Concerning CHVRCH-GOVERNMENT And what is said for Confirmation thereof I Have been I confesse well long upon the Examination of Mr. Lockiers Lecture because I found not so clear and distinct handling of that mater in others as I could have wished and I thought it expedient that in regard he speaks with so great a deal of confidence in it and others made so much noise of it and this new-fangle itching-ear'd age is ready to take with every new fancy busked up with gay words and like children to be carried about with every wind of doctrine In this regard I thought it expedient the more fully to discover the weaknesse and unsatisfactorinesse of his alledgeances therein I shall not need nor mind I to insist so largely upon the Appendix * I mean as to every particular Question handled here For here are more particular questions handled The mater therein touched viz. What is the proper subject of Ecclesiastick Authority and Government And whether there be an union of more Congregations and Churches under one common Presbytery has been already so learnedly and fully cleared by others that it were but needlesse labour for me to insist on it And I confesse I mervail much that Mr. Lockier should have presented the world with so sory a discourse upon these maters as I think every judicious Reader will perceive this Appendix to be when as there are abroad so learned Tractats and Debates on them Alwayes we must be at the pains to animadvert upon this part of the Stone too else the world should be made believe we were fell'd dead with it But we shall do it as briefly as to particulars as we may and shall refer M. Lockier to such Pieces as are written already for further businesse and work to him as occasion shall require Mr. Lockiers APPENDIX SECTION I. section 2 HIs first Assertion is this That the Eldership which is within the particular Congregation is not in most weighty things to exert power without the consent and approbation of the Church whereof they are By things most weighty I mean these things which are most essentiall to the state of a visible Church as admission of Members ordination of Officers and excommunication of either section 3 'T is worthy Observation how the Author manages this mater of his first Assertion the point he propounds to be proven is that the Eldership of a Congregation may not in most weighty maters exert power without the consent and approbation of the Church and for proof of this his first Argument SECT 2. is an allegeance that the power of the Keyes was primarly given to the Church of believers as the subject thereof Math. 16. 16. which allegeance he is pleased to passe with a very light and slight shew of a proof as if it were a mater of small Debate Whether thus he has done from deliberate and advised policy to shun Debate upon that which is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Question about Ecclesiastick Jurisdiction and to make his common Readers the more favourable to his part as pretending only to dispute for interest of consent and approbation to them in acts of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastick of greatest concernment and indeed as mans pride naturally carries him with a desire to have a finger in rule so it is a plausible subject to speak for it to him or if he has done it from some other principle I will not determine Let the judicious Reader conjecture what he thinks most likely Only I must say it seemeth to me a very strange and irrationall way of procedure to take so great pains and make so much adoe as Mr. Lockier doth here in pleading for a certain condition of persons formall interest and concurrence in acts and the exercise of jurisdiction and to make this the Question or conclusion to be insisted on And mean while to take it almost for granted without proof or at most in a slight overly word to alledge that they are chiefly invested with that power and authority from which these acts must flow when as he knoweth at least might have known that his adversaries not only deny but by many considerable Arguments goes about to demonstrate that that condition of persons never were invested with never received such a power or authority from him to whom it belongeth originally Mr. Lockier does just here as if a Papist or Jesuite going about to Dispute the Controversie concerning the Popes supremacy should be taken up all along the Dispute in bringing some topical Arguments that this and that and the other act of supremacy as calling of oecumenicall Counsels to be presiding in them finall and infallible determining of controversies in Religiō c. ought to be performed by the Pope of Rome And mean while should misken the Question if ever Christ gave him a grant of power and authority to perform these things but only suppose it be so or content himself to cite for it as it were in transitu Tibi dabo claves or Pasce oves meas as if it were out of question clear that these places held forth a soveraigne power and authority over all things and persons Ecclesiastick in Peter yea and in every Pope of Rome bestowed on them by Christ I think a judicious adversary might well laugh at a Papists disputing after such a manner And so may any judicious man at M◠Lockiers manner and method of disputing here contending much in some topicall Arguments to prove that the people ought to have an hand in such and such acts of Government and mean while slight proving that they have the power and authority to govern granted them by Christ I think a rationall disputant would have laboured first and mainly about this And indeed were this made once clear we should soon be at an agreement about the acts and exercises of government once prove the forme or habit to be in such a subject and there will be no question about the acts thereof whether they be competent to that subject or not If any man shall say for him here that by shewing such and such acts to be competent to the people it is proven consequently à posteriori that the habit or power from which these acts do flow is in them I answer if that had been his intention so he might have done But then he should not alledged the inexistency of the power as a medium to prove that these acts are competent to them as he doth in his 1. Arg. for this is nothing else but to run in a round but we must apply our selves to follow his method section 4 To speak a word then to the first Assertion I will not question the an sit or being of the subject of this Assertion Whether there be de jure and of Divine institution an Eldership or Presbyterie within a particular Congregation i. e. a Colledge of Elders belonging to one single Congregation by it self having power of Government and exercising Ecclesiastick
of the Visible Church formally consists baptizing if Mr. Lockier shall say that this cannot be done without the sentence of the collective body of Professours he 'll speak beside the book of God which holds forth to us baptisme administrate by one Minister alone without the knowledge of any particular Church and mentioneth not any instance so far as I can remember of Ministers requiring the vote of the Church for baptizing any at any time section 8 For the third the limitation of the Elderships exerting of power not without the consent and approbation of the Church Upon this 1. I would inquire of Mr. Lockier whom he meaneth by the Church without whose consent and approbation this ought not to be done Whether the whole Congregation i. e. all Members thereof promiscuously and indifferently or only some certain Members thereof excluding the rest If the whole Congregation and all the Members thereof Then women and children also must have an hand in these weighty maters of the Government of the Church which I cannot well think he will affirme sure I am will not be owned by many of his side and is contrary to the Word of God If not the whole Congregation but some certain Members viz. men these of years of discretion or of a manlyage Then 1. why speaketh he of the Church indefinitely without any such restriction not without the consent and approbation of the Church Are not women a part of the Church yea and children also under age unlesse we shall say that they are without i. e. of the world of heathens and aliens from the Israel and Household of God which is absurd Nay I suppose there may be a Church consisting of only women beside the Officers as in case all the men of a Congregation were removed by death or otherwise for must we say that a Congregation consisting of 40. men and as many women if by Pestilence all the men should be removed excepting the Officers thereof that it should because of this cease to be a Visible Church 2. It cannot consist with what he saith afterward in sundry of his Arguments brought to prove his Assertion In the first thereof he alledgeth that the power of the Keyes are given to persons not as Officers Apostles or Elders but as beleevers to the Church of beleevers and beleeving with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal but I assume that Women are beleevers and beleevers with such a faith as well as Men Ergo by his Argument they must have an hand in the Government by their consent and approbation as well as the men Again in the third whereas he alledges that other wayes viz. than as he asserted the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren for as much as persons may be taken in and casten out concerning which they can have no distinct knowledge I assume that this will hold as well for women little ones of the Church and sisters of tender consciences as well as men Because offending of these must be eschewed as well as of those Further in his fourth Argument he alledgeth as a ground of his Assert that the spirit of discerning is not confined to Elders but may be in great measure in some of the members and a greater gift when all are joyned together in the Name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge And addeth that the Saints shall Judge the World All which take in female Saints as well as male Saints section 9 2. When as there is a consent and approbation of acts of Government privat obedientiall and not-authoritative And a consent and approbation publick and authoritative by way of a judiciall decisive vote Why is it that the Author does not in his Assertion determine which of these he means 'T is true afterward in his 5th Argument he is expresse that the whole Church and so men women and children should be joyntly authoritative about these acts of Government But here in propounding the Assertion involves the mater in an ambiguous generality It would seem to bear the ignorant Reader in hand that we did grant nothing to people about these acts of Government but a passive blind obedience to what is determined by the Eldership It would seem I say this is the drift of it the rather that afterward SECT 5. end he hints at our Doctrine in this expression If the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Presbytery and the people left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills who thus impropriat power But surely this is either a grosse misunderstanding or a foul misrepresentation of the Doctrine of Presbyterians in this mater which may appear by these things which they reach and grant unto the people in relation to matters belonging to Ecclesiastick Government As section 10 First we grant as to the mater of the Calling of Ministers and Officers of the Church that to all the people belongeth the power to nominat and elect the persons to be their own Church-Officers And that to put upon a people who are Christians and in a capacity to elect any Church Officer without their consent and election is unwarrantable intrusion But withall we affirm that this nomination or election is not an authoritative act of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction conferring upon the person any Ministeriall or Officiall power and authority but that this is conferred by the act of ordination 〈◊〉 the ordinary course appointed by Christ in his Church Ministerially under Christ and by vertue of his institution which act is to be performed by the Rulers of the Church and not by the people and that the nomination or election performed by the people is only the designation of the persons on whom this power is to be conferred by ordination if he be one as yet not ordained and is appropriated to be their Minister Besides we grant that any of the people has power to object any just exceptions against a person who is a calling to be their Minister and they ought to be heard and if their reasons be relevant they ought to be admitted section 11 Secondly we grant in like manner as to admission of members that any of the members of the Church has power to represent any just exception and reason they know against any person to be admitted and that their reasons ought to be heard and if relevant to be admitted section 12 Thirdly as to the Preaching of the Word we grant that the people are not obliged to give blind and implicit obedience to what is delivered by the Ministers as if they ought to receive as the Word of God whatsoever is delivered by them but that they have power and ought by the judgement of discretion to search the Scriptures whether the things delivered by the Ministers be so to try the spirits whether they be of God or not to prove all things and hold fast that which
