passage contrary to any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture may consist with the purpose of Antecedents and Consequents in the context It may well be Intâ—…ret in such a particular signification in that particular place thâ— it could not be found in that same signification in any other place of Scripture Much more if the purpose intended in the Text and some circumstances to be found in the context be such as requires it to be taken in such a signification Now to the presâ—… purpose in hand 1. The genuine grammaticall signification of the word Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is such as may well be applyed to signifie a coâ—…tion or Colledge of Rulers and certain it is that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftener then once in Scripture used for the convention 〈◊〉 Colledge of Judges or Rulers as Psal 82. â— 1. 2. To take the word in such a sense here for the Colledge of Church Rulers the Eldership puts no sense upon the place contrary to the Analogie of faâ—…or any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture lâ—t Mr. Lockier shew us any thing of this kind What is brought by him a little after from 1 Cor. 5. 4. shall be considered in its place 3. â—here is nothing in the antecedents or consequents or in the context of the place inconsistent with it Yea 4. The purpose spoken of in the Text and circumstanâ—… are such as seeme to requâ—… it to be taken in such a signification â—…y I will â—ot say that the purpose or circumstances will force us to take the name of the Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the visible society of Christians as well privat professours as Rulers Yet this I will say that such is the purpose and such circumstances are in the context as permits not all and every one Universally who are coprehended under â—…signification otherwise to be taken in as the definit persons to whom that dilation of offences and inflicting of censure spoken of there doth belong but that must be the Rulers alone I like well the judicious observation of Cameron in his praelect on the place pag. 26. Edit Salmur in 4. where after that he has said sundry things before upon the use of the word Ecclesia at last has these words which I think speaks the most genuine meaning of the place Aâ— haec omnia illud accedit c. to all saith he that hath been spoken this may be added that these things may be said to be told to the Church which are told to these who are with authority over the Church for as the body is said to see when as only the eyes do see so the Church is said to hear that which these only hear who are as it were the eyes of the Church noâ— that the Rulers are vicarii or substitutes of the Church as the eyes are not vicarii or substitutes of the hands and feet But as the body is a certain whoâ—e whereof the severall members have their severall functions in the very like manner the Church is aâ—… body that consists of the compaction of more members to each of which belongeth their proper functions so that when one presents an object to be seen by the eye he is said to present it to the body so he that dilaâ—eth a matter to the Colledge of Presbyters he seemeth to dilate it to the Church whereof that Colledge is a part so far he judiciously section 3 Now take the name of the Church in that sense that is competent to the whole body of Christian Professours yet that all and every one of the body signified by that name cannot be taken as the definite person to whom these actions spoken of here belongs as formally concuâ—…ing therein I prove 1. because the actions here spoken of as belonging to the Church are Acts of Government and Authority yea Acts of highest authority and power receiving of publick judiciall delations judging upon them authoritative commanding amendement of the offence inflicting of publick even the highest censure of Excommunication upon disobedience But cleat it is from Scripture that not to all and every one members of the Visible Church for example women and children are Acts of Government and Authority formally competent and therefore these things ascribed here to the Church cannot be understood to be ascribed to the whole Church Therefore I think Mr. Lockier must either say one of these two that of the whole Church women and children are no parts or that women and children must have an hand and concurrence formally in receiving publick judiciall delations c. or else he must correct that Which word Church Math. 18. 17. I judge doth mean the whole Church and expound it of all men of age in the Church Professours as well as Elders and then give us leave to ask him where he can finde the Church so used for only men of age professing excluding women and children And to use his own Argument if he cannot finde it so used otherwhere in Scripture how can he judge it to mean so here But 2. that the persons here designed cannot be all and every one of the Church that are men of age but must be the Rulers or Eldership only I prove 1. by an Argument ad hominem upon a ground acknowledged confessed and practized by these of the Independent way themselves well observed by worthy Mr. Baillie Disswasive from Err. par 1. c. 9. p. 192. they to whom offences are to be told immediately after the two or three witnesses in a private way are not heard are intended and meant here when Christ saith tell the Church But the Elders alone without the people concurring with them are these to whom offences are to be told and delated immediately c. Ergo. the Major or first Proposition is clear in the Text The Minor or Assumption is their own confession and practice See Hooker Surv. Part 3. c. 3. p. 36. maters are first brought to the Elders they must judge whether the maters be of weight or worth examine the cause call witnesses take depositions yea and at last ere ever the people give any vote propound the sentence dogmatically which the people are oblidged to obey in the same way that they are oblidged to obey their preaching of the Gospel So then either our Brethren must acknowledge that under the name of the Church here Tell the Church are intended the Elders alone or their doctrine and practice of bringing scandals first to the Eldership thus as we have seen must of necessity be not only groundlesse beside Scripture warrand but directly contrair to the Scripture in hand And here it is remarkable that the learned and godly Mr. Parker albeit he be of a judgment contrary to us touching the first subject of the power of the Keyes yet is forced to acknowledge with us that in these words Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church in the beginning of the Verse is meant the
rationall obedience 3. That they joined their assent we shall not deny but the Question is what sort of assent whether authoritative and definitive◠〈◊〉 is not proven nor can be proven from the Text. Their â—…urring in sending Messengers proveâ— it not section 13 As to what followes of Mr. Lockiers words in this 8. SECT yet would they not leave c. 1. What he means by Presbyters Primats and these introduceing superintendents bringing in generall coercive Assem I confesse I understand not sure I am Presbyterians acknowledges no presbyters Primats nor superintendants either but that their way is very contrary to both 2. I confesse the Apostles in their practice in this Synod left no example introducing of a Pope but withall I think â—hey left an example for a Synod generall or particular wherein Church Rulers may juridically determine controversies in Religion according to the Word of God oblidging people to obedience under hazard of Ecclesiastick censure as shall be more cleared hereafter and that this does not supersede any power of people or particular Assemb of Saints privat beleevers that is competent to them by the grant and appointment of Jesus Christ I close this purpose of this Section with the words of the Learned Professours of Leiden Synop. Pur. Theol. Disp 49. de Concil Thes 29. Si ex Laicis cujuscunque status conditionis sunt viri pietate sacrarum rerum intelligentiâ sapientiâ prudentiâ modestiâ pacis studio mansuetudine insignes admitti accedere possunt sed vocati seu ab Ecclesiâ selecti missi iique suo ordine modo rogati sententiam dicere verumtamen ab illis in publicâ hâc actione consilium arbitrium potius quà m suffragium requiritur Adfuisse sanè plebem consilio Apostolis Presbyterisque adstitisse ut auditores testes silentio saltem suo si non voce approbatores fuisse consensumque praebuisse videre est Act. 15. Atque id etiam comprobat primarum probatarum Synodorum praxis usus ut in Concilio Carthaginensi sub Cypriano liqâ—et Interea tamen populo Christi maneâ— hâ—c suum ex divino Verbo judicium sed privatum â—e humana placita pro divinis accipiat Math. 7. 