and serve tables And therefore it was necessary some Officers should be ordained who 's more proper and chief work it might be to see to that businesse Yet certainly the Apostolick office containing in it eminently the power of all inferiour Officers in the Church it was an act formally belonging to their office and no Question even after these ordinary Officers were appointed particularly to attend that businesse yet the Apostles did not then altogether cease from joining in acting thereanent where they might conveniently without hindring their main work the preaching and spreading of the Gospel section 8 But in all this where are joint voices and suffrages of Officers Elders and Brethren of diverse particular Churches commissionated to this work to make up this Presbytery we speak of Answ There was joint acting of Officers of more Congregations than one the many Congregations whereof the Church of Jerusalem did consist whether they were distinguished and fixed in Members and Officers or not is all one and these Officers Elders to these Churches the Apostles who as they were Officers so were Elders too and acting as Elders because in a mater competent to ordinary Elders and jointly 2. Brethren not Officers may be present in such a Presbytery and speak and give their consultative judgement orderly But as no constituent parts of this Presbytery in our judgement nor according to the truth 3. When the Presbytery of more Congregations than one is made up of all the Elders of these Congregations assembled together personally a particular commission for that is not necessary Indeed in such Presbyteries as all the Elders of the severall Churches meet not personally but by some of their number delegated it is as in Synods necessary that these who make up such a Presbytery be commissionated from their severall Churches respectivè Yet by that commission they get not power simply to act the acts of Government therein that they have by their ordination to their office but a particular warrand and call to act that power hic nunc for the good of the Churches in the combination section 9 In the same SECT viz. 25. from what he has answered to the former passage he labours to answer other two places 1. That Act. 6. 3 4 5 6. about the choosing of Deacons and their ordination To which his answer is The Apostles as extraordinary persons layed hands on these But what appears from hence of such an Eldership excerped and commissioned from severall Churches as Presbyterians now assert and use is yet to find Answ 1. I wonder that Mr. Lockier should obtrude upon us such a naked Assertion that the Apostles did lay hands upon and ordain these Deacons as extraordinary persons i. e. as Apostles and not as Elders without making the last essay of answer to that reason brought by the Reverend Assembly of Divines against the dissenting Brethren asserting the same Ans to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren pag. 52. I present it here in their own words that the Reader may consider if it be not of such weight as Mr. Lockier had cause to take it unto consideration if he had not thought fitter to dictate to then by light of reason to convince the judgement of his Readers As for that ordination Act. 6. we doubt not to say that in it they did act partly as Apostles partly as Elders In constituting an office in the Church which was not before they did act their Apostolicall authority But in ordaining unto that office men whom the Church had chosen they did act as Presbyters And we doubt not but that our Brethren will herein concur with us For if they will not say that they did herein act partly as Apostles and partly as Elders they must say they acted either only as Apostles or only as Elders If only as Elders thence it will follow that all Elders have power not only to ordain men but to erect new Offices in the Church If only as Apostles then hence is no warrand for any Elders so much as to ordain men unto an office But I yet wonder so much the more at this Assertion of Mr. Lockier here remembering what he had delivered before SECT 10. where he drawes an Argument from ordination of Elders performed by the Apostles for regulating the ordination of Elders in Churches now and thereupon alledging tho groundlessely that the Apostles in ordination took in the people to concurrence with them concludeth that now also they ought to concur formally in that act If they had acted as extraordinary persons as Apostles the people could not concur jointly with then in such an act nor could it been an Argument brought as a patern in ordinary Now if they acted not by their extraordinary office and power in ordaining Elders what reason is there to say that in the ordination of these Deacons they acted in that way 2. As to that but what appears from hence c. We say supposing that the Church of Jerusalem was made up of many Congregations and these Congregations were one Church which are proven from other Scriptures we find from hence for proving such a Presbytery as we speak for Officers of these Congregations meeting together for Government and joining in an act of Government ordination of Church Officers viz. The Apostles doing this and that as Elders which is the thing it is brought for by Presbyterians Which tho-by it self makes not a full medium to prove that Presbytery yet with the other suppositions taken with it makes very much to prove it section 10 2. Place is Acts 20. 28. The Elders there are shewed not to be Elders of many Churches which Paul sent for but the Elders of the Church v. 17. of one Church of the Church of Ephesus and charging them to attend to the stock and not to flocks ver 28. here is no joynt veice of various commissioned Elders Answ To passe that some of his own the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly once in their Reasons against the instance of the Church of Ephesus make these both Elders and flocks to whom the Apostle speaketh to be of all Asia not only of Ephesus where no doubt there were more particular Churches To passe this because indeed these same Authors a little after when it may serve their turn they confine them to Ephesus We grant 't is true they were Elders of one Church the Church of Ephesus But withall we say that one Church was not one single Congregation but made up of more then one and consequently was one Presbyteriall Church This is proven by sundry Learned particularly by the Reverend Assembly of Divines in their instance of the Church of Ephesus and all the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren brought to the contrare fully discussed in their Answers threunto As for the Authors Grammaticall Argument they are called Elders of the Church in the Singular Number not Churches and they are bid attend the flock not flocks Ergo it was but one single
to be under Pastorall care and the Ministry of the Word If he could shew us this either in precept or approved practice we should soon yeeld and be at an end of this controverâ—…e But this he cannot nor ever will be able to shew and therefore the reasoning from the care and acuracy to be used in trying persons who are already in the Church in relation to admitting them to places of office unto admission of persons into the society of the Visible Church is unreasonable 5. When he saith that men are to be cast out by Excommunication when it doth evidently appear that they are hypocrites though not drunkards c. I desire 1. That it may be observed that an hypocrite may be taken in a double sense First for such an one as grossely and knowingly counterfeits a Profession of Christianity and so indeed is nothing else but an histrionicall stage-professor Secondly more largly for any that hath a profession of Christianity wherein may be he is morally serious but hath not within a Principle of true supernaturall saving grace Such are all unregenerate persons in the Church such an one was that young Man in the Gospel whom our Lord is said to have loved and the Lawyer of whom he said thou art not far from the Kingdome of Heaven Now if we speak of hypocrites in the former sense if men appear to be such I shall confesse that if they have been within they are to be cast out by Excommunication yet in the order that Christ hath prescribed after due admonition and evidence of obstinacy and incorrigiblenesse in the evill and of this I shall say more then Mr. Lockier viz. that it is far greater not only then drunkennesse and other such bodily sins simplie in genere peccati in the nature of sin But if it evidently appear also in genere scandali in the nature of scandall which is the ground and consideration upon which censure proceedeth because it is a very mocking of God in the highest degree But if we speak of hypocrites in the latter sense We deny utterly that every man appearing to be such is to be Excommunicated and casten out of the Societie of the Visible Church If a man professe seriouslie Religion submitting himself to Ordinances though there were appearance yea though it were revealed by God that yet he were not Regenerate and indued with true supernaturall Grace I say such an one were not to be excommunicate Let Mr. Lockier or any for him shew a warrand of Scripture for Excommunicating a man for