a reason of him or for writing a justification of the government of the Church of Scotland to such as did desire to be more throughly resolved concerning the same but that rather they will make use hereof as a key by divine Providence put into their hands to open a doore unto further light Secondly there is so much the more reason for asserting those two points by how much they have beene mainly opposed by Sathan for he it was whose cunning conveyance of old made the office of ruling Elders to come into dessuetude through the sloth or rather the pride of the Teachers as Ambrose complaineth and yet time hath not so obliterate that ancient order but that the footsteps of the same are yet to be seen in our Officialls Chancellors Commissaries Church-wardens and High-Commission men yea at Rome it selfe in the Cardinalls The same old Serpent it was whose instigation made Licinius whiles he did intend the totall ruine of the Church to fall upon this as the most effectuall means for his purpose that he should straightly inhibit all counsells meetings and conâ—erencies concerning the affairs of the Church By which meanes the Christians of his time were drawne into one of two snares Aut enim legem c. for saith Eusebius either it behoved us to be obnoxious to punishment by violating the Law or to overthrow the Rites and Ordinances of the Church by giving obedience in that which the Law did command for great and waighty deliberations undertaken about things controverted cannot proceed in any other manner or way but by the right managing of Councels The Arminians in the Netherlands found out another of Sathans wiles they were not able to hinder the assembling of a free and lawfull Synod but for their next best they required of the Synod of Dort twelve conditions and the ninth was that there should not be in that Synod any determination or decree concerning the matters in controversie but only an accommodation or conference and that still it should be free to the particular Churches to accept or to reject the judgement of the Synod this was a way of endlesse controversie and justly cried down in the Synod Moreover Satan ever wise in his own principles finding the Church of Scotland like an invincible Sampson by reason of such a constitution and goveâ—nment as being preserved in integritie could neither admit heresie nor schisme did make use of the Prelacie as his traiterous Dalilah to betray that Sampson into the hands of the now adverse Pâ—ilistines the Papists by stealing away both their ruling Elders and the authority of their Presbyteries and Synods for he had well observed that in these two things did their great strength lye and that without these two the Ministers of the Word being like so many scopae dissolutâ— both sparsed and by themselves alone might easily be brought under the yoke When thus the Romish-affected Dalilah had taken away their strength from them she was bold to uâ—tâ—r her insulting voice in the Service-book and book of Canons The Philistines be upon thee Sampson The Papists be upon thee Scotland In this case they did not as Sampson then presume that the Lord was with them as at other times they knew he was departed from them They cried out Return we beseech thee O God of Hosts look down from Heaven behold and visit this Vine and the Vineyeard which thine own right hand hath planted They did again ask the way to Sion with their faces thitherward saying come and let us joyn our selves to the Lord in a perpetuall Covenant that shall not be forgotten And now glory be to the great Name of God in the Church throughout all generations they have by his healing hand quickly recovered their strength Strength I may well call it for sayth a learned Divine as in things which are done by bodily strength so in things which are managed by counsells vis unita fortior power being put together is the stronger and in this he doth agree with Bellarm. that though God by his absolute power can preserve his Church without Synods yet according to ordinary providence they are necessary for the right government of the Church The interweaving and combining of strength by joyning the ruling Elders of every Congregation with the Pastor or Pastors thereof into a particular Eldership by joyning also Commissioners Pastors and Eâ—ders from many particular Elderships ordinarily into a classicall Presbytery and more solemnly provinciall Synod Finally by joynâ—ng Commissioners Pastors and Elders from many classicall PPresbyteries into a Nationall Assembly this doth indeed make a Church beautifull as Tirza comely as Ierusalem terrible as an Armie with Banners It is not to be expected but this forme of Church government shall still be disliked by some whose dislike shall notwithstanding the more commend it to all pious minds I mean by prophane men who escape not without censure under Presbyteries and Synods as they did under the Prelacie by hereticks who cannot finde favour with a Nationall Synod of many learned and godly men as they did with a few Popish Prelats by Matchavellians also who do foresee that Presbyteriall Synodicall government being conformed not to the Lesbian rule of humane authority but to the inflexible rule of Divine Institution will not admit of any Innovations in Religion be they never so conduceable to politicall intentions Some there be who whet their tongue like a sword and bend their bowes to shoot their arrows even bitter words They would wound both the office of ruling Elders and the authority of Presbyteries and Synods with this hateful imputation that they are in consistent with the honor and Prerogative of Princes Sure I am when our Saviour saith Render unto Câ—esar the things which are Caesars and unto God the things which are Gods he doth plainly insinuate that the things which are Gods need not to hinder the things which are Caesars And why shall it be forgotten that the Prelates did assume to themselves all that power of determining controversies making Canons ordaining suspending deposing and excommunicating which now Presbyteries and Synods do claime as theirs by right To me it appeareth a grand mistery and worthy of deliberation in the wise Consistory of Rome That the power of Presbyteries and Synods being meerly Ecclesiasticall being rightly used and nothing incroaching upon the civill power is notwithstanding an intollerable prejudice to Kings and Princes But the very same power in Prelates though both abused and mixed with civill power is not for aâ—l that prejudiciall to Soveraignty Yet if the fear of God cannot moliâ—ie the tongues of thâ—se men one would think that they should be brideled with respect to the Kings most excellent Majestie who hath been graâ—iously pleased to approve and ratifie the present government of the Church of Scotland perceiving â— truâ—â— that Gods honour and his honour Gods Lawes and his Lawes may well subsist together Lastly as in publishing this
in Synods is three-fold dogmatick diataktick and critick Whether the decrees of a Synod may be pressed upon such as professe scruple of conscience there anent CHAP. V. The first argument for the authority of Synods and the subordination of Presbyteries â—â—erto taken from the light of nature THat the Church is a certain kinde of Republike and in things which are common to her with other societies is guided by the same light of nature which guideth them Of this kinde are her assemblies CHAP. VI. The second argument taken from Christs Institution THe will of Christ for the authority of Synods is shewed two waies 1. Because else he hath not sufficiently provided for all the necessities of his Church 2. He hath committed spirituall power and authority to the Assemblies and Courts of the Church in generall yet hath not determined in Scripture all the particular kinds degrees and bounds thereof and that for three reasons The particular kinds of Synods appointed by the Church according to the light of nature and generall warrant and rules of the word are mixed thogh not meer divine ordinances CHAP. VII The third argument taken from the Iewish Church THat there were among the Jews aâ— least two Ecclesiasticall Courts the Synagogue and the Sanedrim That the power of the Synagogical conâ—istory was not civill but spirituall proved against Sutliffe That the Jews had a supream Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim distinct from the civill Sanedrim proved against the same Sutliffe both from the institution therof Deuâ— 17. and from the restitution 2 Chron. 19. and from the practice Ier. 26. The consequence of our argument proved against such as deny it That we ought to follow the Jewish Church in those things which it had not as it was Jewish but under the common respect and account of a politicall Church CHAP. VIII The fourth argument taken from Acts 15. THat we finde Acts 15. a Synode of the Apostles and Elders with authority imposing their decrees upon many particular Congregations Foure answers made to this argument found not to be satisfactory CHAP. IX The sixt argument token from the Geometricall proportion THis argument from proportion doth hold whether we compare the collectives of Churches among themselves or the representatives among themselves or the representatives and collectives together CHAP. X. The sixt argument taken from necessitie THat without the authority of Synods it is impossible to preserve unity or to make an end of controversie Other remedies declared to be ineffectuall CHAP. XI Objections made against the authority of Synods answered THe place Math. 18.17 discussed That one visible politicall Church may comprehend many Congregations proved That the authority of Presbyteries and Synods doth not rob the Congregations of their liberties as the Prelacie did A visible Church may be considered either metaphysically or politically This distinction explained serveth to obviat sundry arguments alledgeâ— for the independent power of Congregations Other two objections answered which have been lately made The first part CONCERNING RVLING ELDERS CHAP. I. Of the words Elder Lay Elder Ruling Elder THE word Elder answereth to Zaken in the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek It hath foure different significations 1. It noteth Age. 2 Antiquity 3. Venerability 4. An office In the first signification Elder is opposed to younger as 1 Tim. 5.1 Rebuke not an Elder but intreat him as a father the younger men as brethren 1 Pet. 5.5 Likewise ye younger submit your selves unto the Elder In this sense was the Apostle Iohn called the Elder because hee outlived the other Apostles 2 Iohn 1. and 3. vers 1. In the second signification Elder is opposed to Moderne Mat. 15.2 Why doe thy Disciples transgresse the tradition of the Elders That is of them of old time Mat. 5.21 In the third signification we finde the word Isa. 3. where the Lord saith that he would take away from Israel the prudent and the ancient vezaken that is the worthies among them and such as were respected for wisedome The same word and peradverture in the same sense is turned Elder Exod. 2.16 Eth-zikne Israel the Elders of Israel So the Spanish Seijor the French Seigneur the Italian Signore all comming from the Latine Senior signifie a man of respect or one venerable for dignity gifts prudence or piety Contrariwise men of no worth nor wisedome men despicable for lacke of gifts and understanding are called Children Isa. 3.4.12 Ephes. 4.14 But it is the fourth signification which we have now to do withall and so an Elder is a spirituall officer appointed by God and called to the government of the Church Acts 14.23 When they had by voyces made them Elders in every Church They have the name of Elders because of the maturity of knowledge wisedome gifts and gravity which ought to be in them for which reason also the name of Senators was borrowed from Senes Before we come to speake particularly of those Elders of which our purpose is to treat it is fit we should know them by their right name lest wee nick-name and mis-call them Some reproachfully and others ignorantly call them Lay Elders But the distinction of the Clergie Laity is Popish and Antichristian and they who have narrowly considered the records of ancient times have noted this distinction as one of the grounds whence the mystery of iniquity had the beginning of it The name of Clergie appropriate to Ministers is full of pride and vaine-glory and hath made the holy people of God to be despised as if they were prophane and uncleane in comparison of their Ministers Gerard likeneth those who take to themselves the name of the Clergie to the Pharisees who called themselves by that name for that their holinesse did separate them from the rest of the Jewes for this Etymologie of the name Pharisee hee citeth Tertullian Origen Epiphanius Ambrose and confirmeth it from Luke 18.10 Hence was it that some Councels discharged the Laity from presuming to enter within the Quire or to stand among the Clergie neere the Altar Two reasons are alleadged why the Ministers of the Church should bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 First because the Lord is their Inheritance secondly because they are the Lords inheritance Now both these reasons doe agree to all the faithfull people of God For there is none of the faithfull who may not say with David Psal. 16.5 The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of whom also it may not bee said that they are the Lords inheritance or lot for Peter giveth this name to the whole Church 1 Pet. 5.3 Where if it were needfull we might chalenge Bishop Hall who borroweth a glosse from Bellarmine and Gregorius de Valentia telling us that Peter chargeth his fellow Bishops not to dominier over their Clergie so shutting out of the Text both the duty of Pastors because the Bishops onely are meant by Elders and the benefit of the people because the inferiour Pastors are the Bishops
flocke according to this glosse for Peter opposeth the Lording over the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to being ensamples to the Flocke Surely if this Popish Glosse bee true Protestants in their Commentaries and Sermons have gone wide from that Text. But Matthias the Apostle was chosen by lot What then By what reason doth the Canon law draw from hence a name common to all the Ministers of the Gospell Let 〈◊〉 then banish from us such Popish names and send them home to Rome Bellarmin thought we had done so long ere now for he maketh this one of his controverted heads Whether wee may rightly call some Christians the Clergie and others the Laity or not ascribing the negative to Protestants the affirmative to the Church of Rome Yet beside the Clergy and the Laity Papists hold that there is a third sort in the Church distinct from both whom they call Regulares These are such of their religious orders as are not taken up with contemplation alone like the Monkes but with action such as the Dominicans Franciscans c. Who helpe and assist the Clergy in their Ecclesiasticall imployments though they themselves bee not admitted into any particular charge in the Church Now hee who will needs side with the Papists in the distinction of Clergy and Laity may also with them admit a third member of the distinction and make ruling Elders of that sort especially since the reason why the regular Chanoins are assumed as helpers to Parish Priests is propter multitudinem fidelis populi difficultatem invenâ—endi curatos sufficientes idoneos saith Cardinall Cajetan adding further male consultum populo Christiano invenitur sine hujusmodi supplemento Which reasons agree well to ruling Elders For 1. Parishes containe so many that the Minister cannot oversee all and every one without helpe 2. Sufficient and fit Ministers shall hardly bee every where found 3. It is found by experience that sinne and scandall are never well taken neede to and redressed where ruling Elders are not To let all this passe if any man will needs retaine the name of Lay Elders yet saith Gersomus Bucerus What aspersion is that to our Churches is it any other thing then that which Papists object to us for admitting Lay men into Councels They who have place in the highest and most supreame assemblies of the Church wherein the weightiest matters are determined ought much more to be admitted into inferiour meetings such as Presbyteries are But if we will speake with Scripture wee shall call them Ruling Elders Rom. 12.8 he that ruleth 1 Tim. 5.17 Elders that rule well They are called ruling Elders non quia soli sed quia solum praesunt Pastors rule the Church even as they doe but Pastors doe something more from which they may bee designed Whereas the Elders of which wee are to speake have no other imployment which can give them a designation except the ruling of the Church onely That wicked railer Lisimâ—chus Nicanor who assumed the name but forgot to put on the vizorne of a Jesuit in his congratulatory I should say calumniatory Epistle pag. 61. alledgeth that they are called ruling Elders because the Ministers are their ruled Elders If he were a Jesuit he may remember that in their own society besides their Priests Doctors Preachers Confessionaries c. They have also Rectores or Regentes whose office it is to see the rules of their order kept to observe the behaviour of every one when they perceive any seeds of Heresie to signifie the same to the Provinciall and hee to the Generall Yet are these Rectores among the lowest rankes of their officers so that Jesuites need not stumble when wee call our Eldersruling Elders CHAP. II. Of the function of Ruling Elders and what sort of Officers they be NOtwithstanding of all the multiplicity of Popish orders yet Peter Lombard treading the vestiges of the primitive simplicity did observe that the Apostles left only two sacred orders to bee perpetuall in the Church the order of Deacons the order of Elders The administration of Deacons is exercised about things bodily The administration of Elders about things spirituall The former about the goods the latter about the government of the Church Now Elders are of three sorts 1. Preaching Elders or Pastors 2. Teaching Elders or Doctors 3. Ruling Elders All these are Elders because they have voice in Presbyteries and all assemblies of the Church and the government of the Church is incumbent to them all nor onely to the Pastor and Elder but to the Doctor also The Bishop of Dune in his examen conjurationis Scoticae p. 35. alledgeth that our Church of Scotland did never yet determine whether Doctors and Deacons have right of voycing in the Consistories Assemblies of the Church But had he read our booke of Policie hee might have found that it excludeth Deacons from being members of Presbyteries and Assemblies Cap. 8. but admitteth Doctors into the same Cap. 5. The Doctor being an Elder as said is should assist the Pastor in the government of the Kirke and concurre with the Elders his brethren in all Assemblies by reason the Interpretation of the Word which is onely Iudge in Ecclesiasticall matters is committed to his charge But they differ in that the Pastor laboureth in the word of exhortation that is by the gift of wisedome applieth the word to the manners of his flocke and that in season and out of season as he knoweth their particular cases to require The Doctor laboureth in the word of Doctrine that is without such applications as the Pastor useth by simple teaching he preserveth the truth and sound interpretation of the Scriptures against all heresie and error The ruling Elder doth neither of these but laboureth in the government and policie of the Church onely The Apostle hath distinguished these three sorts of Elders 1. Tim. 5.17 Let Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine Where as Beza noteth hee distinguisheth the Word which is the Pastors part from Doctrine which is the Doctors part Even as Rom. 12.7.8 hee distinguisheth teaching from exhortation and 1 Cor. 12.8 putteth the word of wisedome and the word of knowledge for two different things Now beside those Elders which labour in the Word and those which labour in Doctrine Paul speaketh to Timothy of a third sort of Elders which labour neither in the Word nor Doctrine but in ruling well Hence it appeareth how truely the Booke of Policie Cap. 2. saith That there are foure ordinary perpetuall and necessary Offices in the Church the office of the Pastor the Doctor the Elder and the Deacon and that no other office which is not one of these foure ought to bee received or suffered in the Church But when we speake of Elders Non personatos c. we will not have disguised and histrionicall men puffed up with titles or idols
