Church-Government is a Democratie all are Elders and Officers and Pastors and Teachers and Rulers alike and then what needs different names and stations when these as to distinct power signifie nothing Ans We do justly charge that way of Church Government maintained by the Author and his Associates with this that it sets up such a Democratie or popular Government in the Church condemned by the French Church in Morellius Which also Independents themselves would fain seem to disclaime but it will not be for them The Author is pleased in his wisdome to propound the Argument for evidencing this as slightly as he could But let him take it thus That Government in the Church wherein albeit there be such as bear the name of Officers and Rulers yet not only all the power of Government is placed in the body of the people as in the first and proper subject thereof and not in their Officers But also the whole body of the people formally and authoritatively concur and act in the exercise of all the acts of Government at least all acts of jurisdiction so that all maters of this kind are caried and determined by the authoritative suffrage consent and dissent of the people nothing therein being left to the Officers as Officers but to preside and moderate the body of the people in their authoritative acting or may be to prepare and ripen maters for their authoritative decision and to be their mouth to declare the sentence determined by their authority yea and wherein the body of the people may authoritatively call all the Officers to a judiciall account judicially cognosce upon their Administration censure degrade yea and Excommunicate them all together such a Church Government must needs be Democraticall or popular and therein all are Rulers and therein different names and stations signifie nothing I say not simply but as Mr. Lockier as to any distinct power of Authority If any will deny the connexion of this proposition I beseech such to give a description of a popular Government Sure I am that the very Government of Athens it self the most popular and Democratricall that we read of was never more popular then that which we have expressed in the Antecedent or first part of the proposition But now the Church Government maintained by the Author and his Associates is such in every one of these points expressed as is undenyably evident both by their Doctrine and practice Ergo c. section 3 Now what answers the Author to this Objection He brings us a number of words clouted up unhandsomely enough out of Hookers Surv. Par. 1. c. 11. which I think not worth the while to insist particularly upon Briefly the summe of all comes to this He tells us there is a power of Judging to take in and to cast out Members to exert Office he means to confer Office or to degrade from Office which he calls essential or fundamental power And there is the maner of managing this and exerting it He expresseth it also To declare act and exercise judgment in the name of the rest which he calls organicall power and Potestas Officii particularis And tells us that that former power is common to the whole Church Elders and fraternity The latter is in the Elders yet I cannot understand how this can stand with what he saith that it lyeth formally in one But be it so And so their to wit the Elders power is distinctly usefull and significative Ans To passe by here the exagitating of that distinction of a power essentiall and a power organicall the absurdity whereof in Philosophy might be shown abundantly might we stay upon every such triffle and other such minutias Here to the main purpose in hand 1. To talk of and suppose a power of judging in taking in and casting out investing Officers and degrading them belonging to the people and also exercised by them formally meaning as he doth of authoritative judging is but a supposing and begging the main thing in Question The place 1. Cor. 5. 12. proves it not Tho the Epistle be written to the whole Church of Corinth yet not every command and direction there relates to all and every one in that Church as to act formally in the work commanded or required We say that command of casting out the incestuous person judicially respects the Officers of that Church only See this made good by Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right pag. 36 37. Gul. Apollon Consider of certain controv c. 4. pag. 64 65 66. Mr. Lockiers Argument to the contrary is weak The Apostle sayeth cast out from among you But the incestuous person was not only amongst the Elders but among the people What a poor Argument is this Then it should follow that the Women and the Children should judicially and authoritatively voiced in the Excommunication of the incestuous person For he was not only amoâ—gst the men but also amongst the Women and Children These sure were a part of the people So then certainly the Apostle here cast out from amongst you tho Writing to the Church of Corinth in generall in the Epistle yet in this particular command must be understood to be spe king with relation to such in the Church as were invested with a morall capacity of power and authority to act that which he was commanding 2. When he sayeth the power of judging is common to the whole Church Elders and fraternity it s but a fallacy as to Elders For in effect Elders as Elders by his way have no power of judging As such they have only the manner of managing the judgement 3. When he expresseth the act of essentiall power as he calleth it competent to the whole Church thus Some to judge and then the act of the Originall or Officiall power thus Some to declare act and exercise that judgement I would aske him what he meaneth by acting and exercising judgement Either it must be the determining of the judgement But that is nothing else but judging it self which belongeth to the essentiall power of the whole body Or he must understand the execution of the sentence as for example shunning the company of the Excommunicat But that is no act of Office-power nor of authority but is common to all the Church Men and Women Or he must understand the publick uttering and pronouncing the sentence of judgement But that is just all one with declaring and to call this acting and exercising of judgement is very abusive speaking Except these words be used otherwise in English Language then I know of But 4. The chiefest thing I would observe is that the Author in saying much to the objection propounded has said just nothing but in effect yeelded it wholly For when as he sayeth that the power and exercise of judging to wit authoritatively for of this and not of judging by way of privat discretion is the present discourse belongeth equally to all the Church and that the matter of managing this only belongeth to the Officers