non-regeneration The Doctrine of all Orthodox Divines hither till concerning the object of Excommunication and that grounded upon the Word of God is that which is shortly expressed by the Learned and Reverend Professours of Leyden Synop. pur theol Objectum circa quod exercetur haec Disciplina Ecclesiastica sunt illi qui fratres nominantur causa verò est vita prava vel Doctrina perversa nec ideo statim ubi quis frater nominatus in hujusmodi scandala incidit a corpore Ecclesiae excludi debet quemadmodum quibusdam Anabaptistis in usu est Sed post privatas demum publicas Ecclesiae admonitiones contemptas rejectas sicuti Christi verba aperte significant Mat. 18. disp 48. thes 25 26. And though drunkennesse and such like bodily-sins be lesse then hypocrisie in this sense i. e. non-regeneration simply and in genere peccati in the nature of sin yet it is not lesse in genere scandali in the kind of scandall and offence unto the Church Nay this hath not the nature of scandall at all 6. Yet Mr. Lockier according to the genius of his Doctrine ought to say not only men when it doth evidently appear that they are hypocrits but even if it doth not evidently appear that they are truly gracious and we cannot discern in them the power of godlinesse they are to be Excommunicate For his Doctrine is that none are fit mater to be admitted or permitted to constitute a Visible Church but such as are truely Godly so far as men truely Godly can judge and discern I beleeve most of the Independent way will disclaime him in this 7. Excommunication is an Ordinance to keep the house of God pure and according to what it ought to be in point of duety in foro exteriori and in order to salvation this we grant only in this sense that it is an Ordinance tending towards this as a means for this is an end of Excommunication that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus but not in this sense that the Church is obliged thereby to effectuate it quoad eventum this belongeth to God alone Excommunication is an Ordinance to keep the Church pure and according to what it ought to be in point of qualification in foro exteriori in order to externall Visible Church-state even quoad eventum But now what this qualification in foro exteriori in order to Church-state is is the thing in Question So Mr. Lockier in his reasoning from Excommunication to his Doctrine either alledgeth nothing to the purpose taking his antecedent in the former sense or begs the Question taking it in the latter 8. In the conclusion as propounded here First note If only reall Saints be the proper mater of a Visible Church and saving grace the complexion of it then all Saints so far as men can judge are not fit mater for these are not necessarily reall Saints simply 2. When as he saith not one known to be otherwise he should have said answerably to the former words no not one not known so far as men can judge to be such 3. Can justifiably enter may be conceived either in point of duty incumbent to themselves who enter and so the meaning is this men joyning themselves to the Visible Church and making profession of Religion without true faith and repentance are not justifiable in this before God or it may be conceived to be spoken of the Churches active admission of men into externall Church-communion and the sense is this it is not justifiable that men not having saving grace should by the Church be admitted to enter into the fellowship of the Visible Church If in any thing certainly in propounding Doctrines stating controversies forming conclusions ambiguities should be shun'd We grant the former sense but the latter we deny and it is not yet proven This much of the inductiâ—… Now come we to the fourth way of probation by reasons SECTION VI. Examination of Mr. Lockyers proofs brought under the name of reason section 1 HIs reasons are four which because they ly loose out of form and are somewhat prolixely pro pounded I shall labour to take up the strength of them as far as I can see ingenuously in form that we may both with the more shortnesse and clearnesse to the greater satisfaction of the Reader consider and answer them section 2 The first reason so far as I can possibly see may
by most impertinent Citations What is there in this place to the purpose of the constitution of the Visible Church as to its matter or Members the Apostle here ver 10 11 12 13 14 15. is speaking of Doctrines fundamentall and superstructed and that these ought to be suitable and agreeable to that what is this to the mater of the Visible Church Ay Yes by Analogie would he say first because the Apostle useth the same medium and argues as I do that if Christ be layed as a foundation c. Ans And must that hold Universallie because one using a medium in one mater reasons truelie and solidlie therefore another using that medium in another mater and reasoning that same way for forme must also reason truelie and solidelie What if this other erre in the application of the medium and if some of his premisses and principles whereof his argument consists be false upon the matter so it is here The Apostle reasoneth well and concludently upon that principle that the superstructure should be suitable to the foundation that Teachers should take heed what Doctrines they teach in the Church Because he assumeth well that Christ or the Doctrine of Christ is the foundation-point of Doctrine in Religion and all other Doctrines are the superstructures But Mr. Lockier assumeth amisse that the Visible Church as such is the superstructure built upon Christ as the Foundation The Scripture sayeth no where so a Visible Church-state or to be received unto or to be in the Visible Church state is not to be built on Christ as a Foundation but is to be taken in under or to be under the means of being built either first or in a further degree of advancement on Christ as a Foundation But further sayeth he see how he applyes this ver 16 17. incongruous superstructions if in point of Doctrine c. Ans This is somewhat spoken in the mist but for ought I can conjecture or conceive the meaning seemeth to be this that wrong Doctrines taught in the Church makes persons unholy and so unfit mater for the Church to consist of and so destroyes or defiles the Temple of God which is as he conceiveth the Visible Church And thus he will have the Apostle v. 16 17. to apply that which he had been speaking in the preceeding verses Now if this be not a forceing of the purpose and meaning of these two verses let any understanding man in the Christian World judge The plain genuine intention and purpose of the Apostle in these verses is to warne and dehort the Corinthians from defiling and laying waste the Church either by corrupt idle or curious Doctrine not suitable to the foundation Christ or by Schismaticall addicting themselves to this or that man who were teachers among them which was the purpose whereupon he began this discourse v. 4. or both and that upon these three grounds 1. The consideration of the dignity they were advanced to that they were the Temple of God consecrated by the indwelling Spirit to him 2. That such things did defile and lay them waste 3. That God would severly punish such as any wayes defiled and destroyed them that were a Temple consecrated to him Ay but 3. Saith he it is added for the Temple of God is holy which Temple ye are i. e. such arâ—â—he Temple of God which are holy which hath the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else Ans 1. Mr. Lockier then conceiveth that these words are brought in as a reason why he that teacheth wrong or incongruous Doctrines defiles or destroyes the Temple of God To this sense the Visible Church consists of such as are holy and hes the Spirit dwelling in them and none else therefore men by teaching incongruous Doctrine making men in the Church incongruous mater i. e. unholy destroyes the Temple i. e. the Visible Church A meer forgerie contrary to clear shining evidence of the Apostles context wherein any man that is not blind may see that these words for the Temple of God is holy are given as a reason why these that defile the Temple will be severly punished of God the reason of which consequence clearly intimate in the words is because God will not indure the defiling or violating of that which is holy and consecrate to himself 2. True indeed such are the Temple of God which are holy and none else So Mr. Lockier supposeth but without reason or proof Sure the Apostle borroweth this denoâ—…ation from the typicall Temple of Jerusalem but that was no type of a Visible Church but of Christs Mysticall body and every member thereof And hence I reason thus the denomination of the Temple of God is such as is competent to and predicable of these to whom it is attributed not only collectively i. e. to the whole society of them but also unto every one severally * Martyr in loc non solum fidelium caetus qui Ecclesia dicitur templum Dei dicitur sed unusquisque credentium in Christum reperitur ita cognominatus nam postea de fornicatione agens Apostâ—lus cap. 6. corpus cujusque credentis vocat templum spiritus Sancti But if it be taken for the Visible Church it could not be attributed to every member thereof Every one in it is not a Visible Church 3. If such only