performance but leaveth the particular dayes of fasting and thankesgiving to be determined by the Church according to the rules of the Word In like manner the Scripture commendeth the renewing of the covenant of God in a Nation that hath broken it but leaveth the day and place for such an action to be determined by the Church according to the rules foresaid Now if the Church following the generall warrant and rules of the Word command to fast such a day to give thankes such a day to renew the covenant of God such a day these things are divine ordinances mixedly though not meerely and he who disobeyeth disobeyeth the commandement of God The like may be said of catechising and of celebrating the Lords Supper which are not things occasionall as the former but ordinary in the Church they are commended by the warrants of Scripture but the particular times and seasons not determined The like wee say of the order to be kept in baptisme and in excommunication which is not determined in the Word though the things themselves be The removing of scandals by putting wicked persons to publike shame and open confession of their faults in the Church hath certaine warrant from Scripture yet the degrees of that publike shame and punishment are left to be determined by the Church according to the quality of the scandall and the rules of the Word Now the Church appointeth some scandalous persons to be put to a greater shame some to a lesser some to â—ee oâ—e Sabbath in the place of publike repentance some three some nine some twenty five c. And if the offender refuse that degree of publike shame which the Church following the rules foresaid appointeth for him hee may be truely said to refuse the removing and taking away of the scandall which the Word of God injoyneth him and so to disobey not the Church only but God also Just so the Scripture having commended unto us the governing of the Church the making of Lawes the exercise of Jurisdiction the deciding of controversies by Consistories and Assemblies Ecclesiasticall having also shewed the necessity of the same their power their rule of proceeding and judging who should sit and voice in the same c. But leaving the particular kindes degrees times bounds and places of the same to be resolved upon by the Church according to the light of naturall reason and generall rules of the Word The Church for her part following the generall warrant and rules foresaid together with the light of nature hath determined and appointed Assemblies Provinciall and Nationall and to exercise respectively that power which the Word giveth to Assemblies in generall The case thus standing we may boldly maintaine that those particular kinds and degrees of Ecclesiasticall Assemblies are Gods owne ordinances mixedly though not meerely But what can bee the reason may some man say why the Scripture hath not it selfe determined these kinds of Assemblies particularly I answer three reasons may be given for it 1. because it was not necessary the generall rules of the word together with natures light which directeth Common-wealths in things of the same kind being sufficient to direct the Church therin 2. As sesons and times for the meeting of Assemblies so the just bounds thereof in so many different places of the world are things of that kinde which were not determinable in Scripture unlesse the world had beene filled with volumes thereof for Individua sunt Infinita 3. Because this constitution of Synods Provinciall and Nationall is not universall for all times and places for example there may be in a remote Island 10. or 12. Christian congregations which beside their particular Elderships have a common Presbytery but are not capable of Synods either Provinciall or Nationall Againe let there bee an Island containing forty or fifty Christian congregations there shall be therein beside Presbyteries one kinde of a Synod but not two kindes Besides the reformed congregations within a great Nation may happly be either so few or so dispersed and distant or so persecuted that they can neither have Provinciall nor Nationall Assemblies CHAP. VII The third Argument taken from the Iewish Church IN the third place we take an Argument from the example of the Jewish Church for as in their Common-wealth there was a subordination of civill Courts every City having its proper Court which did consist of seven Magistrates if we beleeve Iosephus the Thalmudicall tradition maketh two Courts to have beene in each City the lesser of the Triumvirat and the greater of twenty three Judges Beside these they had their supreame Consistory the civill Sanedrim which governed the whole Nation and had authority over the inferiour Courts So was there also a subordination of Ecclesiasticall Courts among them they had a Consistory in every Synagogue for their Synagogues were appointed not only for prayer and praising of God and for the reading and expounding of the Scriptures but also for publike correction of offences Acts 26.11 They had besides a supreame Ecclesiastical Court whereunto the whole nation and all the Synagogicall Consistories were subject This Court having decayed was restored by Ichoshaphat 2 Chron. 19.8 and it had the name of Sanedrim common to it with the supream civill Court. From this Court did the reformation of that Nationall Church proceed Nehem. 6.13 On the second day were gathered together the chiefe of the fathers of all the people the Priests and the Levits unto Ezra the Scribe even to understand the words of the Law And they found written in the Law c. Whether there was yet another Ecclesiasticall Court in the midle betwixt the Synagogue and the Sanedrim called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Presbytery Luke 22.66 Acts 22.5 and made up possibly out of the particular Synagogues within the Cities I leave it to learned men to judge howsoever it is plaine from Scripture that there was at least a twofold Ecclesiasticall Court among the Jewes the Synagogue and the Sanedrim the latter having authority above the former Sutlivius denyeth both these and so would have us believe that the Jewish Church had no Eccâ—esiasticall Court at all As for the Synagogues he saith they treated of things civill and inflicted civill punishments and a civill excommunication That they inflicted civill punishment he proveth from Mat. 10. and 23. and Luke 21. where Christ foretelleth that his Disciples should bee beaten in the Synagogues That their excomunication was civill he proveth by this reason that Christ and his Disciples when they were cast out of the Synagogues had notwithstanding a free entry into the Temple and accesse to the sacrifices Answ. This is a grosse mistake for 1. the civill Court was in the gate of the City not in the Synagogue 2. He who presided in the Synagogue was called the chiefe Ruler of the Synagogue Acts 18.8.17 the rest who sate and voiced therein were called the Rulers of the Synagogue Acts 13.15 They who sate in the civill Court had no
Ecclesiasticall Republike of which sort of things the diversity and subordination of Ecclesiasticall Courts was one doth belong by the same reason to the Christian Church I say further though the Common-wealth and civill Policy of the Jewes be not in all points a patterne to our civill Policy yet I am sure it is no errour to imitate the civill policy of the Jewes in such things as they had not for any speciall reason proper to them but are common to all well constituted Common-wealths and so wee may argue from their Common-wealth that it is a good policy to have divers civill Courts and the higher to receive appellations from the Inferiour as it was among them Shall wee not by the very like reason fetch from their Ecclesiasticall Republike diversity of Spirituall Courts and the supreame to receive appellations from the Inferiour because so was the constitution of the Jewish Church and that under the common respect and account of a politicall Church and not for any speciall reason which doth not concerne us CHAP. VIII The fourth Argument taken from Acts 15. THE example of the Apostolicall Churches Acts 15. maketh for us The Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia being troubled with the question about the Jewish Ceremonies the matter was debated and disputed at Antioch the chiefe towne of Coelosyria where Paul and Barnabas were for the time It is very probable that some out of the other Churches in that Province as also out of the Churches of Cilicia were present in that meeting and conference for they were troubled with the very same question no lesse then the Church of Antioch Howsoever the matter could not be agreed upon in that meeting but a reference thereof was made to a more generall assembly at Hierusalem and for that effect Paul and Barnabas and others with them were sent thither All this is cleare by comparing verse 2. with 23. Hereupon the Apostles and Elders did synodically come together at Hierusalem and decided the question giving forth decrees to be observed by the particular Churches Acts 15.6.28 and 16.4 We will not dispute what sort of Synod this was only that it was a Synod with authority over many particular Churches and Congregations and whereunto the meeting at Antioch whether it was provinciall or Presbyteriall only did referre the determination of the question about Jewish ceremonies It is answered by some 1. That the reason of sending Paul and Barnabas to Hierusalem was to know whether these teachers who pressed the observation of the ceremoniall Law had any such commission from the Apostles and Elders as they pretended 2. That there is here no Synod nor assembly of the Commissioners of divers Churches for there were no Commissioners from the rest of the Churches in Iudea Galilee and Samaria mentioned Acts 9.31 nor from the Churches of the Gentiles mentioned Act. 14.23 neither were Paul and Barnabas and the rest who went with them Commissioners to represent the Church of Antioch but messengers only to make narration of the case 3. Not only the Apostles and Elders but the whole Church at Hierusalem met together 4. If the resolution which was given be considered as the judgement of the Church at Hierusalem it was only her advice to her sister Churches if otherwise considered it was a decree absolutely Apostolicall and divine Scripture by infallible direction from the holy Ghost and for that reason imposed upon all the Churches of the Gentiles though they had no Commissioners there These answers had need to be stronger before that so many Fathers Councells and Protestant Writers who have understood the matter otherwise should all bee put in an error To the first wee reply that the reason of sending Paul and Barnabas to Hierusalem was not so much to know whether these teachers had commission from the Apostles and Elders to presse the keeping of the Law of Moses as to get a resolution of the question it selfe verse 2. about this question Now the question was not what commission the Apostles had given to those teachers but whether they should be circumcised after the manner of Moses verse 1. To the second we say that if Paul and Barnabas were messengers to make narration of the case certainely they were more then sufficient messengers and there was no need of others to be joyned in message with them so that it appeareth the rest who were sent with them were Commissioners to represent the Churches which sent them Neither is it credible but that all the Churches of Syria and Cilicia which were in the same case with the Church of Antioch did send their Commissioners also to Hierusalem for otherwise how could the Apostles and Elders have so certaine and perfect intelligence of the case of those Churches verse 23. Beside it had beene a great neglect in those Churches if they had not sent some to Hierusalem as the Church of Antioch did for if it was expedient which Antioch did they ought no lesse to have done it their case being the same Moreover it may be collected from verse 3. that the other Churches through which Paul and Barnabas passed in their journey did send some companions along with them to joyne with them in their errand and to give their consent in the meeting at Hierusalem unto that which was to be concluded This is the observation of Cajetan Mentzerus Calvin Gualther and other Interpreters upon that place Lastly it is no way probable that the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem together with those who were sent from the Churches of Antioch Syria and Cilicia and the other Churches through which Paul and Barnabas did travell would come together without acquainting the rest of the Churches of Judea which were so neare at hand and might so easily send their Commissioners to Hierusalem To the third wee reply that it cannot bee proved from the Text that the body of the Church of Hierusalem was present but rather it appeareth from verse 6. that they were not present as hath been said before And though it were granted that they were present yet Master Robinson saith that they did no more then consent to the decree To the last answer it is containe that the conclusion of that meeting at Hierusalem was not a naked counsell and advice but a decree imposed with authority upon the Churches Acts 15.28 and 16.4 and 21.25 And whereas it is affirmed that the decree was meerely Apostolicall and that the Elders did no more then consent thereto even as the brethren did this is manifestly against the Text for Acts 16.4 It is said of Paul and Silas as they went through the Cities they delivered them the decrees for to keep that were ordained of the Apostles Elders that were at Hierusalem And Act. 21.25 all the Elders speaking to Paul say as touching the Gentiles which believe wee have written and concluded that they observe no such thing That this was spoken by al the Elders is plain from v. 18.19.20 So then
the Elders did decreee ordaine and conclude these things to bee imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles and not the Apostles only Now the Elders of the Church of Hierusalem had no authority to impose their decrees upon all the Churches of the Gentiles with whom they had nothing to doe as Mr. Robinson saith truely Since therefore these things were imposed upon the Churches of the Gentiles as the decrees ordained by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem this doth necessarily import that there were in that meeting delegates and commissioners from the Churches of the Gentiles which did represent the same CHAP. IX The fifth Argument taken from Geometricall proportion AS is the proportion of 3. to 9. so is the proportioÌ„ of 9. to 27. of 21. to 81. c. This rule of Giometricall proportion affoordeth us a fifth Argument for the point in hand If we should grant the government of the Church to be popular then by what proportion one or two are subject to a whole congregation by the same proportion is that congregation subject to a provinciall or a nationall congregation I meane if all the congregations in a province or a nation were assembled into one collective body as all the males of the Jewes did assemble thrice in the yeare at Hierusalem and as in the daies of the Judges the whole congregation of the children of Israel was assembled together in Mizpeh as one man from Dan even to Beersheba foure hundred thousand men to try the cause of the Levite and to resolve what to doe there-anent which meeting of the Nation was ordered by Tribes the Tribes by families the families by persons in that case any one particular congregation behoved to be subject to the generall congregation by the same reason whereby one man is subject to the particular congregation whereof he is a member because the whole is greater then a part and the body more then a member Now the same rule holdeth in the representatives of Churches whether we compare them with the collectives or among themselves If wee compare the representatives with the collectives then as one congregation is governed by the particular Eldership representing the â—ame by the like proportion are 14. or 16. congregations governed by a Classicall Presbytery representing them all by the same proportion are all the congregations in a province subject to a Provinciall Synod by the same ought all the congregations in a nation to be subject to a nationall Assembly all of them being either mediatly or immediatly represented in the same for as Parker saith well many Churches are combined into one in the very same manner as many members are combined into one Church If we compare the representatives among themselves then by what proportion a particular Eldership representing only one congregation is lesse in power and authority then a Classicall Presbytery which representeth many congregations by the same proportion is a Classicall Presbytery lesse in power and authority then a Provinciall Synod and it lesse in authority then a Nationall Synod So that the authority of Presbyteries whether Parochiall or Classicall being once granted this shall by the rule of proportion inferre the authority of Synods I know that Synods are not ordinary Courts as Presbyteries are but this and other differences betwixt them I passe the argument holdeth for the point of authority that Synods when they are have authority over all the Churches in a Province or a nation even as Presbyteries have over the congregations within their bounds CHAP. X. The sixth Argument taken from necessity WEE have another reason to adde and it is borrowed from lawlesse necessity for without a subordination among Ecclesiasticall Courts and the authority of the higher above the inferiour it were utterly impossible to preserve unity or to make an end of controversie in a Nation A particular congregation might happily end questions and controversies betwixt the members thereof and so keepe unity within it selfe and not so neither if the one halfe of the congregation be against the other but how shall controversies betwixt severall congregations be determined if both of them bee independent how shall plurality of religions be avoided how shall an apostatizing congregation be amended It is answered 1. If a particular congregation neglect their duty or doe wrong to another the civill sword may proceed against them to make them doe their duty 2. A particular congregation ought in difficult cases to consult with her sister Churches for so much reason dictats that in difficult cases counsell should be taken of a greater number 3. Sister Churches when they see a particular congregation doing amisse out of that relation which they have to her being all in the same body under the same head may and ought to admonish her and in case of generall apostacy they may withdraw that communion from her which they hold with the true Churches of Christ. But these answers are not satisfactory The first of them agreeth not to all times for in times of persecution the Church hath not the helpe of the civill sword a persecuting Magistrate will bee glad to see either division or apostasie in a congregation but so it is that Christ hath povided a remedy both for all the evills and diseases of his Church and at all times The Church as was said before is a Republike and hath her lawes Courts and spirituall censures within her selfe whether there be a Christian Magistrate or not The second answer leaveth the rectifying of an erring congregation to the uncertainty of their owne discretion in seeking counsell from a greater number And moreover if this be a dictate of reason to aske counsell of a greater number when the counsell of a few cannot resolve us then reason being ever like it selfe will dictate so much to a congregation that they ought to submit to the authority of a greater number when their owne authority is not sufficient to end a controversie among them To the third answer wee say that every private Christian may and ought to withdraw himselfe from the fellowship and communion either of one man or of a whole congregation in the case of generall apostasie And shall an apostatizing congregation be suffered to runne to hell rather then any other remedy should bee used beside that commonly ineffectuall remedy which any private Christian may use God forbid What I have said of congregations I say also of Classicall Presbyteries How shall sentence be given betwixt two Presbyteries at varience How shall a divided Presbytery be re-united in it self How shall an Hereticall Presbytery be reclaimed How shall a negligent Presbytery be made to doe their duty How shall a despised Presbytery have their wounded authority healed againe In these and such like contingent cases what remedy can bee had beside the authority of Synods CHAP. XI Objections made against the authority of Synods answered THey who dislike the subordination of particular congregations unto higher Ecclesiasticall Courts object
