There seemeth to me in Mr. Lockiers words here somewhat very like the Arminian apostacy of Saints while you hold fast saith he the practice and power of what you professe and when you let it go c. is he indeed of this judgement that men may have the practice and power of godlinesse and afterward let it go If he say he meaneth of such as have had it so far as men could judge c. well this qualification if in any place should have been mentioned here where without it there might be so readily an apprehension of apostacy from true grace But tell me doth the Apostle when he saith if ye hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of hope firm unto the end mean thus if ye have and hold fast these things so far as men can judge What vestigium of this appeareth in the Text Nay is not the Apostle in that whole Chapter speaking of grace to be performed and held fast in veritati rei * Which if he wil have to be the requisite qualification of the matter of of the visible Church in the Ecclesiastick Court he may as soon get a Visible Church as a new World in the Moon or Mr Mores Vtopia in very deed Was there ever any Interpreter that expoundeth him otherwise SECTION IV. The Authors Texts which he calls hints and shadows of his Doctrine section 1 THe first is Mat. 16. on which place the Author thus note these things 1. That Christ doth not speak here of the Invisible Church For he speaks of the power of the keyes binding and loosing on earth the Invisible Church is the greatest part in heaven and they which are in earth considered as one with them as one intire universall Body whereof Christ is the Head are not capable of Visible and limited Discipline therefore I judge we are to gather from Christs Words that he speaks by way of anticipation of that visible order which he did purpose to institute after his departure by his Apostles whereof Peter was one 2. Observe of what mater he saith this building should be viz. of such as have a faith which flesh and bloud cannot reveal and to a body thus constitute is the power of the keyes and both these represented and personated to us in Peter I do not find the learned and Orthodox of latter times apply this place to the Invisible Church and I think I am not then a forcer of the Scripture in the sense I gave of it section 2 Answer I wonder much how this has fallen from the Authors mouth and Pen that he saith he doth not find the learned and Orthodox of latter times to apply this place to the Invisible Church Do not all the learned and Orthodox Writing against the Papists on the Controversie of the Church refute the Papists expounding it of the Visible Church and prove it to be understood of the Invisible Church and every member thereof and do not the learned Orthodox commonly Writing against the Arminians upon the controversie of perseverance apply it to the Invisible Church and use it as one of the prime Arguments for proving the certain finall perseverance of true Beleevers See these noted on the Margin Whittaker de Ecclesia centies notentur praesertim illa loca q 1. c 1. Ecclesia aliquando totum corpus electorum fidelium sanctorum significat ut cùm in Symbolo dicitur Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam sic in hoc loco Math. 16. 18. c. 13. par 1. per tot q. 2. c. 1. he propoundeth the Question with the Papists thus De Ecclesiâ in Petra aedificatâ quaeritur inter adversarios nos sitne visibilis an invisibilis And part 3. he determines according to the Protestant Doctrine that it is invisibilis c. 2. Bellarminus dicit Calvinum non potuisse unum Scripturae locum proferre ubi nomen Ecclesiae invisibili Congregationi tribueretur Resp inquit falsum hoc esse nam Ecclesia aliquanâ—o invisibilem Congregationem significat ut in hoc ipso loco quem tractamus Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam q. 3. c. 2. §. 2. 2 â— Adversargumentum sumitur ex iis locis in quibus nomen Ecclesiae expersse ponitur ut Math. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. in utroque loco inquit Adversarius agitari de Ecclesia visibili tamen ipsam veritatem audivimus asserentem portas inferorum non praevalituras Resp inquit Whitt illam quidem Ecclesiam de qua loquitur Christus nunquam posse deficere sed quod assumit illam Ecclesiam de qua loquitur Christus esse visibilem illud affirmo esse falsissimum Here is a plain and round contradiction to M â— Lockiers note upon this place Joan. Alsted suppl Chamier de Eccles nat l. 1. c. 17. par 2. Resp 2. Duo ista loca N. Math. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. agunt de Ecclesia Catholica invisibili seu interna quae constat ex solis bonis neque enim Ecclesia visibilis quae constat ex bonis malis est fundata super Petram Anton. Wall Loc. Com. de Ecclesia militant on the question An Ecclesia possit errare in Ans to the 2d. Obj. of Papists upon this place Math 16. 18. Negamus inquit hunc locum esse intelligendum de Ecclesia visibili sed universali invisibili cui proprie competit haec firmitas insuperabilis The Orthodox in Colloq Hagien and Amesius in his Coron presse it as a prime place for the perseverance of Saints We might instance very many moe but we need not the thing is known to all acquainted in Orthodox Writers Nay some eminent Papists themselves have acknowledged that is spoken not of the Visible Church but of the Invisible Ferus non loquitur de Ecclesiâ ut communiter sumitur pro his qui Christiani dicuntur sive boni sint sive mali sed de Ecclesiâ secundum Spiritum quae solos electos complectitur So Cajetan on the same place Adversus Ecclesiam quae constat ex Congregatione fidelium unâ side spe charitate c. Mr. Lockiers reason brought to prove that it is not spoken of the Church Invisible is but weak which will appear the better if it be put into form for it is somewhat confusedly propounded by himself as I conceive it may be thus That Church is understood here which is capable of visible limited Disciplin but the Church Invisible is not capable of this Therefore c. Ans 1. How is the Major or first Proposition proven By insinuation thus He speaks of the power of the keyes binding and loosing on earth What thence Ergo he speaks before of such a Church as is capable of visible limited Discipline If I deny the Consequence how will he prove it I do not see it nor think he shall ever be able to make it out 2. But to passe the Proposition let 's see the proof of the Assumption The