is good Acts 17. 11. 1 Iohn 4. 1. 1 Thess 5. 18. and the like judgement of discretion we grant to them in relation to other parts of worship section 13 Fourthly as to the exercise of Ecclesiastick Discipline and the censure of offenders and particularly Excommunication We grant 1. that privat professours are by the Word of God to exhort and reprove offending Brethren yea and to admonish their Governours if negligent and remisse Colloss 4. 17. but this we say is an act not of authority and jurisdiction but of charity 2. They are to complain to the Church of such as are obstinate in their offences against their privat reproof and admonition but neither is this an act of authority and jurisdiction formally but only preparatory thereunto it is not gradus in re but gradus ad rem of authoritative Ecclesiastick Discipline 3. When a person is sentenced by the Presbytery unto Ecclesiastick censure For example Excommunication they are to obey that sentence and by avoyding the person as a Publican and heathen put it in execution not in an implicit and blind but rationall obedience and assent for they must do it 1. Out of clear knowledge of faith in themselves of the justice of the sentence in materia juris that the offence for which the censure is inflicted is by Gods appointment in his Word so censurable 2. That the person is guilty of the fact for which he is censured so that if the person do not acknowledge and take with it by confession the manner and means of probation of it ought to be signified to them in the generall at least And if they can alledge any just reason against the justice of the sentence either as to the point of law or to the mater of fact they ought to be heard and admitted Nor do we deny but that privat professours being desirous upon just grounds and for their clearing in giving obedience in such maters may and ought to be admitted to hear and be witnesses of the leading and deducing of such processes By all these it may evidently appear how injurious an insinuation that is of the Author wherewith he asperseth Presbyterians that to wit by their way the managing of all things in the Church is so committed wholly to the Presbytery that the people are left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills impropriating this power to themselves This way of managing the Government of Christs Church and binding people to implicit and blinde obedience we abhorre as Antichristian usurpation and tyranny And the Author in aspersing us with it has dealt either uningenuously or ignorantly section 14 The thing we say is this that in these things of Government admission of Members ordination of Officers exercise of Discipline authoritatively to act vote and judge as Judges authorized with Christs Authority belongeth not to privat persons or the body of professours joyntly with the Eldership which is the the thing Mr. Lockier plainly asserteth afterward SECT 6. init but involveth in a mist in propounding his assertion at first for what end he knoweth best himself but only to Christs Officers the Rulers set over his Church Thus having cleared up the meaning of the Question we have in hand with the Author here come we now to consider his Arguments for his Assertion SECTION II. Examination of Mr. Lockiers 1 2 3 4. Argument section 1 FIrst saith he because the power of the Keyes was not at first given to Peter as an Apostle or as an Elder but as an Beleever The consequent he would infer must be this Ergo that the Elders must not in these weighty maters of Government admission of Members ordination of Ministers censures exert power without the authoritative joynt acting and concurring of the Church i. e. the body of professours therein with them Ans 1. If this consequence be good then it must follow as well that Ministers cannot exert power of authoritative Preaching the Gospel but with the joynt authoritative concurrence of the people in Preaching with them For certain it is that the power of Preaching the Gospel is comprehended in these Keyes given to Peter as well as the power of censures c. and therefore if it follow the power of the keyes was not given to Peter as an Apostle nor as an Elder but as a Believer Ergo the Elders cannot exert power in ordination censures c. without the joint authorative concurrence of the body of Professours therein it must follow also Ergo they cannot exert power in preaching the Gospel without their joynt authoritative concurrence therein and so when the Minister preaches all the people must authoritatively preach with him else his preaching is null 2. But waving this and granting it were true that the power of the keyes was first given to believers and so to Peter not as a Minister but as representing Believers I do not see how it must of necessity follow that the body of Professours must act authoritatively jointly with the Rulers in the exerting of that power For we may suppose it was given to the body of the Church not formally but radically and virtually to be by them derived to Rulers to be formally exerted by these only and then the consequent will not follow as suppose it were true which many Politicians and with them some Divines maintain which yet for my self I cannot see solide proof of that the power of Civile Government is first given of God by a naturall right unto the body of people yet from this it followeth not that no Magistrates elected by people must exert power of Government without the joint authoritative concurrence of the people with them Then when ever a King is to exert an act of Government or a Parliament they must do nothing unlesse the people sit down upon the Throne or in the house with them and thus no doubt sundry Divines in former times when they say that the power of the Keyes were given first to the whole Church of beleevers are to be understood to have meant that this power was given to them not to be formally inherent and abiding in themselves to be exerted and exercised by them But virtually by them to be setled upon such persons as they should designe for Ministeriall offices in the Church by whom only it is to be formally exerted and exercised which yet is a mistake section 2 But let 's see how the Author proves his antecedent viz. That the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as an Apostle or as an Elder but as a Belâ—ever Only by the way first 't is worthy observation that these of the Independent way are not at agreement among themselves yea nor some of them with themselves touching this mater of the first subject to which the power of the Keyes was given as we see marked in their own expressions by the learned Mr. Caudrey in his scheme of contradictions and contrarieties in the Independent way
subjoyned to his vindiciae vindiciarum I shall here note some few of them to this purpose for the Reader who may be has not the book at hand 1. The keyes were given to Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a Believer So the sense is most sit the Keyes pag. 4. The power of the keys is given to Peter not as an Apostle nor as an Elder but as a professed believer The way Peter received not the Keys meerly as a Beleever but as a Beleever publickly professing his faith The way cleared P. 2. fol. 39 9. It appears that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternitie with the Presbytery ibid. and the way cleared Part. 2. pag. 22. A particular Church of Saints professing the faith i. members without Offificers is the first subject of all the Church Offices with all their spirituall gifts and power The keys pag. 31. 9. As the keys of the Kingdom of heaven be diverse so are the subjects to whom they are coÌ„mitted diverse The Keyes pag. 11. So Lockier here but that he addeth not professed The Apostles were the first subject of Apostolicall power ibid. 32. A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned ibid. pag. 47. Not believers as believers but believers Convenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment Hook Surv. P. 1. p. 203. 9. The power of the Keyes belongs first to a Congregation of Covenanting beleevers Hook Surv. Part. 1. pag. 219. The power of the Keyes is in the Church of beleevers as the first subject ibid p. 195. That conceit is wide to make one first subject of this power and yet others to share in this power not by means of that for this is to speak daggers and contradictions ibid. section 3 Now see the Authors Argument upon the confession of his faith had he this trust bequeathed to him Mat. 16. 16. Therefore to the Church of Believers and believing with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal was the Keyes of power primarily given and to the Elders in the second place as exerted out of this first estate and as Officers and Servants of it Answ And first note somewhat upon the consequent section 4 1. The consequent as here inferred is much different from that which is propounded in the beginning of the paragraph there it was propounded thus the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as c. but as a beleever here it is the Keyes of power the former expression supposing there were such a distinction of Keyes as Keyes of power and another sort of Keyes different from these being indefinite may import both but the latter importeth a specification of a definite sort of Keyâ—s What means this variation That the Reader may understand this mystery the better 't is to be observed that when as hitherto in the Church of God by the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven being understood the Ordinances of Jesus Christ which he hath appointed to be administrate in his Church or the power of administring these Ordinances under himself these Keyes have been distributed unto the Key of Knowledge or Doctrine which is the preaching of the Gospel taking in therewith the Sacraments as the Appendicles and seals of the Gospel and the Key of Jurisdiction or Discipline which consists in Censures and absolution from Censures Independents of late have forged new sorts of the Keyes whereby they have confounded themselves and wound confound the whole Church of Christ in the mater of its Government They tell us there is 1. a Key of Knowledge or Faith the first subject whereof is every Believer whether joined to a particular Congregation or not 2. A Key of interest power or liberty which is in all the Brethren of a particular Congregation And 3. a Key of Rule and Authority which they say is in the Elders of a particular Church or Congregation The meaning and refutation of these new forged Keyes see in Jus Divin of Church Govern part 2. c. 10. pag. 108 109. c. and Mr. Caudreys Vindiciae clav c. 2. per tot Now when Mr. Lockier in the consequent of his Argument speaks of the Keyes of power it would seem he must understand that second kinde of Keyes For I know no other going under that name amongst Independents Yet may be by a new conception of his own he means that all power of government distinguished from the Preaching of the Word and Administration of Sacraments exercised in ordination of Ministers and dispensation of censures Again see another great variation At first he propounds that the Keyes were given to Peter first as a beleever This may import and as spoken there by the Author without any explication cannot be otherwise understood but that it doth import that they were given to him as a single beleever but now in the consequent inferred in the pretended proof he sayeth thus they were given first to the Church of beleevers this is a society of persons collectively and unitedly taken and not persons singly 2. Where shall we ever read the Elders or Ministers called the Officers and Servants of the Church that is as Mr. Lockier meaneth by way of relation to the Church as a Superiour or Mistresse deputing and imploying them to officiat and act in her place We find indeed they are called the servants of the Church of beleevers by way of relation of a means to an end for their good 2 Cor. 4 5. 1 Cor. 3. 22. as Angels or Ministring Spirits sent forth to Minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation Heb. 1. ult But they are only Christs Officers and Servants by way of relation of Deputs to officiat and imployed to serve unto a Superior and Master deputing to officiat and imploying to serve in his place and are set over the Church by him section 5 But now consider we how this consequent is proven The Argugument as propounded by the Author is Enthymematick and must suppose another premisse beside that which is expressed which must be true as well as that expressed to make the consequence good Now I humbly desire him to give us that suppressed and supposed premisse Verily keep him to one syllogisme and it is impossible to do it observing the rules of good Logick and reason But it may be done may be by two processes Well then they must be these for ought that I can conceive if he can do it otherwise and better let him do it and we shall consider of it the first is this that which was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith was given to him as a Beleever But the Power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon the confession of his faith Ergo c. then taking this conclusion for a ground of the second it must be thus That which was given to Peter as a Beleever was given to the Church believing with such a faith as Peter believed But to Peter as a
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
lean that way 1. Not only speaks he to his heare â—s in the present â—…seâ— if thy brother offend thee go and tell him tell the Church but also is speaking of a case that might have in that present time fallen out and which falling out it was necessary for them to know and be informed what course they should follow fâ—…edresse of it Hudson vindic of the Essence and Vnity of c c. 1. p. 3. 2. It inclines not a little to understand a Church that was in present being among the Jews because he applyes his present speech to the capacity of the Jews Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican who might not have communion with Heathens and would not with Publicans But Christians might eat and drink with both I say not these are demonstrative grounds Yet they may seem to lean that way But see we what the Author brings from the Text that the order of the Gospel Church and it only for so he must be understood is meant section 7 His first Ground is this He Christ speaks in the verse foregoing of little ones which he explaines to be true beleevers and converted ones v. 6. v. 3. this is made the qualification of the visible members of the New Church in the Chapter foregoing Mat. 16. 17. Ans 1. That true saving faith and conversion is the qualification viz. in the externall Ecclesiastick Court of Visible Church members is a dream and that it is taught Matth. 16 17. is another dream and that another kind of qualification as to substance is requisite in visible members of the Church under the N. T. then was under the Old is a third as many of his own side will confesse who usually in that Question bring Arguments from the constitution of the Church under the Old Test 2. What necessity of consequence is here Christ in the foregoing v. 14. of Matth. 18. speaks of little ones true beleevers and true faith is the qualification of members of the New or Gospel Church â—…rgo when v. 17. he bids a Brother if he cannot get an offending â—rother reclaimed by privat admonition tell the Church he is to be understood to speak only of the order to be kept in such offences in the Gospel Church that was to be afterward I confesse if this consequent can be clearly deduced and proven from that anteâ—…denâ— per decimam nonam consequentiam I am deceived certainly the consequence of it is not immediatly evident let the Author assay to make it out section 8 2. Ground Then saith he the very words of censure in case the Church be disobeyed are the same he useth to Peter when he gave the Keyes to him upon his faith Whatsoever ye bind on earth c. Mat. 18. 18. and just this he saith to Peter c. 16. 19. And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth c. so that the one explains the other That by Church is not meant the Presbytery or Eldership of one sort or other but the Gospel Church the Congregation of beleevers these conjunctim have the power to censure Answ I confesse I cannot well such is may be my dullnesse conceive what is the order and forme of this Argument in relation to prove that which he undertook a little before viz. that in that tell the Church is not meant the Jewish Eldership whether Civill or Ecclesiastick 1. If he would reason thus the words of censure here used are the same with these Mat. 16. 