready to break out to the undoeing of all as long as he sees meet as the Preaching of the Word exercise of Discipline against scandals but God never prescribed this as a means for keeping up Visible Churches that no persons should be admitted or permitted to be in the Visible Church but such as are symmetricall and homogeneall in true saving grace This is a means altogether unpracticable by men unlesse God by an immediat revelation should point out the men section 3 Mr. Lockier for the strengthning of this first reason bringeth in 1 Cor. 3. from vers 10. thus Christ sayeth he it should be Paul doth argue from this medium that suitable to the foundation should be the building otherwise such uncongruous superstructions will be fired and they which make them vers 10 11 12 13. in which words the Apostle argues as I do that if Christ be laid as the Foundation-Stone in a building 't is good for men to take heed that they make congruous superstructions least all the building fall about their ears and see how he applyeth this vers 16 17. incongruous superstructions if it be in point of Doctrine it maketh incongruous matter it defileth the Temple of God destroyes it sayeth the margent and such will God destroy for the Temple of God sayeth he is holy which Temple ye are i. e. such are the Temple which are holy which have the Spirit of God dwelling in their heart and none else Ans 1. I professe I cannot forbear to say that I find Mr. Lockier abuse much Scripture in the little bounds of this Peece
Congregation ' tisfilly and might well be said among Children but may blush to come out before understanding Men. By this Argument when our Saviour sayeth upon this Rock will I build my Church And the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. He hath set in the Church First some Apostles c. And Ephes 5. He loved his Church and gave himself for it Because it is in the Singular Number Church not Churches in all these places Therefore it must be only one single Congregation meant in all of them When as it is indeed the whole Catholick Church and not any particular singular Congregation So the name flock in the Singular Number why may it not be taken collectivè for such a flock as contained in it diverse particular flocks as Gen. 33. 13. yea and in the very present Metaphoricall sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12. 32. little flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 10. 16. one Sheep fold tho both in the Singular Number yea and in the latter place with the Cardinall number added to it one signifieth the Church Catholick and so comprehendeth many particular Flocks Folds and Churches As to M. Lockiers last words in this Sect. here is no joint voice c. indeed we grant that in that meeting there was no joint voting of Elders Because these Elders then were not meet to act in Government but had been sent for by Paul to receive direction from him concerning the managing of their charge But supposing that which is proved from other places that there were more single Congregations in Ephesus then one we find here these Congregations held forth to be one Church and there were many Elders over these many Congregations as one flock one Church And that is enough for our purpose The next place he meeteth with and which he calleth one of the most weighty indeed it is so weighty to the purpose we are on that it crusheth the new supream Independent Tribunall erected by our Brethren in single Congregations is that concerning the Synod Act. 15. 28. To this the Author Answers 1. Here sayeth he is an Eldership of severall Churches indeed met But as touching the coercion of their power as such excerped Eldership enforcing their results upon other Churches this is the other thing to be brought in to make up the businesse we Dispute against Answ First 't is well Mr. Lockier acknowledgeth that was an Eldership of severall Churches even a Synodicall Presbytery a Synod as himself calls it afterward Sect. 29. Some of his side have said otherwise the Dissenting Brethren in their Reasons against the Assemblies allegation of Acts 15. for subordination of Synods That Ass was not a formall Synod but only a reference by the particular Church of Antioch unto this particular Church of Jerusalem and no other But we think Mr. Lockier speaketh the truth that it was a Synod 2. We must here again note his invidious misrepresenting of our Doctrine We do not ascribe to that or any other Synod a power of coertion to enforce their results upon any but an authoritative juridicall power to enjoyn authoritatively their determinations agreeable to the Word of God and to censure the disobedient and disorderly with meer spirituall censures as admonition Excommunication which import no enforceing â— propriety of speech Nor do we say that that or any other Synod hath power thus authoritatively to enjoyn their determinations upon other Churches we say they have this power only in relation to these Churches associated in the Synod and none other So not that which Mr. Lockier sayeth but this is the other thing to be brought in to make the Presbytery we speak for what ever it be that he Disputes against which oftentimes is his own fiction an juridicall power authoritatively enjoining its determinations and which may censure with spirituall Ecclesiastick censures the disobeyers and disorderly And this we doubt not will be found in this place Act. 15. section 11 After this the Author pretending to be clear and full in answering this place he premitteth two things which Reverend Hocker hath also Survey Part. 4. c. 1. 1 That the Apostles tho they were extraordinary Officers yet in this meeting they did not act as such because they joined with them ordinary Churches what ordinary Churches is contradistinguished unto I know not well and Officers and all Disputed and enquired And so here was left a samplar to all succeeding generations In this we agree with him Only by the way we note that we see not why he should have said before Sect. 25. that in the ordination of Deacons the Apostles acted as extraordinary persons seeing there also they joined the Church with them in the election of the persons to be ordained His 2. premisse is that the sentence decreed in that Synod was not Scripture because they decreed it as still it was when the Apostles moved by the proper Spirit of their Apoâ—…olicall station according to that 2 Pet. 1. 21. but what they decreed was by debate found out to be either expresse in Scripture or undenyably deduced from thence So by one of these wayes was found to be Scripture and was therefore decreed and injoyned by them upon others And then goes out a while in clearing this which we need not insist on And to passe other things that might be noted in this second premisse granting both what would he infer hereupon That in the close of Sect. 28. So that what they produced by debate was materially binding for asmuch as what they produced was for the matter of it no other but the will of God but not formally as the result of such a Collegiat Eldership Answ This last followeth not upon any thing in the former premisses For tho their decrees were not Scripture because decreed by them but decreed by them because found to be Scripture or agreeable to generall rules of Scripture and therefore injoined by them to the Churches It followes indeed that their primary and fundamentall obligatorinesse is materiall And were they not such they could not formally as decrees of the Synod be obligatory or binding But it doth not follow that simpliciter they are not binding formally as decrees of the Synod The obligatorinesse of decrees of a Synod formally as decrees of a Synod is secundary subordinate and regulate but for that it is not no obligatorinesse at all Yea one of his own contradicts him in terminis in this Mr. Cotton speaking of the decrees of this very Synod Keyes c. 6. this binding power is not only materially from the weight of the matters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the Authority of the Synod section 12 But come we to his clear Answ he brings it in by way of reply to an Object Had then this Synod no authoritative power at all For what end then is the Ordinance This indeed is a pertinent Question propounded by the Author to himself And if he asserting as