19. section 14 For hâ— 3. instance conceâ—ning elections of Officers we grant that election of Officers is to be done by the 〈◊〉 But election is no 〈◊〉 which was one of the thâ—… weighty things mentioned in 〈…〉 â—sseâ—…ion and repeated aâ—aiâ—… SECT 6. wherein he underâ—…k 〈…〉 â—hat the Elder 〈…〉 to exert power without the 〈◊〉 authoritative 〈◊〉 of the people not 〈◊〉 iâ— formally give the office power 〈…〉 signes the person to be invested 〈◊〉 the powâ—… by 〈…〉 be not one already ordained as 〈◊〉 â—he 〈◊〉 of thâ—s◠〈…〉 to be Deacons Acts 6. or applye◠〈◊〉 to exercise his 〈◊〉 in this particular charge if ordained and in office 〈◊〉 Nor is it any authoritative act of Government Ordination is done only by the Presbyters and Officers as thâ—… Deacons elected by the people were ordained not by them bâ—t by the Apostles section 15 His 4th instance is of ordination of Elders This we acknowledge to be a potestative act of Ecclesiastick authority and affirme that in Churches constitute and in the ordinary way of calling by Christs appointment in the Words belongs only to these who have Ecclesiastick Authority the Presbytery or Eldership Let 's see how Mr. Lockier shâ—weth us expresse Scripture that the people must joyntly concâ—r â—uthoritatively therein His first Scripture is Acts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communibus calculis simul suffragijs electus est By joynt voice was Matthias ordained to his place After the Lord had pointed out which of the two should be successor to Judas one would have thought that the Lord pointing out the man had been enough to formalize the mater And yâ—t lest this might prove a means to justle out the priviledge of the whole Church in matters of essentiall concernment after the Lords designation which was proper to him they joyntly take this designation and enstate him amongst them not by the suffrages of some but by the suffrages of the whole Church by preparing and drawing out of the whole to this particular work by the Apostle Peter who stood up in the midst of the Disciples the number being about an hundred and twenty and speaks of this mater joyntly to aâ—… Answ 1. Granting that by that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were signified an act of ordination performed upon Matthias formally constituting him an Apostle Yet there can be nothing brought out of the Text to prove that all the Church present concurred formally in that authoritative act Mr. Rutherfurds reasoning from the Text to the contrary to shew that it was only the Apostles is very considerable Due righâ— of Presbytery c. 8. pag. 1â—0 â—…eed not transcribe his grounâ—â—eâ— Mr. Lockier answâ—… 〈◊〉 What he brings is either 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 sufficient to prove his point oâ— an addition unto or rather a corrupting of the Text or a begging of â—he Question 1. That the whoâ—e hundred and twentie were drawn out to this Work and Peter spaâ—e 〈◊〉 them all â—bout the mater and told them that one amongst them must begâ—…en â—s a poor Argument to prove that all were to act formally in the authoritative act of the ordination of the man They might all be called out to the Work and Peter might speak to them all and yet not all of them be there in one and the same capacity as to â—…at Work But some as witnesses and consenters some as formall actors 2. That Peter in his speach said to all that one of them might be chosen by them i. e. all of them This is a plain addition unto or corrupting of the Text wherein there is no such thing Peter sayeth of these men that hath companied with us must one be ordained to be a witnesse he sayeth not must be ordained by you 3. When he sayeth they appointed they gave forth their loâ—… they numbered meaning as he doth they all the hundred and twenty he begs the thing in Question But 2. I confesse I never thought that in this place was held forth an ordination performed by men at all People or Apostles I find learned Mr. Caudry of the same judgement Vindic. Clav. pag. 28 29. whose solide considerations I present here That place Act. 1. was not an ordinary case wherein the people had little or no hand I adde the Apostles themselves had little or no hand For 1. they were confined to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour 2. They propounded two it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man 3. The Lord himself determined it and not the Apostles much lesse the People As for that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 stood upon as Master Lockier also stands upon it it cannot be properly taken as if they by their votes or suffrages
governing yet each acteth orderly in his distinct place viz. privat Christians in their place Elders in their place and station Yet this takes not away the absurdity For seeing Mr. Lockier will have all and every one in the body of the Church formally and authoritatively to act in the acts of Government it followes that all and every one of them are formally Governours and Rulers the privat Christians as well as the Elders and there is no distinction between them at all as to governing except of meer order in acting Certainly if all and every member of the naturall body did formally elicit the act of seeing albeit that part of the body which we now call the eye were supposed to act therein in some respect somewhat distinctly as to order from the rest of the parts Yet all the rest of the parts were as formally and properly an eye as it Therefore as it were madnesse to say that in the naturall body each member doth formally act seeing So it is exceeding absurd supposing the Church to be an organicall body and some of the organes whereof it is composed are rulers governing and commanding in the Lord to whom subjection and obedience in the Lord is to be given by the rest and are as the eyes in the naturall body Yet to say that all and every member in the Church hath a formall authoritative hand or influence in the acts of governing 2. See the incongruity of the Authors comparison The power sayeth he may be fundamentally in the whole viz. body For he is speaking in the immediatly preceeding words of an organicall-body and yet each organ c. for instance the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally c. What incongruity is this to propound in the generall of power fundamentally in a whole body organicall And then for an instance oâ— simile to tell us of powers or faculties in the whole soul originally Is the soul an organicall body But may some say the Author saith the sensitive faculties are in all the soul fundamentally and radically and the soul radically and fundamentally in all the body and so would by consequence say that the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally and radically Answ 1. 'T is a very grosse absurdity to say that the soul is in the whole body fundamentally and radically or potentially as we have shown before It is formally and by way of information in the whole body 2. It is a grosse inconsequence the sensitive faculties are in all the soul and the soul is in the whole body Therefore the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally Nay they are fundamentally and radically in the soul and therefore are not fundamentally and radically in the body neither whole nor part But are formally and by way of inhesion in their respective parts or organs of the body 3. I would fain know of the Author what he does make in the Church answerable to the soul in the naturall body and so that wherein the power of governing is fundamentally and radically as the sensitive faculties of the naturall body are fundamentally and radically in the soul Is it the whole Church as comprehending both people and Ministers That is the body Or is it the people That is a part of the body The truth is Mr. Lockier is at a losse here with his simile Jesus Christ as King of the Church is unto the Church as the soul in the naturall body And the power of governing is fundamentally and radically in him and not in the body of the Church And therefore 3. to make use of the last words of his similitude for which we thank him as making clearly against himself and for us as the sensitive faculties are radically and fundamentally in the soul and act only as he sayeth well by such parts as are fit to act by as seeing by the eye and hearing by the ear and the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work The hands to work the feet to go So to give the apodosis which he had no will to expresse Ecclesiastick organicall powers such as the senses are â—n the naturall body as the power of governing teaching administrating the seals are fundamentally in Christ the King of the Church and act only by such parts as are fit to act by Rulers Teachers and Ministers These are the proper organs of those works section 7 The fifth and and last Obj. he meeteth with is this The Elders of the Church are called overseers stewards shepherds fathers All which in their analogy hold forth a peculiar and sole power to do things fathers govern alone so overseers c. As to this propounding of this Argument 1. We speak not for a peculiar sole power to do things indefinitely in Elders But for a sole power of authoritative acting in maters of Government and not excluding or denying unto people a private judgement of discretion to try and prove the actings thereof by the rule 2. The Author leaves out some of the names and titles given to the Elders which use to be alledged in this Argument besides the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guides leaders conducters governours Heb. 13. 7 17 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thessal 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governments or Governours the abstract being put for the concrete 2 Cor. 12. 28. 3. Because the Author is pleased to propound the Argument from this ground in the softest way for his own advantage we desire the Reader will be pleased to take it thus These persons and these only in the Church have power and authority to govern and consequently are to exercise formally acts of Government to whom in the Scripture by the Spirit of Christ are appropriated such names and titles which do import the power and authority of governing But to the Officers of the Church are such names appropriat as importeth power and authority of Governing Ergo c. For the major or first proposition I think it may be clear to any of it self And if any shall be so wilfull as to deny it I would ask him as doth the learned Authors of jus divin of Church Government Par. 2. pag. 170. to what end and for what reason are such names and denominations importing power and authority of Government appropriated to some persons i. e. given to them and not to others if not for this end and reason to distinguish them that are vested with authority to govern in the Church from others and to signifie and hold forth a duty or work incumbent to them and not to others The assumption see evidenced at length in jus divinum of Church Government Par. 2. pag. 171 172 173. the summe is this These titles Elder Overseer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conducter Governour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward Pastor Governments Ruler are names which generally