be the Temple of God in Mr. Lockiers sense i. e. a Visible Church which are holy and has the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else he may seek such a Visible Church in the new world of the Moon In the end of this paragraph he prompts us another Argument equivalent to this first from this that Christ is called the Head and the Church the Body In form it must stand thus If Christ be the Head there must be an homogenealnesse in the Church to him he meaneth they must be truely gracious and endued with true saving faith But Christ is the Head and the Visible Church his Body Therefore c. The reason of the connexion of the first Proposition is because else there can be no mutuall derivation from one to another Ans 1. Protestant Divines will with one consent deny your assumption as Popish and tell you that it is the Church of the Elect that is the Body of Christ the Head See but Whittaker de Eccles q 1. c. 13. pag. 449. in fol. Yet 2. For more clear and particular answer we are to consider that Christ may be said to be the Head and the Church his body either in a politicall sense as a King is called the Head of the Common-wealth and the People are called his Body Or to speak so in a physicall sense according to the similitude of mans body Now we grant that Christ is a Head to the Visible Church and the Visible Church hath unto him the relation of a body in the former sense Christ is a King of the Visible Church and the Visible Church is his politicall Body
ex abundanti Hitherto Mr. Lockier has been pleased to represent his adversaries as impertinent objecting prejudices against persons and not reasoning against his opinion he knoweth himself for what end Now at last he vouchsafes them the credit of saying some little thing a word or two in causâ As to the former now set down 1. He wrongs us in forming the conclusion or consequent 'T is not any meer profession whatsâ—ever we allow as sufficient to this state admission unto Church-fellowship some may professe mockingly histrionically or to discerning on purpose to deceive and subvert the Church as these Gal. 2. 4. Such profession we allow not but a serious sober profession such as we described before stating the Question 2. We give him the antecedent somewhat more constringent thus Simon Magus having been even now a vile sorcerer bewitching people with his sorceries and sacrilegiously usurping the honour of God upon profession of faith in a sober seriousnesse was by Philip baptized and received into Church-fellowship without passing any tryall if that profession of his proceeded oâ— judgement that it did proceed so far as men could discern from true saving grace and faith in the heart That his profession of faith was serious and sober and appeared so is evident in the Text For he was brought to it by conviction to astonishmeâ—… and wondering at the miracles that were done And the Text speaks not of any intended purpose of deceiving in his taking up that profession But that Philip tryed and examined his profession if it did proceed from a true saving work of Regeneration in the heart or that judgement was passed upon him as one truely regenerat so far as men can discern the Text sayeth not this nor any thing to that purpose Now let 's see what Mr. Lockier replyeth section 10 Surely saith he it was not shews but substance that was lookt at and conceived indeed to be in this man so far as man can judg i. of a tree by his fruit for de occultis non judicat Ecclesia There were surely outward signes of repentance in this man such as the Apostle Peter who received him unto fellowship was satisfied with Ans 1. Here is a palpable grosse escape committed by the Author when he attributeth Simons receiving into Church-fellowship to Peter for clear it is that Simon was received in Church-fellowship by Philip and continued with him therein some space ere Peter and John came down to Samaria Acts 8. 13 14. whether the Author has committed this escape of inanimadvertencie or of purpose I will not peremptorily determine But the latteâ— seemeth most probable that he might have the fairer occasion to bring in Peters words Acts 2. 28. to confirm his Assertion concerning Simons qualification in relation to his admission into Church-fellowship of which place anone 2. But whether Peter or Philip received him that there were such outward signs of repentance in this man that as far as men can judge of a tree by its fruit he was conceived positively to be a regenerate and a true savingly believer and that upon satâ—…faction in this it was that he was received into Church-fellowship how will the Author instruct prove this section 11 First saith he what Peter required at the hands of those Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins c. he would did follow the same rule of Christ which he had received and delivered to others and therefore required as much at the â—ands of Simon If he would not dispense with this rule â—ith none of those great number there is no reason to think he durst exact lesse of this man to be satisfied in him especially â—earing what a creature he had been Answ Besides the continued escape of attributing Simons receiving into the Church to Peter whereupon yet much of the weight of this reason dependeth here is anotheâ— great mistake upon the mater which is the principall ground and being discovered the whole inference evanisheth Mr. Lockier supposeth that the Apostle Peter in these words Repent and be baptized every one of you for the remission of sins is speaking unto these people and prescribing a rule to them fot qualification in relation to stating them in outward visible Church-fellowship when as it is another matter in relation to which he is speaking and prescribing a direction for viz. how they might find pardon of their fearfull sin of crucifying the Lord of glory be reconciled to God and saved from the wrath to come This is evident as the noon day to any that will look upon the context For this rule and direction of the Apostles is in order to that which at that time was pressing the souls of these he speaketh to and to answer the question they propounded out of the anguish of their spirits Now clear it is that the mater that pressed them was their conviction of their horrid sin of rejecting and crucifying Christ and their danger of the dreadfull wrath of God and the question they propounded What shall we do was not about stating in visible Church-membership but how they might be freed of that guiltinesse and saved from the wrath of God This is it that the Apostles rule and direction relateth to and therefore 't is more then evidences of true repentance and faith so far as men can judge even true repentance and faith in veritate rei seu existentiae that he requireth of them This rule in relation to this end he had indeed received from Christ and neither could he nor can any other dispense with it or exact lesse from any in relation to that end But all is nothing to Mr. Lockiers purpose that Peter received from the Lord or followed in the point of admitting into the outward fellowship of the visible Church such a rule as requireth either true repentance and faith in reality of inexistâ—…ce or convincing evidences thereof so far as men can judg as the necessary qualification in foro exteriori Ecclesiae and as the ground whereupon only the Church may admit persons into externall Church communion this the Text saith not nor any other that he can produce from Scripture section 12 Next the Author goeth about to prove that Simon Magus did give such outward appearance of reall inward grace that the Apostle thought him really gracious a true and reall Saint 1. By what is said of him in the Text. 2. By the consent of the Learned Interpreters For the former 'T is said saith he that when he was baptized he continued with Philip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and here is is much insisting upon the signification of the Originall word that it signifieth to be alwayes present to endure to be assiduous that it is attributed to hunting dogs that will not cease following the game till they have got it that it signifieth to persevere with strength Acts 6. 4. Rom. 13. 6. and then upon all