mortuorum adhuc usque non crederent c. where it is most evident that this learned and godly Father expounds these titles of saints c. given to the Church of Corinth not of all and every one but of a part thereof and that upon this very consideration that there were amongst them persons guilty of such wickednesse as are afterwards fallen upon by the Apostle to whom his minde is these titles were not competent But waving the Authority of men let us consider the things themselves and see if the Authors have not as it would seem strained themselves here to make this consideration appear light unto them Then 2. Let it be observed that in the account of these grosse wickednesses that were amongst the Corinthians alledged as a ground against their assertion that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were such as were judged true Saints in the positive judgement of charity by the Apostles some maine grosse faults are omitted and some of them reckoned up are minced by them First I say some are omitted as for example vain carnall abuse unto ostentation of the gifts of the Spirit with which the Apostle meeteth 1 Cor. 12 13 14. vile envying traducing and labouring by all means to disgrace and bring in disgust amongst them the blessed Apostle and his Ministry Read 2 Cor. 10. and 11. and 12. and consider what was the practices of these amongst the Corinthians against whom the Apostle vindicates himself and say if they were such as the Apostle judged true Saints nay does he not in expresse tearms Cap. 11. ver 13 14 15. say of them that they were false Apostles deceitfull workers transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ Satans Ministers transforming themselves as the Ministers of Righteousnesse whose end should be according to their works Martyr in loc Eos non omni notitia Dei exuit sed tantum loquitur de ea notitia quae salutaris est ad regenerationem conducit ignorare autem Deum hoc nomine se satis declarabant quod resurrectiomè inficiahantur Again some of them reckoned up are minced Not only were there amongst them intemperance simply but coming drunk to the Lords table 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. and 't is spoken of as a thing ordinary and habituall in them not simply committing of fornication but impudent slighting of it as little or no sin at all as appears 1 Cor. 6. not simple questioning as they Interpret it i. e. doubting about the Resurrection but downright positive denying of it 1 Cor. 15. How say some among you that there is no Resurrection of the dead How could the Authors hearts endure to parallel such habituall drunkennesse and whoredome with Lots and Davids lapses through the surprizall of such temptations as they were under Such hereticall denying of a most fundamentall point of Religion the Resurrection from the dead with Peters denyall of a mater of fact his knowledge and acquaintance with Christ which yet was a grievous sin on the mater under the violence of a temptation as if these former as well as these latter were to be accounted but infirmities of Saints Nay albeit I deny not but atheisticall doubtings may arise and infest the hearts of gracious ones which yet are a torment to them yet I see not how a formed deniall of that fundamentall point of the Resurrection now since Christs Resurrection and so clear and full revelation of the Gospel can be consisting in the heart with true saving faith And is it not upon this very account that the Apostle speaking to these Corinthians in that 15. cap. vers 34. sayeth some he means of their Church as the Nether Dutch Notes well observe have not the knowledge of God i. e. they have not saving knowledge of God 2. What shall we yet say that the Apostle judged all and every one in the Church of Corinth truely gracious Saints 3. As to that a man who once spoken of as Gaius c. 1. 'T is true that such a man though he be overtaken with a grosse infirmitie and therefore be censurable and censured with the censure of Excommunication yet is not for that to losse the estimation we had of him before upon such grounds but what is this to the purpose in hand Have the Authors shown us or can they shew us any evidence or proof that these mentioned in the Corinth as guilty of these grosse wickednesses were such as Gaius is said to have been approven of the truth it self yea or positively in charity judged true Saints and Regenerat To suppose this as the Authors do but suppose it here is nothing else but to suppose and beg the thing in Question without any proof of it 2. I conceive the Authors are in a mistake when as they take that 2 Thes 3. 5. esteem him it is admonish him in the text as a brother to import necessarily the accounting a man one truely Regenerat For in Christianity as there is a speciall brotherhood in regard of communion in Regenerating grace so there is a common brotherhood in regard of common profession of Christian Faith and Religion and it is sufficient to understand a brother in that place in that more common notion and relation as is evident by the opposition there made to an enemy Tho I think the Apostle there is not so much speaking of the state of the man censured what it is or ought to be judged As what the affection and cariage of these yet in the Church ought to be towards him for his good Thus we have seen and considered the first ground brought by the Authors for their Thesis taken from the examples of the Churches founded by the Apostles and the confirmation brought to hold it up Their is ere they come to the next this word casten in but this is not our case our Churches are overflowed with a deluge of prophane Atheists who have been such from their birth to this present hour which I can no otherwise look upon in this place of their Epistle but as an untimous eruption of despite against their mother Church Afterward such as it is it might have come in its place when they come to speak to the point of their practice of separation from this Church But here in this place of their Epistle they are upon the question de jure of what members Churches Visible ought to be constitute what is it to this purpose that these Churches have de facto such and such persons in them But now to their second ground John say they thought not a bare verball profession sufficient ground to admit persons to Baptisme These who came to him to be Baptized unlesse he saw joyned with it fruits meet for Repentance and upon this score he could not I conceive it should be * For if it be he could not it must be meant de jure as we say illud possumus quod de jure possumus For to deny that Physicè