19. when the power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon his faith and these are words expressing the order of the Gospel Church Therefore by the name of the Church used here cannot be meant the Jewish Eldership I Answer then the Author considers not that the first words of censure are such as are relative to the order of the Jewish Church let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publican Or 2. If his purpose be to reason only thus The power of censure spoken of here being the same with that spoken of Mat. 16. these to whom it is ascribed here and given to there are the same the one plaâ—… explains the other But there Mat. 16. it is given 〈◊〉 Peter is a beleever and so in him to the Church of beleevers the Gospel Church Ergo here must be understood not the 〈◊〉 of â—…e and or other Jâ—wish or Christian Answ It s 〈…〉 â—ver yet proven not ever will be that the power of the â—…yer of binding and loosing were Mat. 16. given to Peter as a beleever 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 Church of beleevers section 9 He adds for 〈◊〉 These 〈◊〉 have the power to censure and cast out according to that Corn. 5. 4. When you are gathâ—…ed together c. to deliver such a one to Satan c. and by the same power â—…ved in again that as his punishment was by many so his consolatio◠〈◊〉 reception might be by many also as 't is 2 Cor. 2. â— that Satâ—… might take no advantage which is enough to shew how that admission of members should be by a joint act of the Church as well as excommunication of Members ANSW The Author contemns his Readâ—… very much when as he thinks it enough to cite controverted Paâ—…ges of Scripture and affirm they speak enough for his 〈◊〉 without the least essay to bring any argument or ground to prove and clear that to be their meaning which he affirmeth They are too too credulous that will be moved by such kinde of dictating rather then disputing We deny that the place 1 Cor. 5. 4. doth import that the power to censure and excommunicate doth belong to the whole Congregation of believers as Judges and formall authoritative Actors therein And we deny in like maner that 2 Cor. 2. 6. doth import that the reception of the censured or excoÌ„municated is by the whole Congregation acting therein authoritatively When Mr. Lockier shall be pleased to present us some reasons for what he saith we shall take them into consideration In the mean while he must give us leave not to be moved by his naked Assertions and withall we refer the Reader for further satisfaction concerning these Passages to Cameron praelect in Mat. 18. 15. p. 19 â—0 Edit Salmur in 40. Rutherfurd due right of Presâ— c. 2. pag. 36 37. and c. 10. pag. â—48 349 35â— 351 352. Jus Divin of Church Government par 2. c. 10. pag. 97. and humbly desires Mr. Lockier to consider what they have said on the places section 10 What followeth said by the Author in his 7th SECT the contrary to this understanding c. to the end Is nothing else but a bitter railing which I think the judicious godly men of his way will not own and account unworthy the defiâ—…ng Paper with transcribing it onely briefly to it 1. Whether â—…e Independent way or the Presâ—yterian way of Government be liker and nearer to
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
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
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
guides and leads the proceedings of the Judicatory 5. The Church if the Elders go wrong may not only admonish them But 6. if impenitent reject i. e. Excommunicate them Ans 1. If the Church ordain their Elders may depose them may Excommunicate them To speak of Elders exerting power but not without consent and approbation of the Church is give me leave to say it without offence upon the mater a Gilli-maufrey The Church can and does exert Power it self by it self without Elders exerting any Power in these weighty maters of Government And what need then to talk of a necessity of their consent and approbation to the Elders exerting the Power nay by these suppositions the Elders as such shall have no Power no judiciall or authoritative Power at all to exert As such they are at most only as Chair-men and Moderators to the Church in its exerting Power But. 2. all these Assertions making up the Antecedent or proof except the first concerning the electing of Officers which is no act of Government nor makes a man a Minister but only is a designation of the person to be made a Minister by ordination or an application of him being a Minister to exercise his office in a particular charge and the 5th concerning admonition which is not an act of jurisdiction or authority but a duty of love and mercy competent to every single Professour except these two all the rest are but bare unwarranted Assertions and a very begging of the things in question More of them severally hereafter Only in a word now here concerning the last that the Church may Excommunicate their Elders however many of the Independents affirme so Yet some of them and these not of least account have scunnered at it yea denyed it down-right and given reason for their so denying As Mr. Cotton Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some rulers The Keyes pag. 16. The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbyterie because they have not received from Christ an office of rule without their Officers ib. no act of the peoples power doth properly bind unlesse the authoritâ— of the Presbytery joine with it 3. But one word more for the present when the Author sayes that the Elders are set over the Church and yet makes them but servants of the Church in the sense we have before expressed subject to judiciall tryall and censures by the Church c. he gives us but an empty word nomen sine re which is another scorn it is impossible by his way to shew us one act of authority in regard of which they can be said to be over the Church See this I say made good impregnably by Reverend Mr. Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries pag. * This is to be looked after the retrogradation of the number of pages mentioned by the Printer in admonition about Errata 311. to 323. section 10 As to the Latine testimonie cited by the Author to confirm what he has been saying concerning the Church of believers power to censure their Elders and Officers I professe I know not what Author he means nor have leisure to enquire But to the two Texts of Scripture pointed at in it 1. The former Act 11. 3. 't is true Peter there giveth an account of his going in to the uncircumcised But 1. was he required by a Church of Believers only and contradistinguished from all Elders and Officers in which notion it is that Mr. Lockier is now speaking of the Church to do this before them judicially this is a dream The Church at Jerusalem before whom Peter was at that time consisted of Elders as well as Believers And the Apostles and Brethren that were in Judea heard c. and it is well observed by the Nedder Dutch Notes that under the name of Brethren are comprehended the Elders who afterwards c. 15. 23. are distinguished from private brethren 't is said v. 2. that some of the Brethren contended with him for that deed now supposing that they challenged him judicially and that he made his Apology judicially how shall it be evidenced from the Text that he did it before the body of Professours and not before the Colledge of Apostles and other Elders only sitting and cognoscing judicially upon the mater the sharpest sight in the World will not see a vestige of any thing of this kind in the Text nor can any man shew us either precept or example in Scripture for a Church of Believers alone judicially cognoscing and giving sentence of censure upon their Elders and Rulers 2. Suppose there had been none but private Believers amongst them to whom Peter made that Apologie to remove the scandall Yet that were but a poor ground to prove that he did it to them judicially sitting upon him and as having authority to judge and censure him for why One Christian doing any thing at which offence is taken may and ought to give an account and satisfaction to another privat brother who is offended for removing the offence Yet hath not a privat Brother authority or power judicially to cognosce and passe sentence upon another Brother section 11 2. To the other place 1 Cor. 3. 22. brought for that Peter and so other Church-Officers are the servants and Ministers of the Church 1. 'T is true the Pastours there are said to be the Churches and so also are the world life death things present things to come and all things But I hope none will be so absurd as to say that the World Life Death c. are the Churches as servants in way of relation to the Church as a Mistresse calling commissionating them under Her they are the Churches as means to Her good and so are the Pastors and Rulers Her servants in this sense 2. Tho Independents will not stand to affirme that ordinary Officers are the servants of a particular Church as their Mistresse commissionating them and having Power over them Yet I am ready to think their stomacks will stand at it to affirme so much of the Apostles of Jesus Christ as Apostles And yet by that Text even the Apostles themselves as Apostles are held forth to be the Churches as well as ordinary Pastors and Rulers and that in a like maner for ought can be perceived by the Text. section 12 The 3. Argument SECT 4. Because otherwise if the Elders should exert power in these maters of Government without the joint Authoritative consent and vote of the members of the Church the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren But offence ought not to be given to Christ little ones one of the least of the family Ergo c. To prove the assumption needlesse pains is taken Now if this Argument hold good it will conclude that not only men but women also must have joint authoritative consent and vote with the Elders in these maters of power and Government For
he might as well in the proposition spoken what he sayeth of Sisters whether little ones or of stronger but of tender consciences as of Brethren And it is no lesse sin to offend the one then it is to offend the other But now see we how the consequence of the proposition is proven for as much saith he as persons may be taken in and cast out and Officers be set up and pulled down concerning either of which they can have no distinct knowledge or at least no sufficient ability to hinder because decisive sentence lyes altogether in the Eldership 〈…〉 â—lbeit only the Eldership exert power authoritatively in these 〈◊〉 and sentence decisively yet professours notwithstanding this may have sufficient knowledge for their privat and obedientiall consent and concurrence with the sentence of the Eldership as we have cleared before And so that part of the proof of the connexion of the proposition that if the Eldership only without the Church of beleevers exert power authoritatively the Elders cannot but offend c. because if so the members cannot have distinct knowledge concerning these things c. this is null it seemeth the Author was sensible and therefore passeth from that former part to the second with that or at least which usually signifieth a tacite passing from that which has been said before and a betaking to what followeth to be said They can have no distinct knowledge or at least saith he no sufficient ability to hinder c. But 2. here lurks a principle of the grossest Levelling that I have heard of and abrogating all Government but of a confused multitude if privat professours the body of a Congregation must have joynt authoritative consent and vote with their Rulers in acts of Government because it will offend them that they have not sufficient ability by their judiciall and authoritaive interposing to hinder the acting of the Eldership the decisive sentence lying altogether in the Eldership Then I say it is as good a consequence that a Major and common Counsell of a City must not act without the joynt authoritative concurrence and vote of the body of the Citizens lest they be offended for want of sufficient ability to hinder by their judicial and authoritative interposing the actings of the Major and Counsell Again see the clear strength of this proof comes to this much the people ought to have a joynt authoritative consent and vote with their Rulers the Eldership Why Because they cannot but be offended if they have it not For to have ability sufficent to hinder judicially and by authoritative vote of this way of hindering he must be understood to be now speaking and that is all one thing Now I say there being in case of the Eldership of a particular Congregation erring and going wrong superiour authority to which people may have recourse for authoritative hindering or redressing of the errour and wrong acting and withall a liberty granted to the people upon evident discerning in their privat judgment the errour 〈◊〉 the Eldership to withhold their obedientiall consent to the wrong sentence which is sufficient to keep them from being accessory unlesse it were first clear that by Gods appointment they have a command calling and warrand also to interpose by a judiciall vote to hinder it whith now in this Argument is the conclusion to be proven and not to be supposed if they be offended because they cannot and has not place to hinder it by their own judiciall and authoritative concurrence and vote with the Eldership the offence is not given but taken section 13 But saith he neither is the offence taken but given how proves he that For as much as in these great transactions the benefit or hurt of every member is not only equally but mainly concerned The transaction of other things which are meerly prudentiall are not of generall concernment or not of so great generall concernment no doubt do properly and determinatly belong to that power which the Church doth institute within themselves as their eyes and hands more conveniently decently and expeditiously to deal with Answ 1. A power as eyes c. i. e. Officers instituted i. e. made and ordained by the Church within it self is a begging of a part of the Question and a dream unknown to Scripture which teacheth us that Christ hath set such Officers in the Church and as for the instituting or ordaining of particular persons into these Offices either he doth this himself immediatly as to extraordinary Officers or by the Ministry of other Officers as to ordinary Officers tho the designation of the persons to these Offices may be by the choise of the whole Church 2. Not Officers only but the whole Church are eyes by Mr. Lockiers Doctrine attributing to the whole Church joynt authoritative concurrence with the Officers in acts of Government And where is the rest of the body if all be eyes 3. It could been wished that the Author had expressed what are these transactions meerly prudentiall or not of generall concernment or not of so great generall concernment which he saith belongeth properly and determinatly to the Officers or Elders Which had he done I doubt not but we should have seen either maters of meer order no wayes importing any such power or authority as Church Officers have attributed to them in the Word of God But only such as a Chair-man or Moderator of a Judicatory may do in relation to its judiciall proceedings who yet as such hath no authority over the Judicatory Or some of them to be such transactions as are of as great generall concernment as any can be I remember Hooker Surv. Part. 3. c. 3. pag. 41 42. amongst other things gives to the Elders as properly belonging to them in mater of censure and Excommunication the Examination of the cause and dogmaticall propounding of the sentence and sayes that the fraternity has no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure propounded by them then they have to oppose their Doctrine delivered in Preaching of the Gospel and so that the one is as binding as the other If these be not transactions more then meerly prudentiall of very great generall concernment I professe I know not what is Nay I affirme it and it is evident that hereby greater power is given to two or three Elders in a particular Congregation then ever Presbyterians attiibuted I say not to the Elders of a particular Congregation but to any Classicall Presbytery of many combyned Congregations For by the way of Presbyterians when a Classicall Eldership has given forth sentence of Excommunication there may be an appeal to a more ample and Superiour Judicatory for judiciall recognition and redresse But here by this Independent way power is given to two or three Elders to propound the sentence of Excommunication which the fraternity are bound to joyn with as much as to obey their Preaching and there is no superiour remedy of judiciall recognition and redresse left to the party