conversion of the Gentiles pag. 2. and 3. begin Ans That the Holy Ghost here intendeth as the principall purpose to describe a visible Church of the New Test by the proper constituent matter thereof is but the meer conceit of the Author forced upon the Text and no wayes deduceable from the words themselves the genuine purpose of the words being simply to note some circumstances of Paul and Barnabas and the other Commissioners joyned with them their journey from Antioch to Jerusalem whether they were sent for resolution upon the Question then in controversie at Antioch As 1. The Christian courteous respect that the Church at Antioch put upon them they were brought on their way 2. What these commissioners did as they were on their journey that they declared to the Christians that lay in their way that same thing that they had declared before at Antioch Chap. 14. v. 27. viz. that God had been mightily with the Preaching of the Gospel even amongst the Gentiles so that many of them as the Story relateth the particular countries and places Chap. 13 and 14. were converted to the Christian Religion 3. What effect this produced amongst the Christians to whom it was declared that they had great joy at these tydings that the Kingdome of Christ was so spreading and that even the Gentiles were brought in to it Here indeed are grounds of usefull points of Doctrine but what is all to that which Mr. Lockier intends the description of a visible Church by its proper matter A Church visible to Mr. Lockier is a particular Congregation participating together the Ordinances of Christ Doth it any wayes appear that the Spirits intention in these words is to describe unto us what sort of persons were admitted into the constitution of such a Congregation viz. as he would have it not any professours whosoever but such only as were tryed and found by truely converted and very spiritual men able to discern and judge to be truely regenerate What evidence is brought to shew that this is intended in the Text This to wit that first it is said being brought on by the Church and then sayes he what the matter of this Church is the next words tells they declared the conversion of the Gentiles Answer What must these latter words be a description of that thing which is mentioned in the first i. e. the Church viz. of Antioch for that is the Church spoken of there because forsooth the one followeth immediately after the other in the series of the narration I must say this is strange Logick and interpreting of Scripture I am not here to deny but the Church of Antioch did consist of such as are here mentioned i. e. converted Gentiles but my purpose is to shew how impertinently the Author hath chosen and made use of this Scripture to be his Text for his Doctrine concerning the matter of a visible Church section 4 That this may yet more clearly appear I desire the Reader to consider that the Historian Luke is not in these two Clauses of this Verse pitcht upon by Mr. Lockier as a ground of his Doctrine relating the words of one mans continued discourse so as the one part of them might be taken as exegetick of the other or as intended to expresse a description of the thing contained in the other but is relating two diverse actions of two distinct pâ—rties as circumstances of Paul and Barnabas journey one reall of the Church of Antioch their Christian courtesie in bringing them on a part of their way The other so to call it verball viz. the discourse that Paul and Barnabas themselves had amongst the Christians by whom they passed viz. that the Gentiles were converted to the Christian Faith so that any man that hath but half an eye may easily perceive that these terms Church and converted Gentiles stands not in the words in relation one to another as a definitum and a definitio or as a compound and the matter of which it is compounded Therefore it is but a forcing of the Text to make up of these two this Doctrine as intended in the words A visible Church consists of converted ones as its proper matter what ever truth may be in it of it self This I said before I am not questioning now but would discover the inconsideratnes of chusing and making use of this Text for that purpose and adds but this seeing in preaching the Word of GOD aright any enunciative Doctrine which is propounded from a Text if it ly not in the Text in expresse and formall or equivalent terms yet should be deduceable by good consequence from it I humbly desire that Mr. Lockier would build a clear Syllogisme upon any enunciation in this Text inferring this Conclusion the proper matter of a visible Church is converted ones for in this Text it is not said expresly and immediatly as he would seem to say in the next progresse in these words The complexion of a visible Church under the Gospel is here said to be conversion the constituting matter converted ones This much might suffice for answer to this Text as it is alledged by Mr. Lockier for to be a proof of the Doctrine intended in this Lecture for unlesse it be first supposed that conversion of the Gentiles is here mentioned and set down as a description of the visible Church mentioned before all the pains taken by him afterward to clear what is meant by conversion is to little purpose for proof of the point intended as from this Text. Yet we shall be at the pains to take into consideration what followeth in the opening up of the Text lest we seem purposely to passe over any thing which may be alledged to speak for the point maintained by the Author I confesse it had been fitter that the controversie had been first stated but I am resolved to follow the tract of Mr. Lockiers discourse that I may shunne the smallest appearance of wronging him Go we on then section 5 They declared the conversion of the Gentiles what conversion was this A meer outside conversion pag. 3. Nay would the Author say an inside truely gracious heart-conversion Ans 1. Do we any of us whom the Author takes for his Adversaries say that no more at all is meant here but a meer outside conversion He but fains an Adversary and wrongeth us by intimating so much We conceive thus that by Conversion here is meant a forsaking and relinquishing of the Heathnish and a turning unto and embracing the Christian Religion as the Nether Dutch Notes on the place expound De Bekeeringe â—…el tot de Christilick Religie i. e. Conversion viz. to the Christian Relion no wayes excluding but comprehending under it also the inward heart-turning by true faith to Christ but withall we think it cannot be warrantably said that when Paul and Barnabas made this declaration of the conversion of the Gentiles they meant that all and every one of these Gentiles turned from Heathenism to the
say much sand without lyme 1. The Gentiles of whose Conversion Act. 15. 3. speaks were of many more places besides Antioch Now suppose all here alledged were granted what evidence can Mr. Lockier give us that Paul and Barnabas or any such other persons competentlie able to judge had stayed as long in every one of these other places 2. But to hold our selves to this Church of Antioch I confesse indeed it were dangerous universally to say that these first Christians at Antioch had not I say not only as Mr. Lockier hath it as far as able men could apprehend but in very deed both name and thing i. e. gracious heart-Christianity But I see it not so very dangerous to say that not all and every one of them had so much Nay I think it very dangerous positively to say they had for 't is clearly contrary to what the Scripture speaketh of the effect and successe of the Preaching of the Gospel and to many passages of this very Story of the Acts. 3. True Paul and Barnabas were discerning men able to give a good judgement in so much time what they found amongst those Christians But what evidence can the Author give us from the Text that this was their intended work during that space to examine and try what heart was in every one of these Professours and that in relation to constituting them a Visible Church after that tryall and judgment passed thereupon The only work we find mentioned in the Text ver 26. is their teaching they taught much people And there is nothing in it so much as hinting at this that they were not in state of a Visible Church untill after that whole years tryall Paul and Barnabas had given judgement what they did find amongst them as to their inward spirituall estate Nay there is a right apparent intimation that all along that years space they were a Visible Church and so esteemed a whole year they assembled themselves with the Church or in the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4. I will note but another thing here The Author intimateth that Barnabas his being full of the Holy Ghost is spoken of in that Text in relation to and as the Principle of tasting trying and judging these Christians soul-complexion for Church communion with them this is a â—eer forgerie It being clear as day light that 't is mentioned as the reason and Principle of the zealous exhorting them to sincere and constant continuing in the faith section 12 He goeth on thus In particular Churches some competent judgement may be made of every particular member by able men in a long tract of time And so are these worthies else where said with this Church to have had intimat communion Act. 14. 27 28. And there they abode a long time with the Disciples pag. 5 6. Answ I wonder how Mâ— Lockier speaking of the judgement touching Church members their qualification as members talks of it as given by some that are able men when as the way maintained by his side of judging and admitting Church members requireth this to be done by the decisive votes of all and every one in the Church all which cannot be supposed to be such able men as he speaks of But to the purpose in hand true able men in a long tract of time having conversed with every particular member of a Church may be able to give a good judgement of them but the matter in question is in thesi whether such a judgement grounded upon a tryall of so long a time must be antecedent to their stateing in Church-membership And in the hypothesis of the particular now in hand whether Paul and Barnabas had so long a time intimat communion with the Antiochian professors and thereby gave a judgement upon them concerning their spirituall estate before they were constitute in a Visible Church This Mr. Lockier should have alledged and made good if he would had a solide ground for his Doctrine intended But doth the Passage cited Acts 14. 