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
But hence it followeth not that there must be such a homogenealnesse in the Church Visible as Mr. Lockier meaneth that it be endued with true faith and have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts And as to the reason of the connexion of the proposition we answer such a homogenealnesse is not requisite for such a derivation as is from a head politicall to its politicall body this derivation being only morall by commands prohibitions and the like morall actings But Christ is not a Head in the latter sense as the head in the naturall body is to the Church Visible as such nor is the Visible Church a body to him in this sense but only vocatione activâ and in externall profession Neither is that derivation from Christ unto the Church whereby it groweth up in the Lord unto the Church as a Visible Church or considered according to its visible constitution But unto the Church Invisible internall Mysticall as such section 5 His 2d Reason is thus shortlie If the Visible Church be the Church of the Living God the pillar and stay of truth and consequently such as should bear up the truth into the World and be a stay to truth holding it out firmly and faithfully in the midst of all tryalls and such as in which God lives and dwells and walks Then none can be mater or members of the Visible Church but real Saints For why Doth God live and dwell in dead persons who only make a Profession of Religion Will such persons be a stay to truth and the things of God Will they be a stay to truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 firmamentum as the firmament to the stars who fall from Heaven themselves And so how can God have glory in the Church throughout all ages But the Visible Church is the Church of the Living God the pillar and ground of truth 1 Tim. 3. 5. in which God lives dwells walks Ergo c. Ans Mr. Lockier still in this as in all his other Arguments shews that in propounding his Doctrine he added that qualification truely gracious so far as men can judge but dicis causa and in shew to avoid for a while the odium of the greatest Anabaptists Tenent of the mater or members of the Visible Church For such as may be gracious and Godly so far as men can judge mens judgement being not infallible in this as himself confesseth may be destitute of the power of Godlines in their hearts and so such as will not hold out truth firmly in the midst of all trials may be but dead persons and so such as in whom God doth not live walk and dwell 2. As to that first property and character attributed to a Visible Church from 1 Tim. 3. 15. by Mr. Lockier First I would aske him if in good earnest he meaneth that to be a property of a Visible Church rightly constitute in its mater as it should be that it will bear up the truth and things of God firmly and faithfully to the world in the midst of all trials Sure this is the very thing that Papists alledge from this place for the unerrabilitie and indefectibilitie of the Visible Church against which all Protestant Divines disputes Yea it is much more for Papists attribute this only to the Catholick Church Visible acknowledging that all particular Visible Churches may erre and make defection and let the truth and things of God fall down excepting only the Roman Church because they make it to be the Catholick Church virtually but Mr. Lockier acknowledges no Church Visible but an Independent Congregation and will have this to be the property of any particular Visible Church and therefore propounds the subject of his conclusion here thus a Church Visible i. e. any Visible Church now let me put him further to it either there was never a Church Visible rightly constitute for mater from the beginning seeing all the first constitute Churches have made defection and let truth fall down which if he say besides that it is absurd in it self I ask why then did he a little before bring us paterns of right constitute Churches from these first mentioned in Scripture Or if they were right constitute how comes it that they made defection and did not bear up and hold out the truth and things of God but did let them fall If he answer that came to passe because they kept not a right constitution for their mater I repone that taks not away the force of the Question For that same if it was so was a not bearing up and holding out firmly and faithfully the things of God and so the Question returneth upon this 2. But to answer directly to the place though Interpreters have some variety amongst themselves about the meaning of it Yet never one of them acknowledges that Interpretation which Mr. Lockier gives but opposeth it and refuteth it in Papists Some indeed expone the attribute the pillar and ground of truth much as he doth but these by the Church to which it is attributed undâ—rstand not the Visible Church but the Invisible of Elect. So Whittaker de Eccles q. 3. c. 2. illa quidem Ecclesia quae est columna firmamentum veritatis nunquam potest deficere Sed quod assumit adversarius illam Ecclesiam esse Visibilem illud affirmo esse falsissimum Invisibilem enim esse affirmo