subjoyned to his vindiciae vindiciarum I shall here note some few of them to this purpose for the Reader who may be has not the book at hand 1. The keyes were given to Peter as an Apostle as an Elder and as a Believer So the sense is most sit the Keyes pag. 4. The power of the keys is given to Peter not as an Apostle nor as an Elder but as a professed believer The way Peter received not the Keys meerly as a Beleever but as a Beleever publickly professing his faith The way cleared P. 2. fol. 39 9. It appears that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternitie with the Presbytery ibid. and the way cleared Part. 2. pag. 22. A particular Church of Saints professing the faith i. members without Offificers is the first subject of all the Church Offices with all their spirituall gifts and power The keys pag. 31. 9. As the keys of the Kingdom of heaven be diverse so are the subjects to whom they are coÌ„mitted diverse The Keyes pag. 11. So Lockier here but that he addeth not professed The Apostles were the first subject of Apostolicall power ibid. 32. A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned ibid. pag. 47. Not believers as believers but believers Convenanting and fitly capable according to Christs appointment Hook Surv. P. 1. p. 203. 9. The power of the Keyes belongs first to a Congregation of Covenanting beleevers Hook Surv. Part. 1. pag. 219. The power of the Keyes is in the Church of beleevers as the first subject ibid p. 195. That conceit is wide to make one first subject of this power and yet others to share in this power not by means of that for this is to speak daggers and contradictions ibid. section 3 Now see the Authors Argument upon the confession of his faith had he this trust bequeathed to him Mat. 16. 16. Therefore to the Church of Believers and believing with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal was the Keyes of power primarily given and to the Elders in the second place as exerted out of this first estate and as Officers and Servants of it Answ And first note somewhat upon the consequent section 4 1. The consequent as here inferred is much different from that which is propounded in the beginning of the paragraph there it was propounded thus the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as c. but as a beleever here it is the Keyes of power the former expression supposing there were such a distinction of Keyes as Keyes of power and another sort of Keyes different from these being indefinite may import both but the latter importeth a specification of a definite sort of Keyâ—s What means this variation That the Reader may understand this mystery the better 't is to be observed that when as hitherto in the Church of God by the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven being understood the Ordinances of Jesus Christ which he hath appointed to be administrate in his Church or the power of administring these Ordinances under himself these Keyes have been distributed unto the Key of Knowledge or Doctrine which is the preaching of the Gospel taking in therewith the Sacraments as the Appendicles and seals of the Gospel and the Key of Jurisdiction or Discipline which consists in Censures and absolution from Censures Independents of late have forged new sorts of the Keyes whereby they have confounded themselves and wound confound the whole Church of Christ in the mater of its Government They tell us there is 1. a Key of Knowledge or Faith the first subject whereof is every Believer whether joined to a particular Congregation or not 2. A Key of interest power or liberty which is in all the Brethren of a particular Congregation And 3. a Key of Rule and Authority which they say is in the Elders of a particular Church or Congregation The meaning and refutation of these new forged Keyes see in Jus Divin of Church Govern part 2. c. 10. pag. 108 109. c. and Mr. Caudreys Vindiciae clav c. 2. per tot Now when Mr. Lockier in the consequent of his Argument speaks of the Keyes of power it would seem he must understand that second kinde of Keyes For I know no other going under that name amongst Independents Yet may be by a new conception of his own he means that all power of government distinguished from the Preaching of the Word and Administration of Sacraments exercised in ordination of Ministers and dispensation of censures Again see another great variation At first he propounds that the Keyes were given to Peter first as a beleever This may import and as spoken there by the Author without any explication cannot be otherwise understood but that it doth import that they were given to him as a single beleever but now in the consequent inferred in the pretended proof he sayeth thus they were given first to the Church of beleevers this is a society of persons collectively and unitedly taken and not persons singly 2. Where shall we ever read the Elders or Ministers called the Officers and Servants of the Church that is as Mr. Lockier meaneth by way of relation to the Church as a Superiour or Mistresse deputing and imploying them to officiat and act in her place We find indeed they are called the servants of the Church of beleevers by way of relation of a means to an end for their good 2 Cor. 4 5. 1 Cor. 3. 