27 28. say any thing for this purpose Now I report my self for judgement upon this to any Reader of ordinary common capacity let him but take this to consideration that before the time of this abode at Antioch mentioned Acts 14. 28. Barnabas after the work of the Gospel begun at Antioch had come thither sent from Jerusalem he and Paul had Preached there together a whole year they had gone in commission sent by the Antiochian Christians with a relief to the distressed Brethren at Jerusalem Chap. 11. and had returned again Chap. 12. 25. And having stayed there some time by speciall Divine appointment they are sent abroad through the Nations about to Preach the Gospel and having after a long peregrination returned again to Antioch then is said that Chap. 14. 28. and there they abode a long time with the Disciples Now were not the Antiochians stated in a Visible Church untill judgement was given upon them after intimat communion in this time of abode I might bring a multitude of Arguments to prove the contrary from severall passages of the Story going before But I need go no further then the immediat preceeding Verse v. 27. When they were come and had gathered the Church But it may haply be said that the Author brings this Passage to shew not what tryall and knowledge Paul and Barnabas had of them before they were stated Members in a Church Visible but what they might had of them to be a warrantable ground of their report made touching them Chap. 15. 3. Answer If so then say I he alledges it to no purpose as to his scope in this Lecture for his intention is to have Paul and Barnabas Chap. 15. 3. speaking of the qualification of these Gentiles in relation to their stating in a Visible Church and accordingly thereupon to build a generall Doctrine touching the proper matter of a Visible Church section 13 Adde saith he to this Acts 15. where you shall see further what is solemnly asserted of these Converts in severall verses as v. 8. And God which knoweth the hearts beareth them witnesse giving them the Holy Ghost even as he did unto us and put no difference between us and them purifying their hearts by faith Here is a Text to some purpose God which knoweth the hearts beareth them witnesse c. That they have the like powerfull spirituall receptions with the best of them at Jerusalem And indeed I think it dangerous for any to affirm that all these expressions might not mean effectuall grace or else be spoken of some only but not of the whole Compare with this v. 11. 16 17 18 19. what he concludes Wherefore my sentence is c. pag. 6 7. Ans Here is indeed a Text to some yea to a very great purpose viz. for the end for which it was spoken by the Apostle Peter that is to prove that Circumcision and the rest of the yoke of the Ceremoniall Law ought not to be imposed upon the
Gentiles converted to the Faith The Argument is clear and undenyable GOD the Searcher of hearts hath born witnesse to the Gentiles by giving to them the Holy Ghost as well as to the Circumcised Jews and without putting difference purifying their hearts through faith in JESUS CHRIST Preached by the Gospel alone without Circumcision and other Ceremoniall Performances Therefore it is his will that Circumcision c. bee not imposed upon them as not being necessary to Justification and Salvation This is the plaine and sole intention and drift of that Passage of Scripture But sure I am 't is to little or no purpose for Mr. Lockiers purpose For howsoever it be true that 't is clear from this Text that there was a work of effectuall saving grace amongst these Gentiles spoken of and I do agree with him this far that it were dangerous yea most clearly false and contradictory to the words of the Text to affirm that these expressions might not mean effectuall saving grace yet I say first that the Apostle Peter was not here speaking of this work of saving grace as the necessary qualification for constituting persons capable of Visible Church-membership 2. Albeit in these expressions spoken of the Gentiles there be not definitely a restriction to some only as M◠Lockier would seem to insinuate that we say yet the expressions are such as may be verified being understood of some only and not of all and every one because they are indefinitè Any Boy that hes learned the Rudiments of Logick knowes that there are enunciations particular which speaks of some of a kind definitely and enunciations universall which speaks of all and every one of a kind definitely and enunciations indefinitè which in their form speaks neither of some only nor of all and every one of a kind definitely but indefinitely of the kind and that such indefinite enunciations may be truely exponed either particularly of some only or universally of all and every one proratione materiae contingentis vel necessariae according as the nature of the things contingent or necessary leadeth us But now will the Author upon serious deliberation say that which he hes uttered here viz. that what the Apostle speaketh in the Text of the Gentiles indefinitly viz. that God had purified their hearts by believing must be understood universally of all and every one of them that were turned to Christianitie Nay I know he 'll salve the matter with his qualification according to what Christian can discern of Christian and so far as men c. But 1. This is an addition to the Text whereof there is not the least insinuation in the Text. 2. Yea the Text speaks clearly of such a purifying of hearts as is in veritate rei seu objecti i. e. indeed because it speaks of it in relation to the knowledge and Judgement of GOD the searcher of hearts whose Judgement is alwayes according to Truth But men esteemed to have hearts purified in the charitative judgement of men let them be the most discerning men may notwithstanding not have purifyed hearts indeed section 14 The Author having done with what we have hitherto been considering concludes and draws towards the Proposal of his Doctrine thus Having thus painfully and plainly laid the foundation by the Word and by a simple and sincere judgment thereupon without the least respect to any party or self-interest in the world as he knoweth to whom in this as in all my wayes I desire humbly to refer my self I build thereupon this doctrine c. pag. 7. To which It may be humbly conceived that the Author might have spared to speak of his painfulnesse and plainnesse c. and suffered the deed to speak alone for it self and other men to judge thereupon remembring that Let another man praise thee and not thine own mouth But to passe this grant that there has been some painfulnesse in the preceeding Discourse yet if therein there has been plainly or at all by the Word of God a foundation laid for the ensuing Doctrine I submit to be judged by any impartiall discerning man upon consideration of what hath been answered Thus I have done with the first Section wherein if I have been somewhat large yet I desire and hope the Reader will pardon it considering that the Discourse I have been examining is laid down as the foundation of the Doctrine following and that besides the Text sundry other Scriptures brought in to make the Text speak for it were to be considered SECTION II. Mr. Lockyers Doctrine pondered and the State of the Controversie between Us and the INDEPENDENT BRETHREN touching the necessary Qualification of Members of the VISIBLE CHURCH cleared section 1 MR. Lockiers determination touching the matter of a Visible Church is pag. 7. fine and pag. 8. propounded in these words The proper and allowed matter of a Visible Church now in the dayes of the Gospel is persons truly converted such as God who knoweth the hearts of all men can bear witnesse of as indeed sealed for his by his Holy Spirit thus far he hath in a different Character and then addeth it would seem by way of some explication I say this is the matter we ought now to take to raise again the Tabernacle of David and none other not one other no not in a whole Church so far as men truly converted and very spirituall are able to discern and judge section 2 First I desire humbly to know of the Author why he restricteth this Doctrine touching this point to the Visible Church now in the dayes of the Gospel For 1 I had ever thought it the received Doctrine of all Orthodox Reformed Divines that the Churches of the Old and of the New Test are of one and the same nature as to essentials and that the difference between them standeth in accidentals only 2. Why do many of his way-bring Arguments for this his Tenet touching the allowed matter of a Visible Church from Passages of the Old Test spoken in relation to the then Church 3. If the Visible Church in the dayes of the Old Test might have consisted of others as allowed matter then are described here which his restriction insinuateth i. e. of persons not truly converted c. then to borrow his Arguments brought afterward 1. Either Christ was not the Rock and foundation of that Church and that Church not a building being and bearing upon him as a superstruction or else then there might have been no Symmetrie but Antilogie and Antistasie no agreement but a fighting of the materials of the building with the foundation and one with another and yet the building might stand well enough such incongruous superstructions and unsuiteable to the foundation were good enough then 2. Either that Church was not the Church of the living God such as in which God lives dwels and walks or then God did live and dwell in dead persons who only make a Profession of Religion and then either the Church was