Gospel like behaviour which is requisite to be a ground of esteeming persons beleevers what at least is requisite and must concurre to make it up and lesse then which will not serve That so we might have the generall determinat rule whereby cognition is to be made and estimation to be passed upon all professours of the truth that they are beleevers or otherwayes For certainly while as they say but indefinitly such a blamelesse and Gospel behaviour and tells not what is requisite to make up such a behaviour they leave the mater in a mist of uncertainty and for ought we can see devolves the weight of that estimation upon mens apprehensions without a rule If they say they were writing an Epistle to friends and could not therein say all that is to be said in the mater I Answer that if they could have told it it might been said in short bounds and it was as necessary for clearing their mind to have been told as the Thesis they have set down it self But yet let them point us to such a rule in the Word if they know where it lyeth For my part I professe humbly I could never yet see in the Word of God an universall definite rule whereby judgement may and ought to be passed upon all and every professour of the truth by others that they are to be held for true beleevers or otherwise 5. When as in the designation of the persons that are fit to be admitted members of the Visible Church they with Parents joyn their children I do heartily acknowledge their Orthodoxy in this beyond others of that way who have omitted wholly that addition and wishes they may continue in that point of truth considering how easie it is as the Authors of that Epistle themselves may perceive by experience in others that went off with them first by that step they have gone on to slide into that other of excluding the Infants of beleevers from the Visible Church But now I would know whether they acknowledge such Infants members compleatly I mean in actu primo or not If they say the former they are at a disagreement with others of the Independent way If they say the latter then we must have another distinction of constitute members and so many sorts of members of the Visible Church and so also we must have many sorts of qualifications of members section 4 But now take the mater of the Thesis as it is that the necessary qualification to make one of years fit to be admitted a member of the Visible Church is together with profession of the truth such a conversation as may make a man to be esteemed i. e. positively judged a true beleever or Regenerat person I shall not here adde any new reasons to what I have brought before But shall come briefly to consider if these present Authors have brought any new strength of reason for that Tenet Only I would desire them in the fear and love of the truth to consider if they can find in the Word of God amongst all these many whose admission into the fellowship of the Visible Church of Christ is mentioned therein any instance of persons or one person who after their first professing Christian faith and Religion was what ever their behaviour and course had been before to that very time delayed of their admission to be Church-members untill they should be seen and found with that their profession to joyn such a blamelesse and Gospel-like behaviour as the Authors requires many of them no doubt untill that time had been of a very blameable and un Gospel behaviour and course of life And certain it is that to be seen joyning with profession of the truth an unblameable and Gospel-like behaviour requires some delay and length of time For my part I could never yet see any instance of this kind but on the contrary finds that persons as soon as they once embraced the profession of the Christian faith albeit to that very time their behaviour had been most blameable were forthwith baptized and so admitted members into the Christian Church Consider this I beseech you dear brethren if so ye will yet suffer your selves to be called and exhorted by me section 5 But now we come to the grâ—…nds of confirmation of their thesis Such say they were the Churches founded by the Apostles which ought to be paterns to us as appears by the title given to them Saints sanctified justified washed by the blood of Christ For Answer we refer to what we said before to that same inductive Argument in Mr. Lockier now in a word only to make this Argument good it must be alledged and made out not only that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apostles at least such as are mentioned in Scripture were actually and defacto consisting of such members as were all and every one Saints justified c. in the positive judgement of charity But also were in their gathering constitute of all and every one formally considered and taken in under the notion of such upon tryall found and judged to be such But 1. 'T is not so much as alledged by the Authors that they were so gathered and constituted nor can these titles let them take them as they will import any thing of this 2. Nor suppose these titles should import that the Churchâ—… to which they are given were eventually consisting of such members as were all and every one such Does it follow that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apostles were so I mean even such of them as are mentioned in Scripture Because these titles are not given unto all and every Church founded by the Apostles or Apostolicall men in the Apostles time We give instance of the Churches Smyrna Pergamus Thyatira Sardis Laodicea nay had the Authors duely considered what is said of these Churches Revel 2 and 3. I think they could not in reason said what they say here Nor 3. Doe these titles import necessarily that the Churches to which they are given did de facto and eventually consist of all and every one such These titles may and must at least of some of them be understood of their visible body synecdochically by a denomination taken from the better part as I would rather say of the body communiter confuse not universaliter section 6 The Authors of the Epistle touches not at the two former exceptions which yet are sufficient to overturn this Argument and I doubt not but one of the Authors he that as I conceive has been the Penner of this Epistle a man well enough acquainted in Argumentation and able to discern what may be alledged to be defective in an induction might well perceived but only labours to infring the third We cannot say they acquiesce to the common Answer that these expressions are to be understood of the better part Answ Yet as good and as judicious as you the whole stream of Interpreters untill Anabaptists
Congregation ' tisfilly and might well be said among Children but may blush to come out before understanding Men. By this Argument when our Saviour sayeth upon this Rock will I build my Church And the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. He hath set in the Church First some Apostles c. And Ephes 5. He loved his Church and gave himself for it Because it is in the Singular Number Church not Churches in all these places Therefore it must be only one single Congregation meant in all of them When as it is indeed the whole Catholick Church and not any particular singular Congregation So the name flock in the Singular Number why may it not be taken collectivè for such a flock as contained in it diverse particular flocks as Gen. 33. 13. yea and in the very present Metaphoricall sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12. 32. little flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 10. 16. one Sheep fold tho both in the Singular Number yea and in the latter place with the Cardinall number added to it one signifieth the Church Catholick and so comprehendeth many particular Flocks Folds and Churches As to M. Lockiers last words in this Sect. here is no joint voice c. indeed we grant that in that meeting there was no joint voting of Elders Because these Elders then were not meet to act in Government but had been sent for by Paul to receive direction from him concerning the managing of their charge But supposing that which is proved from other places that there were more single Congregations in Ephesus then one we find here these Congregations held forth to be one Church and there were many Elders over these many Congregations as one flock one Church And that is enough for our purpose The next place he meeteth with and which he calleth one of the most weighty indeed it is so weighty to the purpose we are on that it crusheth the new supream Independent Tribunall erected by our Brethren in single Congregations is that concerning the Synod Act. 15. 28. To this the Author Answers 1. Here sayeth he is an Eldership of severall Churches indeed met But as touching the coercion of their power as such excerped Eldership enforcing their results upon other Churches this is the other thing to be brought in to make up the businesse we Dispute against Answ First 't is well Mr. Lockier acknowledgeth that was an Eldership of severall Churches even a Synodicall Presbytery a Synod as himself calls it afterward Sect. 29. Some of his side have said otherwise the Dissenting Brethren in their Reasons against the Assemblies allegation of Acts 15. for subordination of Synods That Ass was not a formall Synod but only a reference by the particular Church of Antioch unto this particular Church of Jerusalem and no other But we think Mr. Lockier speaketh the truth that it was a Synod 2. We must here again note his invidious misrepresenting of our Doctrine We do not ascribe to that or any other Synod a power of coertion to enforce their results upon any but an authoritative juridicall power to enjoyn authoritatively their determinations agreeable to the Word of God and to censure the disobedient and disorderly with meer spirituall censures as admonition Excommunication which import no enforceing â— propriety of speech Nor do we say that that or any other Synod hath power thus authoritatively to enjoyn their determinations upon other Churches we say they have this power only in relation to these Churches associated in the Synod and none other So not that which Mr. Lockier sayeth but this is the other thing to be brought in to make the Presbytery we speak for what ever it be that he Disputes against which oftentimes is his own fiction an juridicall power authoritatively enjoining its determinations and which may censure with spirituall Ecclesiastick censures the disobeyers and disorderly And this we doubt not will be found in this place Act. 15. section 11 After this the Author pretending to be clear and full in answering this place he premitteth two things which Reverend Hocker hath also Survey Part. 4. c. 1. 