passage contrary to any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture may consist with the purpose of Antecedents and Consequents in the context It may well be Intâ—…ret in such a particular signification in that particular place thâ— it could not be found in that same signification in any other place of Scripture Much more if the purpose intended in the Text and some circumstances to be found in the context be such as requires it to be taken in such a signification Now to the presâ—… purpose in hand 1. The genuine grammaticall signification of the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such as may well be applyed to signifie a coâ—…tion or Colledge of Rulers and certain it is that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftener then once in Scripture used for the convention 〈◊〉 Colledge of Judges or Rulers as Psal 82. â— 1. 2. To take the word in such a sense here for the Colledge of Church Rulers the Eldership puts no sense upon the place contrary to the Analogie of faâ—…or any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture lâ—t Mr. Lockier shew us any thing of this kind What is brought by him a little after from 1 Cor. 5. 4. shall be considered in its place 3. â—here is nothing in the antecedents or consequents or in the context of the place inconsistent with it Yea 4. The purpose spoken of in the Text and circumstanâ—… are such as seeme to requâ—… it to be taken in such a signification â—…y I will â—ot say that the purpose or circumstances will force us to take the name of the Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the visible society of Christians as well privat professours as Rulers Yet this I will say that such is the purpose and such circumstances are in the context as permits not all and every one Universally who are coprehended under â—…signification otherwise to be taken in as the definit persons to whom that dilation of offences and inflicting of censure spoken of there doth belong but that must be the Rulers alone I like well the judicious observation of Cameron in his praelect on the place pag. 26. Edit Salmur in 4. where after that he has said sundry things before upon the use of the word Ecclesia at last has these words which I think speaks the most genuine meaning of the place Aâ— haec omnia illud accedit c. to all saith he that hath been spoken this may be added that these things may be said to be told to the Church which are told to these who are with authority over the Church for as the body is said to see when as only the eyes do see so the Church is said to hear that which these only hear who are as it were the eyes of the Church noâ— that the Rulers are vicarii or substitutes of the Church as the eyes are not vicarii or substitutes of the hands and feet But as the body is a certain whoâ—e whereof the severall members have their severall functions in the very like manner the Church is aâ—… body that consists of the compaction of more members to each of which belongeth their proper functions so that when one presents an object to be seen by the eye he is said to present it to the body so he that dilaâ—eth a matter to the Colledge of Presbyters he seemeth to dilate it to the Church whereof that Colledge is a part so far he judiciously section 3 Now take the name of the Church in that sense that is competent to the whole body of Christian Professours yet that all and every one of the body signified by that name cannot be taken as the definite person to whom these actions spoken of here belongs as formally concuâ—…ing therein I prove 1. because the actions here spoken of as belonging to the Church are Acts of Government and Authority yea Acts of highest authority and power receiving of publick judiciall delations judging upon them authoritative commanding amendement of the offence inflicting of publick even the highest censure of Excommunication upon disobedience But cleat it is from Scripture that not to all and every one members of the Visible Church for example women and children are Acts of Government and Authority formally competent and therefore these things ascribed here to the Church cannot be understood to be ascribed to the whole Church Therefore I think Mr. Lockier must either say one of these two that of the whole Church women and children are no parts or that women and children must have an hand and concurrence formally in receiving publick judiciall delations c. or else he must correct that Which word Church Math. 18. 17. I judge doth mean the whole Church and expound it of all men of age in the Church Professours as well as Elders and then give us leave to ask him where he can finde the Church so used for only men of age professing excluding women and children And to use his own Argument if he cannot finde it so used otherwhere in Scripture how can he judge it to mean so here But 2. that the persons here designed cannot be all and every one of the Church that are men of age but must be the Rulers or Eldership only I prove 1. by an Argument ad hominem upon a ground acknowledged confessed and practized by these of the Independent way themselves well observed by worthy Mr. Baillie Disswasive from Err. par 1. c. 9. p. 192. they to whom offences are to be told immediately after the two or three witnesses in a private way are not heard are intended and meant here when Christ saith tell the Church But the Elders alone without the people concurring with them are these to whom offences are to be told and delated immediately c. Ergo. the Major or first Proposition is clear in the Text The Minor or Assumption is their own confession and practice See Hooker Surv. Part 3. c. 3. p. 36. maters are first brought to the Elders they must judge whether the maters be of weight or worth examine the cause call witnesses take depositions yea and at last ere ever the people give any vote propound the sentence dogmatically which the people are oblidged to obey in the same way that they are oblidged to obey their preaching of the Gospel So then either our Brethren must acknowledge that under the name of the Church here Tell the Church are intended the Elders alone or their doctrine and practice of bringing scandals first to the Eldership thus as we have seen must of necessity be not only groundlesse beside Scripture warrand but directly contrair to the Scripture in hand And here it is remarkable that the learned and godly Mr. Parker albeit he be of a judgment contrary to us touching the first subject of the power of the Keyes yet is forced to acknowledge with us that in these words Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church in the beginning of the Verse is meant the
had constituted or ordained Matthias to be an Apostle but barely thus Seeing God had chosen and ordained him they accepted him by orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ With this Interpretation agreâ—… that of the learned Nedder Dutch Interpreters in their Annotation upon the place All this 〈◊〉 election they did acknowledge and accept for good And is it 〈◊〉 â—…mmonly by Divines made one of the Characters and Properâ—… 〈…〉 of Apostles 〈◊〉 the â—ad their calling to that function not by the ordinarie 〈…〉 Ministry of men Buâ— extraordinarly and immediately from Christ himself As Paul alledges for himself â—o prove his Apostleship Gâ—… 1. 1. Paul an Aostle not of men this is common to all Ministers nor by men i. e. the interâ—…ening Ministry of men but by Jesus Christ But one word more here That of Mr. Lockiers one would think that the Lords pointing out the man had been enough but least this might prove a meanâ—…â—o justle out the priviledge of the whole Church seemeth to me to say no more very inconsiderately said What more could the Lords full constituting Matthias an Apostle without any interveening Act of the Church prove a means to justle out the priviledge of the Church in maters essentiall than his sole immediate both electing and ordaining all the rest of the Apostles Mark 3. 13 14. section 16 His second Scripture for the peoples formall concurrence in ordination is Acts 14. 23. â—nd when they had ordained them Elders in every Church On which the Author for his purpose commenteth thus 1. On the Margent he rejecteth the opinion of some tho learned men that sayeth here was no ordination but onely an election and giveth a reason why there behoved to be ordination because there was Fasting and Prayer joined with the action 2. Then in the body sayeth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hand and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Attollo to * Not attollo but tendere extendere i. e. to stretch forth lift up Which sheweth what this ordination was in the formality of it That the Apostles in and with every Church of Beleevers where they came did make suffrage who should undergo this great Office of Eldership in such Churches and so joyntly with each Church and not by distinct exempted power above them was this work done according to * In that place is no patern for ordinary ordination of ordinary Elders see before the first paterne Acts 1. for to apply this only to the Apostles in number but two is improper to the nature of the word for two to lift up their hands Suffrage is not a thing to be managed by two as fencing cannot be done by one Answ I grant that here was ordination though I think Lockiers Argument brought to prove it is but weak viz. because Prayer and Fasting was joyned Why may not Fasting and Prayer be joined with other actions besides ordination with election the nature of the businesse it self affords a 〈◊〉 â—oncludent Argument It was a calling of men to a Ministeriall â—…ffice in the Church of Christ and this cannot be done ordinarly without ordination 2. The Author gives us such a description of ordinaâ—…on of Elders as confounds and makes it â—ust all one with election viz. did make suffrage who shall undergoe the office What is this but election Yet in these two Sections he distinguishes election and ordination and brings them as two distinct instances of Ecclesiastick maters wherein he will have the Church of Beleevers to have authoritative concurrence But 3. more diâ—…ctly to the point in hand the whole strength of the Authors reason here to prove that the private Beleevers in these Churches concurred formally with the Apostles in the ordination of these Elders lyes upon the grammatication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to give suffrages by streaching forth or lifting up of the hand and so must here be understood that the Elders were ordained by suffrages And suffrage is not a mater competent to two which was the number of the Apostles imployed in this businesse to which 1. Let that force of the word be taken in here and the place rendered when they had by suffrages ordained or constituted yet as Mr. Gillespy well observeth Miscell c. 4. p. 57. out of Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 3. § 15. * Calvins words pondering the same signification are clear that the act of ordination was onely by Paul and Barnabas Creabant ergo ipsi duo Sed tota multitudo ut mos Graecorum in electionibus â—rat manibus sublatis declarabat quem habere vel the sense may be this Paul and Barnabas did make and ordain Elders according to the suffrages of the Churches themselves that is they ordained such as the Churches by their suffrages elected and desired So here are involved two acts 1. Election which is the only act performable by lifting up of the hand in suffrage and in that we grant the people concurred 2. Ordaining and constituting which was not done by lifting up of the hand in suffrage But laying on of the hands as a signe of separating the person to the Office And this we say was done only by Paul and Barnabas But 2ly Albeit that former answer does sufficiently overturn all Mr. Lockiers reasoning from this place Yet I confesse I see no necessity of reâ—dering the word here thus made by suffrages For how ever it be true that the use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arises from that manner of suffrage â—…ed amongst the Grecians either in choosing of persons or â—aking oâ— Laws and it be ofte◠〈◊〉 â—sed to signifie expresly the 〈◊〉 oâ— suffrages in such matters 〈…〉 iâ— is â—nown to any that has anâ— knowledge in the Greek Language that sometimes it is used to signifie simply the aâ—… of conâ—tuting or making and 〈…〉 â—eâ—her of a Law oâ— person in an Office not expresly 〈◊〉 the manner or way oâ— doing by suffrages or lifting up oâ— the 〈…〉 And thus simply the Old Latine â—…erpreter â—enders iâ—â—n this place câ—m constituissent illis per singulas Ecclesias Presbyteros c. and I think hardly can it with congruity of speech be otherwayeâ— rendered here For certainly the substantive to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the â—…t is Paul and Barnabas and can be no other can be none of the people or privat Disciples as is most evident to any man looking upon the Text and therefore by this word must here be understood an act done by the two alone which cannot be formally suffrageing for as Mr. Lockier sayeth well that can not be done by two but another unlesse ye will Interpret the word in such a figurative sense as I doubt much it shall be found in the like anâ— otherwhere in the world viz. thus and when they Paul 〈◊〉 Barnabas had by suffrages made to them i. e. the Disciples Elders that is when they had