by most impertinent Citations What is there in this place to the purpose of the constitution of the Visible Church as to its matter or Members the Apostle here ver 10 11 12 13 14 15. is speaking of Doctrines fundamentall and superstructed and that these ought to be suitable and agreeable to that what is this to the mater of the Visible Church Ay Yes by Analogie would he say first because the Apostle useth the same medium and argues as I do that if Christ be layed as a foundation c. Ans And must that hold Universallie because one using a medium in one mater reasons truelie and solidlie therefore another using that medium in another mater and reasoning that same way for forme must also reason truelie and solidelie What if this other erre in the application of the medium and if some of his premisses and principles whereof his argument consists be false upon the matter so it is here The Apostle reasoneth well and concludently upon that principle that the superstructure should be suitable to the foundation that Teachers should take heed what Doctrines they teach in the Church Because he assumeth well that Christ or the Doctrine of Christ is the foundation-point of Doctrine in Religion and all other Doctrines are the superstructures But Mr. Lockier assumeth amisse that the Visible Church as such is the superstructure built upon Christ as the Foundation The Scripture sayeth no where so a Visible Church-state or to be received unto or to be in the Visible Church state is not to be built on Christ as a Foundation but is to be taken in under or to be under the means of being built either first or in a further degree of advancement on Christ as a Foundation But further sayeth he see how he applyes this ver 16 17. incongruous superstructions if in point of Doctrine c. Ans This is somewhat spoken in the mist but for ought I can conjecture or conceive the meaning seemeth to be this that wrong Doctrines taught in the Church makes persons unholy and so unfit mater for the Church to consist of and so destroyes or defiles the Temple of God which is as he conceiveth the Visible Church And thus he will have the Apostle v. 16 17. to apply that which he had been speaking in the preceeding verses Now if this be not a forceing of the purpose and meaning of these two verses let any understanding man in the Christian World judge The plain genuine intention and purpose of the Apostle in these verses is to warne and dehort the Corinthians from defiling and laying waste the Church either by corrupt idle or curious Doctrine not suitable to the foundation Christ or by Schismaticall addicting themselves to this or that man who were teachers among them which was the purpose whereupon he began this discourse v. 4. or both and that upon these three grounds 1. The consideration of the dignity they were advanced to that they were the Temple of God consecrated by the indwelling Spirit to him 2. That such things did defile and lay them waste 3. That God would severly punish such as any wayes defiled and destroyed them that were a Temple consecrated to him Ay but 3. Saith he it is added for the Temple of God is holy which Temple ye are i. e. such arâ—â—he Temple of God which are holy which hath the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else Ans 1. Mr. Lockier then conceiveth that these words are brought in as a reason why he that teacheth wrong or incongruous Doctrines defiles or destroyes the Temple of God To this sense the Visible Church consists of such as are holy and hes the Spirit dwelling in them and none else therefore men by teaching incongruous Doctrine making men in the Church incongruous mater i. e. unholy destroyes the Temple i. e. the Visible Church A meer forgerie contrary to clear shining evidence of the Apostles context wherein any man that is not blind may see that these words for the Temple of God is holy are given as a reason why these that defile the Temple will be severly punished of God the reason of which consequence clearly intimate in the words is because God will not indure the defiling or violating of that which is holy and consecrate to himself 2. True indeed such are the Temple of God which are holy and none else So Mr. Lockier supposeth but without reason or proof Sure the Apostle borroweth this denoâ—…ation from the typicall Temple of Jerusalem but that was no type of a Visible Church but of Christs Mysticall body and every member thereof And hence I reason thus the denomination of the Temple of God is such as is competent to and predicable of these to whom it is attributed not only collectively i. e. to the whole society of them but also unto every one severally * Martyr in loc non solum fidelium caetus qui Ecclesia dicitur templum Dei dicitur sed unusquisque credentium in Christum reperitur ita cognominatus nam postea de fornicatione agens Apostâ—lus cap. 6. corpus cujusque credentis vocat templum spiritus Sancti But if it be taken for the Visible Church it could not be attributed to every member thereof Every one in it is not a Visible Church 3. If such only be the Temple of God in Mr. Lockiers sense i. e. a Visible Church which are holy and has the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else he may seek such a Visible Church in the new world of the Moon In the end of this paragraph he prompts us another Argument equivalent to this first from this that Christ is called the Head and the Church the Body In form it must stand thus If Christ be the Head there must be an homogenealnesse in the Church to him he meaneth they must be truely gracious and endued with true saving faith But Christ is the Head and the Visible Church his Body Therefore c. The reason of the connexion of the first Proposition is because else there can be no mutuall derivation from one to another Ans 1. Protestant Divines will with one consent deny your assumption as Popish and tell you that it is the Church of the Elect that is the Body of Christ the Head See but Whittaker de Eccles q 1. c. 13. pag. 449. in fol. Yet 2. For more clear and particular answer we are to consider that Christ may be said to be the Head and the Church his body either in a politicall sense as a King is called the Head of the Common-wealth and the People are called his Body Or to speak so in a physicall sense according to the similitude of mans body Now we grant that Christ is a Head to the Visible Church and the Visible Church hath unto him the relation of a body in the former sense Christ is a King of the Visible Church and the Visible Church is his politicall Body
Appendix For the present what we have said is sufficiâ—nâ— to shew that Iohn baptized such as came to him upon th◠〈◊〉 profâ—ssion without any delay of time or waiting for tryall of the sincerity of their saving Conversion section 11 In like maner find we that the Apostles admitted to Baptism persons as soon as they made profâ—ssion of the Christian Faith without delay â—or triall of the truth of grace in their hearts as Acts 2. 38. 41. We read they baptized and so added to the Church three thousand that same day that they first professed without delay of the mater for so much as one day when as so great a number might excused the delay if they would have taken longer time to the buâ—…nesse And certainly it being 〈◊〉 the conversion of these men was so suddain one would think 〈◊〉 Apostleâ— would have waited for a triall and proof of their sincerity if so be such a triall and proof had been by Christs institution necessary to go before the admission of men into the Visible Church But the Spirit of God which acted and directed the Apostles did dictate them no such thing In like maner the Samaritâ—… men and women were baptized without any delay Acts 8. 1â— So Simon at that same timâ— albeit to that very day he had been a Sorcerer dementâ—d that people with his devillish enchauntments and with sacrilegious impiety given himself out as the great powâ—… of God yet as soon as being convinced by thâ— sight of miracles he professed the Christian Faith was baptized by Philip. Finally whosoever were baptized by the Apostles that we read of were baptized after this same maner nor can there be given from Scripture so much as one instance of any one man who professâ—…g the Faith and desiring the communion of thâ— Church was râ—fâ—sed Baptism for a time untill he should give a trial and evidence of the siâ—…erity of the work of grace in his heart section 12 To the practice of John Baptist and the Apostlâ—… adde the practice of Jesus Christ himself 'T is worthy of observation saith Mr. Baxter well against Tombs pag. 127. that it is said John 3. 