demonstro c. and often otherwhere Others again understand the subject as he doth by the Church to be meant the Visible Church of Ephesus but these expone the attribute the pillar and ground of truth not of what the Church Visible will do alwayes de facto but what is its duty and dignity elogium hoc Ecclesiae dignitatem officium describit Non autem quod in ea perpetuâ luce fulgeat Gomar specul ver Eccles c. 2. So Wal. loc com de Eccles milit Resp 1. Hoc dicitur de Ecclesia Ephesinâ que tamen periit 2. Ergo respectu officii sic vocatur See more concerning this place in learned Gomar in the place cited also in his commentar upon the Gallatians c. 2. in the second Tome of his works pag. 244 245. where you have an excellent discourse of the diverse Orthodox Interpretations thereof both ancient and moderne Divines We passe here Camer Interpretation of this place joining these words pillar and ground of truth not with that which goeth before but that which followeth section 6 For the 2d property and character out of the 2 Cor. 6. 16. We Ans With all Protestant Divines that it is not the Visible but the Invisible Church that is the Temple of the living God in which he liveth dwelleth and walketh See Whittaker de Ecâ—ces q. 1 c. 11. pag. 442. To omit many other Arguments for proof of this take but this one from the Text the Temple of the Living God in this place is taken in such a sense as that it is spoken and praedicated of singular persons
these thine elect and therefore I cannot tell how to feed them It is not necessary or a Pastour to feed the Elect that he know distinctly who are the singular persons by the head but for feeding by publick Doctrine it is sufficient that he know them confusedly that they are there in the Congregation and if he have any grounds of a positive judgement concerning particular persons that indeed gives him further advantage to apply himself to those in a more particularly applicatory way If indeed it were the Ministers work to feed efficaciter to give the increase as the Apostle expresseth the actuall efficaciousnesse or efficiency of grace and they were required to feed the elect that way I confesse if the Lord did not distinctly point out the particular persons to them then they might make such a reply Lord I cannot search into thy secrets to perceive who are these c. but the efficiency of grace is in Gods own hand alone and the Minister has upon him but an externall morall suasive administration which he is to dispense for the good of the elect but he needeth not for that know them distinctly it is enough he knowes they are there where he dispenseth them and let God discern and waile them out from the rest 3. It is a groundlesse supposition and contrary to the truth that in the current and common sense of Scripture that redeemed being spoken of spirituall redemption from sin and eternall wrath as for the name sanctified it is not in this text and therefore is impertinently brought in here is taken for redeemed visibly though not really I doubt he can bring many passages of Scripture wherein it can with any appearance be so exponed yea visibly redeemed is an expression in my judgement strange to Scripture Let this suffice us in answer to Mr. Hooker in this particular We doubt not but Mr. Rutherfurd will have more full and acurate considerations on it section 10 I shall adde a word or two for proofe that by the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ cannot be understood all and every one of the Visible Church but only the Elect desiring Mr. Lockier to take the same to his consideration if the Church which Ephes 5. 25 26 27. Christ is said to have loved and given himself for that he might sanctifie and cleanse it be not the Visible Church as such and so all members of the Visible Church then neither is it so to be taken here the consequence and connexion of this proposition is necessary and clear because the attribute enunciate of it in both places is all one upon the matter for what else is it that Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that c. but that he redeemed it by his own blood But that Eph. 5. by the Church is meant only the elect i. e. the Invisible Church is the constant Doctrine of all Orthodox Divines in their disputes against the Remonstrants universall Redemption for the Redemption of the elect only and likewise of all Orthodox Divines writing against Papists on the Question concerning the members of the true Invisible Church the Mysticall body of Christ and also upon the Question of the Visibility of the Church I instance but a testimonie of one viz. Learned Whittaker de Eccles q. 1. c. 9. tert arg where you shall find him not only affirm but solidely prove this we say reasoning thus from the place Christ is not the Head * This is to be understood of such headship as has allusion to the head of the naturall body which hath a reall influence into the body so no doubt Christ is an head in a politicall sort to the Visible Church having a morall influence by command c. but of that Church which he shall save which he shall present to himself on the day of Judgement glorious not having spot or wrinkle But only the predestinate shall be saved Ergo. only the Elect belong to the Church of Christ i. e. the Church mentioned there and to Bellarmin's answer that Christ is Head to that Church which he shall not save he saith falsissimum esse Read that whole paragraph and you shall find sundry other solide Arguments brought by him from that context to prove that only the elect are that Church spoken of there 2. Again I desire him to look forward from v. 28. to ver 30. of this very 20. chap. of the Acts and see what the Apostle saith also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Whether we expone