matters of importance which are proper unto the same This the Prelacy did not regard 6. Presbyteries and Synods doe not which the Prelats did imperiously and by their sole arbitrement domineer over congregations for their power is directive only ministeriall and limited by the Lawes of God and Nature and the lawdable Ecclesiasticall Lawes received and acknowledged by the congregations themselves 7. Experience hath shewed us Presbyteriall and Synodicall government to bee not only compatible with but most conduceable for the supportment and comfort of congregations whereas Episcopall government draweth ever after it mâ—lam caâ—dâ—m and a generall grievance of the Churches Some other objections there are for obviating whereof I shall permit and explane a distinction which shall serve to answer them all We may consider a visible Church either metaphysically or politically It is one thing to consider men as living creatures endued with reason another thing to consider them as Magistrates masters fathers children servants c. So is it one thing to consider a visible Church as a society of men and women separated from the blinde world by divine vocation and professing together the Gospell of Jesus Christ. Another thing to consider it as a political body in which the power of Spirituall government and Jurisdiction is exercised some governing and some governed These are very different considerations for first a visible Church being taken entitatively or metaphysically her members doe ordinarily communicate together in those holy things which fall under the power of order which I may call sacra mistica but being taken politically her members communicate together in such holy things as fall within the compasse of the power of Jurisdiction which I may call sacra politica Secondly Infants under age being initiated in Baptisme are actually members of the Church in the former consideration but potentially only in the latter for they neither governe nor yet have the use of reason to bee subject and obedient to those that doe governe Thirdly one must necessarily bee a member of the Church metaphysically beâ—ore he can be a member of the Church politically but not contrariwise Fourthly many visible Churches have sometimes beene and may bee without Officers and so without Ecclesiasticall government and exercise of Jurisdiction for that time yet still retaining the Essence of true visible Churches whereas a Church which never yet had any Officers ordained therein of which kinde there have beene many at the first conversion of a Nation to the Gospell or which hath losed all her Officers by death or persecution is not for that time an Ecclesiasticall Republicke nor can bee such till she have Officers This if they had observed who have taken so great paines to prove that there hath beene and may bee a Church without Officers it should happily have made them thinke their labour lâ—st It might also have taught Henry Iacob to distinguish betweene a Church visible and a Church ministeriall or politicall and not to understand these three termes to be all one as he doth in his Lâ—tter bearing date the 4. of September 1611. pag. 9. Fiftly my being a member of any one visible Church metaphysically giveth me right and title to communicate with another visible Church where for the time I am in sacris misticis such as the word prayer c. But my being a member of any one visible Church politically doth not give me right and title to communicate with another visible Church where for the time I am in sacris politicis such as ordination deposition excommunication c. Hereunto doth Master Robinson assent in these words As a man once baptized is alwaies baptised so is he in all places and Churâ—hes where hee comes as a baptized person to enjoy the common benefits of his baptisme and to discharge the common duties which depend upon it But a Pastor is not a Pastor in every Church where hee comes upon occâ—sion neither can he require in any other Church saving that one over which the holy Ghost hath set him that obedience maintainance and other respects which is due from the officers to the people neither stands he charged with that ministery and service which is due to the people from the officers The like he would have said of an Elder or a Deacon Now this distinction shall serve to answer the obiections following Object Every Christian congregation is a compleat body Ecclesiasticall having all the parts and members and all Church officers which Christ hath instituted therefore every congrgation hath the full and absolute power of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction Answ. Every Christian congregation is a compleate Church or body of Christ metaphysically that is hath the compleate Essence of a true visible Church yet every such congregation is not a compleate Ecclesiasticall Republicke except in some certaine cases whereof wee have spoken Chap. 2. And further we answer that this objection is alledged to prove that 2 or 3 gathered together in the name of Christ have immediately under Christ the full power of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction but sure I am that two or three gathered together in the name of Christ are not a compleate Ecclesiasticall body having all the members and officers which Christ hath instituted for they themselves hold that in every Christian congregation by Christs institution there ought to be at least five Officers and when those five shall be had there must bee also a certaine number of Christian people to bee governed and served by them So that their Argument doth not conclude that which they propose to prove Object They who have received Christ have received with him power and right to enjoy him though all the world bee against it in all the meanes and ordinances by which hee doth communicate himselfe unto the Church But every company of faithfull people if they be but two or three have received Christ therefore every such company c. Answ. If by the receiving of Christ they meane the receiving of Christ on his throne or the receiving of him in his ordinance of Church government then wee deny their Assumption for every company of faithfull people is not a Church politically as wee have shewed already Indeed every company of faithfull people who have received Christ in this manner hath right and title to enjoy him in all his politicall ordinances yet not independently but by a certaine order and subordination But if by the receiving of Christ they meane receiving of him to salvation or receiving of him by his Word and Spirit wee grant that not onely every company of faithfull people but every particular Christian hath right and title to enjoy him in the mystical ordinances of the Word Prayer c. as often as the same can be had yea further hath right and title to the fruit and benefit of Ecclesiasticall jurisdicton the exercise whereof is committed by Christ to the officers of the Church Intuitu Ecclesiae tanquam finis But that every company of faithfull people
Iâ—dicum the Court of Judges and Rulers which is called The Congregation of the mighty Psal. 80.2 So that the true sense of the place is the secluding of those persons from bearing any office or rule in the Common-wealth of Israel whereby they might be members of those Courts which did represent Israel The same sense is given by Lyranus Cajetan Oleaster Tostatus and Lorinus And which is more to be thought of Ainsworth himselfe expoundeth it so and further sheweth that it cannot be meant of joyning to the faith and religion of Israel or entering into the Church in that respect because Exod. 12.48 49. Num. 15.14 15. All strangers were upon their circumcision admitted into the Congregation of Israel to offer sacrifices and by consequence to enter into the court of the Tabernacle which also appeareth from Levit. 22.18 Num 9.14 The point being now cleared from the holy Scriptures we shal the lesse need to trouble our selves in the search of prophane Authors yet Pasor findeth Demosthenes using the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro concione magnatum As for that common expression of Divines that the Elders are the Church representative wee desire not to wrangle about names so that the thing it selfe which is the power and authority of the Officers sitting and judging apart from the people be condescended upon Yet let us see upon what grounds the name of a representative Church is by this man so superciliously rejected First hee saith that no godly no nor reasonable man will affirme that this representation is to be extended to any other acts of religion than these which are exercised in the governing of the Church But quo warrantâ— shall a man be both ungodly and unreasonable for affirming that the Elders may and ought to represent the Church where they serve in preferring a petition to the King and the Parliament for a Reformation or in bearing witnesse of the desolate condition of the Parish through the want of a ministery or in giving counsel to a Sister Church though these bee not acts of governing the Church Well be it as he saith what great absurdity shall fellow then forsooth it appertains to the people primarily and originally under Christ to rule and govern the Church that is themselves But who saith he will so say of a government not personall but publique and instituted as the Churches is Surely they who think the power to be originally in the people might here easily reply that this is no more strange than to say that the power which is primarily and originally in the body of a Kingdome is exercised by the Parliament which is the representative therof But because many learned men deny the power of Church government to be originally in the people though others and those very learned too doe affirme it therefore to passe that I shall serve him with another answer For as we can defend the authority of Presbyteries and Synods without wrangling about the name of a representative Church so can we defend the name of a representative Church without debating the question whether the people have the power originally or not May he therefore bee pleased to take notice of other grounds and reasons for the name of a representative Church as namely First what the Elders with the knowledge and tacite consent of the Church doe approve or dislike that is supposed to be approved or disliked by the whole Church which importeth that the Church is in some sort represented by the Senate of Elders Secondly as wee say wee have seene a man when haply wee have seene nothing but his head or his face which maketh him knowne unto us whence it is that Painters represent men unto us oft-times onely from their shoulders upward so doe wee discern know a visible political Church when we see in the Senate as it were the head and face thereof the officers being as eyes eares nose mouth c. to the Church that is being the most noble and chiefe members whereby the body is governed Thirdly the Senat of Elders is said to represent the Church because of the affinity and likenesse betwixt it and the Senate which representeth a City or some inferior civil Corporation affinity I mean not every way but in this that the government is not in the hands of all but a few and that those few were chosen with the consent of the whole Corporation Fourthly and if for these reasons the Eldership of a particular Church may be called a representative Church there is much more reason for giving this name to a classicall Presbytery or to a Synod provinciall or nationall for these doe result out of many particular Churches being made up of their Commissioners His second reason he taketh from the nature of representations alleaging that if the Elders in their Consistory represent the Church then whatsoever they either decree or do agreeing to the Word of God that also the Church decreeth and doth though absent though ignorant both what the thing is and upon what grounds it is done by the Elders and this how consonant it is to Papists implicit faith he leaveth it to wise men to consider This argument is as much against the representations of Kings and States by their Ambassadours and Commissioners it is against the representation of Churches by the Consistory of Elders and so all the wisdome of Princes and States in their Embassages shall turne to implicit faith because according to this ground what the representing doth within the bounds of his Commission that the represented doth implicitè And now I shall leave to be considered by wise men these vast differences betwixt the Papists implicit faith and the case of our Churches governed by Elderships 1. The Church assenteth not to that which the Consistory of Elders decreeth or doth except it be agreeing to the Word of God as the Reasoner himselfe saith but there is no such limitation in the Papists implicit faith 2. The Consistory of Elders doth not presse any thing upon the Church imperiously or by naked wil and authority without any reason as the Church of Rome doth with those from whom she requireth implicit faith 3. The Papists know not what those things be which they beleeve by implicit faith so that such a faith is rightly called mera articulorum fidei ignorantia a meere ignorance of the articles of faith but the decrees of our Elderships whereunto our Churches do consent are made knowne unto them 4. Our Churches are by the judgement of Christian discretion to examine all things propounded unto them even the decrees of the Elders whereas Papists may not examine what the Church propoundeth or commandeth 5. Papists by their implicit faith beleeve whatsoever the Church beleeveth because they think the Church can not erre but our Churches conceive not only their particular Elderships but oecumenicall councels to be subject to error Come we now to his third generall reason whereby he laboureth to prove
upon the same string The first is thus If those Churches planted by the Apostolique institution had power fully in themselves immediatly from Christ to practise all his ordinances Then have all Churches the like power now But the first is true Ergo. The third thus Whatsoever was commanded by the seven Churches to be practised by each of them apart in and for themselves that no Church of God must now omit But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the seven Churches to bee practised by each of them c. The fourth thus If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within her selfe to exercise Ecclesiasticall Government then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves But the first is true Ergo. The sixth thus If the Apostle gave commandement unto the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all ordinances in that Church then may the Eldership of every particular congregation administer among themselves all Gods ordinances But the first is true Ergo. Now for answer to these First I simply deny the connexion of the proposition of the fourth argument because it argueth à genere ad speciem affirmative from the exercising of ecclesiastical Government to the exercising of it independently Neither hath hee said any thing for proofe hereof Next the Reader will easily perceive that both in the first and sixth Argument his citations in proofe both of the propositions and assumptions have not so much as the least colour of pertinency and farre lesse of proofe In both these arguments when he would prove the proposition he speaketh to the assumptioÌ„ contrariwise But these things I delight not to insist upon only I shall give two Distinctions any one of which much more both of them shall make these arguments wholly improfitable unto him First I distinguish his propositions That power authority which the Church of Corinth the seven Churches of Asia and other Apostolicall Churches had to exercise Ecclesiastical government in and for themselves the like have all Churches now which are of the like frame and condition but the most part of particular Churches now are of a different frame and condition from the Apostolique Churches and so have not such fulnesse of power as they had Put the case that the Apostolick Churches were no greater then might and did ordinarily assemble together into one place for the worship of God yet since by reason of the troubleâ— of those times which suffered not the Christians to spread themselves abroad all the countrey over but confined them within Cities and safe places those Churches were not planted so thick and neare together as that they might have the conveniency of Synodical consociation hence it appeareth that they might do many things in and by themselves which particular Congregations now having the conveniency of consociation with neighbour Churches ought not to do in and by themselves But this I have said gratis having in my former Treatise at length declared that the Apostolick Churches at least the most and principall of them were greater then could assemble ordinarily in one place of worship and that they were served with sundry both Pastors and Elders that therefore our Parochiall Churches ought not to be in respect of the points in question compared with their Churches nor our Parochiall Presbyteries with their Presbyteries The second distinction which I have to propound is concerning the assumptions of the arguments now in hand The Apostolick Churches did indeed ordinarily exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all the ordinances of Christ in and for themselves yet so that when the occasion of a Synode did occurre for determining a question which was too hard for particular Churches and was also common to many Churches in that case they did submit themselves to the authority of he Synod Which hath also before beene made plaine from Act. 15. To practise all the ordinances of God in a Church is one thing and to practise them independantly so as nevâ—r to be subject to the authority of a Synod is another thing My antagonist doth after take it for granted saith that all learned men have granted that the Churches of the Apostolick constitution were independant bodies But whence are you Sir that would make your Reader beleeve there are no learned men in the Churches of Scotland France the low-countries and the other reformed Churches which have the governement of Presbyteries and Synods conceiving it to be most agreeable to the Apostolicall patterne Have you put out of the category of learned men all Protestant writers who in the controversies about Councels dispute against Papists from Acts 15.2 Why did you not among all your imeprtinent allegations cite some few of those learned men who grant the Apostolick Churches to have been independant bodies But we must heare what more you have to say Your first eight and tenne arguments are in like manner coincident The first you frame thus Such actions the Church may lawfully do wherein no law of God is broken But there is no law of God broken when particular Churches do in and among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances Ergo. The eight thus Whatsoever governement cannot be found commanded in the written Word oâ— God ought not to have any place in the Church of God But the Government of Presbyteries and Synods over many particular congregations cannot be found commanded c. The tenth thus It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ hath set forth in the new Testament But to subject particular congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves is to adde c. Now the word independantly must be added to the assumption of the first argument else it cannot conclude what he affirmes and we deny for there is no question but particular Churches may exercise in and among them selves all Gods ordinances in those cases and with those distinctions which I have spoken of before part 2. chap. 2. This being cleared I deny the assumption in all these three arguments I expected proofe for it but he hath given none except that it cannot for shame be denied I had thought it rather a shamefull thing for a writer to trouble his Reader with arguments which he cannot make good But what saith he to the professors of Leyden who hold the institution of Synods not to be humane but divine which they prove from Mat. 18. Act. 15. Nay what is more ordinary in Protestant writers then the applying of those words Where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them unto Synods and Councels and hence they condemne the popish Councels in so much that Bellarmin Salmeron and other Jesuits have in this contradicted all our writers telling us as these men doe that our Saviour meaneth not of Councels in these words Moreover that
AN ASSERTION OF The Government of the Church OF SCOTLAND IN The points of Ruling-Elders and of the Authority of Presbyteries and Synods With a Postscript in answer to a Treatise lately published against Presbyteriall Government Gesta Purgat Caecil felic Adhibete Conclericos Seniores plebis Ecclesiasticos viros inquirant diligenter que sint istae dissensiones August epist. 118. Quorum conciliorum est in Ecclesia saluberima authoritas Edinburgh Printed for Iames Bryson 1641. TO THE READER IT is high time for those who have been long praying for the peace of Hierusalem and with bleeding hearts have beheld the sorrowes of Sion now to bestirre themselves with an extraordinary diligence and to contribute their most serious and uncessant endeavours for the setling of these present commotions about Church affairs in such a manner that the sacred twins Truth and Peace may both cohabit under own roofe and that this great and good work of Reformation may not be blasted in the bird nor fade in the flourish but may be brought forward to that full maturity which shall afford a harvest of joy to us and to all the Churches of God One controversie there is about the government of the Church and it is of such consequence that were it well resolved upon and rightly agreed it should facilitate a right resolution in other matters which are in question Now because longum iter per praecepta breve per exempla the way is long by precepts short by platforms therefore I have carefully observed the policie and government of other reformed Churches And because the nearnesse of relation swayeth my affection at least half a thought more unto that which is Scotlands caeteris paribus then unto that which is more remote from us therfore I was most solicitous to see a delineation of the government of that famously reformed neighbor Church which when I had read read over again I did conclude with my self that if these two points at which most exception is taken I mean the office of ruling Elders and the authoritie of Presbyters and Synodes which also are things common to the other reformed Churches could be upon good grounds maintained there is no other thing of any moment to be objected against it And with these thoughts I was so tossed that I could not rest satisfied with the Quid wiâ—hout the Quare but did conceive as great languor and desire for a demonstration of that form of Church government as before I had for a declaration of the same Whereupon I have purchased to my self from Scotland this ensuing Treatise which having fully satisfied my owne minde in the asserting of those most controverted points I have resolved to communicate and publish the same unto others for the reasons following First for the satisfaction of such as do through ignorance or mistaking stumble at such a form of Ecclesiasticall government I do not much marvell to see those that aâ—e of a simple understanding so far conquered as to scruple the office of ruling Elders having heard the big words and lavish expressions of some opposites against the same yet a poor peece it is which one of them would usher in with a tinckling Epistle in which Projicit ampullas sesquipedalia verba He maketh offer to forfeit his life to justice and his reputation to shame if any living man can shew that ever there was a ruling Elder in the Christian world till Fâ—rell and Viret first created them I shall not desire to take him at his word for his life but if he be not able to give a satisfactory answer unto that which is here sayd both from Scripture and from antiquity for ruling Elders then hath he given sentence against his own reputation for ever And so much the more that having in that assertion of Episcopacie boldly averred that the name of the Elders of the Church in all antiquity comprehendeth none but Preachers and Divines and that therfore none but they may be called Seniores Ecclesiae though some others happily may have the title of Seniores populi because of their civill authority notwithstanding the reading of the observations of Iustellus and of both the Cassaubons hath now so farre changed his tone that in his late answer to â—mectymnuus he acknowledgeth that beside Pastors and Doctors and beside the Magistrates or Elders of the Cities there are to be found in antiquity Seniores Ecclesiastici Ecclesiasticall Elders also only he alleadgeth they were but as our Church-wardens or rather as our Vestry-men whereas indeed they were Judges in Ecclesiasticall controversies and in some sort instructors of the people as shall be made to appeare Meane while we do observe what trust is to be given to this bold Speaker who hath beene forcâ—d to yeeld what he had before with high swelling words denied Another Instance of the same kinde is to be noted in his Remonstrance when he speaketh of the prescript forms of prayer which the Jewish Church had ever from the dayes of Moses wherewith also Peter and Iohn when they went up into the Temple at the ninth hour of Prayer did joyn to make good his allegiance he addeth the forms whereof are yet extant and ready to be produced Yet this he handsomely eateth up in his defence where he gives us to understand that those set forms of prayer are indeed specified by Capellus a writer of our owne Age but that the book it selfe which contained these prayers is perished a thousand years ago Well he is now content to say that once those forms were extant and this forsooth he will prove from a certain Samaritan Chronicle in the custodie of his faithfull friend the Primate of Aâ—mach wherein he hath found a story which transporteth him as much as the invention of the demonstration did Archimedes when he cried 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I have found it I have found it Yet credâ—t Iudaeus apella Non ego But this lyeth not now in my way Only till a full answer be ready I thought it not amisse to give some taste of the mans vaine arrogant humour whose best weapons are great words As for his last record which he fetcheth from Abrahamus Scultetus against ruling Elders all that and much more hath been and here shall be abundantly confuted Others there be who call in question the power and authority of Ecclesiasticall Presbyteries and of Synods against which also some few Pens have been put to paper and have passed a censure no lesse hard then unseasonable which me thinks might well have been spared unlesse there had been stronger and more convincing reasons for it These I shall beseech that with minds voyd of prejudice they take into consideration the second part of this Treatise written with no heat nor sharpnesse of words but with plainnesse and strength of reason And withall I shall expect that they will not think the worse of the Author for being ready to answer him that asketh