have power and authority graâ—en upon them and are such names as not only heathen writers but also the Greek Version of the Old Testament by the 72. and the Originall of the New Testament are wont to give to politicall Officers to expresse their politicall power and government now all these titles and denominations are attributed to Christs Officers in his Church as cannot be denyed And are not any where in Scripture attributed to the whole Church or any other member of the Church whatsoever besides Church Officers Nay they are ordinarly attributed to the Officers in contradistinction to the body of the Church But see we what the Author answers section 8 Minuta's saith he first in generall in Parables must not be fastened on but principalia what is their main scope Ans What And are all these names given to Christs Officers in his Church nothing else but parables Or are they Parables at all taking them as titles or names given to the Officers in the Church I have thought a Parable as we take it now in the Scripture sense to be narratio rei verae vel verisimiliter gestae ad simile significandum seu explicandum as Pareus describeth Math. 13. 3. i. e. a narration of a thing truly done or probable to signifie or explain a like thing and not a simple term or title given to a thing Indeed some of them no doubt are metaphoricall But a simple Metaphor for ought I know is not a Parable And I pray when the Apostle saith Rom. 12. 8. He that ruleth let him do it with diligence And 1 Corin. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church governments And 1 Thessal 5. 11. Know those that are over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Lord and other such places is the Apostle in these places speaking parables But be it so that the Author takes a parable for a simple Metaphore Will any man but the Author say that all and every one of these forementioned names are attributed to the Officers of Christ in the Church only Metaphorically and none of them in a proper signification Indeed some of them I confesse are Metaphoricall as Father Pastors or Shepherds Stewards But withall others of them as Presbyters in the politicall sense of the word Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as properly and univocally attributed to them as unto such as in the civil Common-wealth have the same names attributed to them The Philosopher tells us Categor c. 1. that these are Synonyma and so participate a name properly which have not only the name common but also the same definition accommodate to thâ—t 〈…〉 â—o it is here as 〈…〉 Ecclâ—siaâ—… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 a comâ—… 〈…〉 indued 〈…〉 â—ay of 〈…〉 â—…ndent 〈◊〉 will no◠〈…〉 same 〈…〉 being 〈…〉 proâ—… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 Church â—o import in thâ—… 〈…〉 authority 〈…〉 we 〈…〉 to his mor◠〈…〉 section 9 Elders 〈…〉 should 〈…〉 not absolute â—ow 〈…〉 power is to make th◠〈…〉 self and oâ—hers 〈…〉 as being 〈…〉 stock Ans 〈…〉 brought by 〈…〉 â—…urch of the 〈…〉 borrowed â—rom the 〈…〉 â—…ether Ecclesâ—…stick 〈…〉 â—…at can be said to â—lude the 〈…〉 â—…tive power of Government 〈…〉 abundantly dâ—shâ—d by 〈…〉 â—…d Book â— c. 9. pag. 〈…〉 his read I wonder â—ow 〈…〉 sâ—ry answer he hat◠〈…〉 Author hath on this purpose 〈…〉 him adding what 〈…〉 true that the 〈…〉 which of thâ—m yâ—u 〈…〉 Rulâ—… of the Woâ—d 〈…〉 â—o more 〈…〉 to direct 〈…〉 â—…sell or 〈…〉 the Rul◠〈…〉 having 〈…〉 others 〈…〉 rules aâ—… 〈…〉 superio◠〈…〉 as Beza 〈…〉 vit no◠〈…〉 word 〈…〉 â—xim◠〈…〉 Sep◠〈…〉 â—the◠〈…〉 thâ— is 〈…〉 use 〈…〉 of Government 〈…〉 Church 〈◊〉 it 〈…〉 Mr. Loâ—â—… 〈…〉 the only 〈…〉 â—…me name 〈…〉 whic◠〈…〉 way of counsell and 〈…〉 of â—…wer and 〈…〉 to all the Church 〈…〉 way of 〈…〉 to authority and 〈…〉 simple 〈…〉 forth of â—…ght 2. 〈…〉 this 〈…〉 â—…uted to the Office 〈…〉 were to makâ—… 〈…〉 â—…erse exposition 〈…〉 think the Authorâ—… 〈…〉 â—representing oâ—… 〈…〉 â—ording 〈…〉 unto 〈…〉 â—steriall not 〈…〉 but also limited 〈…〉 â—…sts 〈…〉 people 〈◊〉 obligâ—… 〈…〉 of the wor◠〈…〉 simple direâ—… 〈…〉 and perswasâ—… 〈…〉 â—governâ—… 〈…〉 â—…all Go◠〈…〉 Presbyteriaâ—… 〈…〉 not meerly 〈…〉 â—reater knowledg◠〈…〉 â—an of knowledg◠〈…〉 â—oer of 〈…〉 Erastian sayeth 〈…〉 â—differ one from an other 〈…〉 â—ost contrary to common 〈…〉 â—…ment 2. I would 〈…〉 who le body of the 〈…〉 then meeâ— diâ—ection 〈…〉 â—thoritative power of government 〈…〉 that their power over 〈◊〉 absolute 〈…〉 â—ver their â—aith I think◠〈…〉 say that 〈…〉 Ministeriall and such 〈…〉 very place 2 Cor. 1. as in v. 24 â—…ed by the Author he affirâ—… of himself and other Officers that they did not take unto themselves a 〈…〉 power ovâ—… 〈…〉 of the Church So in the 〈…〉 Officers had a 〈…〉 then of meer 〈…〉 To spare you 〈…〉 power to corâ—… 〈…〉 â—…oved to have 〈…〉 Go we on with the 〈…〉 section 10 They ar◠〈…〉 such 〈◊〉 should use diligent inspeâ—… 〈…〉 to the â—…ck that none go astâ—… 〈…〉 â—…oof consolation c. 〈…〉 â—…ops or Lording Presbyâ—… 〈…〉 dominantes in Ecclesiâ—â—… 〈…〉 â—…stle doth not by that 〈…〉 ove◠〈◊〉 in◠〈…〉 or Lording Presbyteâ—… 〈…〉 Church by force and violence Mr. Lockier but stand 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Presbyterians in 〈…〉 â—…tation of the tâ—rme upon them and fights 〈…〉 own 〈…〉 We 〈◊〉 no other sort of powâ—… 〈…〉 to Presbyterâ— over the Church than he 〈…〉 to the Congregation and Presbyters joyntly 〈…〉 particular member Unlesse he will with State-sycoâ—…t â—rastiaâ—… deny all Ecclesiastick rule and government and I 〈◊〉 he will not say this is Lording or Lordly rule dominiering by 〈…〉 violence The Question between Presbyterians and Independâ—… is not touching the nature of Ecclesiastick power of government in it self whether Lordly domiâ—ering or not but touching the Subject in which it is and by which it is to be formally exâ—…sed whether the Officers of the Church or the whole collective body of the Church We say the Officers or Elders only and that the nam◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing a ruling power and authority given to them by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradiâ—…ction to the body of the Church proveâ— this which is not infringed by what is said by Mr. Lockier here For â— when as he â—…yeth that they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of diligent inspection waâ—…fulnesse heed taking to the flock that none go astray for want of counsell 〈…〉 consolâ—… 〈…〉 whether be means inspecâ—… 〈…〉 over 〈…〉 â—…hibiting reproof consoâ—…on 〈…〉 a not-authoritative 〈…〉 we have our point For 〈…〉 by that name and the 〈…〉 â—guished from the rest of 〈…〉 that the power of râ—…ing is only 〈…〉 by them only If he say the later 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 to every single Beleever 〈…〉 11 12. Coloss 3. 16. Galat. 6. 1. and 〈…〉 might have the name of
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as the 〈…〉 Spirit of God gives it to Elders as contradiâ—… 〈…〉 from single Beleevers but also from the whole â—lack 〈…〉 â—hy would the Spirit of â—od give thiâ— name to Eldeâ—… 〈…〉 â—…guished from the whole flock if thereby were 〈…〉 out whaâ—â—is common competen◠〈…〉 and ought to be â—one by every single 〈…〉 Lockier reckoning up the acts whereby the 〈…〉 are to 〈◊〉 the flock That none so far◠〈…〉 none 〈◊〉 â—…presseth some only and 〈…〉 â—…der an c. I would ask him 〈…〉 beside 〈…〉 expressed doeth he intend by that 〈◊〉 here be understoâ—d exercise of discipline and censures 〈◊〉 â—…ons going astray or â—one astray if otherwise they cannot 〈…〉 or reclaimed and reduced I believe they must by this meâ—… 〈…〉 by these expressed take heed that none go astray 〈…〉 â—nd is not this not only aâ— act of Government but even of correâ—…ve jurâ—…diction O! but may he say they are not to do this â—ct by themselves but to have a care that it be done by the whole body of the Church But I pray how by telling the offences of 〈…〉 the Church or giving joint vote as other Professors in the 〈…〉 it comes under publike cognizance and judgement Ay 〈…〉 â—his may and ought to be done by the Authors way by any other Professours in the Church besides the Eldeâ— â—nd so nothing is left to them in regard of which that name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be more pecuâ—…ar to them than any other Professours section 11 The Aâ—… 〈…〉 â—…seers and 〈…〉 â—…thers as 〈…〉 â—…ked in 〈…〉 â—…her which 〈…〉 â—en rather 〈…〉 ashiâ—… his Disâ—… 〈…〉 and sâ—l◠〈…〉 are so Rule◠〈…〉 But 〈…〉 to thâ— Châ—… 〈…〉 that tâ— thâ—… 〈…〉 â—…y o◠〈◊〉 â—…d 〈…〉 and 〈…〉 But 〈…〉 as a Brother 〈…〉 the 〈…〉 or inâ—… 〈…〉 â—…y to conâ—… 〈…〉 of Ruling and Goâ—… 〈…〉 power nor alone to exercise 〈…〉 â—…in conâ—…ction 〈…〉 Shepâ—… 〈…〉 â—…cive that Mr. Lockier as he 〈…〉 so he will not deny that th◠〈…〉 only of the Church are so called 〈…〉 theâ— only â—ut the rest of the Profâ—… 〈…〉 in the power and acts oâ— Ruâ—… 〈…〉 it i◠〈◊〉 to give the 〈◊〉 the 〈…〉 of 〈◊〉 as much and much â—ore o◠〈◊〉 thing 〈…〉 â—hem 'T is true indeed that Elde◠〈…〉 â—hood with the rest of Professours but 〈…〉 in another thing then that power which is signified by the names of Ruâ—…â—verâ—eers c. i. c. the power and authority of governing For were it that that they are 〈…〉 â—ood in this 〈…〉 why are they not all 〈…〉 â—verseers c If they 〈…〉 the name The thing 〈…〉 the rest of Pâ—of◠〈…〉 â—…ession of 〈…〉 â—eing of 〈…〉 tell 〈…〉 â—…siastick Goverâ—… 〈…〉 â—qually in the 〈…〉 of Governâ—… 〈…〉 calâ—… 〈◊〉 Overseâ—… 〈…〉 tha◠〈…〉 Go◠〈…〉 â—at then 〈…〉 Elder◠〈…〉 conâ—… the 〈…〉 meeting 〈…〉 vote◠〈…〉 intimate 〈…〉 the whol◠〈…〉 â—…te conâ—lude 〈…〉 â—…er for which 〈…〉 over the Church 〈…〉 as in the 〈…〉 And as the faâ—… 〈…〉 exercised by 〈◊〉 And 〈…〉 of seeing 〈…〉 part of the 〈…〉 â—…vernment 〈…〉 Rulers 〈…〉 so in and 〈…〉 â—…sed by any other â—art of the 〈…〉 the Authâ—r 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of Christâ— washing his 〈◊〉 feet to illustrate how the Elders organicall power of Government should not prejudge destroy or take away the peoples equall sharing in a power of Government which â—e calleth fundamentall which yet is by his way as 〈…〉 of Government as any Rulers in the World haâ—… 〈…〉 acteth in the exercise of Government When I 〈…〉 confesse I was amazed and could scarcely believe my own eye 〈◊〉 that such a thing could be Writen by an understanding 〈◊〉 â—dverting to what he did Write As wâ—ste in Chriâ—… 〈…〉 that as relateth â—o the purpose he has 〈…〉 before viz. that Elders organicall power of Government â—ould not take away the peoples equal share of fundâ—… 〈◊〉 aâ— he calleth it nor the exercise thereof 〈…〉 and his Disciplâ—… Brethren or a Brother-hood 〈…〉 of mutuall and equall power fundamentall of Government Mr. Lockier I know will abhorre a thought of this Hâ— Christ saith himself was thâ—… sole Ruler viz. Soveraign and 〈◊〉 and Law-giver Or waâ— Christ here condescending to 〈…〉 of Government together with his Disciples Neither 〈…〉 he â—ay Washing of feet is an act very 〈◊〉 from 〈◊〉 Or was hâ— by abasing himself to wash his Disciples feet 〈◊〉 him â—ow they being to bâ— Officers of his Church should 〈◊〉 the acts of Government in the Church viz. that they should â—n the exercise thereof take in joyntly with them the whoâ—…â—…ople Sure we find no intimation of such an intention by 〈…〉 in the Text And the thing it self in the matter 〈…〉 of such a lesson that I think never man till 〈…〉 would imagined such a thing intended by it Besides an 〈…〉 is a peculiar action of that same kind with that for which iâ— iâ— given to be an example done for direction to do the like 〈◊〉 washing of feet is an action very far different from exeâ—…ise of Government but is it not evident enough from Christs own â—…pounding â—f that fact John 13. 