of your own selves of the whole body of the Church of Ephesus or particularly of the Elders and Officers thereof is all one to our purpose It will not be denied that the Officers were members of the Church of Ephesus and as Christians were partakers of the common Priviledges and Titles competent to the Visible Church now if Paul shall be conceived to speak that redeemed by the blood of Christ let it be out of the positive judgement of charity and so far as he could judge universally of all the Visible Church of Ephesus how could this consist with what he saith v. 30. * Surgendi verbo quo utitur significat iam lupos illos fovere clandestinam perniciem donec occasione sibi datâ erumpant Calv. in loc that he knew there was some amongst them presently fostering secret and clandestine wickednesse who would afterward openly kyth apostatize from the truth and become seducers of others Could the Apostle have a judgement such as is mentioned of such that they were Redeemed by c. Sure understand the Word v. 20. as Mr. Lockier would and we shall have clearly contradictory judgements of Paul at once I judge the Church of Ephesus Universally all and every one of you Redeemed and yet I know some among you are lurking traitours who will kyth afterward he sayeth not may be some of you will but positively some of you will section 11 For the Church of the Philippians is cited chap. 1. v. 6. and chap. 4. v. 15 16. For the latter I see nothing in it that hath any colour of a ground for his point nor yet doth the former hold forth a proof of it The Apostle writeth to all the Saints at Philippi and v. 6. declares the confidence that he had that God who had begun the work in them would perfite it to the coming of the Lord Jesus Will it follow hence that all and every one of the Visible Church of Philippi were reall Saints so far as man could judge * The 6. vers by the Orthodox writing-against the Remonstrants upon the head of perseverance is applyed only to the Elect and true Believers in the judgement of verity or truth of the thing it self See Ames Coron art 5. arg 2. proving this by solide reasons no Logick will evince this from these words cited If he had taken in the 7. vers he might had a
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
denotating the body of beleevers only as contradistinguished from all Officers and Ministers and so is not speaking of Peter as comprehending or representing all Officers and Ministers but of Peter under the imaginary notion of a Pope or Head of the Church and as standing in contradistinction both to the body of beleevers and also to all Inferiour Officers and Ministers even conveened in a Councell and so of the Church as comprehending all Inferiour Officers and a generall Councell of them And here because some are ready for the Independent Tenent concerning the first subject of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction to alledge the judgment of the Parisian Theologs at and after the time of Councells of Basil and Constance affirming the Church to be that first subject it is to be observed carefully besides that these Theologs means not a particular Church but the Universall Church That the Question which they had in hand with their adversaries the Papaline flatterers was not between beleevers as such and all Officers and Ministers as such but between the Universall Church as comprehending Inferiour Officers and that as conveened in a generall Councell on the one part and the Pope of Rome on the other Whether the precedency of Ecclesiastick power and jurisdiction was seated in the Pope or in the Universall Church so considered as we have expressed This was the state of the controversie and that for which the Parisian Doctors stood was the latter of these This is clear to all that have read any of these Doctors Writings upon that mater So that to alledge their Assertion concerning the first and supream subject of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction for the Independent Tenent in this Question which is between a particular Church of beleevers on the one part as contradistinguished from all Officers and Ministers and Officers of the Church upon the other is very impertinent section 8 His second Argument SECT 3. is thus Elders are set over the Church by the voluntary choise of the Church whereof they are such Officers who choose them to be their Ministers in the Lord and may depose them again if they prove unworthy of such a station Therefore have they no absolute power over that Church to which they are servants but in the nature of guides to direct them in the wayes of the Lord and so long as they go right to be honoured and followed but if otherwise to be admonished and if impenitent to be rejected i. e. Excommunicated as they whose sins follow after to judgment Now such judgment could not be exercised upon Elders if such an exempted power be taken to themselves without the Church but might do what they please with the Church in which they are Servants and the Church not able at least not sufficiently able to do any thing to them which is to make them Lords over Gods Heritage 1 Pet. 5. 