1 That the Apostles tho they were extraordinary Officers yet in this meeting they did not act as such because they joined with them ordinary Churches what ordinary Churches is contradistinguished unto I know not well and Officers and all Disputed and enquired And so here was left a samplar to all succeeding generations In this we agree with him Only by the way we note that we see not why he should have said before Sect. 25. that in the ordination of Deacons the Apostles acted as extraordinary persons seeing there also they joined the Church with them in the election of the persons to be ordained His 2. premisse is that the sentence decreed in that Synod was not Scripture because they decreed it as still it was when the Apostles moved by the proper Spirit of their Apoâ—…olicall station according to that 2 Pet. 1. 21. but what they decreed was by debate found out to be either expresse in Scripture or undenyably deduced from thence So by one of these wayes was found to be Scripture and was therefore decreed and injoyned by them upon others And then goes out a while in clearing this which we need not insist on And to passe other things that might be noted in this second premisse granting both what would he infer hereupon That in the close of Sect. 28. So that what they produced by debate was materially binding for asmuch as what they produced was for the matter of it no other but the will of God but not formally as the result of such a Collegiat Eldership Answ This last followeth not upon any thing in the former premisses For tho their decrees were not Scripture because decreed by them but decreed by them because found to be Scripture or agreeable to generall rules of Scripture and therefore injoined by them to the Churches It followes indeed that their primary and fundamentall obligatorinesse is materiall And were they not such they could not formally as decrees of the Synod be obligatory or binding But it doth not follow that simpliciter they are not binding formally as decrees of the Synod The obligatorinesse of decrees of a Synod formally as decrees of a Synod is secundary subordinate and regulate but for that it is not no obligatorinesse at all Yea one of his own contradicts him in terminis in this Mr. Cotton speaking of the decrees of this very Synod Keyes c. 6. this binding power is not only materially from the weight of the matters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the Authority of the Synod section 12 But come we to his clear Answ he brings it in by way of reply to an Object Had then this Synod no authoritative power at all For what end then is the Ordinance This indeed is a pertinent Question propounded by the Author to himself And if he asserting as
〈…〉 of 〈…〉 take 〈…〉 people 〈…〉 with otâ—ers of greater parâ—… and so is 〈…〉 here yet â—…nd the forâ—… riddleâ— cleared But to 〈…〉 1. That there may be more able 〈…〉 then a particular Congregationâ— I think 〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 â—eny And surely it cannot â—e denyed in 〈◊〉 thâ—re this is a ground whereupon 〈…〉 it is 〈…〉 that besides the Presbyterie of a 〈◊〉 Congregation there should be such more ample Presbyteri◠〈…〉 unto whâ—…â—…course may be had in case of supposed 〈…〉 of the Eldership of a particular Congrâ—…gationâ— and to which particular Elderships may themselves◠〈…〉 cases or cases controversall amongst 〈…〉 such particular Elderships 〈…〉 subject â—…no Supeâ—iour authoritâ—… 〈…〉 hold forth the plurality 〈…〉 Presbyterie above the Presbytery 〈…〉 as an object or ground to 〈…〉 â—all that were â—…deed to 〈…〉 â—old it forth 〈◊〉 a more 〈…〉 â—…ght determiâ—…tions in maters 〈…〉 the holding 〈…〉 of flesh 〈…〉 but 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 necessity of the 〈…〉 4. pâ—g 2. and if it 〈…〉 â—orth 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 thoritative Synodâ—… 〈…〉 as held forth so 〈…〉 But 〈…〉 â—…dicious 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 Congregation◠〈…〉 60. or 40. 〈…〉 pâ—…sons subject to the judâ—… 〈…〉 tryall 〈…〉 of no◠〈◊〉 Ecclesiasticâ—… 〈…〉 â—…rth be not 〈…〉 sâ—are to 〈…〉 greater â—oth and â—eader to 〈◊〉 flesh 〈…〉 to hold forth unto them 〈…〉 a single Congregation 〈…〉 particular Congregation◠〈…〉 Let judiâ—ious 〈…〉 to licence to do 〈…〉 out being lyaâ—… to be 〈…〉 say which of these is likest to provâ— a gaudy and taking snare upon flesh and blood section 4 But go we on to the test of this Sect. Let Ministers Doctors c. men of never so great Learâ—ing be in a sojourning we say associate Presbytery Yet the Persbytery 〈◊〉 Congregation is like in reason to be more learned in the bâ—…inesse of their particular members which offend then strangers Because they are eye witnesses of persons and things and have by intimate conversation advantage to Judge of Men and matters concerning them more then others Here â—…deed lyeth the 〈◊〉 such as it is of the thing that the 〈◊〉 would have â—aid to make out his 3. proof against Presbyteries over more Congregations then one viz. that they destroy and elude the end of Church power and jurisdiction to which they pretend For Answ 1. This reason if it have truth and force in it is as much against any Synod whatsoever even their own consultative 〈◊〉 as against authoritative Synods and Presbyteries o◠〈◊〉 Congregations For thus I may well reason against the use of such consultative Synods upon the same very suppositâ—…â—…dged by Mr. Lockier here Consultative Synods are no 〈◊〉 of God but a devâ—…e of man because they elude the end whereâ—… they pretend to wit finding out more clear and satisfactory â—…ght conceâ—ning difficult matters in particular Congregationâ— Nay Because let never so many able Ministers Elders and other Christians be in such a Synod yet the Presbyterâ—… of the particular Congregation is like in reason to be more learned in the businesse of their particular members then c. And so are more able to give light and resolution it such matters then strangers in a Synod can do But 2. This Argument runneth upon sundry â—acit and suppressed false suppositions and mistakes As 1. it is supposed that the only matter which Synods can haâ—… to coâ—…osâ—… upon and determine are businesses of the exercise of Disâ—…pâ—…e about particular members of particular Congregations This is a great mistake For besides businesses of the exercise of Discipline about particular members of Congregations there are first matters of faith and of the Worship of God to be defined from the Word of God And contrary â—rrors heresies and corruptions to be condemâ—ed and declared against Secondly there are matters of externall order and policy which are determinable by the true light of nature right reason and generall Rules in the Scripture about which is exerted that power which is called Diatactick there are also tryalls and ordinations of Ministers Now I do not think that Mr. Lockier will take it upon him to averre that the Elders of a single Congregation are like in reason to be more learned and so more advantaged to judge in matters of this kind then all the able choise men Ministers and Elders from many Congregations assembled together in a Synod or in a Classicall Presbytery 2. He insinuateth also this supposition that in businesses of Discipline about particular persons there is no other matter to be cognosced and determined but Questions of meer fact For he speaks of such matters as are known and discerned by sense and whereof men are eye-witnesses This is another mistake For often times in such businesses are involved intricat Questions of Law or Juris as frequent experiences in the exercises and processes of Discipline prove daily As suppose the physicall being or doing of an act alledged upon a person as scandall be found proven for example that he has eaten Swines flesh before a weak beleeving Jew Yet there may be this Question of Law whether such an act so circumstantiat be under the kind of a scandall Upon resolution of which doth depend the convicting of a person guilty of a scandalous fact And again suppose a person be found unquestionably guilty of a scandalous fact yet there may be Question of the demerit and weight of it in relation to censure Now altho it be true that the Presbytery of a particular Congregation is like to be more Learned as to matters of meer fact in businesses of particular members Yet it can hardly be said in reason that 't is like they will be more learned in Questions of Law involved therein then many choise able men from many Congregations 3. He insinuateth also a supposition that the Eldership of a Congregation being more learned or understanding in the businesse of their members which yet can reasonably be supposed only for matters of fact that there can be no other ground of conveniency and expediency to bring their matters to be judged by a more ample Eldership over more Congregations Which also is false Where as a Classical Presbytery or Synod is not like in judging to be so liable to personall prejudice against the accused nor so likely to be swayed with fear or favour oâ—â—mister respects And as for the learning and knowledge that the Elders of the particular Congregation have or may have in the businesse of their members more then other Elders may not all that by them be communicate to a Classick Presbytery and Synod themselves being included in it as a part 4. I adde but this suppose the Eldership of a Congregation may be more learned in the businesses of their members yet I suppose that which is not unusuall to fall out there may be differences among the Elders or between the Elders and the people who according to Mr. Lockier may have as much hand and more in the jurisdiction as the Elders or both may be divided in