assertion I intend to satisfie the scrupulous and to put to silence the malicious so also to confirm the consciences of such as are friends and savourers to the right way of Church government Whatsoever is not of faith iâ— sin saith the Apostle yea though it be in a matter otherwise indifferent how much more is it necessary that we halt not in our judgement concerning the government of the Church but walk straight in the plerophory and full assurance of the same from the warrants of the word of God I say againe from the warrants of the word of God for as it is not my meaning to commend this forme because it is Scotlands so I hope assuredly that my Country-men will not dispise Gods Ordinance because it is Scotlands practice but rather follow them in so far as they follow Christ and the Scripture This therefore I pray that thy love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgement that thou maiest approve the things that are excellent Consider what I say and the Lord give thee understanding in all things Amen THE CONTENTS OF the first part of this Treatise CHAP. I. Of the words Elder Lay-Elder Ruling-Elder FOure significations of the word Elder in Scripture Of the nickname of Lay-Elders That the Popish distinction of the Clergie and the Laity ought to be banished Of the name of Ruling-Elders and the reason thereof CHAP. II. Of the function of Ruling-Elders and what sâ—re of officers they be OF the distinction of Pastors Doctors Elders and Deacons Of the behaviour and conuersation of Ruling-Elders Of the distinction of the power of Order and of jurisdiction That the Ruling-Elder his power of jurisdiction is to sit and voice in all the Consistories and Assemblies of the Church That his power of order is to do by way of authority those duties of edification which every Christian is bound to do by way of charity CHAP. III. The first argument for Ruling-Elders taken from the jewish-Iewish-Church THat we ought to follow the Jewish Church in such things as they had not for any speciall reason proper to them but as they were an Ecclesiasticall Republike That the Elders among the Jews did sit among the Priests and voice in their Ecclesiasticall Courts according to Baravias own confession but were not theirâ— will Magistrates as he alleadgeth Bilsons objections answered CHAP. IV. The second Argument taken from Math. 18.17 WHat is the meaning of these words Tell the Church Why the Presbytery may be called the Church Our argument from this place for Ruling-Elders CHAP. V. The third Argument taken from Rom. 12.8 THe words Rom. 12.8 expounded That by him that ruâ—eth is meant the Ruling-Elder The objections to the contrary answered CHAP. VI. The fourth Argument taken from 1 Cor. 12.28 THâ—t by governments the Apostle meaneth ruling-Elders Two glosses given by our opposites confuted CHAP. VII The fiâ—st Argument taken from 1 Tim. 5.17 OUr Argument from this place vindicated against â—en false glosses devised by our opposites CHAP. VIII The testimony of Ambrose for Ruling-Elders vindicated NO certain ground alledged against the authority of those Commentaries upon the Epistles ascribed to Ambrose Other answers made by our opposites to the place upon 1 Tim. 5. confuted CHAP. IX Other Testimonies of Antiquitie TEstimonies for Ruling-Elders out of Tertullion Cyprian Epiphanius Bâ—sil Chrysostome Hierome Eusâ—bius Augustine Origen Isidore the first counsell of Tâ—lido Other testimoâ—ies observed by Iustellus and Voetius Bilsons answer confuted CHAP. X. The consent of Protestant Writers and the confession of our opposites for Ruling-Elders CItatâ—ons of sundry Protestant writers to this purpose This truth hath extorted a confession from Wâ—itgist Saravia Sultiffe Camero and M. Io. Wemys of Craigtown CHAP. XI Dr. Fields five arguments against ruling-Elders answered HIs first reason that no foot-step of Ruling-Elders for many hundreth years could be found in any Christian Church answered five waies Footsteps of Ruling-Elders in the Church of England His second reason answered That we ought to judge of the Officers of the Church not from 1 Tim. 3. only but from that and other places compared together His third reason answered by the câ—rtain bounds of the power of Ruling-Elders His fourth reason answered by the distinction of the Ecclesiasticaâ—l Sanedrim of the Iewes from their civill Sanedrim His last reason concerning the names holdeth not CHAP. XII The extravagancies of Whitegift and Saravia in the matter of ruling-Elders THe one alloweth of Ruling-Elders under an Infidell Magistrate but not under a Christian Magistrate The other alloweth of them under a Christian Magistrate but not under an Infidell That Ruling-Elders do not prejudge the power of the civill Magistrate but the Prelacie doth which confuteth Whitegift That Christian Magistrates are not come in place of the Jewish Seniors which confuteth Saravia CHAP. XIII Whether ruling-Elders have the power of decisive voices when they they sit in Presbyteries and Synods THe affirmative proved by nine reasons Two objections to the contrary answered The place 1 Cor. 14.32 explained CHAP. XIIII Of the Ordination of ruling-Elders Of the continuance of their Office and of their maintenance THat the want of the Imposition of hands in Ordination the want of maintainance and the not continuing alwaies in the â—xercise of the Office cannot be prejudiciall to the Office it selfe of Ruling-Elders The Contents of the second Part. CHAP. I. Of Popular government in the Church THat this question is necessary to be clâ—â—red before the question of the authority of Assemblies That Jurisdiction ought not to be 〈◊〉 by all the Members of a Congregaâ—ion proved by 〈◊〉 reasons Objections answered The controversie 〈◊〉 CHAP. II. Of the independencie of the Elderships of particular Congregations Dr. Fields question whâ—ther the power of Jurisdiction belongeth to the Eldership of every Congregation or to a common Presbytery made up out of many Congregations answered by an eigâ—â—fold distinction A thrâ—â—fold conformity of those Parishionall Elderships to the primitive pattern CHAP. III. Of great Presbyteries which some call Classes THree false glossâ—s on 1 Tim. 4.14 confuted That the Apostle 〈◊〉 by the Presbytery aâ— Assembly of Presbyters whereof also Fathers and Councels do speak The warrant and authority of our Classicall Presbyteries declared both by good reasons and by the Apostolicall patern for assertion of the latter it is proved 1. That in many of those Cities wherein the Apostles planted Christian religion there was a greater number of christians then did or could ordinarily assemble into one place 2. That in these Cities there was a plurality of Pastors 3. That yet the whole within the City was one Church 4. That the whole was governed by one common Presbytery From all which a Corollary is drawne for these our Classicall Presbyteries CHAP. IV. Of the authority of Syâ—â—ds provinciall and Nationall THat the power of Jurisdiction in the Synod differeth from the power of jurisdiction in the Presbyterie The power of Jurisdiction
the faithfull from their sinnes See Conci Triden de sacr Ordin cap. 1. Hier. Savanarola Triumph cruc lib. 3. cap. 16. And the same two make up the proper office of the Priest by the order of the English Service Booke As touching Deacons they were ordained by the Apostles for collecting receiving keeping and distributing of Ecclesiasticall goods for maintaining of Ministers schooles Churches the sicke stranger and poore The Popish and Prelaticall Deacons have no such office but an office which the Apostles never appointed to them for they had no preaching nor baptising Deacons Philip preached and baptised not as a Deacon but as an Evangelist Acts 21.8 Besides at the time of his preaching and baptising hee could not have exercised the office of his Deaconship by reason of the persecution which scattered rich and poore and all Acts 8.1 that which Steven did Acts 7. was no more then every believer was bound to doe when he is called to give a testimony to the truth and to give a reason of his faith and practice 4. Others of the faithfull besides the Ministers of the Word have beene admitted unto Councells and Synods by many Christian Churches throughout the World as is well knowne and this is a manifest foot-step of the government of ruling Elders 5. Nay in the Church of England it selfe at this day there are foot-steps of ruling Elders else what meaneth the joyning of Lay-men with the Clergy in the high Commission to judge of matters Ecclesiasticall Sâ—ravia saith the Churchwardens which are in every Parish of England have some resemblance of ruling Elders whose change appointed by law he saith is to collect keepe and deburse the goods and revenues of the Church to preserve the fabricke of the Church and all things pertaining thereto sure and safe to keep account of baptismes mariages and burials to admonish delinquents other inordinate livers to delate to the Bishop or his substitutes such as are incorrigible scandalous being sworn thereto also to observe who are absent froÌ„ the praiers in the Church upon the Lords dayes upon the holy dayes to exact from them the penalty appointed by law and finally to see to quietnes decency in time of divine service Doctor Fields second reason is for that Paul 1 Tim. 3. shewing who should be Bishops and Ministers who Deacons yea who Widowes passeth immediatly from describing the qualitie of such as were to be Bishops and Ministers of the Word and Sacraments to the Deacons omitting these ruling Elders that are supposed to lye in the midst betweene them which he neither might nor would have omitted if there had beene any such To this the answer is easie 1. As we collect the actions and sufferings of Jesus Christ and the institution of the last supper not from any one of the Evangelists but from all of them compared together for that one toucheth what another omitteth so doe we judge of the office-bearers of the Church not from 2 Tim. 3. only but from the collation of that and other places of Scripture of that kind Ruling Elders are found in other places and in the fifth Chapter of that same Epistle though not in the third 2 Neither were there any absurdity to hold that the Apostle in that third Chapter comprehendeth all the ordinary office-bearers in the Church under these two Bishops and Deacons and that under the name of Bishops he comprehendeth both Pastors Doctors ruling Elders for as al these three are overseers so to them all agree the qualities of a Bishop here mentioned whereof there is only one which seemeth not to agree to the ruling Elder viz. that he should be apt to teach vers 2. Yet Beza maintaineth against Saravia that the ruling Elder teacheth as wel as the Pastor only the Pastor doth it publickly to the whole congregation the ruling Elder doth it privately as he findeth every one to have need And we have shewed before that as a private Christian is bound in charity to teach the ignorant so the ruling Elder is bound to doe it ex offâ—cio The third reason which Doctor Field bringeth against us is for that neither Scripture nor practice of the Church bounding the government of such governours nor giving any direction how farre they may goe in the same and where they must stay lest they meddle with that they have nothing to doe with men should bee left to a most dangerous uncertainety in an office of so great consequence Our answer to this is 1. Wee have shewed already the certaine bounds of the power and vocation of ruling Elders 2. It was not necessary that the Apostle should severally set downe Canons and directions first touching Pastors then Doctors lastly ruling Elders since they are all Elders and all members of the Eldership or Presbytery it was enough to deliver canons and directions common to them all especially since the duties of ruling Elders are the same which are the duties of Pastors only the Pastors power is cumulative to theirs and over reacheth the same in the publicke ministery of the Word and Sacraments and so doth Paul difference them 1 Tim. 5.17 His fourth reason is because we fetch the paterne of the government of ruling Elders from the Sanedrim of the Jewes the platforme whereof wee suppose Christ meant to bring into his Church when he said Tell the Church whereas saith he it is most cleere that the court was a civill court and had a power to banish to imprison yea and to take away life till by the Romans the Jewes were restrained Wee answer that Beza de Presbyteriâ— I. B. A. C. De polit civil Eccl. lib. 2. Also Zepperus Iunius Piscator Wolphius Godwin Bucerus Gerard And sundry others have rightly observed that the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim among the Jewes was distinct from the civill yet both called by the name of Sanedrim Wee grant with Beza that sometimes civill causes were debated and determined in the Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim but this was done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he saith the fact which was meerely civill was judged in the â—ivill Sanedrim but when the civilâ— Judges could not agree de jure even in civill causes in that case resolution was given by the other Sanedrim as in like cases by the juris-consults among the Romans for the conservation and interpretation of the law did belong to the Leviticall Tribe Hence it is that we read 2 Chron. 19.8.11 Iehosaphat set in Ierusalem of the Levits and of the chiefe Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel some for the Lords matters among whom presided Amariah the chiefe Priest and some for the Kings matters among whom presided Zâ—badiah the Ruler of the house of Judah Saravia saith this place proveth not that there were two distinct consistories one for civill another for Ecclesiasticall things because saith he by the Kings matters are meant matters of peace and warre by the Lords
matters the matters of law and judgement which are called the Lords matters because the Lord was the author of their civill lawes what a crazie device is this did not matters of peace and warre come under the civill lawes which God had delivered to the Jewes as well as any matter of judgement betwixt man and man and what can bee more plaine then that the Lords matters or things pertaining to God when they are differenced from other matters are ever understood to bee matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Quapropter wherefore saith Iunius the Readers are to be warned whosoever they bee that consult the histories of ancient times that where they read the name Synedâ—tum they wisely observe whether the civill Assembly or the Ecclesiastical be meant of because that name was confused and indistinct after the times of Antiochus But notwithstanding that in these latter times all good order had much degenerate and growne to confusion yet it seemeth to me that even in the dayes of our Saviour Christ the Civill and Ecclesiasticall courts remained distinct let me say my opinion with all mens leave and under correction of the more learned that night that our Lord was betrayed he was led to the Hall of Cajaphas where there was holden an Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim which asked Jesus of his Disciples and of his doctrine received witnesse against him and pronounced him guilty of blasphemy Mat. 27.57 Mark 14.53.55 Ioh. 18.19 Nothing I finde in this Councell why we should think it civill for as touching the smiting and buffeting of Christ Mat. 26.67 Luk 22.63 some think it was by the servants of the high Priests and Elders after that they themselves had gone home left the Councell howsoever it was done tumultuously not judicially and tumults may fall forth in any Judicatory whether civill or Ecclesiastical As for the sentence which they gave Mat. 26.66 He is guilty of death it proveth not that this was a civill Court for just so if an incestuous person should bee convict before an Assembly of our Church the Moderator might ask the Assembly what thinke ye and they might well answer He is guilty of death away with him to the Magistrate Shortly then the matter debated in this nocturnall Councell was meerly Ecclesiasticall and the accusation of sedition and making himselfe a King were not spoken of till he was brought before Pâ—â—at But there was another Sanedrim convocat in the morning Mat 27 1. Mark 15.1 Luk 22 66. and this seemes to have been not Ecclesiasticall but Civill 1. because they meddle not with the triall of his doctrine nor any examination of witnesses thereanent only they desire to heare out of his own mouth that which hee had confessed in the other Councell viz. that he was the Christ the Son of God whereupon they take counsell how they might deliver him to Pilate which was the end of their meeting 2. Mâ—â—k saith They bound him and carried him awâ—y to Pilate 3. The Ecclesiasticall Councell had already done that which they thought pertained to them for what should they have convened again Some say that aâ—l the high Priests Scribes and Elders were not present at that nocturnall councell and that therefore they convened more fully in the morning But that the nocturnall Councell was fully convened it is manifest from Mat. 26.59 Mark 14.53.55 4. This last Councell led Jesus away to Pilâ—te and went themselves with him to accuse him before Pilate of sedition and of making himselfe a King Luk. 23.1.2 Mat. 27.12 5. They complain that the power of capitall punishment was taken from them by the Romans importing that otherwise they might have put him to death by their law Ioh. 18.31 Now D. Fields last reason is For that all Fathers or Councels mentioning Elders place them betwixt Bishops and Deacons and make them to be Clergy men and that in the Acts where the Apostles are said to have constitute Elders in every Church Pastors are meant is strongly confirmed from Act. 20.17.28 where the Elders of the Church of Ephesus are commanded to feed the flocke of Christ over which they were appointed over-seers whence it followeth inevitably that they were Pastors We answer 1. Ambrose speaketh of Elders which were not Pastors 2. Beza Gualther expound the place Act. 14.23 where the Apostles are said to have ordained Elders through every Church of ruling as well as preaching Elders 3. As for that which he alledgeth from Act. 20. Beza Iunius and the Professors of Leyden hold that the names of Bishops and Pastors are common both to ruling and preaching Elders and that the Scripture giveth these names to both howsoever in Ecclesiastical use for distinctioÌ„s cause they are appropriate to teaching Elders Surely the ruling Elder both overseeth the flocke and feedeth the same both by discipline and by private admonition and for these respects may bee truly called both Bishop and Pastor 4. How small reason hee hath to boast of the Fathers we have already made it to appeare 5. It is a begging of the question to reason from the appropriation of the name of Elders to the Pastors CHAP. XII The extravagancies of Whitgift and Saravia in the matter of ruling Elders THese two Disputers doe not as D. Field altogether oppose the government of ruling Elders but with certain restrictions about which notwithstanding they differ betwixt themselves â—hitgift alloweth of ruling Elders under a Tyrant but not under a Christian Magistrate but â—ayeth they cannot be under an Infidell Magistrate Me thinkes J see here Sampsons Foxes with their tailes knit together and a firebrand betwixt them yet their heads looking sundry waâ—es To begin with Whitgift he saith in one place I know that in the primitive church they had in every church seniors to whom the Government of the Congregation was committed but that was before there was any Christian Prince or Magistrate c. In another place My reason why it the Church may not bee governed under a Christian Magistrate is it may under a Tyrant is this God hath given the chiefe authority in the government of the Church to the Christian Magistrate which could not bee so if your Seigniory might aswell retaine their authority under a Christian Prince and in the time of peace is under a Tyrant and in the time of persecution for tell me I pray you what authority Ecclesiasticall remaineth to the civill Magistrate where this Seigniory is established Hee who pleaseth may find this opâ—â—ion largely consuted by Beza de Presbyterio contra Erasmum and by I. B. A. C. polit civil Eccles. Jn the meane while I answer First T. C. had made a sufficient Reply hereunto which Whitgift here in his defence should have confuted but hath not viz. That if the Seniors under a Tyrant had medled with any Office of a Magistrate then there had beene some cause why a godly Magistrate being in the Church the Office of a Senior or at least so much as