14 15. that his intention thereby was to give to his Disciples and in them to all Christians an example of 〈◊〉 and charity amongst themselves and that every one of them should be ready to the meanest and basest duties whereby they may â—e serviceable and helpfull to another Now what is this to Mr. Lockiers purpose here if this be not I know not what is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 section 12 This which we have considered is all that Mr. Lockier answereth to the Argument for proving the power of Ecclesiastick Government to belong to Christs Officers in the Church only and not to the whole body of Beleevers or Professours taken from the names and denominations importing power and authority of Government given by the Spirit of God in Scripture to the Officers but never to the people then to them in contradistinction to the people And all that he has said as is it is but weak in it self as we trust we have made evident so he has therein passed by a great part of the Argument having neglected sundrie of these Titles and altogether miskenned the Passages of Scripture which by Presbyterians use to be produced for them and are urged upon the point as containing much ground for their Doctrine besides the names or titles given therein to the Officers I humbly desire the reader our Author if he will be pleased to be at the pains to consider what M. Gillespy hath to this purpose Aarons Rod Book 2. c. 9. wherein he proveth that there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Government in the hands of the Church Officers see there Arg. 1 2 3 10 11 19 20. But now are these Objections brought by the Author and as slightly propounded as he might and I may say Answered just so Are these Isay all the materiall Arguments thaâ—
under Heaven 4. If any maters of generall concernment wherein the benefit or hurt of every member is concerned must be authoritatively transacted not by the Eldership alone but by the members joyntly with them I see not why all maters of generall concernment ought not to be so also Magis minus non variant speciem But to come to the point wherin lyeth the proof of that that it is an offence given and not taken when the members are offended because they cannot by judiciall and authoritative vote hinder the sentence of the Eldership the decisive sentence lying only in the Elders If because in these transactions the benefit or hurt of every member is generally and greatly concerned Therefore it is an offence given if they have not such power of judiciall concurrence and vote in the sentence Then I say women also must have this power and if they offend for want of it as they are as ready as men to offend if they have not power to get their will the offence is given and not taken Because women being members are comprehended under that every member and their benefit or hurt is concerned as well as mens The Author will never be able to avoid this upon his medium 6. If because in these transactions the benefit or hurt of every Member of the Church is generally and greatly concerned when they are offended because they cannot by judiciall and authoritative joint vote hinder the sentence the decisive power thereof lying only in the Elders the offence is not taken but given and therefore they ought to have such vote then say I by as good consequence it followeth because in the great transactions in civill Government suppose by a Major and his counsell by a Parliament the benefite or hurt of every member of the city or Common-wealth is generally and greatly concerned If the Members offend that they cannot by joint authoritative vote hinder the sentence the decisive power thereof lying altogether in these Governours the offence is not taken but given And therefore they ought to concur jointly and authoritatively in these transactions with their Governours Here is again Levelling backed with reason such as it is 7. Therefore to Answer directly 't is but a loose and false principle that in all transactions in which the benefite or hurt of persons is concerned all persons whose the hurt or benefite is therein concerned if they offend that they have not sufficient ability to hinder sentence by their joint authoritative vote the offence is not taken but given and therefore they ought to have such joint authoritative concurrence and vote Nay it tends to the eversion of all Government and bringing in meer Anarchy and confusion Yet 8. I think from this rightly understood may be inferred somewhat which Mr. Lockier would consider in the mater of his next Assertion For if all whose benefite or hurt is greatly concerned in Ecclesiastick transactions ought to have authoritative joint concurrence in these transactions then when as in some main transactions in a particular Congregation for example Excommunication many others benefite or hurt is greatly concerned beside these who are Members of the Congregation it must follow that these others ought to have power of joint authoritative concurrence in these transactions or at least some for their inrerest ought to have such power And this I conceive will amount to the overturning of the supreme Independent tribunall as Mr. Hooker calls it Part. 3. c. 3. of single Congregations and setting up an Ecclesiastick authoritative Judicatory over more Congregations section 14 Arg. 4. SECT 5. Because the spirit of discerning both respecting persons and things is not consined as a peculiar to the Presbytery or Eldership of the Church but the same gift may be in a great measure in some of the Members and a greater gift when all are joined together in the name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge of a conjunct strength of saints what mighty things and glorious are spoken in Scriptures That they shall judge the world Angels much more able to judge their own affairs This is the one part of this sections Argument There followeth another of which afterward Now to this 1. If this Argument hold good then again Women at least some Women ought to have judiciall concurrence and vote jointly with the Eldership in transactions of Government Why the spirit of discerning may be in as great measure in some Women as in some Men and the greater will the gift be when they with the Men are gathered together and I think it will not be denyed that Women will be a part of the Saints who are to judge the World and Angels 2. Upon the same ground by proportion it followes because many private men may have the same gift of discerning in a great measure that is in Magistrates in the Members of Parliament Yea may be in a greater measure in some of those then is in many of these and there is a greater gift when all is joined together Therefore all such discerning men must have joint authoritative consent and vote with Magistrates with the Parliament in the Acts of Government Here is again pleading for Levelling 3. Because some men may be have as great a measure of knowledge and understanding for teaching the Word as Ministers it followeth proportionally upon that ground that such men may and ought to Preach authoritatively as well as Ministers and as Socinians some Remonstrants and Separatists teach a gifted man needs not an outward calling to be a Minister His gift is a calling sufficient 4. To answer directly to reason from a gift of discerning in maters coming under Acts of Government to actuall right and power to concur authoritatively in these Acts of Government is a grosse and palpable non sequitur Let a man never have such a measure of a gift for exercising Acts of Government or publick authority he must besides have the warrand of Commission or calling to exert them else if he take upon him to exert them he is but an intruder as all men will grant that are not against both Scripture light and light of nature and for turning all Affaires Civill and Ecclesiastick into a Chaos of confusion 5. Whereas the Author saying their wil be a greater gift when all Officers and private professors are joined together viz. in these Acts of Government in the name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge We grant that when all private Professours with the Church Officers are joined together possibly there may be a greater gift of discerning by way of aggregation then when the Officers are alone But whereas withall it is tacitely supposed that all may meet in the name of the Lord i. e. in his Authority and may the more expect his presence for assisting the discerning judging in these maters of Government in the former he begs the thing in question we deny that they do all