their judgements that nothing can be concluded amongst them What will you have done in such a case By all these may sufficiently appear the weaknesse of his first ground to prove that associat Elderships of more Congregations destroye and elude the end of Church power and Jurisdiction Come we to the second section 5 His prefaces to it with a big word as if some great matter were to be brought forth 't is good to enquire wisely into this matter as Solom saith what is an institution of God into such an end Who would not look for some great matter here Let 's see then the product of this wise enquirie If the power at home in the particular Congregation be the institution of God for its own affairs this shall discern better and judge better and heal better then all the Learned Assemblies in world which people litle looke after whilst this great noise is made with men of so great parts and worth which sojourning Presbyteries assemble withall Parturiunt montes c. Answ If this reason have any force it also militats as well against all Synods even consultatory as well as juridicall It shall follow it was a wrong course they of Antioch took to carry their controversie to the Synod of Jerusalem Why By Mr. Lockiers theologicall reasoning here the power at home in the particular Congregation of Antioch if it was a particular Congregation as these of our Authors mind may suppose it to have been being an institution of God for its own affairs it could discern better judge better and heal better their controversie then all the learned Assemblies in the world and so then that at Jerusalem c. 2. But what if the matter to be discerned judged and healed be not the particular Congregations own i. proper affairs but common equally concerning other Congregations also 3. But the grand and I may say too grosse sophisme here is a clear petitio Quaesiti a begging of the thing mainely in Question that only the Judicature of a particular Congregation is of Divine institution and an associate Presbytery Classicall or Synodicall is not of Divine institution unlesse this be supposed the consequence is null One Ordinance instituted of God for one end doth not make void and uselesse another Ordinance instituted for that same end But we say that an associate Presbytery of more Congregations is instituted of God as well as that of a particular Congregation The contrary of this Mr. Lockier should have proven and not barely supposed and upon that supposition alledged that the power in the particular Congregation being instituted of God shall do better then any Presbytery of that kind section 6 Thirdy saith he in the nature of the the thing 't is a course which casteth those which subject to it upon a multiplication of appeals and references forth and back from the Session to the Synod c. and whether this looks like Scripture Ordinance or like the thing it pretends to an effectuall removall of burden and offences whilst it thus hurryes poor people up and down let Christians judge This is ne quid detrimenti capiant capita Ecclesiae it may be the cryes of this and such like is come up into the ears of the Lord and ah alas that good men should be deaf Answ 1. This reason what ever it sayeth sayeth nothing against the being of Presbyteries over more particular Congregations the unlawfulnesse of which is the thing Mr. Lockier in his Assertion undertooke to prove but against the subordination of the lesser Presbyteries unto the greater 2. Neither sayeth it any thing to purpose against this point But in effect is rather a cavillation then solide reasoning The subordination of lesser Presbyteries unto greater as of Congregationall to Classicall of both to Synodicall Presbyteries in the nature of the thing casteth not persons upon needlesse multiplication of appeals nor Judicators upon needlesse multiplication of references But provides a course for relief to persons when they are or may be probably wronged by the sentence of a lesser Presbytery by appeal to the cognition and judgement of a greater And an help to lesser Presbyteries by having recourse by reference to the judgement and authority of a greater When such help is needfull for them as when they â—nd difficultie in their affairs either through darknesse or weightinesse of the matter or through differences or divisions amongst themselves or through power and prevalency of persons with whom they have to do in the exercise of their authority And if this be not more agreeable to Scripture and a way more likely to remove offences out of the Church of Christ then to put such an Independent power in the hands of a single Congregation may be of 50. or 40. or 20. or fewer persons â—…at if they shall Excommunicat a person and so deprive him of â—he fellowship of all Churches in the World or determine maintain and teach Idolatrie and grossest Heresie There shall be no power on earth in an Ecclesiasticall authoritative way to cognosce upon and redresse what they do amisse Let all Christians judge But that way of subordination of lesser Presbyteries to greater and of appeals is very agreeable unto and warranted by the Scriptures of God has been sufficiently demonstrated and vindicat against all the exceptions of opposers by sundry Learned Writers * See Mr. Gillesp Asser of the Govern of the Church of Scotland Assemblies Answ Jus Divin that we need not insist more on it till we hear more from Mr. Lockier then is said against it here As to that this is ne quid detrimenti c. we say plainly 't is but slandering not reasoning We acknowledge no capita Ecclesiae but one head Jesus Christ and that all his Ministers are pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis And I beseech you Sr. what is the emolument that any Ministers may reap by the subordination of lesser Assemblies or Presbyteries unto greater in regard of which they might be said to receive detriment if the Government were otherwayes to wit Independent in single Congregations Indeed if they should look to their temporary emolument they might see much reason to imbrace the Independent way as that which were the fittest means ne quid detrimenti caperent as any body may easily discern and I conceive some knowes well enough by experience As to that which is spoken in the end of this Sect. against this way of Ecclesiastick Government allowing appeals from lesser Presbyteries to greater as raising cryes that have come up into the ears of the LORD we shall say no more but this if any men at any time or any where in managing that Government have intangled and perplexed persons rather then extricated and issued their distresse and thereby raised cryes into the ears of the LORD by oppression of persons that is nothing against the thing it self Sinfull men will abuse even the best of Divine institutions and may be there are
to clear the businesse Naamans practising of heathnish Idolatry in the house of Rimmon amongst a people not so much as professing the true God but an Heathnish people professedly denying the God of Israel what will intelligent pious men say to this To the third exception Whether Mr. Lockier defines protesting well to be a peece of revenge the vehemencie of Repentance let Lawyers judge To my simple apprehension protesting in the nature of it has nothing to do with Repentance as not importing guiltinesse in the person protesting but being an act whereby he testifies against the sinfulnesse and unjustice of the dead of some others that he himself may appear clear and free from the concurrence in or the accession to it and preserves himself in a legall capacitie to challenge it before a judge competent but whereas Mr. Lockier supposeth that a man protesting or testifying against the intrusion or admission of scandalous wicked persons into the participation of an Ordinance of Christ or lawfull necessarie act of Worship if he participate in that Ordinance or Worship when and where scandalous persons participates therein that in this the man halts and halves he does but beg the thing which will not be granted to him and he will never prove And on begged suppositions to say how these will accord is worthy deep thoughts of heart favours of contempt of Readers if not of somewhat else To the fourth when there is a Protestation against the constitution and very being of an Assembly 't is true there is no submitting to it by the Protesters