word onely others he permits onely to consent unto that which is done by them Saravia alloweth grave and learned men to sit with the Ministers of the word yet not as Iudges but as Counsellors and Assessors onely Tilen will not say that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church ought to call any into their Councill but that they may doe it when there is need Against whom and all who are of their mind we object 1. The example of Apostolicke Synods Matthias the Apostle after Gods owne designation of him by the lot which fell upon him was chosen by the voices not onely of the Apostles but the other Disciples who were met with them Act 1.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Simul suffragiis electus est as Arias Montanus turneth it For the proper and native signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Lorinus sheweth out of Gagveius is to choose by voices The Professors of Leyden have noted this consensus Ecclesiae per 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the election of Matthias Cens. in Confess cap. 21. Jn the Councill of Hierusalem Act. 15. we find that beside the Apostles the Elders were present and voiced definitively for they by whom the Decree of the Synod was given forth and who sent chosen men to Antioch were the Apostles and Elders Gerard Loc. Theol. com 6. n. 28. and thâ— Profess of Leyden cens in conf c. 21. understand that the Elders spoken of v. 5. 6. were the ruling Elders of the Church of Hierusalem joyned with the Apostles who laboured in the word Other ProtestaÌ„t writers understand by the name of Elders there both preaching and ruling Elders The Brethrent hat is the whole Church heard the disputes and consented to the Decrees v. 21 22 23 Ruling Elders behoved to doe more then the whole Church that is voice definitively Lorinus the Jesuite saith that by the name of Elders there wee may understand not onely Priests but others besides them Viz. antiquiores anctoritate praecellentes discipulos Disciples of greatest age and note And this he saith is the reason why the vulgar Latine hath not retained in that place the Greeke word Presbyteri but readeth Seniores 2. Wee have for us the example of Ecclesiasticall Courts among the Iewes wherein the Iewish Elders had equall power of voicing with the Priests and for this we have heard before Saravia's plaine confession 3. The example of ancient Councils in the Christian Church Constantine in his Epistle which he wrote to the Churches concerning the Nicene Councill saith I my selfe as one of your number was present with them the Bishops which importeth that others of the Laity voiced there with the Bishops as well as he and hee as a chiefe one of their number Euagrius lib. 2. cap. 4. saith that the chiefe Senators sate with the Bishops in the Councill of Chalcedon And after he saith The Senators decreed as followeth The fourth Councill of Carthagâ— c. 27. speaking of the transportation of a Bishop or of any other Clergie man saith sane si id Ecclesiae vtilitas fiendum poposecrit decretâ— Pro eo clericorum laicorum Episcopis porrecto in praeseÌ„tia Synodi transferatur The Decrees of the Synod of France holden by Charlemainâ— about the yeare 743. are said to have beene made by the King the Bishops the Presbyters and Nobles Many such examples might we shew but the matter is so cleere that it needeth not 4. The Revieu of the Councill of Trent written by a Papist among other causes of the Nobility of that Councill maketh this one that Lay-men were not called nor admitted into it as was the forme of both the Apostolicke and other ancient Councils shewing also from sundry Histories and examples that both in France Spaine and England Lay-men vsed to voice and to judge of all matters that were handled in Councils alleaging further the examples of Popes themselves That Adrian did summon many Lay-men to the Lateran Councill as members thereof that in imitation of him Pope Leo did the like in another Councill at the Lateran under Otho the first and that Pope Nicholas in Epist. ad Michael Imperat. acknowledgeth the right of Lay-men to voice in Councils wherein matters of faith are treated of because faith is common to all The same writer sheweth also from the Histories that in the Councill of Constance were 24. Dukes 140 Earles divers Delegates from Cities and Corporations divers learned Lawyers and Burgesses of Universities 5. The Protestants of Germany did ever refuse to acknowledge any such Councill wherein none but Bishops and Ministers of the word did judge When the Councill of Trent was first spoken of in the Dyet at Norimberg Anno 1522. all the estates of Germany desired of Pope Adrian the 6. That admittance might be granted as well to Lay-men as to Clergie-men and that not onely as witnesses and spectators but to be judges there This they could not obtaine therefore they would not come to the Councill and published a booke which they entituled Causa cur Electores caeteri confessioni Augustanae addicti ad CoÌ„cilium Tridentinum non accedant Where they alleage this for one cause of their not comming to Trent because none had voice there but Cardinals Bishops Abbots Generals or superiors of orders wheras laickes also ought to have a decisive voice in Councils 6. If none but the Ministers of the word should sit and voice in a Synod then it could not bee a Church representative because the most part of the Church who are the hearerâ— and not the teachers of the word are not represented in it 7. A common cause ought to be concluded by common voices But that which is treated of in Councils is a common cause pertaining to many particular Churches Our Divines when they prove against Papists that the election of Ministers and the excommunication of obstinate sinners ought to be done by the suffrages of the whole Church they make use of this same argument That which concerneth all ought to be treated of and judged by all 8. Some of all estates in the common-wealth voice in Parliament therefore some of all sorts in the Church ought to voice in Councils and Synods for de paribus idem judicium A Nationall Synod is that same to the Church which A Parliament is to the Common-wealth 9. Those Elders whose right we plead are called by the Apostle rulers Rom. 12.8 1 Tim. 5.17 and Governours 1 Cor. 12.28 therefore needs must they voice and judge in those assemblies without which the Church cannot be ruled nor governed Jf this be denyed them they have no other function behind to make them Rulers or Governours of the Church Rome was ruled by the Senate not by the Censors and Athens was governed by the Arâ—opagus not by the inferiour Office-bearers who did only take heed how the Lawes were observed But let us now see what is objected against this power of Ruling Elders to voice
in Councill and to Iudge of all things even matters of faith treated therein First it is alleadged that lay-men have not such abilities of gifts and learning as to judge aright of such matters But I dare say there are Ruling Elders in ScotlaÌ„d who in a theological dispute should powerfully spoyle many of those who make this objection 2. Antonius Sadeel Iohannes a Lasco Morney and such like shew plainely to the world that gifts singular learning are not tyed to Bishops and Doctors of the Church 3. Neither doe men of subtile wits and deepest learning prove alwayes fittest to dispute and determine questions of faith It is marked in the historie of the Councill of Nice that there was a Lay-man therein of a simple and sincere mind who put to silence a subtile Philosopher whom all the Bishops could not compesâ—e 4. There are many both in Parliament and secret Counsell without all controversie able to give their suffrages and to judge of matters in hand who notwithstanding are not of such learning and Eloquence as to enter into the lists of a publique dispute 5. And if the gifts and abilities of the most part of ruling Elders were as small as their adversaries will be pleased to call them yet this concludeth nothing against their right power of voicing but onely against their aptitude and fitnesse unto that whereto their right would carry them And we doubt that every Pastour be well gifted for all which coÌ„meth within the compasse of his vocation or doth well every thing which he hath power to doe Another objection is made from 1. Cor. 14.32 The spirits of the Prophets arâ— subject to the Prophets whence they collect that prophets and preachers of the word ought to be judged by such as themselves are that is by Prophets and Preachers and by none other To this we say 1. There owne Camero giveth us another commentarie upon that place rightly observing that the Apostle there speaketh nothing of trying or judging the spirits but onely of the order which is to be kept in the Church for whereas in the Church of Corinth the Prophets did prophecy tumultuously many or all of them at once and would not give place one to another this the Apostle condemneth and will have the Prophets so farre subject to the Prophets as that when one riseth up to prophecy the rest may hold their peace 2. That this is the sense it is cleare from the order and dependance of the Text for v. 30. he commandeth him that prophecieth in the Church to hold his peace when any thing is revealed to another Prophet that sitteth by now this he enforceth by foure reasons 1. Because so they might all prophecy one by one and they were mistaken who thought that all could not prophecy except many spake at once 2. All that were in the Church might learne and all be comforted by every Prophet which could not be except they prophecied severally one by one 3. The Spirits of the Prophets are not arrogant but humblie subject one to another each giving place to other 4. God is not the Author of confusion but of peace and order CHAP. XIV Of the Ordination of Ruling Elders of the continuance of their Office and of their maintenance TOuching the first of these it cannot be denyed but as Election to the Office so ordination to the exercise thereof is a thing common both to Preaching and Ruling Elders Howbeit in Scotland imposition of hands is not used in the Ordination of Ruling Elders as it is in the Ordination of Preaching Elders yet this is not to bee thought a defect in their Ordination for imposition of hands is not an Act but a signe of Ordination neither is it a necessary signe but is leâ—t free it is not therefore without reason that Calvin Chemnitius Gerard Bucaâ— Iaâ—iâ— Bucerus and many other of our learned Writers yea the Arch-bishop of Spalato doe all make a distinction betwixt the essentiall act of ordination and the externall rite thereof holding that ordination may be full valid and compleat not onely without the unction used in the Roman Church but even without the laying on of hands used in the Reformed Churches After the Election of Ruling Elders with the notice consent of the whole Church there followeth with us a publique designation of the persons so elected and an authoritative or potestative Mission Ordination or Deputation of them unto their Presbyteriall functions together with publique exhortation unto them and prayer in the Church for them which wee conceive to bee all that bâ—longeth either to the essence or integrity of Ordinaâ—ion I meane not to condemne Imposition of hands nor any other convenient signe in the Ordination of Ruling Elders onely J intend to justifie our owne forme as sufficient As for the maintenance and the continuance of the Office of Ruling Elders wee love not unnecessary Multiplication of questions let every Church doe herein what they find most convenient The manner of our Church in these things is such as best be fitteth the condition of the same such as cannot be in reason condemned Neither is a stipend nor continuance in the Function till Death essentiall to the Ministery of the Church but separable from the same The Levites of old served not at all times but by course and when they were 50. yeares old they were wholly liberat from the burden and labour though not from the attendance of the Leviticall service and Ministers may still upon the Churches permission for lawfull Reasons and urgent Necessities be absent a whole yeere and longer too from their particular charges The Apostles when they were first sent through Iudea tooke no stipend Mat. 10.8 9. Neither did Paul take any at Corinth 1 Cor. 9.18 The Ministers among the Waldenses worke with their hands for their maintainance The old Patriarchs were Priests and Preachers to their families and maintained themselves by the worke of their hands feeding of Flockes tilling the Ground c These things I do not mention as Rules to be followed by us but to shew that the intermission of the exercise of the Ministery the want of maintainance and labouring with the hands are not altogether repugnant nor inconsistent with the Nature of the vocation of the Ministers of the word but in some cases hic nunc may bee most approveable in them much more in Ruling Elders The Revenues of our Church are so small that they cannot spare stipends to Ruling Elders which maketh them willing to serve without stipends and lest they should be overburdened with this their service though they be chosen and called to be Ruling Elders as long as they live at least till they mâ—rit to be deposed yet our booke of policie alloweth them that ease of intermission and serving by course which was allowed to the Levits of old in the Temple The double honour which the Apostle commandeth to give unto Elders that rule well needeth not to be
knoâ—ledge â—nd at least tacite consent of the Congregation it selfe then doe we not onely sufficiently and abundantly preserve the liberty of the Congregation while as not the Pastor or Pastors thereof alone but sundry Ruling Elders also representing the Congregation doe manage the affaires aforesaid the Congregation withall understanding thereof and consenting thereto Tacitè if not Expressè I doe not thinke but those of the Separation at this time will easily assent to this resolution and reconcilement of the controversie and so much the rather because I beleeve they themselves doe seclude from the exercise of jurisdiction in the Congregation both children under age because of their defect of Judgement and women because they are forbidden to speake in the Church and whether they seclude any other I know â—ot but since according to their owne Tenets some must be secluded and the power given to the Church must in the exercise of it be restrained to some in the Church it is better to say with Aegidius Hunnius that when Christ remitteth us to the Church Mat. 18.17 He meaneth the prime and chiefe Members which represent the Church that is Pastors aâ—d Elders then to say that he sendeth us to the whole body of the Church One scruple more may peradventure remaine They will say it is well that we require the churches consent before any waighty matter which concerneth all be finished but what if this consent be not had Whether may the Eldership cut off an offender renitente Ecclesia For their satisfaction is this also wee say with Zepperus Quod si Ecclesia c. But if the Church saith he will not approve the sentence of Excommunication nor hold it valid and they see many disagreeing among themselves and schismes and greater evills in the Church to follow this sentence of Excommunication the Elders shall not proceed to Excommunication but shall patiently suffer what cannot with the good leave of the church be amended In the meane while they shall publikely and privately admonish and exhort So saith Zanchius that without the consent of the church no man ought to be excommunicated The B. of Spalato and before him Augustine hath given the reason hereof because the end of excommunication cannot be attained if the Church doe not consent thereto for the end is that the offender may bee taken with feare and shame when he findeth himselfe abhorred and accursed by the whole Church so that it shall be in vain to excommunicate him from whom the Multitude in the Church refuse to abstract their communion I conclude that in such cases though the Pastors and Elders have the power of jurisdiction it is not to exercise the same CHAP. II. Of the independencies of the Elderships of particular Congregations WEE have now rolled away one stone of offence but there is another in our way It were most strange if the collective body of a Congregation consisting it may bee of 10 20 30 or 40 persons according to the grounds of these with whom we deale should bee permitted to exercise independently all Eccleasisticall Jurisdiction but it is almost as great a Paradox to say that the representative of every Congregation which is the Eldership therof consisting it may be of a Pastor and two or three Ruling Elders ought independently to exercise the foresaid jurisdiction in all points I am debtor to D. Field for answering one of those questions before propounded concerning Ruling Elders and here it falls in my hand He asketh whether the power of Church-government and jurisdiction doth belong to the Pastor and Elders of every Congregation or to the Pastors and Elders of many Congregations joyned together in a Common Presbytery I beleeve his expectation was that while as we would sayle through betwixt the Caribdis of Episcopall tyranny and the Scylla of popular Anarchy wee should not know hoâ— to direct our course but should certainly either bee swallowed up in the waves of mighty difficulties or split our selves upon hid Rockes of division Our danger I hope is not so great as he did imagine for we hold that the particular Elderships of severall Congregations have their owne power and authority of Church-government but with a subordination unto the common or greater Presbytery whose power is superior and of a larger extent First then we shall take into consideration the bounds of the power of particular Elderships and how the same may be said to be independent and how not for this purpose I shall give foure distinctions out of Parker and to these I shall adde other foure of my owne The first distinction is betwixt things which are proper and peculiar to one Congregation and things which are common to many the former pertaineth to the particular Eldership the latter to the common Eldership Whence it commeth that in Scotland the cases of ordination suspension deposition and Excommunication are determined in the greater Presbyteries because it doth not concerne one Congregation alone but many who be taken into the common Presbytery and who be put out of the samâ— neither doth the Excommunication of a sinner concerne onely one Congregation but the Neighbouring Congregations also among whom as is to be commonly supposed the sinner doth often haunt converse Cyprian speaking of the admission of some who had fallen and who had no recommendation from the Martyrs to be received againe referreth the matter to a common meeting and his reason is because it was a common cause and did not concerne a few nor one church onely See lib. 2. Ep. 14. The second distinction is betwixt Congregations which have a competent and well-qualified Eldership small Congregations who have but few office-bearers and those it may be not sufficiently able for Church-government In this case of insufficiencie a Congregation may not independently by it selfe exercise jurisdiction and not in re propria saith Parker 3. He distinguisheth betwixt the case of right administration and the case of aberration whatsoever liberty a Congregation hath in the former case surely in the latter it must needs be subject and subordinate If particular Elderships doe rightly manage their owne matters of Church-government the greater Presbytery shall not need for a long time it may be for some yeares to intermeddle in any of their matters which wee know by experience in our owne Churches 4. Hee maketh a distinction betwixt the case of appellation and the case de nulla administratione mala praesumpta Though the particular Eldership hath proceeded aright though it consist of able and sufficient men and though it bee in re propria yet if one think himselfe wronged and so appeale then is it made obnoxious to a higher consistory for saith Parker as the Councill of Sardis ordaineth audience must not bee denyed to him who entreateth for it So saith Zepperus speaking of the same purpose cuivis integrum quoque sit ad superiores gradus provocare si in inferioris gradus sententia aut decreto aliquid