caused them to make by suffrages to themselves Elders Now let any man judge if the Author has brought us expresse Scripture for private Believers formall and authoritative concurrence in the act of ordination of Elders And whereas he addes in the close of his Section By these two first examples are other Scriptures which speak of ordination as if they did attribute it to the Elders onely to be Interpret if other answers proper to such places cannot be found out I Answ If he find not out more proper answers for these places then to expone them by these two examples it may easily be perceived by what has been said that he is at a weak passe in maintaining his point undertaken And I pray tell us why such places of Scripture as plainly attributes the act of ordination to Presbyteries onely should be expounded to take in the people with Elders by these two examples wherein yet their is no demonstrative ground brought to evidence that the people had formall hand in ordination of the Officers mentioned in them And not rather these two examples or practiseâ— seeing it is not expresly said in them that the people concurred in the ordination be expounded by such places wherein the acts of ordination is expresly attributed 〈◊〉 Eldership alone I vâ—rily â—hink that to any understanding man the latter of these two will seem most rationall As for Arguments proving that â—ot the people but only the Officers of the Chuâ—…h â—…ve the power of ordination See these Authors often mentioned section 17 To close up this inducâ—ion of particulars Finally saith he SECT â—… I might instance in lower matters which would strengthen thâ— Argument for if in lesse things the Eldership may not act alone surely not in greater Answ 1. If Elders may not in lesser maters act without joint concurrence of the people what needeth that restriction in the Assertion first propounded not in most weighty things 2. It is a very weak Consequence In lesse maters they may not act alone Ergo not in greater Some persons may have the managing of great maters laid upon them by speciall commission from such as have supream authority to commissionate in these maters and yet have no speciall commission laid upon them to manage lesse maters Mens capacity to act alone or not alone but with others in such maters ariseth not from 〈◊〉 â—uantity or weight of the maters but from Commission and waâ—…â—nd granted by him that hath supreme power and authority over those things But let 's briefly see these particular instances of lesse things alledged by him here section 18 As in Letters recommendatory saith he they were not directed to the Eldership of such a Church but to the whole Church of which they were to be received So Paul recommended Phebe to the Church of Corinth 't was to the Church of Rome Rom. 16. 1 2. So John wrote to the Church concerning certain brethren that were to be received by them onâ— Diotrephes the Elder which stood upon his sole authority in this and such like things and used the Keyes at his own pleasure to keep out and cast out as he would is noted with this mark not to be of God but of Satan for this very thing and one that had not seen God Answ What poor stuffe is here to the purposâ— in hand 1. Directing of Letters commendatory to persons Eldership or Church is not their actings but the actings of some others that 〈◊〉 the Letters and I may say their passion But if it 〈…〉 recommendator◠〈◊〉 not be at all directedâ—â—to◠〈◊〉 â—…ceived by the Eldersh◠〈◊〉 but the whole Church 〈◊〉 â—…fesse this is a strange Assertioâ—â—nd he that will beleeve 〈…〉 ofâ— is too too credulous 3. The matâ—er that Paul recommend Pâ—ebâ— for to the â—oman Christians was a duty of common Christian love to intertain her kindly as a Christian to assist her as they could in her affairs at Rome a duty jure naturali incumbent to all Christians both conjunctly and severally And so the recommendation foâ— that on her behalf might well be directed to all Elders and people But interest of concurring in actings of Church Government being not juris naturalis but juris positivi persons must be sure of speciall warrant and vocation for concurring in them So that 't is but a very sick consequence if Letters of recommendation for such purpose as these for Phebe may be or if ye will ought to be directed to the whole Church then ought the whole Church also to concur in actings of Church Government and juâ—isdiction He must have a good head that will make it out 4. As to the instance of Diotrephes Mr. Lockier is I conceive in a mistake when he supposes that â—…ving of these Brethren for which Iohn did write to the Church was to receive them into the state of Church membership they needed not that they were Church members yea it seems Ministers before and an act of the Keyes It was a receiving of them into duties of Christian kindlinesse and charity v. 5 6 7. but what is all this of Diotrephes to the purpose Because Diotrephes one Elder usurped sole authority to himself alone in the Church made peremptor acts inhibiting the members to receive unto duties of Christian charity stranger-Christians did tyrannically at his own pleasure Excommunicat-persons and that for disobeying his unjust acts if he for this was marked not to be of God but of Satan not to have seen God must the same mark be put upon the Colledge of Elders in the Church if they all jointly and equally act authoritatively in matters of Ecclesiastick Government and jurisdiction without the authoritative concurrence of the whole CongregatioÌ„ yet not according to their own pleasure but according to the Rules of Gods Word nor yet pressing upon the people blind and absolute obedience but reserving to them the liberty of their judgement of discretion must they for this be Classed with Dâ—otrephâ—s 'T is evident Mr. Lockâ—… â—…liquely reaches this blow at Presbyterians but they need no◠〈◊〉 it I will spare what I might say to this Only this much 〈◊〉 â—e give better proof then yet we have seen for popular concurrence in Acts of Ecclesiastick Government I can judge no otherwise of suâ—… bitter hints as these then as is said of Diotrephes words vers 10. of that Epistle SECTION IV. Mr. Lockiers Argument from common Testimony SECT 12. considered and Answered section 1 MR. Lockier having alledged first reasons next some expresse Passages of Scripture wherein how he has acquit himself we leave to be judged by the impartiall discerning Reader in the last place Take saith he common consent for this truth i. e. his Assertion no truth that the whole Congregation are to have joint authoritative suffrages in all maters of greatest weight i. e. all acts of Ecclesiastick Government By common consent he must mean the testimony of Ecclesiastick Writers and now I pray what testimonies of Ecclesiastick Authors
brings he Just two one of yesterday I may say jugling in the businesse and another nothing to the purpose see we them both section 2 First In the first times this was so well known and so frequent in practice that Bishop Whitegift himself one that wanted not wit nor learning nor any other help and setting all his strength to maintain a These contrary to what we are upon yet is constrained to confesse that in the Apostles times the state of the Church was democratiall or popular the people or multitude having hand almost in every thing Defence pag. 182. which word almost doth sute with the thing I am upon For indeed as I have said in all weighty matters the whole body had their joint voice as hath been before proved Answ 1. That Whitegâ—ft set all his strength to maintain 〈◊〉 These contrary to what 〈…〉 presâ—…ation of the maâ— mind The 〈…〉 was that the 〈…〉 Government and juâ—… 〈…〉 hands onely of th◠〈…〉 â—…lats excluding no◠〈…〉 all other Presby◠〈…〉 Church 2. By theâ—… 〈…〉 wherein he saith that 〈…〉 â—nown and frequenâ—… 〈…〉 he means 〈…〉 of the Church 〈…〉 themselves 〈◊〉 or therewith taking in the next 〈…〉 the â—hurch If 〈◊〉 mean the latter I conceive he would â—one much better to 〈◊〉 cited some Writers of these times themseves saying so much then taken the matter upon report from Whitegift But let him if he can produce any Ancient Writers Ecclesiastick of these times either speaking for his Tenet in dogmate or relating any practice thereof in the Church of these times This he will never be able to do If he mean the former 't is true Whitegift sayes so that in the Apostles times the state of the Church for outward Government was popular But 1. Whitegift withall for upholdâ—…â—he power and Government of Prelats in the Church of England excluding all other Church Officers maintains most falsly and perniciously there was no particular form of Government appointed by precept in the New Testament But that the determination of this is 〈◊〉 the power of the Civil Magistrate the chief and principall Governour of the Church in his judgement And therefore granted for his own design that the people had sometimes an hand in matters of Government accidentally because of the want of Civil Magistrates to establish Rulers 2. Who had hand in acts of Government of the Church in the Apostles times can be known best by Scripture it self and no otherwayes câ—…ainly If Mr. Lockier has brought forth any Scripture holding forth either by precept or practice that the body of the people ought or did concur formally and authoritatively in acts of Government tho he has assayed to do and sayes here he has proveâ— it I leave to the Readers to judge Whitegift would never alledge precept of Scripture for this and for practice I find none alledged by him but in the mater of Election of Officers which is no act of government or authority and yet he alledgeth that neither in that did they alwayes concur which I conceive to be an untruth To close this let Mr. Lockiers ingenuity bâ— observed here in speaking for a popular and 〈…〉 of the Church by his applauding of â—his 〈…〉 Whitegifts Independents commonly refuse altogether that the Government they maintain 〈…〉 and professe a disclaâ—… of Moâ—…llius for this But 〈…〉 it is no other And 〈…〉 Author â—ere is ingenuous in tâ—king with and applauding that name For why should not a true thing have iâ—… own name section 3 His second testimony iâ— the Canon of the Councell of â—aodieâ—… â—0 years after Christ yea and 4. if not 8. years more ordaining that the people after that should have no hand in the choise of their Officers unlesse it formerly had What meaneth this Canon â—aith he unlesse formerly it was so that the people had hand in it Answ Let it be so that this Canon doth import that formerly the people had hand in Election of their Officers as we grant they 〈◊〉 ought to have and have with us Election is no act of Ecclesiastick Authority or