But yet there may be a protesting against some on or more particular deeds of an Assembly when the constitution and being of it is acknowledged and to such an Assembly submission is not refused or denyed by any principles of ours So there may be a protesting or testifying against some particular abuses in a Church and yet communion keeped with that Church in lawfull true necessarie acts of Divine Worship But if the Author mean that if such an abuse be in a Church as that wicked persons are permitted in it or coming to Communion that in that case the Godly must protest not only against the deed but the very thing of that Church as no Church and therefore must not joine therewith in warranted acts of Worship but separate from its Communion altogether he will not have the simile of Assemblies and our cariage to them to go along with him and it is in it self without warrand contrare to the warrand of Scripture and we doubt not to say a most Schismatick Assertion Mr. Lockier in Sect. 56. and 57. brings and answers a new Objection and therein raiseth much dust to small purpose about the causalitie of Baptisme as to the constituting a Church The Objection is this Doeth not Baptisme give the forme of a true Church and you say if the forme and foundation be right it may be capable to purge it self right Sir you are much mistaken if you think that we hold Baptisme alone to give the forme of a true Church We say it is the initiall seal and solemne entry and admission of Members into the Visible Church so this is a needless Objection brought in it would seeme to vent a new conceit borrowed out of Mr. Hookers Survey part 1. c. 5. of a Church without Baptisme of which a word shortly upon his Answer to this Objection Only here we say this that which gives form and being to a Church is the true Doctrine of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace for substantials at least solemnly avowed by the sealing of Baptism and Preached by a lawfull Ministry Lawfull Ministry I say as to the essentials of a Gospel-Ministry these three at least are necessary to give the being of a Gospel-Church And where these are tho there be many corruptions and defects in the Church yet it is capable to purge it self from its corruptions and to supply its defects and to urge unchurching of such a society and dissolving of it as no Church or totall separation from it is not of GOD. But come we to speak a little to the Authors Answer to his Objection Baptism saith he doth not give the form of Church membership So say we too Profession of the true Christian faith is that which giveth the form of Church-membership de jure Baptism is the solemn seal thereof But Mr. Lock having in his Objection spoken of that which giveth form being to a Church how falleth he now to speak of that which giveth form of Church-membership Is there no more requisite to give form and being to a Church we are now speaking of a Church Visible but that which giveth form to Church membership simply This is a grosse mistake Profession of the Christian Faith simpliciter is that which adaequately gives the form and being to Church-membership simply But to give form and being to a Church there must be concurring with this a Ministeriall dispensation of the Doctrine of Faith and Ordinances by such means as Christ hath instituted them to be dispensed by A Church existing without a Ministry compleat in the nature and being of a Visible Church is a thing unheard of in the Word of GOD. See Huds c. 6. vindic section 12 But to Mr. Lockiers purpose in hand His aim here in his solution is to maintain that Baptism is no wayes necessary to Church-membership We confesse it is not that which giveth the forme and being of a member or the jus but yet we say it is necessary as the solemn seal of actuall admission into the possession of Church-membership in the ordinary way appointed by Christ The Authors Reasons for his Assertion are two 1. There may bee a Church and so consequently members of a Church before Baptisme Ministers are before Baptisme and the Church is before Ministers for out of it are they made and have their keyes c. See this abundantly dashed by Caudry in Mr. Hookers Surv. c. 5. 2. Saith he The Church was visibleble when there was no seal neither Circumcision nor Baptisme and then how could these constitute a Church Answ What a childish reasoning is this There was a Church without Circumcision and without Baptism when neither of them was yet instituted by God Ergo after Circumcision was instituted to be the solemn seal of his Church there might yet been a Jewish Visible Church without it and now after Baptisme is instituted to be a solemn initiall seal of the Christian Church there may be a Christian Church without Baptisme he might as well say that there may be a Christian Church without the profession and belief of that Article JESUS the Son of MARY is the CHRIST why the Church was sometime when there was no such Article to be believed section 13 He addeth to these two Reasons this prejudice Besides how much this gratifieth the judgement and practice of Anabaptists any one may see who constitute Church members by baptism and how much Presbyterians
who must do it If some other Ecclesiasticall Court then should not a single Congregation have compleat power of jurisdiction within it self without subordination to any other Ecclesiastick Court in point of jurisdiction If the Congregation contradistinguished from the Eldership then the Congregation alone by it self has power enough of jurisdiction and censure and then what needed it be said the Congregation with their Eldership And indeed this is the way that some Independents goe In their judgement the Congregation of privat beleevers does choose ordain and make their Eldership and they may censure depose and Excommunicat all their Eldership So that these Authors when intending a description of the Congregationall way i. e. the Independent way they attribute the power of jurisdictiction and censure to the Congregation with their Eldership if they mean as their words seemeth to import and they must be understood unlesse they minded to aequivocat that the power of jurisdiction is given to these jointly and not to either of them severally either they have not been acquainted with the mind of all these of the Congregationall way or they have dissembled the latter of which I have not reason to impute to all these Authors The truth is the Authors of the Congregationall way are at a great deal of difference among themselves even to salt contradictions concerning the subject of the power of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction as Mr. Caudry has evidenced in the place cited by us before P. 2. Sect. Go we on to their probation of their Assertion They cite one passage of Scripture first telling us withall that there are diverse other Scriptures which they passe by But I beleeve it shal be long ere they let us see them viz. Mat. 18 15 16 17 18. and do build two Arguments on it according to the two things involved in their Assertion The former lyeth thus in their own words section 3 The Church there tell it unto the Church spoken of has compleat power of binding and loosing as is clear from v. 17. and 18. but the Church is not the Classicall Presbytery But the Eldership with the Congregation Therefore c. The Assumption is clear because it is not to be found in all the Gospel that a company of Elders whether of a Classis or a Congregation apart from the Congregation is called a Church Indeed a Congregation with Elders commonly yea and sometime contradistinguished from Elders ay sometime without Elders is termed a Church Act. 15. 4. 22 23. And Act. 14. 23. Now what an absurdity were it to reject the usuall acception of the word in the New Test and without any colour of reason to coine a sense which no where is to be found in all the Gospel though the word be most frequently used in it section 4 Answ To passe sundry things which might be noted upon this Argument and for brevities sake to insist only upon that which is materiall the drift of this first Argument tends to the probation of the former part involved in the Authors Assertion to wit that the power of jurisdiction Ecclesiastick is not in the Eldership or Officers of the Church but in the community of believers jointly with the Elders and the weight of the whole Argument lyeth upon the signification of the term Church And all which is said is but an old song that has been an hundred times dashed by worthy and learned men already See what we have said already upon the same alledgeance by Mr. Lockier above P. 2. Sect. 3. § 2. and 3. For the present I shall say but these things on it 1. When as these Authors say that in the New Testament the name of the Church is taken sometimes for the Congregation i. e. in their sense the community of beleevers with the Eldership jointly sometimes for the Congregation as contradistinguished from Elders and sometime for a Congregation without Elders and asserteth that here in this place it is to be understood in the first of these three acceptions to wit as it comprehendeth both Congregation and Elders I would gladly know how and by what Argument they prove that it is so to be understood here and not rather in one of the other two for the Congregation as contradistinguished from the Elders or for the Congregation without Elders For that we see only asserted by them but no proof of it brought Only this much they insinuat that it is commonly so used But that will not prove that so it must be taken in this particular place If they would assayed to bring any Arguments to prove that the name of the Church here must be taken not for the Congregation as contradistinguished from or without Elders but for the Congregation with the Eldership jointly I doubt not but we should found them all to be such as speaks power of jurisdiction and government in the Eldership as contradistinguished from the rest of the Congregation 2. What though the word Church be no where else in the New Testament used for the Elders or Governours of the Church as contradistinguished from the body of believers yet this is but a very weak Argument to prove that it is not so to be understood here so be that the genuine grammaticall signification thereof be such as may well be applyed as indeed the word answering to it in the Hebrew is frequently in the Old Testament applyed to signifie a Colledge or Society of Judges or Governours as contradistinguished from the people See Mr. Hudson Vindic. of the Essence and Vnity c. 