injury or to give an offence unto another and for these ends it is most necessary that they be governed by one common Presbytery 5. There may be a competition or a controversie not only betwixt one congregation and another but in the same congregation betwixt the one halfe and the other yea the Eldership it selfe of that congregation may be and sometimes is divided in it selfe And how shall things of this kinde bee determined but by the common Presbytery 6. But which is caput rei these our Classicall Presbyteries have a certaine warrant from the paterne of the Apostolicall Churches For proofe whereof it shall bee made to appeare 1. That in those Cities at least in many of them where Christian religion was planted by the Apostles there were a great number of Christians then either did or conveniently could meet together into one place for the worship of God 2. that in those Cities there was a plurality not onely of ruling Elders but of the Ministers of the word 3. That notwithstanding hereof the whole number of Christians within the Citie was one Church 4. That the whole number and severall companies of Christians within one Citie were all governed by one common Presbytery The second of these doth follow upon the first and the fourth upon the third The first proposition may bee made good by induction of particulars and first it is more then evident of Ierusalem where wee finde unto 120 Disciples Act. 1.15 added 8000. by Peters two Sermons Act. 2.41 and 4.4 Besides whom there were yet more multitudes added Act. 5.14 And after that also wee read of a further multiplication of the Disciples Act. 6.1 by occasion whereof the seaven Deacons were chosen and ordained which maketh some to conjecture that there were seven congregations a Deacon for every one Certainly there were rather more then fewer though wee cannot determine how many It is written of Samaria that the people with one accord gave heed unto Philip Act. 8.6 even all of them both men and women from the least to the greatest who had before given heed to Simon of these all it is said that they beleeved Philip and were baptised vers 10.12 which made the Apostles that were at Ierusalem when they heard that the great City Samaria had received the word of God to send unto them Peter and Iohn the harvest being so great that Philip was not sufficient for it v. 14. Of Ioppa it is said that many beleeved in the Lord. Of Antâ—och wâ— read that a great number beleeved and turned to the Lord Act. 11.21 Of Iconium that a great multitude both of the Jewes and also of the Greekes beleeved Act. 14.1 Of Lidda that all who dwelt therein turned to the Lord Act. 9.35 Of Berâ—a that many of them beleeved also of the honourable women and the men not a few Act. 17.12 Of Corinth the Lord saith I have much people in this Citie Act. 18.10 Oâ— Ephesus wee finde that â—eare fell on all the Jewes and Greekes which dwelt there and many beleeved yea many of the Magicians themselves whose bookes that were burned amouâ—tâ—d to fifâ—y thousand peeces of silver so mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed Act. 19.17.18.19.20 Unto the multitude of Christians in those Cities let us adde another consideration viz. that they had no Temples as now wee have but private places â—or their holy Assemblies such as the house of Mary Act. 12.12 the Schoole of Tyrannus Act 19.9 an upper chamber at Trâ—â—s Act. â—0 8 Pauls lodging at Rome Act. 28. â—3 Neither doe I see any reason why the Church which was in the house of Aquila and Priscilla Rom. 16.5 1 Cor. 16.19 should not be understood to bee a congregation as Erasmus readeth it that is such a-number of Christians as met together in their house So wee read of the Church in the house of Nymphas Col. 4.15 And of the Church 〈…〉 house of Archippus Philem. v. 2. 〈…〉 iâ— is certaine that Christians met together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house Domatius Act. 2.46 both these considerations viz. the multitude of Christians in one Citie and their assembling together for worship in private houses have also place in the next ages after the Apostles Let Eusebius speak for them both Who can describe saith hee those innumerable heaps flocking multitudes throughout all Cities and famous Assemblies frequenting the places dedâ—câ—ted to prayer Thereafter he proceedeth to shew how in aftertimes by the favour of Emperours Christians had throughout all Cities ample Churches built for them they not being contented with the old Orâ—toria which were but private houses Now these two the multitude of Christians and the want of Temples shall abundantly give light to my first proposition But it may bee objected to the contrary that all the Disciples at Ierusalem did meet together 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into one place Act. 2.44 And the same is said of the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 11.20 Ans. The disciples at Ierusalem being at that time above 3000. it cannot be coÌ„ceived how any private house could cotain them Beside it is said that they brake bread that is did celebrate the Lords Supper from house to house Therefore many good interpreters understand by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that all the Disciples were linked together into one by amity and love an evidence whereof is given in the next words and had all things common To the other place wee answer 1. That Epistle whether it were written from Philippi or from Ephesus was undoubtedly written very lately after the plantation of the Gospel in Corinth while as that Church was yet in her infancie And if it should bee granted that at that time the whole Church of Corinth might and did meet together into one place this proveth not that it was so afterward for the Churches increased in number daily Act. 16.5 But 2. the place of the Apostle proveth not that which is alledged for his words may be understood in sensu distributivo It was no solecisme for one that was writing to divers congregations to say When yee come together into one place meaning distributively of every congregation not collectively of them all together My second proposition concerning the plurality of the Ministers of the Word in those great Cities wherein the Apostles did erect Christian Churches ariseth from these grounds 1. The multiplicity of Christians 2. The want of Temples of which two I have already spoken 3. The daily increase of the Churches to a greater number Acts 16.5.4 There was need of preachers not only for those who were already converted in the City but also for labouring to winne the unbelievers who were therein These reasons may make us conclude that there were as many Pastors in one City as there were sacred meetings therein and some more also for the respects foresaid And what will you say if we finde examples of this plurality of Pastors in Scripture Of the Bishops or Pastors
of the Church of Ephesus it iâ— said that Paul kneeled down and praied with them all and they all wept sore Acts 20.36.37 compared with verse 28. Here is some good number imported To the Angell of the Church of Smyrna that is to the Pastors thereof collectively taken Christ saith The Divell shall cast some of you into prison Revel 2.10 which if not only yet principally is spoken to the Pastors though for the benefit of that whole Church This is more plaine of the Church of Thyatira verse 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vnto you I say to the rest in Thyatira as if he would say saith Pareus Tibi â—spicopo cum collegis reliquo coetui dico Paul writeth to the Bishop at Philippi Phil. 1.1 and notwithstanding that there was already a certaine number of Bishops or Pastors in that City yet the Apostle thought it necessary to send unto them Epaphroditus also Phil. 2.25 being shortly thereafter to send unto them Timotheus verse 19. yea to come himselfe verse 24. so that there was no scarcity of labourers in that harvest Epaphras and Archippus were Pastors to the Church at Colosse and who besides we cannot tell but Paul sent unto them also Tychicus and Onesimuâ— Col. 4.7.9 Now touching the third proposition no man who understandeth will imagine that the multitude of Christians within one of those great Cities was divided into as many parishes as there were meeting places for worship It is a point of controversie who did beginne the division of parishes but whosoever it was whether Evaristus or Higinus or Dionysius certaine it is that it was not so from the beginning I meane in the daies of the Apostles for then it was all one to say in every City or to say in every Church That which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tit. 1.5 is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acts 14.22 This is acknowledged by all Anti-prelaticall writers so farre as I know and by the Prelaticall writers also The last proposition as it hath not beene denyed by any so it is sufficiently proved by the former for that which made the multitude of Christians within one City to be one Church was their union under and their subjection unto the same Church governement and governours A multitude may bee one Church though they doe not meete together into one place for the worship of God for example it may fall forth that a congregation cannot meet together into one but into divers places and this may continue so for some yeares together either by reason of persecution or by meanes of the plague or because they have not such a large parish-Church as may containe them all so that a part of them must meete in some other place but a multitude cannot be one Church unlesse they communicate in the same Church government and under the same Governours by one Church I meane one Ecclesiasticall Republike even as the like union under civill government and governours maketh one corporation when the Apostle speaketh to all the Bishops of the Church of Ephesus hee exhorteth them all to take heed to all the flocke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 over which the holy Ghost had made them overseers so that the whole was governed by the common counsell and advice of the Elders as Hierome speaketh for the same reason we say not the Churches but the Church of Amsterdam because all the Pastors and Elders have the charge and governement of the whole From all which hath beene said I inferre this Corollary That in the times of the Apostles the Presbytery which was the ordinary Court of Iurisdiction which did ordaine depose excommunicate c. did consist of so many Pastors and Elders as could with conveniency meete ordinarily together which is a paterne and warrant for our Classicall Presbyteries I confesse there might be in some townes no greater number of Christians then did meet together in one place notwithstanding whereof the Pastor or Pastors and Elders of that congregation might and did manage the government of the same and exercise jurisdiction therein I confesse also that in those Cities wherein there was a greater number of Christians then could meet together into one place for the worship of God the Presbytery did consist of the Pastors and Elders within such a City for it cannot be proved that there were at that time any Christian congregations in Landward Villages the persecution forcing Christians to choose the shelter of Cities for which reason many are of opinion that the Infidells in those daies were called Pagani because they alone dwelt in Pagis and if there had beene any such adjacent to Cities we must thinke the same should have beene subject to the common Presbytery their owne Pastors and Elders being a part thereof Howsoever it cannot be called in question that the Presbytery in the Apostolicall Churches was made up of as many as could conveniently meete together for managing the ordinary matters of Jurisdiction and Church-government The Pastors and Elders of divers Cities could not conveniently have such ordinary meetings especially in the time of persecution only the Pastors and Elders within one City had such conveniency And so to conclude we doe not forsake but follow the paterne when we joyne together a number of Pastors and Elders out of the congregations in a convenient circuit to make up a common Presbytery which hath power and authority to governe those congregations for if the Presbytery which we find in those Cities wherein the Apostles planted Churches bee a sure paterne for our Classicall Presbyteries as wee have proved it to bee then it followeth undeniably that the authority of Church-government of excommunication ordination c. which did belong to that Primitive Presbytery doth also belong to those our Classicall or greater Presbyteries CHAP. IV. Of the authority of Synods Provinciall and Nationall TOuching Synods I shall first shew what their power is and thereafter give arguments for the same The power of Jurisdiction which wee ascribe unto Synods is the same in nature and kinde with that which belongeth to Presbyteries but with this difference that Presbyteries doe exercise it in an ordinary way and in matters proper to the congregations within their circuit Synods doe exercise this power in matters which are common to a whole province or nation or if in matters proper to the bounds of one Presbytery it is in an extraordinary way that is to say when either Presbytery hath erred in the managing of their owne matters or when such things are transferred to the Synod from the Presbytery whether it be by appellation or by reference The power of Jurisdiction whereof I speake is threefold 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So it is distinguished by our writers and all these three doe in manner foresaid belong unto Synods In respect of Articles of faith or worship a Synod is Iudex or Testis In respect of externall order and policie in circumstances a contriver of a
Canon or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In respect of heresie schisme obstinacie contempt and scandall Vindex not by any externall coactive power which is peculiar to the Magistrate but by spirituall censures The dogmaticke power of a Synod is not a power to make new Articles of faith nor new duties and parts of divine worship but a power to apply and interpret those Articles of faith and duties of worship which God hath set before us in his written Word and to declare the same to be inconsistent with emergent heresies and errours To this purpose it is that the Apostle calleth the Church the pillar and ground of truth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which may be expounded either in sensu forensi the Church is the publicke witnesse notifier and keeper of truth even as in Courts and places of judgement there are pillars to which the Edicts of Magistrates are affixed that people may have notice thereof or in sensu architectonico as the Church by her faith is built upon Christ or which is all one upon the doctrine and truth of Christ contained in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles and leaneth thereto so by her Ministery she upholdeth under-propeth and conserveth this same truth lest as the Prophet speaketh Truth fall in the streets perish among men Truth standeth fast in the Church and is kept firme while it is professed preached propugned and maintained against all contrary errour and heresie In the same sense saith the Apostle that unto the Jewish Church were committed the Oracles of God by them to be kept interpreted propagated c. By the Diatakticke power a Synod may institute restore or change according to the condition and exigence of the Church the externall circumstances in the worship of God and Ecclesiasticall discipline I meane those circumstances which are common both to civill and sacred Societies the conveniencie whereof is determinable by the light of Nature alwayes observing the generall rules of the Word which commandeth that all bee done to the glory of God that all bee done to edifying that all bee done in order and decencie that we give none offence that wee support the weake that we give no place to the enemies of the truth nor symbolize with Idolaters c. Now for avoiding disorder and disconformity in a Nation professing one Religion it is fit that Nationall Synods give certaine directions and rules even concerning these rites and circumstances not having therein an Arbitrary or Autocratorke power but being alwayes tied to follow the rules foresaid The Criticke power of a Synod is not a Lordly imperious dominiering over the flocke of Christ which is not to bee ruled with force and cruelty but it is the power of spirituall censures as excommunication deposition and the like most necessary for the repressing of heresie errour obstinacie in wickednesse and scandals otherwise incorrigible Without this power schismes and offences could not bee cured but should the more increase whileas liberty is left to heretickes schismatickes and obstinate persons without any censure to pester and disturb a whole Nation without any regard to the constitutions of a Nationall Synod But may one say if the Decrees of a Synod concerning matters of Faith or Worship may and ought to bee examined by the sure rule of the word of God and onely to be received when they doe agree therewith and if also the constitutions of a Synod in externall circumstances doe not binde except ex aquo bono and propter justas mandandi causas or as Divines speak in casu scandali contemptus and not for the meere will or authority of a Synod and if therefore all Christians are by the private judgement of Christian discretion following the light of Gods Word and Spirit to try and examine all decrees and constitutions of any Synod whatsoever to know whether they may lawfully receive the same as our Divines maintaine and prove against Papists If these things be so it may seeme contrary to Christian liberty and to the Doctrine of Protestant Writers that Synods should exercise the foresaid Criticke power or inflict any spirituall censures at least upon those who professe that after examination of the decrees or constitutions they cannot bee perswaded of the lawfulnesse of the same Ans. 1. Our Divines by those their tenents meane not to open a doore to disobedience and contempt of the ordinances of a Synod but onely to oppugne the Popish errour concerning the binding power of Ecclesiasticall lawes by the sole will and naked authority of the law-maker that Christian people ought not to seek any further reason or motive of obedience 2. A Synod must ever put a difference betwixt those who out of a reall scruple of conscience doe in a modest and peaceable way refuse obedience to their ordinances still using the meanes of their beter information those who contemptuously or factiously disobey the same labouring with all their might to strengthen themselves in their errour and to perswade others to be of their minde 3. This objection doth militate no lesse against Ecclesiasticall censures in a particular congregation then in a Nationall Synod And they who doe at all approve of Church censures to be inflicted upon the contemptuous and obstinate shall put in our mouthes an answer to objections of this kinde CHAP. V. The first Argument for the authority of Synods and the subordination of Presbyteries thereto taken from the light of nature HAving now described the power of particular Elderships which we call Sessions of Classicall Presbyteries and of Synods Provinciall and Nationall it remaineth to confirme by Arguments the subordination and subjection of the particular Elderships to the Classicall or common Presbytery of both to the Provinciall Synod and of all these to the Nationall Assembly So that every one may perceive what reason the Church of Scotland hath to give unto the higher Ecclesiasticall Courts authority over the lower I might insist long enough both in the Testimonies of Protestant Writers and in the examples of the reformed Churches abroad as also in the examples of all the ancient Churches all speaking for this authority of Synods But these I shall passe because I know Arguments from Scripture and reason are required and such we have to give First of all I argue from the very light law of nature That same light of nature which hath taught our Common-wealth beside the Magistrates and Councells of particular Burghs to constitute higher Courts for whole Shires Baliveries Stuartries Regalities and above all these the supreame Court of Parliament to governe the whole Nation hath also taught our Church to constitute Synods Provinciall and Nationall with power and authority above Presbyteries Wee are farre from their minde who would make Policy the Mistresse and Religion the Handmaid and would have the government of the Church conformed to the government of the State as the fittest paterne But this we say in all such