3. Answ Here is much impertinency in the conclusion inferred and in the antecedent bare Assertions begged but not proven and never will be 1. The conclusion propounded in the Assertion was that the Elders in a particular Church are not to exert power in most weighty maters as admission of Members ordination of Officers Excommunication without the consent and approbation of the Church i. e. without the judiciall concurrence consent and joynt authoritative vote of the members Now that which is inferred as the conclusion here that they have not an absolute power over the Church an exempted power to do what they please with the Church I appeal to all rationall men to give their judgement if this and that be all one Why May it not be that the Elders or Officers set over a particular Church may exert power in putting forth such acts of Government without the joynt authoritative consent and vote of the members of that Church and yet notwithstanding not have absolute power over that Church an exempted power to do with the Church what they please Yes verily for notwithstanding that they may in their exerting of power of these acts of Government 1. Only act Ministerially and adstricted to a certain definite rule over which they have no power And 2. if they in their exerting their power deviat from that rule and act contrary to the direction thereof the members may have liberty upon discerning by the privat judgement of discretion to refuse obedientiall consent to them 3. And there may be an authoritative power over and above them to which they may be countable who may authoritatively correct and redresse their deviation and to which the people may have recourse for that â—ffect And if so then their exerting of power in the maters of Government tho without the joint judiciall and authoritative consent and vote of the members therein is not an absolute power an exempted power to do with the Church what they please And so indeed it is in our Doctrine The power it allowes to Elders and Officers to exert acts of Goverâ—…ent without joint judiciall authoritative consent of the members is a Ministeriall power adstricted to a certain and soveraign rule of Christs Laws set down in his Word It allowes to people a liberty yea asserts it to be their duety to prove in the judgement of privat discretion if the Officers in their actings of Government deviat from or crosse the rule or not And in case they do not to give their obedientiall consent therunto And that there is authoritative power above the Elders of a particular Congregation c. So that the Author deals not ingenuously enough in insinuating such an aspersion upon our Doctrine that by it is given to the Elders of a Church an absolute power over the Church an exempted power to do with the Church what they please But now judge if the Independent way in that strain of it followed by our Author be not guilty of giving a power very like this to members over Officers When as it allows to the members or the greater part of the members of a particular Congregation which may be 3. or 4. to censure depose Excommunicat all their Officers which must be 3. at least by a supream Independent Authority without any Superiour Authority on earth left to have recourse to for redresse were their proceeding and sentence never so unjust this I am sure is very absolute exempted and lordlylike indeed Well then correct the conclusion as it is inferred here and reduce it to the more modest and ingenuous terms of the Assertion section 9 The antecedent or proof which the Author brings in this Argument for his Assertion and is very confusedly set down in effect is made up of these Assertions 1. A Church by their voluntary choise not only choise their Elders But 2. makes i. e. ordains them in their Office 3. May depose them again the Elders are the Churches servants by way to wit of relation to her as a Mistresse 4. The Elders are only guides to lead the Church to wit as a Chair-man or Moderator in a Judicatory
meet for acts of Government in Christs Authority and in the latter supposes a great mistake for the promise of Christs assisting presence for judiciall and authoritative discerning and judging runs not equally along with the gift of discerning simply But with his calling and commission to govern That loe I am with you to the end of the world as to Acts of Government is not made to persons having the gift of discerning simply tho never so many of them met together But to persons who beside their gift are invested with his Commission Therefore you must shew that persons have a Commission and Calling beside their gift to exert Acts of Ecclesiastick authoritative judging Or to speak of expectation of the Lords presence to assist their judging let them be never so many is to bid men presume to act with expectation of his assisting presence without a promise There may be more of Christs presence expected to assist a few having a Calling and Commission from himself in exerting Acts of Government Then with a huge multitude though having gifts enough but wanting Commission If it shall be said that private Professours have a Commission to judge authoritatively with the Eldership in these maters of Ecclesiastick Government 1. Then the medium of this Argument is passed from for it alleageth no more but the gift of discerning to prove they ought to concur in authoritative judgement 2. This is but said and begged not proven Shew us the authentick grant of that Commission This much for the first part of the Argument in this Section he addeth further thus section 15 The Scripture again saith that variety of gifts are given to the Church as Christ will and when he will and where he will and by what door and by what mean hand he will for the good of the whole and light comes in some times from a little crany and hole when large windows are close shut up and not one window leaf opened all the while businesses of great weight are in debate So that the greatest cannot say to the least I have no need of thee All this help to the good of the whole would be void if the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Presbytery and the people left out to see and judge implicitely by their eyes and wills who thus impropriat power Answ 1. Here is a foule misrepresentation of the Presbyterian Doctrine as if it allowed nothing to the people but a Popish implicit blinde obedience to the Elderships