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the 〈…〉 Spirit of God gives it to Elders as contradiâ—… 〈…〉 from single Beleevers but also from the whole â—lack 〈…〉 â—hy would the Spirit of â—od give thiâ— name to Eldeâ—… 〈…〉 â—…guished from the whole flock if thereby were 〈…〉 out whaâ—â—is common competen◠〈…〉 and ought to be â—one by every single 〈…〉 Lockier reckoning up the acts whereby the 〈…〉 are to 〈◊〉 the flock That none so far◠〈…〉 none 〈◊〉 â—…presseth some only and 〈…〉 â—…der an c. I would ask him 〈…〉 beside 〈…〉 expressed doeth he intend by that 〈◊〉 here be understoâ—d exercise of discipline and censures 〈◊〉 â—…ons going astray or â—one astray if otherwise they cannot 〈…〉 or reclaimed and reduced I believe they must by this meâ—… 〈…〉 by these expressed take heed that none go astray 〈…〉 â—nd is not this not only aâ— act of Government but even of correâ—…ve jurâ—…diction O! but may he say they are not to do this â—ct by themselves but to have a care that it be done by the whole body of the Church But I pray how by telling the offences of 〈…〉 the Church or giving joint vote as other Professors in the 〈…〉 it comes under publike cognizance and judgement Ay 〈…〉 â—his may and ought to be done by the Authors way by any other Professours in the Church besides the Eldeâ— â—nd so nothing is left to them in regard of which that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be more pecuâ—…ar to them than any other Professours section 11 The Aâ—… 〈…〉 â—…seers and 〈…〉 â—…thers as 〈…〉 â—…ked in 〈…〉 â—…her which 〈…〉 â—en rather 〈…〉 ashiâ—… his Disâ—… 〈…〉 and sâ—l◠〈…〉 are so Rule◠〈…〉 But 〈…〉 to thâ— Châ—… 〈…〉 that tâ— thâ—… 〈…〉 â—…y o◠〈◊〉 â—…d 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 But 〈…〉 as a Brother 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 or inâ—… 〈…〉 â—…y to conâ—… 〈…〉 of Ruling and Goâ—… 〈…〉 power nor alone to exercise 〈…〉 â—…in conâ—…ction 〈…〉 Shepâ—… 〈…〉 â—…cive that Mr. Lockier as he 〈…〉 so he will not deny that th◠〈…〉 only of the Church are so called 〈…〉 theâ— only â—ut the rest of the Profâ—… 〈…〉 in the power and acts oâ— Ruâ—… 〈…〉 it i◠〈◊〉 to give the 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 as much and much â—ore o◠〈◊〉 thing 〈…〉 â—hem 'T is true indeed that Elde◠〈…〉 â—hood with the rest of Professours but 〈…〉 in another thing then that power which is signified by the names of Ruâ—…â—verâ—eers c. i. c. the power and authority of governing For were it that that they are 〈…〉 â—ood in this 〈…〉 why are they not all 〈…〉 â—verseers c If they 〈…〉 the name The thing 〈…〉 the rest of Pâ—of◠〈…〉 â—…ession of 〈…〉 â—eing of 〈…〉 tell 〈…〉 â—…siastick Goverâ—… 〈…〉 â—qually in the 〈…〉 of Governâ—… 〈…〉 calâ—… 〈◊〉 Overseâ—… 〈…〉 tha◠〈…〉 Go◠〈…〉 â—at then 〈…〉 Elder◠〈…〉 conâ—… the 〈…〉 meeting 〈…〉 vote◠〈…〉 intimate 〈…〉 the whol◠〈…〉 â—…te conâ—lude 〈…〉 â—…er for which 〈…〉 over the Church 〈…〉 as in the 〈…〉 And as the faâ—… 〈…〉 exercised by 〈◊〉 And 〈…〉 of seeing 〈…〉 part of the 〈…〉 â—…vernment 〈…〉 Rulers 〈…〉 so in and 〈…〉 â—…sed by any other â—art of the 〈…〉 the Authâ—r 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christâ— washing his 〈◊〉 feet to illustrate how the Elders organicall power of Government should not prejudge destroy or take away the peoples equall sharing in a power of Government which â—e calleth fundamentall which yet is by his way as 〈…〉 of Government as any Rulers in the World haâ—… 〈…〉 acteth in the exercise of Government When I 〈…〉 confesse I was amazed and could scarcely believe my own eye 〈◊〉 that such a thing could be Writen by an understanding 〈◊〉 â—dverting to what he did Write As wâ—ste in Chriâ—… 〈…〉 that as relateth â—o the purpose he has 〈…〉 before viz. that Elders organicall power of Government â—ould not take away the peoples equal share of fundâ—… 〈◊〉 aâ— he calleth it nor the exercise thereof 〈…〉 and his Disciplâ—… Brethren or a Brother-hood 〈…〉 of mutuall and equall power fundamentall of Government Mr. Lockier I know will abhorre a thought of this Hâ— Christ saith himself was thâ—… sole Ruler viz. Soveraign and 〈◊〉 and Law-giver Or waâ— Christ here condescending to 〈…〉 of Government together with his Disciples Neither 〈…〉 he â—ay Washing of feet is an act very 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 Or was hâ— by abasing himself to wash his Disciples feet 〈◊〉 him â—ow they being to bâ— Officers of his Church should 〈◊〉 the acts of Government in the Church viz. that they should â—n the exercise thereof take in joyntly with them the whoâ—…â—…ople Sure we find no intimation of such an intention by 〈…〉 in the Text And the thing it self in the matter 〈…〉 of such a lesson that I think never man till 〈…〉 would imagined such a thing intended by it Besides an 〈…〉 is a peculiar action of that same kind with that for which iâ— iâ— given to be an example done for direction to do the like 〈◊〉 washing of feet is an action very far different from exeâ—…ise of Government but is it not evident enough from Christs own â—…pounding â—f that fact John 13. 14 15. that his intention thereby was to give to his Disciples and in them to all Christians an example of 〈◊〉 and charity amongst themselves and that every one of them should be ready to the meanest and basest duties whereby they may â—e serviceable and helpfull to another Now what is this to Mr. Lockiers purpose here if this be not I know not what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 section 12 This which we have considered is all that Mr. Lockier answereth to the Argument for proving the power of Ecclesiastick Government to belong to Christs Officers in the Church only and not to the whole body of Beleevers or Professours taken from the names and denominations importing power and authority of Government given by the Spirit of God in Scripture to the Officers but never to the people then to them in contradistinction to the people And all that he has said as is it is but weak in it self as we trust we have made evident so he has therein passed by a great part of the Argument having neglected sundrie of these Titles and altogether miskenned the Passages of Scripture which by Presbyterians use to be produced for them and are urged upon the point as containing much ground for their Doctrine besides the names or titles given therein to the Officers I humbly desire the reader our Author if he will be pleased to be at the pains to consider what M. Gillespy hath to this purpose Aarons Rod Book 2. c. 9. wherein he proveth that there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Government in the hands of the Church Officers see there Arg. 1 2 3 10 11 19 20. But now are these Objections brought by the Author and as slightly propounded as he might and I may say Answered just so Are these Isay all the materiall Arguments thaâ—
he could find used by Presbyterians to prove the power and authority of Ecclesiastick Government to be in the hands not of the people but only of the Church Officers I cannot think he will say so if he has been at the pains to Read them Why then has he passed others in silence if he minded to give his rationall Readers satisfaction touching his Tenet in this Question We refer the Reader to see these touched at by the Author here more pregnantly managed and others besides them in Jus Divin of Church Government part 2. c. 10 and c. 11. Sect. 2. Gul. Apollon Considerat of certain Gontrov c. 4. Spanhem Epist to David Buchan q. 2. Mr. Ruth Peaceable Plea and Due Right Now come we to Mr. Lockiers second Assertion SECTION VII Mr. Lockiers 2. Assertion touching Presbyteries of many particular Congregations combined whether Classicall or Synodicall and their power considered and the true state of the Controversie touching this matter between Presbyterians and Independents layed forth section 1 IN the former Assertion the Author would throw the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven the power of the Government of the Church out of the hands of them whom Christ has appointed to be Rulers over the Church his Officers to put the same in the hands of all and every one of the people And in the second he would so put them in the hands of one particular Congregation may be of seven or ten persons For of so many may a Church be compleatly constitute by their way as that they shall exercise all that power even to the highest acts thereof Independently as the supream Tribunall in Ecclesiastick Government under Jesus Christ upon earth So as that if there should be any errour committed by such a particular Congregation suppose the greatest errour or heresie in Doctrine maintained by it or a man unjustly Excommunicated and casten out of the Church there is no Ecclesiastick authoritative remedy under Heaven to redresse such an errour No Ecclesiastick Judicatory to which a grieved person may have recourse by appeal for Authoritative recognition or redresse of his grievance But see we his Assertion section 2 That Presbyteries or Elderships without the particular Congregations exercing authoritative and coercive power over it are an invention of man Having thus propounded his Assertion He explaines the subject of it thus By Presbyteries or Elderships without the Congregation I mean such an Eldership as is chosen out of severall particular Congregations assuming to themselves superiour and decisive power over them Afterward he calls it forrain Eldership SECT 20. And so forth in the rest of his Book And then again undertaking to explain the nature thereof sayeth I find among our Brethren themselves that Elders and Brethren sent and impowered from their severall Congregations respectively to transact and conclude such and such Ecclesiastick affairs within such a limited bounds ex sua potestate are a forrain Presbytery A note or two upon these things and then we shall more clearly and distinctly set forth the true state of the Controversie and what is our Doctrine therein 1. Whereas he propounds to himself to Dispute against the Authority of an Eldership or Presbytery without the particular Congregation i. e. as he calls it afterward forrain to the Congregation he but enters in a conflict against his own fiction And whereas he sayeth SECT 20. that he finds amongst their Brethren he means Presbyterians that a Presbytery sent from severall Congregations is a forrain Presbytery I humbly conceive for ought I can remember of any of them he wrongs them exceeding much I do not remember of any Presbyterian that acknowledges the Presbytery of severall Congregations associat in Government to be a forrain or extrinsecall Presbytery to these Congregations Nor is it so indeed It cannot be called a forrain Presbytery to all the Congregations associat under it Because it is made of their own severall Elderships Nor yet can it be forrain or externall to any of them Because every one is a part of it and in it as a part of the whole As a Parliament cannot be called a forrain Judicatory to the whole Kingdom whereof it is the Parliament nor unto any of the severall Cities or Counties which are parts of the Kingdom and are in the Parliament by their Deputies or Commissioners as parts constituents thereof Indeed the Prelate and his Cathedrall consistory taking to themselves the Government and Jurisdiction over all Congregations in the Diocese were an externall forrain Judicatory to these Churches because they excluded the other Congregations and their Elderships from all collaterall concurrence and copartnership with them in the Government But the Presbytery we speak for is made up of the Elders of the severall Congregations which it governs as intrinsecall collaterall parts constituent thereof and therefore cannot be called forrain to these severall Congregations 2. When as he expresseth the power of these Presbyteries against which he propounds this dispute under the name of coercition calling it a coercive power He seemeth on purpose to choise an odious word to render it suspicious by the very name For the word of coercing in the common use mostly seemeth to import outward bodily or civill force exercised upon persons or things to stop and represse their actions ipsis etiam renitentibus we ascribe no such power unto Presbyteries But a power of executing spirituall censures which have no externall force upon persons yea nor Physicall neither but only Morall as administred by the Eldership Tho they may be accompanied by God With a Physicall I mean a reall operation upon the persons either in mercy or judgement And if at any time those who are for Presbyteries over more Congregations speaking of their power call it coercive they mean no other thing but a power of Spirituall jurisdiction exercised in Spirituall censures such as the Author himself and these of his way attributes to particular Elderships of a single Congregation together with the Congregation over every member thereof If the Author had dealt ingenuously with us he should not used such a word without explanation of the thing he knoweth we mean But now let 's see the clear state of the controversie in this mater section 3 The subject in generall whereupon the Question runneth between us and the Independent Brethren is a Presbytery or Eldership of more Congregations then one Concerning which there are some things confessed and uncontroverted where of we should take notice in the first place that we may the better see where the difference and contoversie lyeth 1. 'T is confessed by our Brethren themselves that consociation of more particular Churches or Congregations in one Presbytery or Eldership is lawfull and usefull Hooker Surv. p. 4. c. 1 2. 2. That these consociations are and may be of severall sorts and degrees some lesser some greater Classes Synods and these Provinciall Nationall Oecumenicall Idem Ibid So then there is no controversie about the being simply