26. he baptized viz. by the Ministry of his Disciples and all men came unto him Whereby it is evident that he baptized men presently and without delay as soon as they came and professed themselves his Disciples Shall we then miserable men not content with our Lords example take upon us to be more severe and exact in his maters then himself Verily I cannot look upon this too great diligence but as a counsell of mans pride shuffling it self in under a maske of purity â—…d accuracy in the matters of God section 13 What further may be excepted against this Argument built upon that ground whereon as a sufficient qualification Christ his Apostles and John Baptist admitted persons to baptism I know not unlesse some haply will say that baptism doth not constitute one a member of the Visible Church as Reverend Hooker contends in a large dispute Surv. p. 1. c. 4. pag. 55. seq and that to be admitted to baptism and to be admitted a member of the Visible Church are not one and the same thing and that more may be required as a necessary antecedent qualification to this then is to that But as to this exception 1. I yeeld that baptism in it self gives not the being of a member of the Visible Church But that one must be first a member thereof de jure which we say is given by such externall profession as we have described before to men of years and to Infants by federall holinesse derived from their Parents otherwise baptism could not constitute one a member Neverthelesse we hold this for certain that baptism is the ordinary Ordinance whereby solemne admission and initiation into actuall communion of the Visible Church is performed Neither since the time that baptism was instituted can their be shown in Scripture either precept or example of any externall way or means of admitting members of a Visible Church beside baptism further let me aske of the adversaries that they would produce from the holy Scriptures an instance of any one man who being admitted to baptism was not presently and ipso facto esteemed a member of the Visible Church They cannot it is a thing unheard of in the Word of God Therefore it is clearly evident that upon what condition men were â—dmitted to the Laver of baptism that same was accounted qualification sufficient in foro Ecclesiastico to constitute a member of the Visible Church and how grosse an absurdity in theologie were it to say that a man tho orderly baptized and no new impediment interveening yet were not a member of the Visible Church For hence it should follow that a baptized Christian even after he is such were yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. amongst these that are without Pagans and infidels 1 Cor. 5. 12. for there the Apostle divides the whole satitude of mankinde into these two Classes of those that are within and 〈◊〉 that are without and as by these that are within he understands such as are of the Visible Church whom also he calls Brethren v. 11. so by those who are without he understands infidels whom he calls the men of the world v. 10. This much for our first Argument section 14 Arg. 2. If our Lord Jesus Christ has not given to any man or society of men upon earth judiciary power authoritatively judicially and positively to pronounce sentence touching the inward spirituall condition of all men professing true Christian Religionâ— and submitting themselves to the Ordinances of Christ whether they be regenerat or not Then it cannot be by Christs institution a necessary qualification requisite to the admitting of persons into the outward fellowship of the Visible Church that they be in foro Ecclesiastico judged truely converted and regenerated But the former is true therefore so is the latter The connexion of the proposition is evident of it self As to the assumption let it be noted 1. That I deny not but a Minister has power from God with Ministeriall Authority to determine Doctrinally and in thesi men regenerated and in the state of grace and reconciliation or unregenerate and as yet in the state of nature according as they want or have the characters of true regeneration and faith They have a warrand from the word of God to pronounce all men that have never been humbled before God for their sins that esteem not Christ more precious then all things beside in the World that walk not after the Spirit but after the flesh c. to be unregenerat men and strangers from the life of God contra â— I grant that Ministers have power and authority to apply the generall Doctrinall sentence to particular persons in â—…pothesi but conditionally whom also they may and ought earnestly to presse to make positive application in their own consciences and as they perceive more
the Churches of God in the times of these famous ancient Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon wherein as in many Provinciall Synods of these times it is well known Orthodox Divines that had publickly and zealously appeared before against the Haereticks of these times did unquestionably sit and vote as Judges in the very controversies they had appeared parties in But yet to put this mater closser â—ome to Mr. Lockier Suppose in one of his Independent Congregations one or two or more members should vent Haereticall Doctrine and labour to instill it into and infect therewith their fellow members I think he will not deny but the Elders of that Congregation yea and every particular member ought to contend against them for the truth in privat refute and condemn their errors and their Schismatick practises Now I think he will not deny except he will deny altogether that there can be any Ecclesiasticall Judicature to condemn errors juridically and authoritatively but these Elders and private Christians though a contrair party to the supposed erroneous persons yet may in the meeting of the Congregation assembled as a Judicatory and Court sit and vote as Judges upon the mater in controversy with their antagonists If this may be in a Congregationall Judicatory and yet not against equity nor conscience nor rule why may it not be so in a Synod too section 20 The last place that Mr. Lockier meeteth with and saith is frequently used by the Presbyterian Brethren is 1 Tim. 4. 14. to which place he saith that he hath spoken somewhat before on the first Assertion which he repeats here That it was not an ordinary Eldership because of the reason he gave there and addes that being an Eldership of extraordinary Officers not praecisely from such and such particular Churches but such as were equally of all as of any one 't will not amount to the nature of a patern and binding praecedent to build upon Answ 1. This place is not so frequently urged as Mr. Lockier pretendeth for this purpose to prove an associate Presbytery over more Congregationâ— then one The thing it is usually urged for is to prove that the Government of the Church whereof Ordination is a principall part is in the hands of Officers and not in the body of Professors and this it doth clearly prove Yet 2. We conceive considerable grounds may be brought that it was a Presbytery not only not of one Congregation this Mr. Lockier himself acknowledgeth but also of ordinary Elders for the most part of severall particular Congregations For 1. There is not an example can be brought from Scripture of the Eldership of one Congregation performing Ordination nor any rule that may warrand such a practice when association with other Congregations may conveniently be had And there is in Scripture example of Ordination by a Presbytery over diverse Congregations as in the Church of Jerusalem where were many Congregations as has been often demonstrated against all exceptions that has been alledged That that Presbytery which ordained in Jerusalem was the Apostles extraordinary Officers is nothing to the contrair Because therein they acted not as extraordinary Officers but as ordinary Elders as hath been shewed before 2. Guliel Apollon reason to this purpose Consider of certain Controv Cap. 6. 9. 2. is very considerable This ordination of Timothy seemeth to have been done in the Church of Lystra as thâ— Belgick Interpreters observe upon the place from Act. 6. 1 2 3. 't is said there that Paul would have him to go forth with him v. 3. viz. to serve with him in the work of the Ministry of the Gospel And v. 1. it is said he had a good report from the brethren of Lystra and Iconium what else could that report be but a testimony of his piety and understanding in the Scriptures of which the Apostle speaketh 2 Tim. 3. 15. which the Apostle requires of a person to be called to the Ministry and seemeth there to be mentioned as given in relation to Timothiâ—s calling thereunto And in this we see the brethren of Derbâ— and â—…ium with these of Lystra concurring as actors under whom are included also the Churches of the Region roâ—nd about as may be gathered from Acts 14. 6. Thâ—… considerationâ— are I conceive of some weight to incline us 〈◊〉 think this Presbytery as iâ— was not Congregationall so was not extraordinary As 〈…〉 Mâ— Lockiâ—r alledgeth to the contraiâ— i. e. to that â—e 〈…〉 Assertion 1. We answered it sufficiently thâ—… 〈…〉 Reader back to our 5. SECT 2. To the little thing added here we say Albeit the Officers making up this Presbytery were not precisely from such and such particular Churches as I conceive his meaning were not fixed and appropriated Officers of particular Congregations which yet cannot be proven yet they might have been a Presbytery of more Congregations such as we stand for Fixednesse of Presbyters to severall particular Congregations is not necessary by any positive divine institution Again though all the members making up a Presbytery were extrordinary Officers and so such as were of all Congregations as well as of one which yet was not the case of this Presbytery yet joining in Collegio in an ordinary act as Ordination they might be a patern and binding pracedent to build upon else from that Ordination Acts 6. can no warrand be deduced for Ordination of Officers by the Elders in ordinary Hitherto we have seen and considered Mr. Lockiers pursuing of his first Medium used against authoritative Presbyteries over more Congregâ—tions then one Let the Reader judge how he has made it good by what we have answered and what we have referred to for further satisfaction in others SECTION IX Examination of his 2d Medium pursued in his SECTION 34 35 36 37. section 1 His second Medium is that such a Presbytery opposes the word His Argument here comes to this much in summe The Scriptures give in their testimony not one or two but in plenty that what power of jurisdiction or ruling an Eldership hath it hath it in the same extent it hath its Pastorall power and no further Yea that an Officers Pastorall power exceeds in extent his Ruling power rather then è contra Therefore a Presbytery over more Congregations then one which extends the Pastors ordinary ruling power beyond the extent of his ordinary Teaching doth oppose the Word of God Answ When aâ— this Argument which is but a limme of that first large â—re brought by thâ— Dissenting Bâ—ethren against the Assemblies third Proposiâ—…on coâ—câ—…ning Presbyteriall Government and all the confirmationâ— thereof brought by these same Brethren hath already received so considerable answers from the Assembly of Divines in their Papers extant to the World I wonder why Mr. Lockier should present it again to us here so barely without taking these answers to consideration or assaying to infringe them any wayes Unlesse it has been his purpose to deâ—pise all his Readers Well we refer the Reader