the Judges of the Cities By the Lords matters hee saith are meant criminall and civill causes which were to be judged according to the Law of the Lord and by the Kings matters are meant his patrimony and domesticke affaires Answer 1. The Text distinguisheth two Courts one which medled with the Lords matters whose president was Amariah the chiefe Priest another which medled with the Kings matters whose president was Zebadiah This is so plaine that Bonfierius the Jesuit on Deut. 17. though he maketh the Priests to have beene the Judges yet acknowledgeth two distinct Courts 2 Chron. 19. 2. The words vers 8. must be understood respectively as Didoclavius hath observed which we explaine thus Moreover in Ierusalem did Iehshoaphat set of the Levits and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for the judgement of the Lord that is for causes Ecclesiasticall and repeat of the Levits of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel for controversies about civill matters saith Piscator So that some of them were appointed to judge the one and some of them to judge the other which proveth not either that the Courts were one or that the same men sate in both but only that some of the Priests and some of the Fathers of Israel were in both 3. The Lords matters Lavater and Piscator expound to be matters Ecclesiasticall the Kings matters to be things civill and this exposition comprehendeth all things which did fall within the power of those Courts But Sutlivius glosse doth not so for there were sundry things to be judged which were neither the Kings domesticke affaires not yet causes criminall or civill such as were questions about vowes questions about the meaning of the Law and judging betwixt the holy and the prophane betwixt that which was cleane and that which was uncleane These and such like Ecclesiasticall causes he leaveth out and they are indeed left out of the power of the civill Sanedrim and reserved to the other for in such controversies the Priests were to stand in judgement Ezech. 44.23.24 Lastly it is not to be thought that the high Sanedrim should neede to be troubled with the Kings domesticke affaires farre lesse that this should be made the one halfe of their commission Now as wee have the institution of these two supreame Courts Deuter. 17. and the restitution of them both 2 Chron. 19. so have we an example of both Jerem. 26. For first Ieremiah was condemned as worthy of death because hee had spoken against the Temple and the holy place verse 8.11 and herein saith Oecolampadius on that place hee was a Type of Christ against whom it was pronounced in the Councell of the chiefe Priests and Elders He is guilty of death So did this Ecclesiasticall Court conclude agâ—iâ—st Ieremy He is worthy of Death yet the câ—nâ—rary was concluded in the civill Sanedrim verse 10.16 This man say they is not worthy to dye for he hath spoken to us in the Name of the Lord our God As much as to say you Priests have given sentence de jure against Ieremiah but we finde he is not guilty of the fact whereof he is accused for he hath spoken nothing but the truth which the Lord sent him to speake therefore as you pronounced him worthy of death upon supposition of the fact wee now pronounce that he is not worthy of death because wee finde him blamelesse of the fact Sutclivius denieth that the Priests were Iudices Iuris and the Princes Iudices facti only the Princes did against the will of the Priests set Ieremiah free whom they had destinated to death But say I he must either deny that Ieremiah was judged in two severall Courts or not if he deny it the Text is against him for that hee was judged in the Court of the Princes it is plaine from verse 10.16 and that hee was judged in the Court of the Priests is plaine also from verse 8.9 Where we finde the Priests comming together neither to reason with Ieremiah for they had no such purpose as to give him leave to speake for himselfe nor yet to accuse him for that they do before the Princes v. 11. Therefore it was to give sentence for their part against him which they did but if he grant that sentence was given in two Courts I would gladly know what difference could bee made betwixt the one sentence and the other except that difference de jure and de facto especially the same suting the Text so well as hath beene said Of the vestigies of those two supreame Courts still remaining in some sort distinct in the daies of Christ I have spoken before And now to proceed Wee have proved the Antecedent of this our present Argument concerning distinct Ecclesiasticall Courts among the Jewes and the subjection of the lower unto the higher of the Synagogue unto the Sanedrim But we have yet more to doe for the consequence of our Argument is also denyed both by the Prelaticall faction and by others whom wee are more sorry to contradict holding that reasons fetcht from the Jewish Church doe better fat the Prelats then the Consistorians howsoever now to fetch the forme of Government for the Church from the Church of the Jewes were say they to revive the old Testament To me it seemeth strange that both the one side and the other doe when they please reason from the formes of the Jewish Church and yet they will not permit us to reason in like manner The former goe about to prove the Prelacy by the high Priesthood and the lawfull use of Organs in the Church from the like in the Temple of Solomon The latter doe argue that a Congregation hath right not only to elect Ministers but to ordaine them and lay hands on them because the people of Israel laid hands on the Levits That the maintainance of the Ministers of the Gospell ought to bee voluntary because under the Law God would not have the Priests and Levits to have any part or inheritance in the Land of Canaan but to be sustained by the Offerings and Altars of the Lord. That the power of excommunication is in the body of the Church because the Lord laid upon all Israel the duty of removing the uncleane and of putting away leaven out of their houses at the feast of Passover Is it right dealing now to forbid us to reason from the forme of the Jewes I will not use any further expostulation but let the Reader judge The truth is this even as that which is in a childe as he is a childe agreeth not to a man yet that which is in a childe as he is animal rationale agreeth also to a man so what wee finde in the Jewish Church as it was Jewish or in infancy and under the pedagogy of the Law agreeth not indeed to the Christian Church But whatsoever the Jewish Church had as it was a politicall Church or
against us our Saviours precept Tell the Church Wheresoever wee read in Scripture of a visible politicall Church and not of the invisible Catholike Church it is ever meant say they of a particular congregation used to assemble in one place for the exercise of Gods publike worship when the Scripture speaketh of a whole Province or Nation the plurall number is used as the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia the Churches of Asia c. Wherefore our Saviour in those words did deliver the power of Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction neither to Classicall Presbyteries nor to Synods but to particular congregations only Answ. 1. This place proveth indeed that particular Churches have their owne power of Jurisdiction but not that they alone have it 2. Yea it proveth that they alone have it not for Christ hath a respect to the forme of the Jewes as is evident by these words Let him be unto thee as an Heathen or a Publican Now we have proved that there was among the Jewes an high Ecclesiasticall Sanedrim beside the particular Synagogicall Courts So that by pointing out the forme of the Jewish Church hee recommendeth a subordination and not an independency of particular Churches 3. By the Church in that place is meant the competent Consistory of the Church and so it agreeth to all Ecclesiasticall Courts respectively This sence is given by Parker though he be most tender in the vindication of the liberty of congregations Nam cum c. For saith he since Christ would have every man to be judged by his owne Church Matth. 18. or if the judgement of his owne Church should displease him yet ever it must be by the Church that is by a Synod of many Churches 4. As for the reason alledged for proofe of the contrary exposition I oppugne it both by reason and by their owne Tenents and by Scripture By reason because the rule of Geometricall proportion whereof we have before spoken proveth a congregation to bee a part of a Nationall Church even as one man is a part of a congregation for as five is the hundreth part of five hundreth so is five hundred the hundreth part of fifty thousand By their own grounds because they hold the forme of a visible Church to consist in the uniting of a number of visible Christians into one by the bond of a holy covenant to walke in all the wayes of God Then say I we may say the Church of Scotland as well as the Churches of Scotland because all the particular Churches in Scotland are united together into one by the bond of a Nationall oath and covenant to walke in all the waies and ordinances of God By Scripture also because Acts 8.1 we read of the Church at Hierusalem not the Churches Howbeit there were at that instant above eight thousand Christians at Hierusalem and all these still in the City for the first scattering of them followeth thereafter in that Chapter This great number neither did nor could usually assemble into one place for the worship of God but they met 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 house by house Acts 2.46 And whereas objection is made to the contrary from Acts 2.44 and 5.12 and 6.2 Wee have before answered to the first of these places for it is to be expounded by Acts 4.32 they were in one that is they were of one heart and of one soule The second place may be expounded of the Apostles and the preceding words favour this exposition but though it should be takeÌ„ of the multitude it proveâ—h not their meeting together into one place for the worship of God for it was an extraordinary confluence upon an extraordinary occasion of that which had befallen to Ananias and Saphira The last place proveth no more but an extraordinary and occasionall meeting and it is also to be understood that they met turmatim as foure hundred thousand men did assemble together Jud. 20.1 Another Scripturall instance we give from 1 Pet. 1.1 with 5.2 the Apostle writing to the dispersed Jewes in severall Provinces calleth them all one flocke Wee read that Laban had many flockes Genes 30.36.38 yet are they all called one flocke verse 31.32 so were all the flockes of Iacob called one flocke Genes 32.7 and 33.13 In like manner every one of the particular Churches among those dispersed Jewes was a flocke but compared with the whole it was but a part of the flocke It is no more absurd to say that a congregation is both a body in respect of its owne members and a member in respect of a Nationall Church then it is to say that every beleever considered by himselfe is a tree of righteousnesse and a Temple of God yet compared with others he is a branch of the Vine and a stone of the Temple for all those waies is hee called in Scripture Sundry particular flockes may bee called one flocke three waies 1. Respectu pastorum when the same shepheards oversee take care of the whole See an example both of the one kinde of shepheards Luke 2.8 and of the other Acts 20.28 2. Respectu pabuli So Paul Baynes speaking of the Low Countries where sundry congregations in one City make but one Church saith that the sheepe feed together into one common pasture though they bite not on the same individuall grasse 3. Respectu pedi when many congregations are governed by the same Pastorall staffe of Ecclesiasticall Lawes and Discipline It is further objected that Presbyteriall government and the authority of Synods doe rob the congregations of their rights and liberties no lesse then the Prelacy did so that the Churches of Christ in the removall of Episcopacy have changed Dominum only not Dominium Answer There is a vaste difference for 1. Episcopall governement is Monarchicall and Christ hath left no Ecclesiasticall Jurisdiction to bee exercised by one man Presbyteriall and Synodicall governement is partly democraticall in respect of the election of Ministers and Elders and the doing of matters of chiefest importance with the knowledge and consent of congregations partly aristocratical in respect of the parity of Presbyters and their consistorial proceedings and decrees The Monarchicall part is Christs peculiarly 2. The Prelacy permitteth not to congregations any act of their owne Church government but robbeth them of their particular Elderships which as Parker well noteth the Classicall Presbyteries doe not 3. It is one thing saith Baynes for Churches to subject themselves to a Bishop and Consistory wherein they shall have no power of suffrage Another thing to communicate with such a Presbytery wherein themselves are members and Iudges with others 4. The congregations did not agree not consent to Episcopall government but were sufferers in respect of the same but they doe heartily agree to the governement of Presbyteries and Synods in witnesse whereof they send their Commissioners thither to concur assist voice 5. Speciall respect is had in Presbyteries and Synods to the consent of congregations in all
Governement But Presbyteriall Government secretly smileth because while she was ready to say much more for her selfe he did not put her to to it lest himselfe should have been put ad metam non probandi But he particularizeth himselfe and telleth us he hath unfolded the weaknesse of our grounds and disproved our pretended proofs The truth is that the best of them the most of them he hath not touched He addeth that hee hath proved out of the Word of God the liberty of the people in choosing thâ—ir own officers This may be added â—aute but caste I am sure it is not He would make the world beleeve that Presbyterians are against the peoples election of their officers which is a calumny He saith he hath annexed certaine arguments proving Presbyteriall Governement to be contrary to the pattern which Christ hath left in the New Testament These arguments shall be answered with no great difficulty In this place I shall only say a word of them in generall The man hath a notable faculty of proving that wherein the Presbyterians do agree with him and passing that wherein they disagree from him Many humane testimonies and citations of writers he mustreth together to make a simple reader beleeve that many are of his judgemenâ— But I find none of them all except two or three to affirme any thing which we deny But why hath he taken all this paines He will present it forsooth to the Kings most excellent Majestie and to the right honourable Lords and the honourable house of Commons now assembled in Parliament As if it were to be expected that a popular and independant forme of Church government in every Congregation which should most certainly open a doore to a thousand remedilesse confusions may obtaine his Majesties royall assent or the acceptation of the High Court of Parliament Nay brother seek some other friends to your cause for if wise men be not too too much deceived the King and the Parliament in their great wisdome do fore-see that whensoever Episcopall government shall be removed another form of Provinciall and nationall Church government must needs succeed unto it Now to come to the substance of his discourse first hee maketh a quarrell against the Presbyteries of particular Churches which are in Scotland called Sessions then against all higher Consistories in the Church As for the Presbyteries of particular Churches he judgeth them three wayes defective First he requireth that all who are admitted into the company of Elders even the governing or ruling Elders should be apt to teach and able to exhort with sound doctrine and convince gainesayers and that not only privately or in the Consistory but in the publick assembly also if not exactly yet competently Answ. 1. Though ruling Elders ought to teach exhort rebuke c. both in the Consistory and privately from house to house as the case of every family and person doth require which is all that can be drawne from those alleaged places to Timothy and Titus if so be they ought at all to be extended to ruling Elders yet there is no place of Scripture to prove that they ought to teach publikly in the Congregation 2. That expression if not exactly yet competently is somewhat mysterious 3. Ruling Elders are expresly distinguished from those that labour in the word and doctrine 1 Tim. 5.17 and from these that teach or exhort Rom. 12.7 8. 4. If ruling Elders shall â—each publikly in the congregation ex officio and with cure of soules as they speak why shall they not also minister the Sacraments which are pendicles and seals of the word and therefore committed to those who are sent to the publick preaching of the Gospell Matth. 28.19 5. Though he speak here only of ruling Elders yet I doubt he requireth of at least will permit to all men that are members of the Church the same publick teaching and prophesying in the Congregation The second defect which he wisheth supplied is that the temporary ruling Elders may be made perpetuall and for life which he enforceth by foure reasons This I assent unto providing he admit a distinction betwixt the office it selfe and the exercise of the same The office of a ruling Elder ought to be for his life no lesse then the Pastors yet must we not condemne those Churches which dispense with the intermission of their actuall attendance for a certaine space and permit them to exercise their office by course as the Levits did of old whose example himselfe here taketh for a patterne The third thing he saith is of most moment He doth complaine that the Elders do not administer their publik office publikly as they should but only in their private Consistory He doth permit them indeed to meet apart for deliberation whereof we shall here afterward but he will have their Church-office which in the Lord they have received to be executed publickly in the face of the Congregation 1. Because an office publick in the nature ought also to be publick in the administration 2. Because the reformed Churches cannot know their Elders whether they be good or bad except by heare-say 3. Because otherwise the Elders can not ministerially take heed to the whole flock as they are warned to do Acts 20.28 Ans. 1. Ruling Elders do execute their office not only in the Consistory but from house to house throughout al the bounds of the CoÌ„gregation which may easily make theÌ„ known to that Church where they serve whether they be good or bad 2. Their Consistoriall sentences in all matters of importance such as ordination Church censures excommunication c. are made knowne to the whole Church 3. He passeth a short censure upon the reformed Churches The reformed Churches is a great word but this man maketh a moat of it 4. The place Acts 20.28 cannot helpe him for ruling Elders do feed and oversee the whole flock both by discipline in the Consistory and by taking heed to all the sheepe severally as every one hath need and in that respect may be called both Pastors and Bishops Beside I doubt he can prove that place to be meant of ruling Elders He He goeth on to make plaine what hee hath said by descending to some particulars in which the Elders office sâ—emeth especially to consist and these are saith hee The admitting of members into the Church upon profession of faith made and the reproving and censuring of obstinaâ—e offenders These are the most frequent publike administrations of the office of Ruling Elders And what of them hee saith as they leave the execution of these things to the Elders alone in the setled and well ordered state of the Church so doe they deny that they can be rightly and orderly done but with the peoples privity and consent His restriction to the setled and well ordered estate of the Church I cannot understand Hee had done well to have explained what hee meaneth by that not setled nor well ordered state of the Church
in which he thinks it belongeth not to the Elders alone to admit or cut off members His other ambiguous expression I understand better for by the peoples privity hee meaneth that the people should heare the voyces and suffrages of the Elders and by the peoples consent hee meaneth the peoples voting with the Elders as wee shall heare afterward That the admission of members ought to bee with the peoples privity and consent hee will prove by two reasons 1. Because wee finde in the acts of the Apostles that men were received into the fellowship of the Church and baptized publikely and in the face of the congregation 2. Because the whole communalty being neerely to joyne with these that are admitted ought to take knowledge of the profession of their faith These reasons can neither conclude the peoples right of suffrage in this matter nor so much are the peoples hearing of the suffrages of the Elders But only that the matter might not bee ended without the peoples knowledge and tacite consent Beside there is no small difference to bee put betwixt the admission of Jewes Infidells and Hereticks upon their profession of the true Christian faith and the admission of such as have transported themselves from another Christian congregation bringing with them a sufficient testimonie of their holy profession of faith and good conversation In the meane while Let the Reader note that this disputer hath here in a parenthesis interlaced grosse anabaptistry holding it a kinde of unorderly anticipation to baptise infants who cannot give a confession of their faith And within a few lines he lets another thing fall from his pen which smelleth strongly of the Anabaptisticall tenent concerning having all things common even bodily goods But I proceed with him to the second head concerning excommunication and Church censures by the Elders with the peoples privity and consent This he proveth by three arguments 1. Because Paul saith These who sin rebuke publikely that others also may feare a brave argument indeed This charge is not given to ruling Elders and if it had it can neither prove the suffrage of the people nor their hearing of the suffrage of the Elders but onely the execution of the sentence of the Elders in the presence and audience of the congregation 2. Hee argueth from these words Tell the Church where hee would make it appeare that by the Church is not meant the Senate of Elders excluding the people yea hee saith that in this circumstance now in consideration it comes neerer the truth to expound the Church to be the Bishop since neither Bishops nor their Court-keepers doe exclude the people from their consistories Sure I am in Scotland let others speake for themselves The Bishops in their visitations high Commissions Privie-conferences at Synod◠in which they passed their decrees did exclude both the people and the most part of the ministers He thinkes it a course unheard of either among Jewes Gentiles or Christians before this last age that publike judgements should be privatly exercised and without the peoples privity This if at all to the point must be understood not of the finall execution but of the judiciall sentence or decree What then shall wee thinke that the Senators at Rome or the Areopagites at Athens did never conclude or degree any thing concerning a publike judgement except in the audience and presence of the people The Judges in Israel did sit in the gates of of the City that all persons both poore and rich great and small might have accesse unto them with their complaints and that the sentence of judgement might bee the more notorious exemplary being given forth and promulgat in the gates This proveth not that the Judges did debate voyce and conclude all matters in the publike audience of the people It appeareth rather that they were so accomodate that they might doe these things apart from the multitude It is too much for him to affirme either that the Synagogues were places of civill conventions and judgements or that nothing was in the Synagogues decreed without the peoples privity while as hee hath given no proofe nor evidence at all for it You need not my Masters be so curious in the notation of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which every smatterer in Divinity knoweth But what of it you say the Elders as such are called to wit to their office of Eldership but called out they are not being themselves to call out the Church It is true that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 noteth not only a calling or a gathering together by vertue of verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but also a separation by vertue of the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But I hope it is no paradox to say that the Elders are both called or gathered together unto the Eldership and called out or separate from the rest of the Church to that office And it is as far from a Paradox to say that they who are called out cannot call out others especially the one calling out being to an office and the other calling out being from nature to grace He cannot think that the name Ecclesia Church hath been used by any Greek Author before the Apostles times or in their dayes or in the age after them for the assembly of sole Governours in the act of their government I shall first give Instances against him in the verb because hee said the Elders as such cannot be said to be called out The Septuagint reade Deu. 31.28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gather unto me all the Elders The like you may find 1 King 8.1 1 Chron. 28.1 I shall next put him in mind that the Septuagint sometime turne Kahal by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Prov. 26.26 His wickednesse shall be shewed before the whole Congregation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And it is plaine that the name of the Congregation or Church is given to the Elders for that which is said of the Elders Deut. 19.12 Ios. 20.4 is said of the Congregation Num. 35.24 Ios. 20.6 So Exod 12.3 compared with verse 21. This if hee will not take well from us with verse 21. This if hee will not take well from us let him take it from an Anti-presbyterian who observeth from 1 Chron. 13.1 2 4. and 2. Chron. 1.3 that both Kahal and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are used for the Elders and Governours Guide unto Sion pag. 5. The place Deut. 23.1 2 3. is well worthy of observation It is ordained that he who is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off or is a Bastard or an Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the Congregation the of Lord to the tenth generation The word is Kahal in the Hebrew and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the version of the 70. yet Iunius Piscator and Pelicanus on that place and Martyr on Iud. 11.1 hold that by the Church or Congregation in that place is meant Consessus