case ordaine or Excommunicate But we say that when there are more Congregations to associate with and when association may be had they should not performe these acts alone but in an associate Presbytery And we make not the principall ground of this that the Eldership of a particular Congregation is not sufficient viz. for gifts and ability for exercising these acts although there be a ground of necessity of it ordinarly from this It being seldome that in particular Congregations there will bee found Elderships sufficient for managing these maters For although the Eldership of a particular Congregation were very sufficient this way yet we say they ought not to exercise these acts by themselves without an associate Presbytery at least they ought not to do by themselves independently without subordination to larger associate Presbyteries as Mr. Lockier intends because the Scripture doeth not warrand Christ hath not instituted this but the contrare Now his reason following being founded upon this mistake in his Objection which we have cleared there is no great need to insist in following it especially considering it is nothing else but the same in very words with the second reason by the Dissenting Brethren to prove the minor of their first reason against the Assemblie of Divines their Proposition touching Ordination and you have it fully considered and answered by the Assemblie in their answers see their Papers pag. 195. 196. might not Mr. Lockier have read their answer and either spared the presenting us with that reason anew again or given it with some new strength against the Assemblies answers to it exedit miseros crambe repetita section 7 He further proceedeth thus Sect. 44. If one particular Congregation so constituted as is before mentioned be not sufficient to exercise the full power of the Keyes without a forraine still we must bid you correct your nick naming things and say an associate Presbytery then the first Church to wit that of Jerusalem was lame in its power till others were erected And Antioch lame in its power because but one Church in association with it and answerably they made lame work And other Congregations which were scattered up down in Pontus Cappadocia c. Which in all likely-hood by distance of place and by violence of Heathens were in an utter incapacity to any standing associate Elderships were all lame and could not supplie the mortality of their Ministers and Officers and so must indeed sink from a defect intrinsecall being not able to relieve themselves without a forraine an associate power Ans 1. From that which is said by the men Mr. Lockier disputes against it to wit that Elderships of particular Congregations when they may associate with others have not sufficiencie by divine warrand to exercise acts of jurisdiction of publike and common concernment alone and by themselves without the concurrence of associate Elderships much lesse without subordination to them doeth not follow that the Eldership of one single Congregation when there is but that one existing in the world such as he supposeth that of Jerusalem to have been at the first Or if a single Congregation when though there be others existing in the Word yet it is under a Physicall incapacity by some insuperable impediment to associate with others such as he supposeth these Congregations in Pontus Cappadocia c. have been are so lame and imperfect that they cannot in that case when necessity requireth or may not exercise these acts 'T is granted in these cases they may Yet this we say withall a Congregation in such a condition though it be not in such a case of absolute imperfection that it cannot perform necessarie acts of Government for its own preservation yet it is not in so compleat and perfect a state of Government as when it may be and is associate with others for exercise of Government this is sufficient to this reason Onely 2. there is one or two particulars would be noted 1. While as he supposeth that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single Congregation if he mean all the time till other Churches in other places were erected the supposition is beside the truth as has been proven by the Authors we referred to before upon this mater Yet I doubt much if it shall be proven that at any time when there was a Government in it that it was but one single Congregation 2. As to that he sayeth of Antioch by that one Church wherewith it was associate I conceive that he means that of Jerusalem but first how will he prove that it was not associate also with the Churches of Syria and Cilicia Sure there is great likely-hood that it was at least in that Synod at Jerusalem considering that the Synodicall letter is directed to them and it jointly again the very Church of Jerusalem at that time at least was not a single Congregation but a Presbyteriall Church consisting of more particular Congregations as the Authors mentioned have proven and so was Antioch too See â—us Divin of Church Govern P. 2. c. 13. p. 204. Further did not Mr. Lock before acknowledge that meeting at Jerusalem to be a Synod oftner then once whether it was an association of two Churches or more this he acknowledged that it was a Synod 't is true he would have it to have been only consultative and not juridicall But it sufficeth my purpose in calling to mind his acknowledgment which is to shew that he doth very impertinently bring in the Church of Antioch in this Argument seeing he confesseth it to have been in such an association as made up a Synod which is an associate Presbytery superior to a Classicall Presbytery section 8 To that we said in the Answer to this Reason Mr. Lockier would it seemeth say somewhat in the close of this SECT 44. To say that in extraordinary cases unordinary things may be done is little to the satisfaction of a tender heart especially in divine things who is apt to believe that God hath so shaped his publick Ordinances which are injoined to be used in all places that places shall not be a standing let to put his people continually to run beside the instituted rule To this 1. In extraordinary cases to do things unordinary I mean as to the course appointed by a positive law may be with very good satisfaction to a most tender heart that is a well informed and rightly tender heart and not a superstitious heart Have ye not read saith our Saviour Math. 12. 4 5. what David did when he was an hungred and they that were with him how he entred into the house of God and did eat the shew-bread which was not lawfull for him to eat neither for them which were with him but only for the Priests It was an unordinary thing for David or any other men not Priests to eat the Shew-bread Yet in that extraordinary case when David and his company were hungry and no other bread was to be had let their hearts be
exceptions made to the contrary abundantly confuted 4. What Mr. Lockier has found or not found we know not nor stands on it but he might have found a Presbytery over more Congregations then one in Jerusalem Antioch Corinth Ephesus and he cannot deny but he has found the Church of Antioch making use of an associate Synodicall Presbytery at Jerusalem and that that Presbytery was more then consultative even authoritative and juridicall has been proven But I think what ever he conceives that he has found of a Congregationall Eldership exercising jurisdiction Ordaining or Excommunicating by it self he shall hardly point us to the place of Scripture where he found the instance of it what he saith of the Elders and Church of Ephesus from Acts 20. has been answered before SECTION XII Reply to Mr. Lockiers Answers to some Objections from SECTION 47. to the end wherein separation from not onely this Church of Scotland but all the Protestant Presbyterian Churches as Idolatrous is driven at section 1 MR. Lockier having hitherto gone about as he could to maintain that the power of the Keyes and Government of the Church of Christ ought not to be in the hands of Officers and Governours set over the Church in the Lord by the Lord himself but in the hands of the whole Church and that in the hands of every particular Congregation independently and supremely without association in or subordination unto any common Ecclesiastick Government which how well he has asserted and maintained we leave it to all understanding impartiall Readers to give their judgement he applyes himself to Answer some Objections against the things he has handled as he sayeth But what Objections are they I pray none of those which are brought directly against the points maintained by him before this Likely he found these too hard for him to grapple with and therefore thought it his wisedome to passe them rather by in silence And the Objections he brings are onely some things which he conceived might been said against his designe in casting this Little Stone at Presbyterian Churches to drive all good Christians if they might be affrighted to separation from them A wicked and shamefull designe especially for a man professing Godlinesse to have set before him I mind not here to insist or enlarge myself upon the Question of Separation from Churches not onely because other learned men have spoken abundantly and well upon that purpose namely my Reverend and Learned Collegue in the Ministrie and Superiour in the society wherein I live Mr. Rutherfurd in his Peaceable Plea and Due Right But also because I find nothing brought by this Author upon the mater worth the staying upon in handling that mater I shall onely give some few notes upon some things the Author I think out of hear of passion hath vented himself in section 2 Having Sect. 47. objected to himself thus You seem to be for separation from a Presbyteriall Church We find no separation but in case of Idolatry To this Sect. 48. he answers thus in summe That not only heathens had their idolatry as Dagon but also Christians theirs as a supreme Bishop over all Churches which he insinuateth to have been the Papists Idolatrie Alas he might have given other instances of their Idolatry then this as their worshiping a breaden god Crucifixes Relicks Saints departed Images c. then a supreme Bishop or Archbishop over the Church in such a Nation the Prelaticall Protestants Idol he would say and then a combination of Bishops over Churches hereby meaning an associat Presbyterie or Assembly Presbyteers Ruling more Churches odiously calling them Bishops that to him is also Idolatry So that command 2 Cor. 6. 17. come out from one kind of Idolatrie is come out from all Or else that rule binds only to separate from Heathnish Idolatrie What is not warranted by the Word is an Idol Answ We shall not deny but that whatsoever is practized in the Worship of God or set up as an Ordinance without Gods warrand in his Word may be comprehended under Idolatry taking Idolatrie in a large sense but that every thing set up or practized in the Worship of God or in Ordinances is such Idolatry as is a ground sufficient to separate from a Church wherein it is practized as no true Church is a conceit in it self without warrand of the Word nay directly contrare to the allowed practise of Gods people in the Word both in Old and New Testament This conceit of Mr. Lockiers is very Brounisme and rigide Separatisme ingraine But of this and the place 2 Cor. 6. 17. see enough in the Reverend Author whom I last mentioned But as for association or combination of Churches under a common Presbyterie it is warranted in the Word of God and so is his Ordinance as has been abundantly proven and what Mr. Lockier has brought to the contrare we trust has been sufficiently refuted And therefore let him consider his account he has to make to Almighty God for so atrocious a calumnie as his branding it with the name of Idolatrie and involving all the Reformed Orthodox Churches of Jesus Christ in the fearfull crime of Idolatrie And as for his pressing separation from all the Reformed Churches as Idolatrous I shall say no more but bring some Godly men amongst Independents themselves giving testimony against him Hear Mr. Hooker speaking in the name of the Divines of new England of the Congregations of old England I would sayeth he intreat the Reader that if he meet with such accusations that we nullifie all Churches beside our own that we are rigide Separatists c. such bitter calumnies a wise meek spirit passeth by them as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion That which that Godly man in name of many other Independent Brethren with him intreats may not be believed to be thought or said by them accounteth it an unworthie and groundlesse aspersion Mr. Lockier with open mouth ownes and proclaimes that and worse Then we see what the Dissenting Brethren in the Assemblie of Divines say of their keeping communion with Presbyterian Churches Papers given in to the Honourable Committee c. pag. 29 30. holding communion with neighbour Churches in baptizing our Children as occasion may fal out in absence of Ministers in their Churches by occasional receiving the Communion in their Churches Also our Ministers to Preach in their Congregations and receiving theirs also to Preach in ours as Ministers of the Gospel as mutually their shall be a call from each other when we have any cases hard and difficult for our selves to advise with the Elders of their Churches in case of choise of Elders to seek the approbation and right hand of fellowship from Godly Ministers of their Churches and when an Ordination falls out to desire the presence and approbation of their Elders with our own In case any of our Churches miscarry through mal-administration to be willing upon scandall taken by their Churches to give an account as unto Sister Churches