of Government but particular Congregations where they can conveniently associate together they are oblidged by the rule and warrand of Gods Word to associate under common Presbyteries Classicall and Synodicall and in this case that a particular Congregation ought not nor may by warrand of Gods Word exercise these acts of Government of publike and common concernment as Ordination and Deposition of Ministers Excommunication of persons by it self alone But these acts ought to be done by the common Presbytery Classicall or Synodicall And that a particular Congregation ought not nor may not by warrand of Gods Word perform any act in maters particularly concerning themselves so without the common Presbytery of the association but that there should be liberty of appeal to the common Presbytery And that the common Presbytery may juridically and authoritatively cognosce and judge upon their proceedings and actings In a word it may do things of Government particularly belonging to it self in and by it self but with subordination to the larger and common Presbyteries these things have been abundantly proven by sundry learned men as Mr Gillâ—sp in his Assert of the Government c. Mr. Rutherfurd Gull Apollon in his consideration of sundry controversies Jus Divin The Ass of Divines come we to see what Mr. Lockier bringeth for the contrair section 3 First It is granted by our Brethren sayeth he that such a Church hath this sufficiency in the exercise of some Ordinances as Preaching Administration of Sacraments without seeking the consent or help of the Classes Nor were the Church to neglect these Whence he concludeth that it may also exercise the other Ordination and Excommunication And gives for a proof of the consequence upon that grant If they may do the greater surely they may do the lesser and there is no dispensation of so choise an excellency as Preaching as Paul witnesseth making it the chief part of his errand I was sent to Preach the Gospel not to Baptize Answ 1. 'T is true we grant that such a Church i. e. a particular Congregation having all its Officers hath sufficiency in it to exercise these Ordinances of Preaching and Administration of Sacraments i. e. the Pastors of a particular Congregation may Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments without speciall consent or help and concurrence of the Classicall Presbytery to every act nor were he to neglect or cease from these if the Classis should forbid I mean without just cause Yet it may be and it is so indeed by the warrand of Gods Word that the particular Congregation cannot have in the ordinary way of the Church in a setled and constitute state the Pastor to exercise these Ordinances but by the consent and potestative mission and Ordination of the Classis or some associate Presbyterie and tho the Pastor of the particular Congregation his exercising these Ordinances be not dependent upon the actuall concurrence in the severall individuall acts Yet therein he is subordinate to their Ministeriall Authority to try and judge his Preaching according to the Word of God and if they find just cause may forbid him to preach and they forbidding he must obey But 2. It s a grosse non-sequitur a particular Church or the Pastors in a particular Church have sufficiency or power to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments without the help or concurrence of the Classicall Presbyterie Ergo they may also exercise these other Ordinances Ordination and Excommunication without their concurrence And the proof of it is invalide because that is greater and if they may do the greater alone by themselves they may also do the lesser For by that same reason it should follow A Pastor hath sufficiency and power by himself alone to preach the Gospel to Baptize without the help and concurrence of his fellow-Elders in the Congregation Ergo he may also by himself alone Ordain and Excommunicate without their help and concurrence Why That is the greater and if he may do the greater alone he may also do the lesser The Author himself will not I conceive admit the Consequence here The truth is the interest of persons to exercise this or that or the other Ordinance is not to be attended or determined according to the greater or lesser excellency of the work But according to Christs commission institution and grant of power to them The exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in some things which is commonly called power of order as Preaching of the Word Administration of Sacraments is given to Christs Ministers severally and a part considered as single Pastors So a Pastor may preach the Word and administer Sacraments alone without concurrence or speciall consent either of the whole Church or other Rulers to every act But in other things these of the power called the power of jurisdiction the exercise and power thereof is not given to one but to an unity To the community of Governours of the Church united together not any single Rulers severally Therefore tho a Pastor may preach and baptize alone yet he may not Censure nor Excommunicate alone And if he should do this the act were invalide both in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiastico Now the power of Ordination and Excommunication being given to a community the Question is whether this community be a particular Congregation having an intire particular Eldership or the Eldership of a particular Congregation by it self and independent from a larger Presbyterie this Mr. Lockier saith but his Argument grounded upon our grant to prove it is impertinent as we have seen section 4 But further he would prove that a particular Congregation hath power to exercise all Ordinances as well as any thus Sect. 41. The Keyes are not divided The Keyes are all given to Peter as personating the Church of beleevers in the Gospel that Kingdom of which Christ said he would build And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth Mat. 16. 19. Surely this particular here used is not in vain but to set forth that every gospel-Gospel-Church every particular Congregation of beleevers united as a visible organicall body for Gods Worship have ability a power given to it as to such an end he means to exercise all the Keyes alone and by themselves which he expresseth thus they have not a lame commission part of the Keyes at their girdle and strangers and forrainers carrying another part Answ 1. As to that of dividing the Keyes we have said sufficient before 2. As to that alledged the Keyes were all given to Peter as personating the Church of Believers c. we have spoken also before in the Examination of his first proof of the first Assertion Now we adde but these things here 1. I would ask Mr. Lockier what he means by the Church of Believers in the Gospel Whether the universall Church Visible of Believers Then he must acknowledge a Church Universall Visible individually one For certainly the article the denotateth