'T is some rashnes in the Authors to call this sense of the word a coined sense Even prophane Greek Authors have used it in such a sense I mean for a meeting of Rulers Demosthenes used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconcione magnatum It is yet more then rashnesse I may say it is a great impudency that they say it is without any colour of reason taken in this sense in this place These Authors said before that they have used all helps they could have upon this controversie Now let them tell us did they never read in any Writers upon this controversie of Church Government who expones the word Church of the Eldership or Governours of the Church so much as any colour of reason brought by them for expounding the word in that sense How can they hold up their face and say this Did they ever read Beza his Annot. on the place Or Mr. Rutherfurds Peaceable Plea c. 8. Surely the help of these Authors they easily might have had Sure I am if they have read these to mention no moe they might have found some colour at least of reason brought for the Interpretation Nay let them but read the latter of the two over again I believe they shal find such reality of reason brought for it as they shall never be able to avoide Verily whether we take the word Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the societie
and Separatists did arise have given and acquiesced in that Interpretation of these titles But if you can bring solid reason to prove they must be understood otherwise we shall yeeld as to this We give more assent to one solid reason then to an hundred Authorityes of meer men Come we then to see what reason is brought to prove they ought to be understood otherwise 1. For that say they they are to be understood of them all according to the judgement of charity The Holy Ghost has clearly said Rom. 1. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God called Saints And again vers 8. I thank my God for you all This the first then they subjoyn another We hope when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 6. 18. flee fornication none will deny but he speaks to the whole Church Yet to the same persons he immediatly addes vers 19 20. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you you are not your own you are bought with a price this is an Argument taken from the condition of the persons whom he exhorteth thus But the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth Therefore they were all such as the Apostle judged in charity the redeemed of the Lord. Answ Remember what we have said before that tho all were granted that is here alledged yet the main point in Question touching the constitution of these Churches is not proven The main point in Question is upon what formall consideration only the members of which these Churches did consist were received and admitted into the constitution thereof But the most that can be made out of what is alledged here let it all be granted is that all the members were such de facto and eventually this being remembered to the present purpose 1. Suppose it were granted and that the reasons alledged did prove that these titles as given to the Churches of Rome and Corinth were to be understood as the Authors will of all and every one in these Churches that they were judged by the Apostle in charity the Redeemed of the Lord truly sanctified c. It is hereby clear and evinced that so these titles must be understood also when they are given to the other Churches founded by the Apostles I know the chief Author of the Epistle has more skill however it be with others of them in Logick then to think so and hopes he doth not so despise others that have any tolerable knowledge that way as to think they would take such a thing off his hand and therefore wonders that having undertaken to prove that all the Churches founded by the Apostles were constitute of such members as were all positively judged in charity Redeemed and Sanctified because of the titles of Redeemed and Sanctified given to them And then that these titles given to them must not be understood synecdochically by a denomination taken from the better part but of all and every one of them In the proof of this he brings in two of them without so much as one word of assay to prove the like of the rest If it shal be said that if that be proven of one or two it is proven also by consequence of the rest I deny it for the Question being about the sense wherein a title ascribed to severall particular Societies whether viz. it be ascribed to them universally as competent to all and every individuall contained therein Or only by a denomination taken from a better part of these individualls To prove that is to be so or so understood of one or two of them is not sufficient to conclude that so it is to be understood of the rest If yet it shall be replied that there is no reason why it should not be so understood of the rest of these Churches as of these expressed I answer this much at least should have been alledged which is not to have made the Argument in appearance at least to have some force for the main point intended But what if tho it should be granted that these titles are attributed to the two Churches expressed here are to be understood as spoken of them universally yet it shall be shown that in some other of these Churches founded by the Apostles there were persons to whom these titles could not be applyed We conceive this hath been done before in our answer to Mr. Lockier particularly of the Church of Ephesus and that the 2 and 3. of the Rev. hold the same clearly forth of some others But 2. as for that brought for the Church of Rome we refer to what we have answered before to Mâ— Lockier in that same purpose 3. As to the Argument brought to prove that the title of Redeemed and consequently the rest is given to all and every one of the Church of Corinth it lyeth thus in form as propounded by the Authors themselves The Apostle exhorting the Corinthians to flee fornication taketh an Argument from the condition of the persons whom he exhorteth to wit that they were Redeemed but the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth Therefore they were all such as the Apostle judged in charity to be Redeemed of the Lord. Answ I wonder exceeding much that such a loosly formed Argument should have come from the hand of such a Philosophe as I take to have been the principall Author of this Epistle for take it as it lyeth here it looketh not like a peece of arte a syllogism consisting of three terms but seemeth to have some more But to take it in the most candid way I conceive it may be resolved into those two processes to make it formall the first may be thus all these to whom the Apostles exhortation to flee fornication there is directed are by him called Redeemed And so were at least to his judgement of charity But to all the Church of Corinth is that exhortation of the Apostles directed Therefore c. The other is for proof of the major or first proposition of that thus These persons who are exhorted to flee fornication by an Argument taken from Redemption as their condition are called Redeemed by the Apostle But all these to whom that exhortation is directed are exhorted by an Argument taken from that condition Therefore c. Now then to Answer 1. I think the assumption of the first syllogism may well be denyed viz. that exhortation is directed to all and every one in the Church of Corinth the Authors prove it not Only they think it so evident that none will deny it But for what reason they are so confident of this I know not unlesse it be this that flying fornication was a duety incumbent to them all and every one of them But this reason is not constringent for why may not a duty which is in a common obligation incumbent to all be pressed upon some peculiar persons by an exhortation particularly intended and directed for them I can see no circumstance in the Text here why we may