Office Nor do we deny but the people might be present at the handling of matters of faith in Assemblies be hearers and witnesses of the whole proceedings thereanent give their counsell and advice in consultation also testifie their assent and approbation to the determinations We grant also that Excommunication and loosing from Excommunication of persons was not performed without at least the tacit agreement and consent of the people â—hey are to concur activè and executivè to both And therefore when any person was to be Excommunicat the grounds and causes thereof were made known to the people And when persons Excommunicat were to be received again into the Church they were brought before the people to make their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 publick confession before them as we do in our Churches now but none of these nor all of them amounts to an authoritative and juridicall power of Government But as for such acts as belong directly to authoritative and juridicall Government as Ordination of Ministers judiciall sentencing persons to be Excommunicat or absolution from Excommunication giving of definitive sentence in publick determinations of controversies of faith or of matters pertaining to order and rites to be observed in the Church let our Authors produce any testimony or allowed practice of the peoples formall influence and concurrence in these if they would say any thing from that antiquity for an Ecclesiastick Government properly Democraticall either in whole or in part section 15 Hierome who was near these ages and better acquaint with their way then these Authors tells us in the generall in whose hands the power of Government was then in that remarkable and famous saying of his on the Epistle to Tit. c. 1. Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent diceretur in populo ego sum Pauli ego Apollo ego vero Cephae Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur c. See what learned Chamier sayeth on this of Hierome lib. 10. de Oecumen Pontifc 5. § 22. Answering to Bellarmin his Arg. Respondeo ad primum etiamsi Aristocratia non sit totidem syllabis nominata tamen certò significatam his verbis Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur c. And he adds bonam autem fuisse id regiminis formam inde sequitur quod ab initio fuisse dicat Hieronymus cum in Ecclesiâ id sit optimum quod verissimum id autem verissimum quod primum Dicit etiam Hieron fuisse ex institutionis Dominicae veritate And mark in this same Learned Author whose words I am now citing that the very thing he undertakes to demonstrate in that c. 5. and some following both from Scripture and antiquity is that the government as well of particular as of consociat Churches was pure Aristocracy c. 5. § 1. section 16 More particularly 1. That ordination and imposition of hands which only is the authoritative act in the Calling of a Minister and that which conferreth Ministerially under Christ a Mininisteriall power was in these primitive times the proper and peculiar act of the Ministers of the Church or the Presbytery is so evident and clear to all that has read any thing of these times that it were waste of time and paper to produce testimonies for it Indeed we find in antiquity that after that once there began a constant praesident to be set up in the Presbytery with the name of Bishop which in Scripture is common to all Presbyters appropriat to him alone somewhat of the Act of Ordination began also to be peculiar to him and as he advanced in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 preheminency above Presbyters so was the power of ordination more and more deferred to him or usurped by him alone and hence came that point of difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter of which Jerome in his time Quid facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter But that ever the people had any formall concurrence in ordination of Ministers is a thing unknown to antiquity section 17 2. That the power and exercise of the Keyes of Discipline of binding and loosing sentencing unto censure and absolution from censure also was only in the hands of the Colledge of Presbyters in those times of the Church is as evident to such as are any ways acquainted in them Origen Hom. 7. in Iosuam tertio admonitum resipiscere nolentem jubet ab Ecclesiae corpore desecari per Ecclesiae praesides The Centuriators Cent. 3. c. 7. tels us that then Jus tractandi de Excommunicandis aut recipiendis lapsis publice penes Ecclesiae Seniores erat qui ad eam rem convenire solebant and they cite for this Tertullians Apologetick The order then observed in receiving penitents that had offended by grievous scandalous sins is most clear for this they were first to compear before the Bishop and his Clergy i. e. the Presbytery wherein the Bishop then differed from other Presbyters ordine tantum non gradu by them the penitents cause was judicially cognosced the manner of satisfaction prescribed and enjoyned to them And having performed that and made their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before the people they were actually absolved by the imposition of the hands of the Bishop and Clergy or the Presbytery Cyprians Epistles are full of testimonies to this purpose It were needlesse labour to insist in citation of them Only I think it worth the pains to produce one Passage whereby it may evidently appear that the way of absolving and receiving penitents was just as it is now in the Presbyterian Government as to the matter and substance It is in lib. 3. Epist 11. in Pamel Ord. Epist 46. from Cornelius Bishop of Rome to Cyprian concerning the return of some Confessours from the Novatian schism to the unity of the Church there Cornelius after he has related how these Confessours had expressed their desire of reconciliation to the Presbyters and taken with the faults laid to their charge in a privat and extrajudiciall way he proceedeth thus Omni igitur actu ad me perlato placuit contrahi Presbyterium Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque qui hodie praesentes fuerunt ut firmato consilio quid circa personam eorum observari deberet consensu omnium statueretur Et ut motum omnium consilium singulorum dignosceres etiam sententias nostras placuit in notitiam vestri perferri quas subjectas leges His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt Vrbanus c. Et plerique fratres qui se iis adjunxerant summis precibus desiderantes ut ea quae ante fuerunt gesta in oblivionem cederent nullaque eorum mentio haberetur quod erat consequens omnis hic actus populo erat insinuandus ut ipsos viderent in Ecclesiâ constitutos Having related the peoples expression of their joy he sets down the confession which the penitents made Nos errorem nostrum confitemur c. And then addeth istâ
de ritibus circa claves and you will finde that the judiciall power of Discipline was not common to the people but proper to the Ministers only some interest therein was for honours sake given to Martyres 2 As to that cited from Whittaker that learned Theologue himself in the words immediatly going before these cited clears in what respect it is that he sayes the Government of the Church was alwayes in part Democraticall when he saith Si totum corpus Ecclesiae n. volumus respicere quatenus in electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia serebat ita tamen â—t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper à Presbyteris servaretur Democraticum So then he calls it partly Democraticall in this respect that the people had vote in the election of their Ministers which we grant the people ought to have and if any will in this respect call the Government of the Church in part Democraticall we shall not contend about the name only we will say that the election of Ministers being no more but the nomination or designation of a person to the Ministry is no proper or formall act of authoritative power The other Objection made use of is from Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 1â— in Pamel Ord. Epist 6. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi Donatus Fortunatus Novatus Curdius solus rescribere nihil potuiâ— quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine Consilio vestro sine consensu plebis * Pamâ—meae privatâ sententiâ meâ privatim sententiâ gerere Answ How far that grave pious and zealous ancient was from the Independent way of Church Government amongst many places in his Writings that one famous Passage in Lib. 1. de Vnitate Ecclesiae doth abundantly demonstrate and cleareth as with Sun-shine Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi c. to these words Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem And again a litle after from these words quam unitatem firmiter tenere c. to these quomodo Solis multi radii This place as it hews down the Antichristian Papall Monarchy so it is a clear testimony against popular and supream Independent Government in a single Congregation while as therein the Author so clearly asserteth the power of the Keyes to have been given by Christ and put in the hands of the Apostles in an equall society of honour and power 2. That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that this Catholick Church is but one charge Vnus Episcopatus cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur And that unitatem hanc firmiter tenere vindicare debent Episcopi qui in Ecclesiâ praesident ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum etque indivisum probent Then which nothing could be said more forcibly against that crumbling of the Church into so many single Congregations Independent in themselves and without all union and conjunction in point of Government But to the place in hand cited from Epist 10. lib. 3. Gulartius and Junius Notes on the place clear the matter well for us Nempe agebatur de aliqua electione quam Cypriano quidam è Presbyterio suggesseraâ— eo quod Ecclesia ex persecutionibus parte sui Presbyterii destituta esset Respondet nihil se in hac causa unquam facere voluisse quin Presbyterii Consilium plebis consensum adhiberet But what is the place and part of the people in election we controvert not Nay we say with the same Ancient Lib. 1. Epist 4. Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi And as he sayes afterward Eligendus Episcopus immaculatus integer praesente plebe c. But shew me a place in that Writer ascribing to the people formall concurrence with the Officers of the Church in any juridicall authoritative Acts of Government as in Ordination of Ministers sentencing persons to censure to Excommunication and absolving from Excommunication judiciall and definitive determination of controversies in Religion But now this Book having grown to bignesse beyond my intention at first I will insist no further but leave these Brethren I have been last speaking with my hearty desire to God on their behalf that he would shew them mercy to remember from whence they have fallen repent and do their first works FINIS
brings he Just two one of yesterday I may say jugling in the businesse and another nothing to the purpose see we them both section 2 First In the first times this was so well known and so frequent in practice that Bishop Whitegift himself one that wanted not wit nor learning nor any other help and setting all his strength to maintain a These contrary to what we are upon yet is constrained to confesse that in the Apostles times the state of the Church was democratiall or popular the people or multitude having hand almost in every thing Defence pag. 182. which word almost doth sute with the thing I am upon For indeed as I have said in all weighty matters the whole body had their joint voice as hath been before proved Answ 1. That Whitegâ—ft set all his strength to maintain 〈◊〉 These contrary to what 〈…〉 presâ—…ation of the maâ— mind The 〈…〉 was that the 〈…〉 Government and juâ—… 〈…〉 hands onely of th◠〈…〉 â—…lats excluding no◠〈…〉 all other Presby◠〈…〉 Church 2. By theâ—… 〈…〉 wherein he saith that 〈…〉 â—nown and frequenâ—… 〈…〉 he means 〈…〉 of the Church 〈…〉 themselves 〈◊〉 or therewith taking in the next 〈…〉 the â—hurch If 〈◊〉 mean the latter I conceive he would â—one much better to 〈◊〉 cited some Writers of these times themseves saying so much then taken the matter upon report from Whitegift But let him if he can produce any Ancient Writers Ecclesiastick of these times either speaking for his Tenet in dogmate or relating any practice thereof in the Church of these times This he will never be able to do If he mean the former 't is true Whitegift sayes so that in the Apostles times the state of the Church for outward Government was popular But 1. Whitegift withall for upholdâ—…â—he power and Government of Prelats in the Church of England excluding all other Church Officers maintains most falsly and perniciously there was no particular form of Government appointed by precept in the New Testament But that the determination of this is 〈◊〉 the power of the Civil Magistrate the chief and principall Governour of the Church in his judgement And therefore granted for his own design that the people had sometimes an hand in matters of Government accidentally because of the want of Civil Magistrates to establish Rulers 2. Who had hand in acts of Government of the Church in the Apostles times can be known best by Scripture it self and no otherwayes câ—…ainly If Mr. Lockier has brought forth any Scripture holding forth either by precept or practice that the body of the people ought or did concur formally and authoritatively in acts of Government tho he has assayed to do and sayes here he has proveâ— it I leave to the Readers to judge Whitegift would never alledge precept of Scripture for this and for practice I find none alledged by him but in the mater of Election of Officers which is no act of government or authority and yet he alledgeth that neither in that did they alwayes concur which I conceive to be an untruth To close this let Mr. Lockiers ingenuity bâ— observed here in speaking for a popular and 〈…〉 of the Church by his applauding of â—his 〈…〉 Whitegifts Independents commonly refuse altogether that the Government they maintain 〈…〉 and professe a disclaâ—… of Moâ—…llius for this But 〈…〉 it is no other And 〈…〉 Author â—ere is ingenuous in tâ—king with and applauding that name For why should not a true thing have iâ—… own name section 3 His second testimony iâ— the Canon of the Councell of â—aodieâ—… â—0 years after Christ yea and 4. if not 8. years more ordaining that the people after that should have no hand in the choise of their Officers unlesse it formerly had What meaneth this Canon â—aith he unlesse formerly it was so that the people had hand in it Answ Let it be so that this Canon doth import that formerly the people had hand in Election of their Officers as we grant they 〈◊〉 ought to have and have with us Election is no act of Ecclesiastick Authority or â—…risdiction nor makes one a Church Officer as was said before But what is this to the purpose His undertaking was to bring common testimony to prove that in the first times of the Church the body of the people the whole Congregation had joint authoritaâ—…ve suffâ—age with the Officerâ— in all maters of greatest weight i. e. in all acts of Ecclesâ—…stick Govâ—…ment is it not a very sufficient making out of this to 〈◊〉 one Canon of one Councell indirectly importing that they â—…d hand in one act and that no formall act of Government and Authority And is this all the common testimony we must be content with Now when as all acts of Ecclesiastick power authority and government in Scripture designed by the Keyes are comprehended in these 1. Publick Preaching of the Gospel 2. Administration of the Seals or Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper 3. Ordination and authoritative sending of Officers 4. Dispensation of Discipline Excommunication and Absolution I would have the Author producing to us common testimony for the peoples concurring joyntly and authoritatively in these or any of them in the first times of the Church section 4 What followeth in this SECT of the Authors is but a flist of big empty words added unto weak reasoning to startle silly Readers to which shortly 1. Whom he meaâ—s by his superintendents once and again reckonâ—… 〈◊〉 with 〈…〉 and Bishops I know not well he may be pleased 〈…〉 That Bishops and 〈…〉 did piece by 〈…〉 of God many 〈◊〉 â—pirituall liberties and 〈◊〉 of Christe is certain But any 〈◊〉 testimony as he 〈…〉 by him very little of this appeareth as appeate very evidently 3. In representing the servants of God that are 〈…〉 new devised modell of popular Government of the Church under the name of the children of these Metropolitans and Bishops is both an unjust and ridiculous slander I beleeve these Hierarchicall Lords never did nor ever will look upon Presbyterians as any of their kinde 4. To order the Church of CHRIST as that therein his Officers and Ministers rule his People under him by his ordinances according to the rule of his Word that the people over whom they are set obey them in the LORD is not the taking from people any thing for which these that teach and hold by that wâ—y need to repent nor know we any words of GOD spoken against them for that way And for â—ans words without Gods Word they stand not Nor have they cause to take any works or blowes or bloods of their body you have taken too much upon you to pronounâ—… upon their soul blood think Sir upon Rom. 14. and let your heart 〈◊〉 you for this as inflicted by God on that account tho they 〈◊〉 they have sinned against him and desires therefore to bear his indignation If men has given them blowes and shed their blood upon that account let them look to