decrees See this aspersion discovered and wiped away before in our first SECT and the Author in his own conscience knowes may know this is a wrong Further when Christ has by his institution appropriat a power to a certain order and he has as to Pastors and Doctâ—…s the ordinary publick authoritative Preaching of the Word so to Elders in common the power of Discipline for these alone to exert such power is no impropriation But 2. To the Argument propounded here I say 1. If it hold good as in the former it will follow that women must not be excluded from joynt authoritative concurrence in exerting power of Government with the Elders more then men in the Church Why Women have their share of the variety of gifts given to the Church and some of them a greater share then many men and light may come in by such a weak hand as a woman when c. And so all this help of their share of gifts will be made void if the managing be committed wholly to Elders and other men in the Congregation and they left out only to see c. And the very like Argument may by proportion be framed for admitting all privat persons in a Common-wealth to concur authoritavively in the Civill Government with Magistrates â— Take this Aâ—…ument in plain and full form it must stand thus to prove the Authors Assertion propounded SECT 1. and intended 〈◊〉 the conclusion here If the Eldership or Rulers of the Church exert power in these acts of Government without the joynt authoritative consent and vote of the people or other members then the help which may be had to the whole by that share of that variety of gifts bestowed by Christ upon the Church which is in the other members should be made void But this ought not to be Ergo nor that Now I deny the consequence of the proposition the share of that variety of gifts given to the Church which is in privat members may be of good use and help for the good of the whole tho all of them do not concurre authoritatively in exerting or exercising acts of Government of the Church May not privat members make their share of gifts forth-coming and helpfull for the good of the whole by observing instructing exhorting admonishing and provocking to good works one another in the privat extrajudiciall way of charity Ay but it may be said the help of these gifts in them to the good of the whole in the way of authoritative acts of Government is made void Answ This supposeth that these gifts of privat members are given to them by Christ to be exerted for the good of the whole in the authoritative acting of Government and that the authoritative actings of Goâ—…ment are appointed by Christ to be managed and caried by the formall influence and concurrence of these gifts given to privat members And this is to suppose and so to beg the thing in Question Yet further we say the gift that is in privat members may be forth-coming to the good of the whole which is to be effected by the acts of Government exerted by the Elders albeit themselves concurre not with the Elders judicially and authoritatively in these acts as by admonition of offenders and informing the Rulers of the stubborn offenders which is helpfull by way of preparation â—o the good of-the whole by acts of Government Also by charitative admonition of the Elders themselves if they be â—…misse or partiall or otherwayes wrong in exerting acts of Government by proving in the judgement of privat discretion the actings of Government exerted by the Governours and accordingly giving their obedientiall consent thereunto section 16 As for that mutuall help and need of the severall members of the Church in relation to one another for the good of the whole spoken of 1 Cor. 12. and hinted by the Author 't is impertinent to this purpose For to omit many things which might be brought to clear this from that Chap. this one is sufficient That 't is evident the Apostle is not speaking there of the mutuall need mutuall help and mutuall concurrence of the members of the body by making their severall gifts forth-coming in judiciall Acts of Government for the good of the whole As if when the Apostle saith the eye cannot say to the hand nor the head to the feet I have no need of you i. e. one member whether greater or lesse cannot say to another I have no need of
what is this but as much as if he had said in formall terms 'T is true I yeeld it the Government of the Church is Democraticall And as for that he sayeth that seeing the Elders have in their hands the manner of managing the judgement therefore their power is usefull and significative and not uselesse and nothing from the whole True it is not simply uselesse and nothing significative But sure I am it signifies nothing as to any power of Authority and Government A Mr. Speaker or Presidents part in a Parliament a Prolocutors or Moderators in an Assembly is not simply uselesse and nothing significative but it is just nothing significative as to Authority or Government section 4 2. Obj. But is not this confusion for all to have an hand in these great things This absurdity is most justly charged upon your way of Government It is confusion to speak so both formally and effectively First I say formally For when as the Lord has instituted his Visible Church to be a body organicall consisting of dissimilar parts some as eyes some as feet some as hands some to rule and some to be ruled some to be over others to command and govern in the LORD some to obey in the LORD This way makes all in the Church to be Rulers and all to be ruled all to command and govern and all to obey all to be eyes and also all to be feet and all to be one member and so the whole not to be a body to wit organicall and dissimilar Yet more it hath yet a greater confusion inâ—t by attributing the judiciall determination of all