â—…risdiction nor makes one a Church Officer as was said before But what is this to the purpose His undertaking was to bring common testimony to prove that in the first times of the Church the body of the people the whole Congregation had joint authoritaâ—…ve suffâ—age with the Officerâ— in all maters of greatest weight i. e. in all acts of Ecclesâ—…stick Govâ—…ment is it not a very sufficient making out of this to 〈◊〉 one Canon of one Councell indirectly importing that they â—…d hand in one act and that no formall act of Government and Authority And is this all the common testimony we must be content with Now when as all acts of Ecclesiastick power authority and government in Scripture designed by the Keyes are comprehended in these 1. Publick Preaching of the Gospel 2. Administration of the Seals or Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper 3. Ordination and authoritative sending of Officers 4. Dispensation of Discipline Excommunication and Absolution I would have the Author producing to us common testimony for the peoples concurring joyntly and authoritatively in these or any of them in the first times of the Church section 4 What followeth in this SECT of the Authors is but a flist of big empty words added unto weak reasoning to startle silly Readers to which shortly 1. Whom he meaâ—s by his superintendents once and again reckonâ—… 〈◊〉 with 〈…〉 and Bishops I know not well he may be pleased 〈…〉 That Bishops and 〈…〉 did piece by 〈…〉 of God many 〈◊〉 â—pirituall liberties and 〈◊〉 of Christe is certain But any 〈◊〉 testimony as he 〈…〉 by him very little of this appeareth as appeate very evidently 3. In representing the servants of God that are 〈…〉 new devised modell of popular Government of the Church under the name of the children of these Metropolitans and Bishops is both an unjust and ridiculous slander I beleeve these Hierarchicall Lords never did nor ever will look upon Presbyterians as any of their kinde 4. To order the Church of CHRIST as that therein his Officers and Ministers rule his People under him by his ordinances according to the rule of his Word that the people over whom they are set obey them in the LORD is not the taking from people any thing for which these that teach and hold by that wâ—y need to repent nor know we any words of GOD spoken against them for that way And for â—ans words without Gods Word they stand not Nor have they cause to take any works or blowes or bloods of their body you have taken too much upon you to pronounâ—… upon their soul blood think Sir upon Rom. 14. and let your heart 〈◊〉 you for this as inflicted by God on that account tho they 〈◊〉 they have sinned against him and desires therefore to bear his indignation If men has given them blowes and shed their blood upon that account let them look to
of Elderships and Presbyteries of more Congregations consociated that they may lawfully be and of diverse sorts is confessed But there are these points especially concerning them of which there is controversie between us and our Brethren section 4 The 1. is concerning the nature of their power over the severall Congregations or Churches consociated in them Our Brethren of the Independent way attribute no other power unto them but of counsel perswasion to informe and hold forth unto the Churches what is commanded by the Word of God to exhort perswade them to their duty to obedience of what they find commanded in the Word But allow them no authority and jurisdictionall power to enjoine their determinations from the Word authoritatively under pain of Ecclesiasticall censures So Mr. Hooker in the forecited place pag. 2 3. 't is true he calls this power of counsell by the name of Authority And so Mr. Lockier from him Sect. 30. but an authoritative power of meer counsell advice and persuasion may be justly counted a Chimaera But we shall not contend about names Call it authority or power or what you will the thing it self is nothing else but brotherly counsell which hath no binding force formally as issuing from the Presbyterie But bindeth meerly vi materiae materially in regard of the thing which is propounded by them as it is a Scripture truth or command as is confessed by Mr. Hooker And this is no more then one Brother may do towards another and one sister Church may do to another Mr. Cotton in the Keyes ch 6. seemeth to attribute more power to a Synod They have sayeth he power not onely to give light and counsell in mater of truth and practice But also to command and enjoine the things to be believed and done The expresse words of the Synodicall letter imply no lesse Act. 15. 27. It is an act of the power of the Keyes to binde burdens and this binding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the maters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the authority of the Synod which being an ordinance of Christ bindeth the more For the Synods sake This in the letter of the words is a flat contradiction to what Mr. Hooker sayeth He sayeth they have only a power of Brotherly counsell Mâ— Cotton not only that but also to command and enjoin He sayeth they bind only materially because what they determine is either expressed in or infallibly collected out of the Word Mr. Cotton not only materially but also formally from the authority of the Synode Yet I conceive for all such fair words in the intention and reall meaning of the Author little more is understood than what Mr. Hooker sayeth at most nothing more but a Doctrinall power which is competent to any single Pastour as M. Caudrey sheweth Vindiciae clav c. 6. pag. 53. We on the contrare assert that by warrand of the Word of God the Presbyteries of associated Churches Classicall or Synodicall have a power and authority of Spirituall jurisdiction whereby they authoritatively discerne maters Ecclesiasticall and impose these decrees under pain of Ecclesiastick censures and may inflict Ecclesiastick censures upon the disobedient and refractory in the particular Congregations within the combination or association Only let it be observed here that this authoritative and juridicall power we attribute to such Presbyteries of discerning maters Ecclesiasticall and imposing their determinations under pain of censure is not Autocratorick and absolute binding absolutely by vertue of their authority But Ministeriall and adstricted in its determinations to the rule of the Word of God So that that obligation formall which floweth from the authority of the Judicatory into the decree in actu exercito presupposeth that materiall obligation of the thing decreed as contained in the Word of God else it hath not place section 5 2. Point of Controversie is that the Independent Brethren doe not allow the standing use of such associated Presbyteries But only occasionall We assert that by warrand of the Word of God some such Presbyteries are of standing use as standing ordinary juridicall Ecclesiasticall Courts We say that Classicall Presbyteries in the ordinary settled case of Churches are necessary standing Courts for administration of Ecclesiasticall Government and also that Superiour Presbyteries Synodicall may be warrantably of standing use where and when conveniently moe Presbyteriall or Classicall Churches may have and injoy actuall combination as of Yearly Provinciall Synods as in the Churches of the Low Countries are more frequent Provinciall Synods and yearly Nationall Assemblies as in the Churches of this Kingdome of Scotland 3. Point is concerning subordination of lesser Assemblies to greater The Independent Brethren deny altogether subordination of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour as juridicall Ecclesiasticall Courts Albeit they acknowledge that difficulties arising in a particular Congregation in matters of Government there may be a going out to an Assembly of more Churches and if need be full satisfaction and clearing not being found there there may be a going forth yet to a greater and more large Assembly Yet they say that is elective and only by way of reference and arbitration and only for counsell and direction and assert that a particular Congregation is the supream Ecclesiasticall Juridicall Tribunall under Jesus Christ upon earth So that a person although wronged by an unjust sentence there as they are not in their determinations infallible suppose sentenced to Excommunication which cutteth him off from the benefit of Church Ordinances and fellowship of Christians in all the Churches of the World he may have no appeal from their sentence to another Superiour Judicatory to have his processe juridically recognosced and the injurious sentence rescinded but must ly under it without any Ecclesiastick remedy till death unlesse that particular Congregation be pleased themselves to revoke their sentence So doth Mr. Hooker tell us Survey par 3. c. 3. pag. 40 41 43. and par 4. pag. 19. We on the contrary assert that both the Law of Nature and the positive Law of God revealed in his Word both in the Old and New Testament holdeth out to us a juridicall subordination of lesser Assemblies Ecclesiasticall unto greater so that appeals may be made from Inferiour and lesser to Superiour and greater Assemblies That it is both against the Law of nature and the positive Law of God to place a supream Independent Ecclesiasticall juridicall power in a particular Congregation yea or in any lesser Assembly when as a greater and Superiour is to be had and may conveniently be had We assert also that that series and gradation of this subordination which is acknowledged and maintained by Protestant Churches viz. of Congregationall Classicall Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies is lawfull and agreeable to the Word of God section 6 Whereas there are these three principall points of Controversie concerning the matter in hand The thing Mr. Lockier propoundeth to dispute against