of Elderships and Presbyteries of more Congregations consociated that they may lawfully be and of diverse sorts is confessed But there are these points especially concerning them of which there is controversie between us and our Brethren section 4 The 1. is concerning the nature of their power over the severall Congregations or Churches consociated in them Our Brethren of the Independent way attribute no other power unto them but of counsel perswasion to informe and hold forth unto the Churches what is commanded by the Word of God to exhort perswade them to their duty to obedience of what they find commanded in the Word But allow them no authority and jurisdictionall power to enjoine their determinations from the Word authoritatively under pain of Ecclesiasticall censures So Mr. Hooker in the forecited place pag. 2 3. 't is true he calls this power of counsell by the name of Authority And so Mr. Lockier from him Sect. 30. but an authoritative power of meer counsell advice and persuasion may be justly counted a Chimaera But we shall not contend about names Call it authority or power or what you will the thing it self is nothing else but brotherly counsell which hath no binding force formally as issuing from the Presbyterie But bindeth meerly vi materiae materially in regard of the thing which is propounded by them as it is a Scripture truth or command as is confessed by Mr. Hooker And this is no more then one Brother may do towards another and one sister Church may do to another Mr. Cotton in the Keyes ch 6. seemeth to attribute more power to a Synod They have sayeth he power not onely to give light and counsell in mater of truth and practice But also to command and enjoine the things to be believed and done The expresse words of the Synodicall letter imply no lesse Act. 15. 27. It is an act of the power of the Keyes to binde burdens and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the maters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the authority of the Synod which being an ordinance of Christ bindeth the more For the Synods sake This in the letter of the words is a flat contradiction to what Mr. Hooker sayeth He sayeth they have only a power of Brotherly counsell Mâ— Cotton not only that but also to command and enjoin He sayeth they bind only materially because what they determine is either expressed in or infallibly collected out of the Word Mr. Cotton not only materially but also formally from the authority of the Synode Yet I conceive for all such fair words in the intention and reall meaning of the Author little more is understood than what Mr. Hooker sayeth at most nothing more but a Doctrinall power which is competent to any single Pastour as M. Caudrey sheweth Vindiciae clav c. 6. pag. 53. We on the contrare assert that by warrand of the Word of God the Presbyteries of associated Churches Classicall or Synodicall have a power and authority of Spirituall jurisdiction whereby they authoritatively discerne maters Ecclesiasticall and impose these decrees under pain of Ecclesiastick censures and may inflict Ecclesiastick censures upon the disobedient and refractory in the particular Congregations within the combination or association Only let it be observed here that this authoritative and juridicall power we attribute to such Presbyteries of discerning maters Ecclesiasticall and imposing their determinations under pain of censure is not Autocratorick and absolute binding absolutely by vertue of their authority But Ministeriall and adstricted in its determinations to the rule of the Word of God So that that obligation formall which floweth from the authority of the Judicatory into the decree in actu exercito presupposeth that materiall obligation of the thing decreed as contained in the Word of God else it hath not place section 5 2. Point of Controversie is that the Independent Brethren doe not allow the standing use of such associated Presbyteries But only occasionall We assert that by warrand of the Word of God some such Presbyteries are of standing use as standing ordinary juridicall Ecclesiasticall Courts We say that Classicall Presbyteries in the ordinary settled case of Churches are necessary standing Courts for administration of Ecclesiasticall Government and also that Superiour Presbyteries Synodicall may be warrantably of standing use where and when conveniently moe Presbyteriall or Classicall Churches may have and injoy actuall combination as of Yearly Provinciall Synods as in the Churches of the Low Countries are more frequent Provinciall Synods and yearly Nationall Assemblies as in the Churches of this Kingdome of Scotland 3. Point is concerning subordination of lesser Assemblies to greater The Independent Brethren deny altogether subordination of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour as juridicall Ecclesiasticall Courts Albeit they acknowledge that difficulties arising in a particular Congregation in matters of Government there may be a going out to an Assembly of more Churches and if need be full satisfaction and clearing not being found there there may be a going forth yet to a greater and more large Assembly Yet they say that is elective and only by way of reference and arbitration and only for counsell and direction and assert that a particular Congregation is the supream Ecclesiasticall Juridicall Tribunall under Jesus Christ upon earth So that a person although wronged by an unjust sentence there as they are not in their determinations infallible suppose sentenced to Excommunication which cutteth him off from the benefit of Church Ordinances and fellowship of Christians in all the Churches of the World he may have no appeal from their sentence to another Superiour Judicatory to have his processe juridically recognosced and the injurious sentence rescinded but must ly under it without any Ecclesiastick remedy till death unlesse that particular Congregation be pleased themselves to revoke their sentence So doth Mr. Hooker tell us Survey par 3. c. 3. pag. 40 41 43. and par 4. pag. 19. We on the contrary assert that both the Law of Nature and the positive Law of God revealed in his Word both in the Old and New Testament holdeth out to us a juridicall subordination of lesser Assemblies Ecclesiasticall unto greater so that appeals may be made from Inferiour and lesser to Superiour and greater Assemblies That it is both against the Law of nature and the positive Law of God to place a supream Independent Ecclesiasticall juridicall power in a particular Congregation yea or in any lesser Assembly when as a greater and Superiour is to be had and may conveniently be had We assert also that that series and gradation of this subordination which is acknowledged and maintained by Protestant Churches viz. of Congregationall Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies is lawfull and agreeable to the Word of God section 6 Whereas there are these three principall points of Controversie concerning the matter in hand The thing Mr. Lockier propoundeth to dispute against
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
of it Like as if the Congregation be not fixed by its self in its constitution and Officers that Command intends the bringing of the matter at first to an Eldership common to more Congregations As also if the matter to be judged be of publick and more common concernment then of one Congregation that same Commandement warrands by analogie and proportion the bringing of the matter first to some more large Presbytery or Colledge of Elders then the Congregational as the first Judicature to cognosee judicially upon it But withall let it be so observed that when Christ instituteth this order that offences when they cannot be removed otherwise should be brought to the Church that is to an Ecclesiastick Judicature he sayeth not that they may not in any case proceed further for judiciall cognition and sentence upon the mater then to the first Judicature to which the judiciall cognition of it belongeth Nor is there any ground in his words whereupon this can by good consequence be inferred In a word there is nothing in this Text either against the juridicall power of larger Eiderships then Congregationall such as are Classicall Presbyteries and Synods Nor against the subordination of Congregationall Elderships to the jurisdiction and authority of such larger Elderships But upon the contrary there is in them solid ground whereupon both have been clearly demonstrat by severall Presbyterian Writers and discussed all contrary exceptions and reasonings upon the place for shortness I refer the Reader to Answ of the Assembly of Divines to c. pag. 178. Guliel Appoll Considerat of certain Controversies cap. 6. pag. 94 95. and pag. 127. Spanhem Epistol ad Dav. Buchan Class 3. Arg. 2. Huds Vindicat. of the Essence and c. pag. 156 157 158. and pag. 164 165. Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right cap. 10. pag. 310. seq section 8 To what the Authors adde that no where do we read in the Gospel of jurisdiction in relation to censure committed to Classicall Presbytery Answ 1. If the meaning be no where in the Gospel do we read this power committed by a formall precept to Classicall Presbytery by name or specifically by it self it may be granted without prejudice to what we assert and I pray where will these Authors read in the Gospel this power committed to the Eldership of a single Congregation specifically and that as they maintain Independently and supreamly 2. It is sufficient for us if we read in the Gospel this power of Jurisdiction committed to the Officers and Rulers of the Church as united together in Collegio either in one single Congregation or over more Congregations combined and associat together as is most convenient for exercise of their Ecclesiastick communion And this we read Mat. 18. 17 18. for there Discipline and Ecclesiastick jurisdiction institute by Christ is committed unto the Officers and Rulers of the Church as united in Collegio Not to Officers of a single Congregation only as united but unto the Officers of the whole Catholick Visible Church of Christ as united in lesser or larger combinations even to an Oecumenicall Assembly Because the power of Jurisdiction and Discipline Ecclesiastick there is instituted and intended by Christ to be a remedy against all scandalls and offences in his Church but all and every sort of scandall falling out in the Visible Church of Christ cannot be so remeeded or removed by the Colledge of Officers in a single Congregation They can only be a means for remedying and removing this way scandalls and offences concerning their particular Congregation and therefore there must be understood as intended here by Christ larger Ecclesiasticall Assemblies and Judicatures to exercise Discipline and Jurisdiction for remedying offences and scandalls which Congregationall Elderships cannot reach 2. It is sufficient if we read in the Gospel approven examples of larger Presbyteries then Congregationall Classicall or Synodicall authoritatively governing and exercising Acts of Rule over more particular Churches We read of such a Presbytery as we call Classicall in Jerusalem Ephesus Corinth Ruling authoritatively more Congregations as has been demonstrat by severall Learned men See namely Assembly of Divines in their Answer to c. upon the proposition 3. of Presbyteriall Government Ius Divin par 2. c. 13. We read also an example of a Synod exercising such power and authority Act. 15. section 9 With this last instance doe these Authors meet thus All the power we find exercised by the meeting at Jerusalem Acts 15. is dogmaticall the people and Brethren having their interest likewayes which the Congregationall Divines willingly yeeld all the certificat they use is if ye do these things ye shall do well but do not threaten those that disobey with Excommunication Ans These things here alledged to elude this place of Scripture have been often dashed For the present briefly 1. These Authors speak warrily in calling that Assembly at Jerusalem by the generall name of a meeting and not a Synod It seemeth here they remembred that what whereas some Congregationall men acknowledges it to have been a Synod as Cotton cited before P. 2. and Mr. Lockier others finding that not so advantagious for them deny it and say only a reference of one particular Church of Antioch to one particular Church of Jerusalem as the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly at Westminster Papers of the Assemb pag. 128. and therefore have chosen a name that might serve both and so displease neither But that it was a Synod see cleared by Jus Divin P. 2. C. 14. 2. Suppose it did not exercise a criticall power or power of censure yet it followeth not that it had not a power of censure to exercise On the contrary the dogmaticall power of a Synod being of another sort then the dogmatical power which is competent to a single Pastour this being only concionall and an act of the power of order this is juridicall and an act of the power of jurisdiction and of the Key of Discipline it carieth along a power of censure with it Tho this be not alwayes put in actuall exercise when the other is There may be and ofter is need of a juridicall determination of a case by a Judicature when there is not occasion of exercising of censure by that Judicature as is evident 3. It is contrary to clear truth that all the power that Synod exercised is dogmaticall For besides their exercising a dogmaticall power in confutation and condemnation of the Haeresie taught by the Judaizing Teachers and vindication of the truth about the great point of Justification by faith alone without the works of the Law They do also exercise a diatacticall power for healing the scandall of the weak Jews especially and their alienation of mind from the Gentile Christians who neglected their ceremoniall observances by making and enjoining a practicall canon ordaining the Gentiles to abstaine from some things that might any wayes occasion their offence And also a criticall power or power of censure against the schisme or 〈◊〉