that the consistorian course is contrary to the practise of the Apostolick Churches because the Apostle 1 Cor. 5. writeth to the whole Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous man And that by these words when you are câ—me together the whole Church is to be understood he proveth by three reasons the strength of them all we shall take together in one argument thus They among whom the fornicatour was who were puffed up when they should have sorrowed and out of the midst of whom he was to be put who had done that thing to whom it appertained to purge out the old leven and to whom the Apostle wrote not to be commingled with fornicators or covetous persons they were to be gathered together into one and to judge and excommunicate that incestuous person But they among whom the fornicator was c. were not the Elders alone but the whole Church Ergo c. And now what shall this disputer say if I cleave this his strong argument with a wedge of his own timber thus c. If they among whom the fornicator was who were puffed up when they should have sorrowed and out of the midst of whom c. were to judge and excommunicate that incestuous person then women were to judge and excommunicate him and not men only But the latter is absurd therefore so is the former My proposition he must either grant or else say that the incestuous man was not to be put out of the midst of women and that the Apostle did not forbid women to be commingled with fornicators My assumption is his own Pag. 24. where he tels us from 1 Cor. 14.34 35. 1 Tim. 2.12 that women are debarred from liberty or right of voting in publick ecclesiasticall matters Then let him see to the conclusion Another proofe of the same point he addeth from 2 Cor. 2. where he writeth to these same Corinthians to receive pardon and comfort the penitent which I might repell in the same manner But there is a word in that same Chapter which may cleare the thing Vers. 6. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment or censure which was inflicted of mâ—ny Which many if as he saith in the next page the Apostle had opposed to himselfe alone and not to all then he said but the halfe of that which he meant to say He would have the Corinthians to think it enough that the man had beene publickly censured by so many as were in their Presbyterie Now if he had beene censured by the whole Church it had been more fit and emphaticall to have said censured by all But there is another sence which well fitteth the place Heinsius observeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 another thing the former noting those that exceed in number the latter those that are chiefe in dignity and that therefore the Apostle when he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meaneth the rulers and Elders of that Church so that the reading shall be this Sufficient to such a man is this censure inflicted of the chieâ—e In the same sence Piâ—â—rtor taketh the words which also he doth illustrate from Mat. 12.41.42 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a greater then Ionah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a greater then Solomon To conclude this case the Apostle as in other Epistles so in this doth sometime point at common duties belonging to the whole Church sometime at the duties of officers That the whole Church of Corinth should have sorrowed for the incestuous man and that it was a common duty to them not to be commingled with fornicators and to have no fellowship with the unfruitfull workes of darknesse but rather to reprove them In like manner it concerned them all to comfort him being penitent But as for the judging and excommunicating of him that did belong only to the Presbytery of Corinth and so Calvin Piscator Paraeus and many others expound the Apostles words His digression to prove that the Apostle alone did not give forth sentence judiciary upon the offender is not against us but against the prelaticall party therefore I passe it What he alleageth from Act. 1. 6. 14. For the Churcheâ— right of suffrage in the election of Officers we doe most heartily assent unto it with this distinction that when the case is such as it was in the examples alleaged that is when visible politicall Churches are to be erected not having beene before then the right of suffrage in elections doth indeed belong to the whole body And though this way of election were ordinary it cannot prove that the people have the power of that authority in them to which they elect the officers no more then the Electors of the Emperour have in them power of the imperiall dignity saith Baynes But now it is not ordinary for when there is already a setled Ecclesiasticall republike or a Church with officers the officers for the time being ought by their suffrages to elect the officers that are wanting with the knowledge and consent of the Church Somewhat he demurreth upon Act. 15. for the vindication of which place I refer my reader to the second part of the former Treatise Chap. 1. 8. Neither shall I stay to examine by what Method either this discourse or the other about elections falleth into the proofe of his proposition concerning that part of the Elders office which standeth in the censuring of offenders He falleth at last into his owne channell concluding it to bee a thing most equall that the whole Church should clearely and undoubtedly take knowledge of the contumacy of the person that is to bee excommunicated of the crime for which and this we also say with him One word I desire to have cleared before wee proceed One of his grounds in his discourse about elections is that the Church officers as they are the servants of Christ Jesus so also her servants for Jesus sake 2. Cor. 4.5 The professors of Leyden say well that they are not properly the servants of the Church but of God and of Christ They are not Lords of the Church neither but Rulers Guides Bishops and Pastors of the Church yet not servants of the Church except objective that is the servants of God in the Church or for the Churches good If this bee his meaning it is well But I doubt he hath another meaning and that is that the Church doth give the power which is hers unto her officers as her servants to exercise it in her name If this bee the matter then let us marke with Baynes that the Church doth not virtually and out of power make an officer but shee doth it in Stewardlike manner ministring to the sole Lord and master of the house so that hee who is taken in doth not his office in her name but in his masters name as a Butler taken in by the Steward of the house doth not execute his office
in the stewards name but in his masters who only out of power did conferre it on him But now lest any should conceive of him and those of his side that they either exercise amongst themselves or would thrust upon others any popular or democraticall Church governement therefore he desireth the Reader to make estimate both of their judgement and practice in this point according to these three declarations First he saith they beleeve that the externall Church governement under Christ is plainely aristocraticall and to be administred by some choyce men although the state bee after a fort popular and democraticall In respect of the latter he saith it appertaines to the people freely to vote in elections judgements of the Church in respect of the former that the Elders ought to governe the people even in their voting in just liberty by propounding and ordering all things and after the voting of the Church solemnly executing either ordination or excommunication Behold how he runneth upon the rocke of popular governement even whiles he pretendeth to have his course another way God send us better pilots I remember I have read in sundry places of Bodin de repub that the state is oft times different from the governement But sure I am this anti-consistorian maketh not only the state but the governement of the Church to be democraticall that in the superlative degree for the governement is democraticall at least composed of a mixture of aristocracy and democracy which is the most that he dare say of the Church governement where the people have the liberty of electing their owne officers and rulers and where the Senat so farre observeth the people that they may not passe the finall act in any matter of importance without the knowledge and tacite consent o the people though the people doe not vote in the Senat nay though the Senat doe not vote in the hearing of the people Now this seemeth not enough to those with whom wee have now to doe They will have the people freely to vote in all judgements of the Church And what is that but the very exercise of jurisdiction by the people which is the democracy of Movellâ—s condemned by Parker himselfe who maketh the exercise of ecclesiasticall power proper to the Rulers of the Church though he placeth the power it selfe originally in the whole Church Let it further be observed what difference these men make betwixt the Elders and the people in the governement of the Church That which they make proper to the Elders is only the propounding and ordering of matters and the excuting of some solemne act in name of the Church This is no more then belongeth to the moderator or Praeses in any consistory But they will have the matter to bee determined according to the most voyces of the people And so the new forme of Church governement which is here laid before us is a mere democracy with many moderators which is the most monstrous governement that ever was heard of His second declaration is that the Elders may and ought at times to meet apart from the body of the Church for deliberation This if hee meane only of that which hee specifiâ—th the preparing of things so as publikâ—ly and before the people they may bee prosecuted with most conveniency It is no more then what many require in moderators of Synods to whom they think fit that some Assessors or Coadjutors be adjoyned for deliberating in private upon the most orderly and convenient prosecuting of purposes in publike which as it hindereth not the governement of Synods to be aristocraticall so neither doth the deliberation of the Elders in private hinder the governement now in question to be democraticall But if he meane generally that the Elders may deliberate apart upon everything whatsoever which is to be voyced by the people then I aske by what reason doth he seclude from the deliberations those who are to voice for to give being and force to an Ecclesiasticall decree by voycing is more than to deliberate upon it whence it is that Papists give to Presbyters a deliberative voice in Councels but not a decisive voice and we also permit any understanding godly man to propound a matter to a Synod or to reason upon it though none have power of suffrage but the Commissioners of Churches So that he had greater reason to seclude the people from the voyces than from the deliberations His third declaration comes last and that is that by the people whose right in voting they thus stand for they understand not women and children but only men and them growen and of discretion Before hee did object to us that neither in Scripture nor in Greeke Authors the name Church is used for the assembly of sole Governours and to this I suppose I did give a satisfactory answer But good Sir be pleased mutually to resolve us where you have read in Scripture or in Greek Authors the name Church setting aside all representatives of Churches and Assemblies of sole Governors used for men alone and them growen and of discretion secluding women and children for now I see your reserved Glosse upon those words Tell the Church Tell all the men in the Parish that are growne and of discretion you must not take so much upon you as to expound that Text by a Synecdoche which none that ever wrote upon it before your selves did imagine and yet challenge us for expounding it by another Synecdoche following Chrysostome Euthymius Faber Stapulensis and many late Interpreters who understand by Church in that place the Rulers of the Church which are the noblest part of the Church I shall shut up this point with the words of Hyperius who saith that we must not understand by the Church the whole multitude Sed potius delectos c. But rather certaine choice Elders noted for their learning and godlinesse in whose power the Chuâ—ch will have to bee the judgement in such like causes which is proved from that that Matth. 18 after it was said â—ell the Church it is added where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them And 2 Cor. 2. he saith Sufficient is this censure inflicted by many We have now done with the Elderships of particular Churches but there is another blow which I perceive is intended against classicall Presbyteries and Synods provincial and national for the due power by which my opposite would have the Church to be governed hee layeth before us in this Assertion that every particular visible Church hath from Christ absolute and intire power to exercise in and of her selfe every ordinance of God and so is an independent body not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of it selfe And this he will prove by ten Arguments but I shall not need to multiply answers as hee doth arguments because many of them are coincident The first third fourth and sixth doe all hit
commandement whereby we stand obliged to follow the example both of the Jewish Church in the Old Testament and of the Apostolicall Churches in the New Testament in such things as they had not for any speciall reason which doth not concerne us is transgressed by the withdrawing of Congregations from subjection unto Synods Of which things I have said enough before It is now but a poore begging of that which is in question to object that the governement of Presbyteries and Synods hath no warrant from the Word of God Come we then to examine his other Arguments His second he composeth thus If Christ in Mat. 18.17 where he saith Tell the Church doth mean a particular Congregation then hath every particular Congregation an intire power in and of it selfe to exercise Eclesiasticall governement and all other Gods spirituall ordinances But the first is true Ergo for the proposition he citeth some Writers who do not speak of such a connexion as he had to prove The assumption he proveth thus That Church which Christ intendeth in Matth. 18. hath absolute power in and of it selfe to perform all Gods ordinances But Christ intendeth in Mat. 18. a particular Congregation Therefore every particular Congregation hath absolute power c. How bravely doth he conclude the point Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici We will not examine our examinators logick we know what he would say and we woulâ— have him to know againe that Christ in Mat. 18. meaneth indeed some sort of a particular Congregation but neither only nor independantly Nay he meaneth all the Consistories of the Church higher and lower respectively as Parker conceiveth whose words I have before set down and to this sense the threed of the text doth leade us for as in the preceding words there is a gradation from one to two or three more then to the Church so is there a gradation by the like order and reason in the Consistories of the Church Tostatus upon this place acknowledgeth that Diae Ecclesiae reacheth as far as to an oecumenicall Councell when particular Churches erre in their determinations or when the cause is common to all the Churches for example when the Pope is to be condemned His seventh argument followes in my order and it runneth after this manner Such offices and callings without which the Church of God is coÌ„pleat and perfect for government are superfluous and humane But the Church of God may be compleat perfect for government without Presbyteriall and Synodicall offices and callings Ergo. I answer by a distinction Such offices and callings without which the Church of God are according to the course of Gods ordinary providence or at all times and in all cases perfect and compleat for government are indeed superfluous and humane But that such offices and callings without which the Church by the absolute power of God or at some times in some cases is perfect compleat are superfluous humane we utterly deny Now for the point of Synods I shall produce no other witnesses then those which this Disputer here taketh to be for him Whittaker acknowledgeth of Councels that Secundum ordinariam providentiam necessaria sunt ad bonam ecclesiae gubernationem according to ordinary providence they are necessary for the well governing of the Church Parker acknowledgeth Synods to be sometime necessary in the Church and he giveth example of the Councell of Nice without which the evils of the Church in the daies of Constantine could not have bin remedied The ninth Argument remaineth which is this That government which meerly tendeth unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power is unlawfull But the government of Presbyteries and Synods as they now are doth meerly tend unto the taking away from particular Congregations their due power Ergo. I did expect some strong proofe for the assumption of this argument but we must take it as it is He tels us out of Master Barlow that no man under the degree of a Prophet or an Apostle may prescribe Gods Church and children patternes Our Synods are further from prescribing patterns either of worship or Church government than himselfe is The patterne and whole manner of Church government is set down in the Scripture those circumstaÌ„ces excepted which are common to the Church with the Common-wealth and are therefore determinable by natures light Synods may not prescribe new patterns no more may particular Churches but Synods may in common causes and extraordinarily prescribe unto particular churches such things as particular churches may in particular causes and ordinarily prescribe to their owne members If he will beleeve Parker whom he thinks his owne the authority which particular Churches have severally is not lost but augmented when they are joyned together in Synods But we have before abundantly declared how Presbyteriall Synodical government doth not at all prejudge the rights of congregations As for that which here he addeth by way of supposition putting the case that Presbyteries Synods will not permit a congregation to reject some coÌ„victed hereticks nor to chuse any except unfit Ministers this is just as if one should object against Parliaments that as they are now they do meerly tend to the taking away of the right and liberty of the subject and then for proofe should put the case that Parliaments will protect and maintaine Monopolists Projectorers c. Now in this drove of arguments the drover hath set some like the weake of the flock to follow up behind The first two are blind and see not where they are going for it maketh nothing against us either that the Eldership of one congregation hath not authority over the Eldership of another congregation or that a minister should not undertake the care of more Churches then one His third that presbyteriall power is never mentioned in the Scripture is a begging of the thing in question is answered before yet I must put him again in mind of Parker who speaking of churches saith Legitur in Scripturis de conjunct a earuÌ„ auct oritate quando in Synodis congregantur We read in their Scriptures of their joynt authority when they are gathered together into Synods But there is a speech of Zuinglius against representative Churches which he may not omit Zuingâ—ius doth indeed justly aske of the antichristian prelats who had given them the name of a representative Church who had given them power to make Canons c. yet hee addeth de his duntaxat c. I speak of them only that are such others who put themselves under not above the Scriptures my writings shall nothing prejudge In the fourth place he objecteth that whosoever shall deny their assertion must hold two distinct formes of Church government to be lawfull one where particular congregations do in of themselves exercise all Gods ordinances the other where they stand under another ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves I answer it