in his Assertion is that which is asserted by us in the first point Yet some of his Arguments afterward used toucheth not at that but against the third a series of subordination of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour But come we now to consider his proofs such as they are and let the Reader have before his eyes the true state of the Question as laid forth by us SECTION VIII His first Ground brought against a Presbytery having Authoritative juridicall power over more Congregations prosecute by him Sect. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. Examined section 1 MR. Lockier undertakes by four mediums to prove that a Presbytery having juridicall power and authority over more Congregations is but an humane invention 1. Because they are without a foundation in the Word This he undertakes to make good by clearing these Scriptures on which such Presbyteries are built And brings in four Scriptures Act. 1. 15 23. Act. 4. 35. Act. 15. 28. 1 Tim. 4. 14. So that his first Argument comes to this much in full matter and forme If such a Presbytery over more Congregations had any foundation in the Word it were in some of those four places But in none of those hath it foundation therefore not at all in Scripture But now tho his assumption were granted and he did clearly evidence that in none of these mentioned places it hath sufficient foundation Yet I must say he does very grossely despise his Reader to say the least in his major proposition What did never Mr. Lockier read in Presbyteriall writers any other Scripturall grounds brought to prove such a Presbytery but these 4. places might he not at least have read sundry others Let him read them over again and I believe besides these mentioned he shall find other grounds of Scripture brought to prove such a Presbytery as he shall never be able to withstand the force of For instance let him consider the Argument grounded upon Matth. 18. 17 18. brought by Gul. Apoll. considerat of certain controv c. 6. p. 94 95. on which place Parker himself de Polit. Eccles lib. 3. c. 24. groundeth the authority of Synods 2. The Argument grounded upon 1 Cor. 14. 32. in that same Author pag. 98 99. 3. The Argument brought from what the Scripture holdeth forth concerning the Churches of Jerusalem Ephesus Antioch Corinth Assembly of Divines 3. Proposition concerning Presbyteriall Government with the defences thereof against the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren Jus Divin of Church Government Part. 2. c. 13. 4. The Argument grounded upon practice of the Church under the Old Testament in matter of Government wherein it was not paedagogicall and ceremoniall but essentiall and of morall conveniency and so perpetuall Gul. Appollon pag. 96 97. Did Mr. Lockier never Read these grounds of Scripture urged in this matter by Presbyterians that alledging here that such a Presbytery hath no foundation in Scripture and taking upon him to make out this by clearing such Scripture grounds as are brought for it passeth these in silence If not I wonder much he should come to handle this controversie having taken so little pains to be acquainted with his adversaries grounds Or if he has read them why has he passed them by without an essay to cleare them If he contemned them we tell him it is easier to contemne them then to answer them But come let us see the places he has been pleased to take notice of and what he hath upon them to the purpose section 2 The first is Acts 1. 15 23. c. The eleven Apostles here meet together and these as a supreame body over all others conveen the Church at Jerusalem dictat what and how to be done in that case of losse upon the Church which shews that there is a forrain put out that name as none of ours but a nick-name and miscalling of the thing feigned by your self authoritative Eldership over particular Churches Answ I do not remember of any Presbyterian Writer that bringeth this place as a full proof of a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations albeit may be some arguing from the Government of the Church of Jerusalem viz. 1. That that Church consisted of more Congregations then one 2. That these diverse single Congregations are held forth as one Church 3. That they are under one common Presbytery Governing them Some Isay may be bring that place jointly with others to make up a proof of that complex medium Let Mr. Lockier point us at the man that brings it as a full proof by it self 'T is an easie thing for men to devise at their own pleasure Arguments as used by their adversaries and then seem to get a victory over them when as indeed they are but fighting against their own fictions So we need not trouble our selves with following Mr. Lockiers Answers to this place Only I shall note some few things said by him in his Answers which are two section 3 In the first The station of the Apostles sayeth he was extraordinary to take care of all Churches Being therefore by this place Elders in all Churches might and did interpose their power in severall particular Churches And therefore what they did modo extraordinario is not competent to be exemplary extraordinary practises are not fit matter to make up ordinary precedents Answ That it pertained to the extraordinary Office of the Apostles as Apostles to exercise their power of Teaching and Governing in all particular Churches without any particular call we confesse it true But that their Ruling of more particular Congregations then one simply was extraordinary and that when they did this they did it modo extraordinario may well be confidently said but will never be proven And how will Mr. Lockier prove that there were no ordinary Elders with the Apostles in that meeting I think he shall find this an hard stick of work But passing these things now I would here ask him one thing Why is it that he bringeth this as a solution to this place Act. 1 Does he mean indeed that the Apostles acted in this matter modo extraordinario and according to their Apostolicall Office Why then did he before Sect. 10. alledge the managing of this matter of Matthias call as a ground and patern for ordinary ordination of Elders section 4 In his second solut I shall take notice of these things 1. That true it is the eleven Apostles were here together because they were commanded by Christ to abide in Jerusalem untill they were endowed with the Holy Ghost from above But there was nothing here done but any one of them might have done it I would ask what he intends by this Is his meaning that it was but by accident that they did act together in Collegio in this businesse and that they acted as Apostles only because what they did any one of them might alone have done what they did And therefore it is no wayes a patern for a Colledge of ordinary Elders acting jointly
their judgements that nothing can be concluded amongst them What will you have done in such a case By all these may sufficiently appear the weaknesse of his first ground to prove that associat Elderships of more Congregations destroye and elude the end of Church power and Jurisdiction Come we to the second section 5 His prefaces to it with a big word as if some great matter were to be brought forth 't is good to enquire wisely into this matter as Solom saith what is an institution of God into such an end Who would not look for some great matter here Let 's see then the product of this wise enquirie If the power at home in the particular Congregation be the institution of God for its own affairs this shall discern better and judge better and heal better then all the Learned Assemblies in world which people litle looke after whilst this great noise is made with men of so great parts and worth which sojourning Presbyteries assemble withall Parturiunt montes c. Answ If this reason have any force it also militats as well against all Synods even consultatory as well as juridicall It shall follow it was a wrong course they of Antioch took to carry their controversie to the Synod of Jerusalem Why By Mr. Lockiers theologicall reasoning here the power at home in the particular Congregation of Antioch if it was a particular Congregation as these of our Authors mind may suppose it to have been being an institution of God for its own affairs it could discern better judge better and heal better their controversie then all the learned Assemblies in the world and so then that at Jerusalem c. 2. But what if the matter to be discerned judged and healed be not the particular Congregations own i. proper affairs but common equally concerning other Congregations also 3. But the grand and I may say too grosse sophisme here is a clear petitio Quaesiti a begging of the thing mainely in Question that only the Judicature of a particular Congregation is of Divine institution and an associate Presbytery Classicall or Synodicall is not of Divine institution unlesse this be supposed the consequence is null One Ordinance instituted of God for one end doth not make void and uselesse another Ordinance instituted for that same end But we say that an associate Presbytery of more Congregations is instituted of God as well as that of a particular Congregation The contrary of this Mr. Lockier should have proven and not barely supposed and upon that supposition alledged that the power in the particular Congregation being instituted of God shall do better then any Presbytery of that kind section 6 Thirdy saith he in the nature of the the thing 't is a course which casteth those which subject to it upon a multiplication of appeals and references forth and back from the Session to the Synod c. and whether this looks like Scripture Ordinance or like the thing it pretends to an effectuall removall of burden and offences whilst it thus hurryes poor people up and down let Christians judge This is ne quid detrimenti capiant capita Ecclesiae it may be the cryes of this and such like is come up into the ears of the Lord and ah alas that good men should be deaf Answ 1. This reason what ever it sayeth sayeth nothing against the being of Presbyteries over more particular Congregations the unlawfulnesse of which is the thing Mr. Lockier in his Assertion undertooke to prove but against the subordination of the lesser Presbyteries unto the greater 2. Neither sayeth it any thing to purpose against this point But in effect is rather a cavillation then solide reasoning The subordination of lesser Presbyteries unto greater as of Congregationall to Classicall of both to Synodicall Presbyteries in the nature of