offended and to esteem and account as we do a sentence of non-Communion by them by Churches against us upon such scandals wherein they are not satisfied an heavy and sad punishment and to be looked upon as a means to humble us and an Ordinance of God to reduce us If those men pillars of the Independent way had accounted as Mr. Lockier does Presbyterian Churches to be idolatrous would they have professed to hold retain such Communion with them Nay do they not themselves alledge all these things as Arguments to evidence that they are far from the mind of those who accounts them false Churches All this say they is more then as if in nothing they were to be complyed with nor their Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church Communion more is said and done by those who account them false Churches section 3 His second obj Sect. 49. Answ Sect. 50. is but a fiction set up by himself that he may seem at least to gain a victory We use not to reason so many has been converted under Presbyteriall Government doth not this seal it to be of God We know many have been and doubts not but some are at this day converted under Papall Government which is very Antichristianisme But this Sr we tell you that Presbyteriall Government in the exercise thereof has been the blessed means under God of Converting souls reduceing them from their sinfull wayes to God and his Son Christ Jesus the terrour of evill doers the preserver of his Church the Hedge that has guarded the Vineyard of the Lord from Foxes the very Hammer of Errours Haeresies and Haereticks and therefore is so much at this day maligned and hated of all such that in these lamentable times has turned aside unto their loose and erroneous wayes 'T is true Presbyterians takes it for no good Argument to prove Episcopall Government to be of God that many were Converted under it and believes it was a Government of mans invention Yet Presbyterians never thought of Churches under Episcopall Government in which the truth of the Gospel was Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christs institution for their substance as you think of Presbyteriall that they were false Churches But something more of this in considering his next Objection and Answ thereunto which fully unbowels the Authors design against Presbyterian Churches section 4 The Objection he frameth to himself is this But many Godly being in the Presbyterian way is it not more proper to purge then to pull down all To make use of the root and not up with root and branch To which his Answer in summe is that it was just so objected by the Godly in England when the Presbyterians would have down with our Episcopall Church But it behoved to be up root and branch So must now the Presbyterian The Lords controversie has come about to it and means the same And thereupon he gives his plain and faithfull warning to his dear Brethren Does this man know of what spirit he is To speak so Edomitelike of all Presbyterian Churches Down with them raze them to the ground up with root and branch of them Hoc Ithacus velit magno mercentur Atridae I think the man has wished a peece of acceptable service to Antichrist and his father the Devil Lord grant him mercy of it 'T is none of our pleading for the Presbyterian way that many godly being in it therefore simply purging of Presbyterian Churches were more proper then rooting up and pulling down all If any man Sir has come to reason with you thus poorly for Presbyterian Churches we doubt not but ere that time he has dealt treacherously against the truth We tell you the Presbyterian way is Gods way instituted in his Word the contrary whereof you but beggingly suppose in framing your Objection but has not nor ever will prove Yet this we affirme that albeit there be in Churches corruptions not only in the conversations of many persons but also in some things in the Worship and Ordinances yet if they be not such corruptions as everts and destroyes the foundation and substance of Religion But there is therein the substance of the Gospel orthodoxly Preached the Sacraments for their substantialls agreeable to their institution the way to be kept is purge out the old leaven And there is neither in Old nor in New Testament warrand for separating from or pulling down and rooting up such Churches And as to that Mr. Lockier alledgeth that Presbyterians would have down Episcopall Churches Either he has not understood or misrepresented Presbyterians mind in that matter Indeed Presbyterians were zealous to have the corrupt office of Prelacy plucked up root and branch because a plant that God had never planted in his Church and could not hear of a purging or circumcising of it that some would been at by clipping from them officialls and such other appendicles and limiting them thus and thus But that the whole frame of Churches that were under Prelaticall government should be razed down to the ground pluckt up root and branch cast all in a heap of ruine that out of the ruines thereof their should been picked out here and there some stones to build up new Churches it never entered in the thoughts of some Presbyterians Nay but on the contrary even in the time that Prelats possessed their Government sound Presbyterians as with the one hand they did fight against Prelats the corrupt Officers So did they at that same time with the other hand against Separatists with whom Mr. Lockier here agrees maintaining the Churches of England to be true Churches from whose communion it was not lawfull to separat Witnesse amongst sundry others that grave and judicious peece written by sundry non-conforme Divines jointly in the times of Prelats and published by Mr. Rathband An. 1604. section 5 But Mr. Lockier in his SECT 53. goes about to prove that it is not purging that must be applyed to Presbyterian Churches but they must be pulled down and pluckt up root and branch or utterly separated from His discourse in summe commeth to this much When the forme of Churches or their matter is right tho many things may be done amisse then purging may be used but when matter and forme both are corrupt and naught as it is in Presbyterian Churches For forme knit by situation and by forrain forinsecall Elderships For matter three parts of four naught prophane Atheists of Elders and people So that the Church state is quite dead 'T is not a man but a carcase not a Church but a nest of unclean birds a den of theeves to depart is proper But to talk of purging such the dead is discourse full of weaknesse if not of unwillingnesse to see and censure our own shame â—…sw Verily Sr I am of the mind that any judious man that reads your discourse in this Section will account it such as is full of that which ye charge on others weaknesse
who must do it If some other Ecclesiasticall Court then should not a single Congregation have compleat power of jurisdiction within it self without subordination to any other Ecclesiastick Court in point of jurisdiction If the Congregation contradistinguished from the Eldership then the Congregation alone by it self has power enough of jurisdiction and censure and then what needed it be said the Congregation with their Eldership And indeed this is the way that some Independents goe In their judgement the Congregation of privat beleevers does choose ordain and make their Eldership and they may censure depose and Excommunicat all their Eldership So that these Authors when intending a description of the Congregationall way i. e. the Independent way they attribute the power of jurisdictiction and censure to the Congregation with their Eldership if they mean as their words seemeth to import and they must be understood unlesse they minded to aequivocat that the power of jurisdiction is given to these jointly and not to either of them severally either they have not been acquainted with the mind of all these of the Congregationall way or they have dissembled the latter of which I have not reason to impute to all these Authors The truth is the Authors of the Congregationall way are at a great deal of difference among themselves even to salt contradictions concerning the subject of the power of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction as Mr. Caudry has evidenced in the place cited by us before P. 2. Sect. Go we on to their probation of their Assertion They cite one passage of Scripture first telling us withall that there are diverse other Scriptures which they passe by But I beleeve it shal be long ere they let us see them viz. Mat. 18 15 16 17 18. and do build two Arguments on it according to the two things involved in their Assertion The former lyeth thus in their own words section 3 The Church there tell it unto the Church spoken of has compleat power of binding and loosing as is clear from v. 17. and 18. but the Church is not the Classicall Presbytery But the Eldership with the Congregation Therefore c. The Assumption is clear because it is not to be found in all the Gospel that a company of Elders whether of a Classis or a Congregation apart from the Congregation is called a Church Indeed a Congregation with Elders commonly yea and sometime contradistinguished from Elders ay sometime without Elders is termed a Church Act. 15. 4. 22 23. And Act. 14. 23. Now what an absurdity were it to reject the usuall acception of the word in the New Test and without any colour of reason to coine a sense which no where is to be found in all the Gospel though the word be most frequently used in it section 4 Answ To passe sundry things which might be noted upon this Argument and for brevities sake to insist only upon that which is materiall the drift of this first Argument tends to the probation of the former part involved in the Authors Assertion to wit that the power of jurisdiction Ecclesiastick is not in the Eldership or Officers of the Church but in the community of believers jointly with the Elders and the weight of the whole Argument lyeth upon the signification of the term Church And all which is said is but an old song that has been an hundred times dashed by worthy and learned men already See what we have said already upon the same alledgeance by Mr. Lockier above P. 2. Sect. 3. § 2. and 3. For the present I shall say but these things on it 1. When as these Authors say that in the New Testament the name of the Church is taken sometimes for the Congregation i. e. in their sense the community of beleevers with the Eldership jointly sometimes for the Congregation as contradistinguished from Elders and sometime for a Congregation without Elders and asserteth that here in this place it is to be understood in the first of these three acceptions to wit as it comprehendeth both Congregation and Elders I would gladly know how and by what Argument they prove that it is so to be understood here and not rather in one of the other two for the Congregation as contradistinguished from the Elders or for the Congregation without Elders For that we see only asserted by them but no proof of it brought Only this much they insinuat that it is commonly so used But that will not prove that so it must be taken in this particular place If they would assayed to bring any Arguments to prove that the name of the Church here must be taken not for the Congregation as contradistinguished from or without Elders but for the Congregation with the Eldership jointly I doubt not but we should found them all to be such as speaks power of jurisdiction and government in the Eldership as contradistinguished from the rest of the Congregation 2. What though the word Church be no where else in the New Testament used for the Elders or Governours of the Church as contradistinguished from the body of believers yet this is but a very weak Argument to prove that it is not so to be understood here so be that the genuine grammaticall signification thereof be such as may well be applyed as indeed the word answering to it in the Hebrew is frequently in the Old Testament applyed to signifie a Colledge or Society of Judges or Governours as contradistinguished from the people See Mr. Hudson Vindic. of the Essence and Vnity c. 