maters of Government and Jurisdiction to the suffrages of the people who by Scripture are these who are to be ruled and to obey and are as the feet and the hands in the naturall body Indeed it maketh these who ought to be ruled to be the Rulers contra Sets the feet above the head c. 2. Effectively it cannot but in the exercise of it produce many confusions Was there ever a Democraticall or popular Government to this day but it did so And is not that the evil of popular Government in regard of which it is by all intelligent Politicians postponed both to Aristocraticall and Monarchicall Government and scarce accounted worthy the name of an allowable Government But see we the Authors Answer section 5 No 'T is not confusion The Church being considered as an organicall body the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsecally in the whole and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place and way As for instance in the naturall body of man the sensitive faculties are all in the soul originally and the soul it solf is in the whole body fundamentally tota in toto c. So that the senses are radically and potentially in all the soul and the soul radically and potentially in all the body and yet these senses act only by such powers I humbly conceive this to be a sault of the Printer and that it should be parts as are fit to act by as seeing by the eye and hearing by the eare And the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work The hand to work and the feet to go section 6 I humbly conceive the Author had done better to have spared his physiologick simile here and am of the mind some of his late associats here will not comply with his physicall conceptions whatever they esteem of his theologicall Tenets How the sensitive faculties may be said to be all in the soul originally radically and potentially I can understand The meaning being that the soul is the effective principle from which these faculties proceed by way of issue or emanation as they call it to have their subjectation or inherency in their severall respective organs and to say this is not incongruous But how the soul can be said to be in the whole body fundamentally radically and potentially I cannot well understand That the soul may be in some one part of the body as in the heart which some or brain which others have thought substantially and informative and in the whole rest of the body virtually and operativè as the Sun which is substantially and locally in the Heavens is in the Earth by its influence and operation This I can conceive and it is not altogether incongruous to say so though I think it be not true But to say the soul especially the soul of man is in the whole body fundamentally radically and potentially is such a soloecisme to speak so in philosophy as I think we shall hardly meet with one grosser amongst men of any knowledge For then not only does it follow that the soul must be by way of information only in some part of the body which tho false yet is not so untollerable but also that the whole body is the effective principle from which the soul is produced and issues by way of emanation into that part of the body which it is supposed to inform Now how absurd this is in Philosophy yea in Divinity let any judicious man consider of it But yet I further wonder that the Author when he is expressing this his way of the souls being in the whole body to wit fundamentally radically c. he brings for it that common saying amongst the Schooles totain toto tota in qualibet parte For indeed that is the proper expression of their Doctrine who maintain that the soul is in the whole body essentially and informativè and withall that it is in it as a spirituall forme indivisible without extension of parts But to passe this and to come to our present purpose I verily think Mr. Lockier could not made choise of a fitter comparison to make good and establish the Objection against his way which he pretends to answer then that same he has pitched upon and his own very words condemns him He sayeth the Church is to be considered as an organical body So it is indeed and this will make for us as we have shown before Next whereas he sayeth that it being so considered the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsecally in the whole and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place and way as in the naturall body the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally c. To this 1. Suppose it were true that the power of governing were in the whole body of the Church fundamentally or originally yet it can not be said that each organ formally acteth the acts of Government For governing being an organicall act in a politicall body thence it should follow that all the organes were but one organ and the body of the Church were no organicall body But a similar body As if each member in the naturall body did formally act seeing all the members were eyes or one eye And so where were the body To say that however that each member acteth in their acts of