the thing casteth not persons upon needlesse multiplication of appeals nor Judicators upon needlesse multiplication of references But provides a course for relief to persons when they are or may be probably wronged by the sentence of a lesser Presbytery by appeal to the cognition and judgement of a greater And an help to lesser Presbyteries by having recourse by reference to the judgement and authority of a greater When such help is needfull for them as when they â—nd difficultie in their affairs either through darknesse or weightinesse of the matter or through differences or divisions amongst themselves or through power and prevalency of persons with whom they have to do in the exercise of their authority And if this be not more agreeable to Scripture and a way more likely to remove offences out of the Church of Christ then to put such an Independent power in the hands of a single Congregation may be of 50. or 40. or 20. or fewer persons â—…at if they shall Excommunicat a person and so deprive him of â—he fellowship of all Churches in the World or determine maintain and teach Idolatrie and grossest Heresie There shall be no power on earth in an Ecclesiasticall authoritative way to cognosce upon and redresse what they do amisse Let all Christians judge But that way of subordination of lesser Presbyteries to greater and of appeals is very agreeable unto and warranted by the Scriptures of God has been sufficiently demonstrated and vindicat against all the exceptions of opposers by sundry Learned Writers * See Mr. Gillesp Asser of the Govern of the Church of Scotland Assemblies Answ Jus Divin that we need not insist more on it till we hear more from Mr. Lockier then is said against it here As to that this is ne quid detrimenti c. we say plainly 't is but slandering not reasoning We acknowledge no capita Ecclesiae but one head Jesus Christ and that all his Ministers are pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis And I beseech you Sr. what is the emolument that any Ministers may reap by the subordination of lesser Assemblies or Presbyteries unto greater in regard of which they might be said to receive detriment if the Government were otherwayes to wit Independent in single Congregations Indeed if they should look to their temporary emolument they might see much reason to imbrace the Independent way as that which were the fittest means ne quid detrimenti caperent as any body may easily discern and I conceive some knowes well enough by experience As to that which is spoken in the end of this Sect. against this way of Ecclesiastick Government allowing appeals from lesser Presbyteries to greater as raising cryes that have come up into the ears of the LORD we shall say no more but this if any men at any time or any where in managing that Government have intangled and perplexed persons rather then extricated and issued their distresse and thereby raised cryes into the ears of the LORD by oppression of persons that is nothing against the thing it self Sinfull men will abuse even the best of Divine institutions and may be there are
of Visible Christians generally comprehending private Professours as well as Rulers or not yet that not all and every one comprehended under that signification otherwise but only the Rulers are intended as the persons to whom the publike acts spoken of in the place receiving of publike delations of scandals and inflicting of censures does belong is here invincibly demonstrate because otherwhere in the New Testament these acts as all other acts of Ecclesiastick authoritative Government are committed and attributed unto the Officers of the Church as such Math. 16. 18. Iohn 20 21 22. 1 Tim. 5. 1 19. Tit. 1. 13. 1 Thess 5. 12. Heb 13. 7 17. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and accordingly to them as contradistinguished from the body of Professours are given names importing Government and authority But no where in the Scripture of the New Testament shall any man shew us either name or thing of Government given to private Professours We proceed to their second Argument whereby they would prove from that same place that any one single Congregation with their Eldership has power of jurisdiction Independent and Supreme and to take away all juridicall Ecclesiastick Courts larger than and Superiour to a Congregation Classicall or Synodicall section 5 The Church say they spoken of in this Text which has compleet power of binding and loosing is the first Ecclesiasticall Judicatorie to which belongeth judiciall cognisance of offences For if private admonition do not gaine the offender then the command is tell the Church But our Classicall Presbyterie is not the first Judicatorie to which appertaines judiciall cognizance of offences For first they come to Sessions and only by refers from the Sessions to Presbytories Therefore this Church here spoken of as having compleat power of binding and loosing cannot be the Classicall Presbytorie but the Eldership with the Congregation No where do we read in the Gospel of jurisdiction in relation to censure committed to Classicall Presbytery section 6 Ans 1. To the Assumption or second Proposition it seemeth these Authors have not well understood or been acquainted with the state and way of Presbyteriall Government settled in this Church and therefore have been too rash and hastie in condemning it or arguing against it before they understood it For 1. 'T is not only false which they say that the Classicall Presbyterie is not the first Judicatorie to which appertaines judiciall cognizance of offences but that first they come to Sessions c. If this be meant Universally of all offences Indeed offences committed by particular persons settled members of particular Congregations and as yet abiding within the bounds of the Congregation comes first to the Session or Eldership of the particular or single Congregation But there are many offences the judiciall cognizance whereof comes not first to a Session but to a Presbyterie yea may be a Synod yea may be to the Nationall Assembly When a private person having fallen into some scandalous sin and being conveened before a Session addes refractorinesse against the discipline and obstinacie to his former offence this is a new offence and the judiciall cognizance of this offence belongeth first to the Classicall Presbyterie So a Classicall Presbyterie is the first Judicatorie to which belongeth the judiciall cognizance Of an offence given by a Minister in the Administration of his calling Of an offence given by the Eldership of a Congregation and indeed supposing the first part of these Authors Assertion viz. that the power of jurisdiction is given to the Congregation with the Eldership jointly if they grant not an associate Presbytery to take judiciall cognizance of their offence they must exempt them from being subject to any judiciall cognizance at all For they cannot come under the judiciall cognizance of another single Congregation Of an offence wherein more single Congregations are alike concerned and many cases more I wonder that these Brethren did not rememher that the first judiciall cognizance of James Grahames offence of Seaforts and many other publick Malignant wicked practises was not by Sessions and from them came by reference to the Classical Presbytery but by the publick Assemblies 2. It is another grosse mistake too that these offences which comes to Sessions or Congregationall Elderships to be judicially cognosced upon and from them comes to the Classicall Presbyterie or to a Synode that they come only by râ—ferres from the Sessions to the Presbyteries For they come also by appeal of the party who is under the judiciall cognition of the Session upon mal-administration or supposed mal-administration They may also and do often come by way of authoritative visitation of Sessions and their proceedings by the Presbyterie section 7 2. To the Major or first Proposition 1. Suppose it were granted as it standeth yet it could not make fully against us to take away altogether associate juridicall Presbyteries of more then one single Congregation Because as we have shewn upon the Assumption such associat Presbyteries or Ecclesiastick Assemblies may be and must be the first Judicatories in many cases to which the judiciall cognizance of offences doth belong But 2. If the Major be taken in this sense the Church having power of binding and loosing is the first Judicatorie to which c. And it only taking it with the exclusive note as it must of necessity be taken to infer that negative conclusion Ergo a Classicall or associate Presbyterie is not that Church We deny it as utterly false having no proof from the Text. We say here that the Church invested with authority to cognosce judicially and inflict censure upon offences is the Rulers of the Visible Church Universall as joined in Collegio or assembled whether in the lesser and Inferiour Colledges or Assemblies as a Congregationall Eldership is in respect of all others a Classicall Presbytery in regard of Synods a Provinciall Synod in regard of a Nationall this in regard of a Synod of more Nations haply associate for Government to which as the first Judicatory matters may come for judiciall cognizance or in larger and superiour such as is a Classicall Presbytery in relation to a Congregationall a Synod in relation to a Classical Presbytery c. to which may be the matter cannot come at first or as to the first Judicatory having power of judiciall cognizance of it 'T is true that in such a case as our Saviour instanceth in the Text when offence is given by one particular member of a Congregation single and fixed in its constitution and proper Officers which fixing of single Congregations under appropriated Officers is not necessary by any divine institution For more Congregations may be have been as it seemeth in severalls of the primitive Churches and are at this day in some orthodox Churches served by the same Officers in common without violation of any divine institution Christs command Tell the Church intends that the matter should be brought to the Eldership of the Congregation as the first Judicature to which belongeth judiciall cognizance