'T is some rashnes in the Authors to call this sense of the word a coined sense Even prophane Greek Authors have used it in such a sense I mean for a meeting of Rulers Demosthenes used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconcione magnatum It is yet more then rashnesse I may say it is a great impudency that they say it is without any colour of reason taken in this sense in this place These Authors said before that they have used all helps they could have upon this controversie Now let them tell us did they never read in any Writers upon this controversie of Church Government who expones the word Church of the Eldership or Governours of the Church so much as any colour of reason brought by them for expounding the word in that sense How can they hold up their face and say this Did they ever read Beza his Annot. on the place Or Mr. Rutherfurds Peaceable Plea c. 8. Surely the help of these Authors they easily might have had Sure I am if they have read these to mention no moe they might have found some colour at least of reason brought for the Interpretation Nay let them but read the latter of the two over again I believe they shal find such reality of reason brought for it as they shall never be able to avoide Verily whether we take the word Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the societie
and serve tables And therefore it was necessary some Officers should be ordained who 's more proper and chief work it might be to see to that businesse Yet certainly the Apostolick office containing in it eminently the power of all inferiour Officers in the Church it was an act formally belonging to their office and no Question even after these ordinary Officers were appointed particularly to attend that businesse yet the Apostles did not then altogether cease from joining in acting thereanent where they might conveniently without hindring their main work the preaching and spreading of the Gospel section 8 But in all this where are joint voices and suffrages of Officers Elders and Brethren of diverse particular Churches commissionated to this work to make up this Presbytery we speak of Answ There was joint acting of Officers of more Congregations than one the many Congregations whereof the Church of Jerusalem did consist whether they were distinguished and fixed in Members and Officers or not is all one and these Officers Elders to these Churches the Apostles who as they were Officers so were Elders too and acting as Elders because in a mater competent to ordinary Elders and jointly 2. Brethren not Officers may be present in such a Presbytery and speak and give their consultative judgement orderly But as no constituent parts of this Presbytery in our judgement nor according to the truth 3. When the Presbytery of more Congregations than one is made up of all the Elders of these Congregations assembled together personally a particular commission for that is not necessary Indeed in such Presbyteries as all the Elders of the severall Churches meet not personally but by some of their number delegated it is as in Synods necessary that these who make up such a Presbytery be commissionated from their severall Churches respectivè Yet by that commission they get not power simply to act the acts of Government therein that they have by their ordination to their office but a particular warrand and call to act that power hic nunc for the good of the Churches in the combination section 9 In the same SECT viz. 25. from what he has answered to the former passage he labours to answer other two places 1. That Act. 6. 3 4 5 6. about the choosing of Deacons and their ordination To which his answer is The Apostles as extraordinary persons layed hands on these But what appears from hence of such an Eldership excerped and commissioned from severall Churches as Presbyterians now assert and use is yet to find Answ 1. I wonder that Mr. Lockier should obtrude upon us such a naked Assertion that the Apostles did lay hands upon and ordain these Deacons as extraordinary persons i. e. as Apostles and not as Elders without making the last essay of answer to that reason brought by the Reverend Assembly of Divines against the dissenting Brethren asserting the same Ans to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren pag. 52. I present it here in their own words that the Reader may consider if it be not of such weight as Mr. Lockier had cause to take it unto consideration if he had not thought fitter to dictate to then by light of reason to convince the judgement of his Readers As for that ordination Act. 6. we doubt not to say that in it they did act partly as Apostles partly as Elders In constituting an office in the Church which was not before they did act their Apostolicall authority But in ordaining unto that office men whom the Church had chosen they did act as Presbyters And we doubt not but that our Brethren will herein concur with us For if they will not say that they did herein act partly as Apostles and partly as Elders they must say they acted either only as Apostles or only as Elders If only as Elders thence it will follow that all Elders have power not only to ordain men but to erect new Offices in the Church If only as Apostles then hence is no warrand for any Elders so much as to ordain men unto an office But I yet wonder so much the more at this Assertion of Mr. Lockier here remembering what he had delivered before SECT 10. where he drawes an Argument from ordination of Elders performed by the Apostles for regulating the ordination of Elders in Churches now and thereupon alledging tho groundlessely that the Apostles in ordination took in the people to concurrence with them concludeth that now also they ought to concur formally in that act If they had acted as extraordinary persons as Apostles the people could not concur jointly with then in such an act nor could it been an Argument brought as a patern in ordinary Now if they acted not by their extraordinary office and power in ordaining Elders what reason is there to say that in the ordination of these Deacons they acted in that way 2. As to that but what appears from hence c. We say supposing that the Church of Jerusalem was made up of many Congregations and these Congregations were one Church which are proven from other Scriptures we find from hence for proving such a Presbytery as we speak for Officers of these Congregations meeting together for Government and joining in an act of Government ordination of Church Officers viz. The Apostles doing this and that as Elders which is the thing it is brought for by Presbyterians Which tho-by it self makes not a full medium to prove that Presbytery yet with the other suppositions taken with it makes very much to prove it section 10 2. Place is Acts 20. 28. The Elders there are shewed not to be Elders of many Churches which Paul sent for but the Elders of the Church v. 17. of one Church of the Church of Ephesus and charging them to attend to the stock and not to flocks ver 28. here is no joynt veice of various commissioned Elders Answ To passe that some of his own the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly once in their Reasons against the instance of the Church of Ephesus make these both Elders and flocks to whom the Apostle speaketh to be of all Asia not only of Ephesus where no doubt there were more particular Churches To passe this because indeed these same Authors a little after when it may serve their turn they confine them to Ephesus We grant 't is true they were Elders of one Church the Church of Ephesus But withall we say that one Church was not one single Congregation but made up of more then one and consequently was one Presbyteriall Church This is proven by sundry Learned particularly by the Reverend Assembly of Divines in their instance of the Church of Ephesus and all the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren brought to the contrare fully discussed in their Answers threunto As for the Authors Grammaticall Argument they are called Elders of the Church in the Singular Number not Churches and they are bid attend the flock not flocks Ergo it was but one single