Believer was the Keyes of Power given Ergo c. It might be noted upon the major or first proposition of this latter sylogisme that which was given to Peter as a Believer was given to the Church as believing with such a faith as he believed with That if in the attribute thereof the Church be understood collectively for the society of such Believers as united and associated and withall when it is said that what was given to Peter as a Believer was given to the Church thus taken collectively believing with such faith the meaning be that it was given only to the Church considered viz. collectively then the connexion is not necessary and so it is false because it is materially and indeed an hypothetick proposition and in an hypothetick proposition if the connexion be not necessary the proposition is false as Logicians knows for that which was given to Peter as a believer might be given to the Church as believing distributively i. e. to every one of the Church believing singly If it shall be said that that proposition may be mended thus that which was given to Peter as a Believer not singly considered But as associated with others that was given to the Church c. 1. That qualification is not once mentioned by this Author nor hinted 2. Seeing this qualification must be again taken in also in the assumption thus the Keyes of Power was given to Peter as a Believer not singly but as associate then I say suppose we should grant that in the Text now under our hand Math. 16. 16. the meaning were that the Power was given to Peter as a Believer Yet what could the Author bring from that Text to shew that it was given to him as a beleever not singly but as qualified with this consideration as associat with other beleevers There is not the least hint for this in the Text But somewhat to the contrair See Caudrey Review Of Mr. Hookers Survey cap. 11. p. 172. section 6 But the weight of all this proof brought by our Author here hangs upon the major or first proposition of the former syllogisme viz. what power was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith was given to him as a beleever i. e. considered under this formality to be a power competent to him simply as he was a beleeving person The weight of all the proof I say hangs so upon this that unlesse it stand good and be necessary all falls to the ground and indeed it is but a groundlesse supposition of no necessity and may be as easily denyed as it is supposed Why Might it not be that Christ did upon Peters making so eminent a confession of faith give unto him a power competent to him not simply as beleeving with such a faith and so not common to all beleeving with such a faith But officiall competent to him as in such a particular office amongst beleevers or constituting him formally such an Officer What evidence or necessity of reason can be brought to the contrair of this I think Mr. Lockier did wiselier to suppresse and suppose this basis of his proof then to have expressed it because the expression of it would too evidently discovered the weaknesse of his proof of his main point that the Keyes of power or power of the Keyes was first given to beleevers and not to the Officers in the Church And now I must professe I wonder much that after so many learned men have debated so much on that Text and brought so many considerable Arguments to prove that it cannot be meant in that place that the power of the Keyes was given to Peter simply as a beleever or to the Church of beleevers And given so considerable answers to all Arguments brought by others to the contrair a man of reputation as Lockier should come forth with this poor one that power was given to Peter upon confession of his faith Ergo it was given to him as a beleever or under that reduplication as if this were enough to dash all and in reason to convince all gain-sayers The Lord pity them that are caried about with such a wind of Doctrine I think it not needfull here to waste time and Paper in bringing Arguments to prove that the power of the Keyes was given to Peter not as a beleever nor to the community of beleevers but as a Minister and Officer in the Church there is aboundance said to this purpose already by learned men to whom I refer the Reader namely Jus Divin of Church-Government Part. 2. C. 10. pag. 93. seq Mr. Rutherfurd peaceable plea C. 6. pag. 63. Due right C. 1. pag. 8. c. C. 8. pag. 179. c. Caudrey vindic vindiciar Cap. 1. Sect. 1. and Review of Hookers Surv. c. 11. Baily disswasive from the errours of the time c. 9. What is brought against any of these upon the point by Hooker in his Survey I doubt not but will be sufficiently examined by another more able then 1. If Mr. Lockieâ— will be at the pains to represent any thing upon their Arguments we shall be ready with the LORDS assistance to take it to consideration section 7 To that which the Author citeth from Gerson Claves datâ— sunt Ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo I could have wished that the Author had pointed us to the place where we might have found it and considered antecedents and consequents I confesse I have not so much leisure as to read over every mans writs to find out every passage that may be cited out of them at randome Yet for Answer this of Gerson maks nothing for the Authors purpose For 1. By the name of the Church Gerson understands the Church Universall as is clear to any that knows any thing of his and the Parisian Doctrine of his time Our Author means a particular Congregation to which the Independent way asserts the fulnesse of the power of the Keyes to have been given of such a subject recipient of the power of the Keyes Gerson never dreamed 2. Gersons mind was not for ought can be perceived in his writs that the power of the Keyes was given first to the Church as distinguished from the Rulers and Officers as the subject in whom it is formally inherent and so to be acted formally thereby But to the Church as conveened and represented in a generall Counsell in the Church Synodically conveened Potestas Ecclesiasticae jurisdictionis si sit Ecclesiae data Concilium generale representans Ecclesiam habet illam imo videtur quod Ecclesia sparsim considerata non habet illam potestatem nisi in quodam materiali seu potentiali sed Congregatio unitio quae fit in Concilio generali dat ei formam De potest Eccles Consid 4. Whence it is evident that in these words Claves datae sunt Ecclesiae ut in actu primo Petro ut in actu secundo Gerson is not to be conceived to speak of the Church