22. as Angels or Ministring Spirits sent forth to Minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation Heb. 1. ult But they are only Christs Officers and Servants by way of relation of Deputs to officiat and imployed to serve unto a Superior and Master deputing to officiat and imploying to serve in his place and are set over the Church by him section 5 But now consider we how this consequent is proven The Argugument as propounded by the Author is Enthymematick and must suppose another premisse beside that which is expressed which must be true as well as that expressed to make the consequence good Now I humbly desire him to give us that suppressed and supposed premisse Verily keep him to one syllogisme and it is impossible to do it observing the rules of good Logick and reason But it may be done may be by two processes Well then they must be these for ought that I can conceive if he can do it otherwise and better let him do it and we shall consider of it the first is this that which was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith was given to him as a Beleever But the Power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon the confession of his faith Ergo c. then taking this conclusion for a ground of the second it must be thus That which was given to Peter as a Beleever was given to the Church believing with such a faith as Peter believed But to Peter as a
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
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
and serve tables And therefore it was necessary some Officers should be ordained who 's more proper and chief work it might be to see to that businesse Yet certainly the Apostolick office containing in it eminently the power of all inferiour Officers in the Church it was an act formally belonging to their office and no Question even after these ordinary Officers were appointed particularly to attend that businesse yet the Apostles did not then altogether cease from joining in acting thereanent where they might conveniently without hindring their main work the preaching and spreading of the Gospel section 8 But in all this where are joint voices and suffrages of Officers Elders and Brethren of diverse particular Churches commissionated to this work to make up this Presbytery we speak of Answ There was joint acting of Officers of more Congregations than one the many Congregations whereof the Church of Jerusalem did consist whether they were distinguished and fixed in Members and Officers or not is all one and these Officers Elders to these Churches the Apostles who as they were Officers so were Elders too and acting as Elders because in a mater competent to ordinary Elders and jointly 2. Brethren not Officers may be present in such a Presbytery and speak and give their consultative judgement orderly But as no constituent parts of this Presbytery in our judgement nor according to the truth 3. When the Presbytery of more Congregations than one is made up of all the Elders of these Congregations assembled together personally a particular commission for that is not necessary Indeed in such Presbyteries as all the Elders of the severall Churches meet not personally but by some of their number delegated it is as in Synods necessary that these who make up such a Presbytery be commissionated from their severall Churches respectivè Yet by that commission they get not power simply to act the acts of Government therein that they have by their ordination to their office but a particular warrand and call to act that power hic nunc for the good of the Churches in the combination section 9 In the same SECT viz. 25. from what he has answered to the former passage he labours to answer other two places 1. That Act. 6. 3 4 5 6. about the choosing of Deacons and their ordination To which his answer is The Apostles as extraordinary persons layed hands on these But what appears from hence of such an Eldership excerped and commissioned from severall Churches as Presbyterians now assert and use is yet to find Answ 1. I wonder that Mr. Lockier should obtrude upon us such a naked Assertion that the Apostles did lay hands upon and ordain these Deacons as extraordinary persons i. e. as Apostles and not as Elders without making the last essay of answer to that reason brought by the Reverend Assembly of Divines against the dissenting Brethren asserting the same Ans to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren pag. 52. I present it here in their own words that the Reader may consider if it be not of such weight as Mr. Lockier had cause to take it unto consideration if he had not thought fitter to dictate to then by light of reason to convince the judgement of his Readers As for that ordination Act. 6. we doubt not to say that in it they did act partly as Apostles partly as Elders In constituting an office in the Church which was not before they did act their Apostolicall authority But in ordaining unto that office men whom the Church had chosen they did act as Presbyters And we doubt not but that our Brethren will herein concur with us For if they will not say that they did herein act partly as Apostles and partly as Elders they must say they acted either only as Apostles or only as Elders If only as Elders thence it will follow that all Elders have power not only to ordain men but to erect new Offices in the Church If only as Apostles then hence is no warrand for any Elders so much as to ordain men unto an office But I yet wonder so much the more at this Assertion of Mr. Lockier here remembering what he had delivered before SECT 10. where he drawes an Argument from ordination of Elders performed by the Apostles for regulating the ordination of Elders in Churches now and thereupon alledging tho groundlessely that the Apostles in ordination took in the people to concurrence with them concludeth that now also they ought to concur formally in that act If they had acted as extraordinary persons as Apostles the people could not concur jointly with then in such an act nor could it been an Argument brought as a patern in ordinary Now if they acted not by their extraordinary office and power in ordaining Elders what reason is there to say that in the ordination of these Deacons they acted in that way 2. As to that but what appears from hence c. We say supposing that the Church of Jerusalem was made up of many Congregations and these Congregations were one Church which are proven from other Scriptures we find from hence for proving such a Presbytery as we speak for Officers of these Congregations meeting together for Government and joining in an act of Government ordination of Church Officers viz. The Apostles doing this and that as Elders which is the thing it is brought for by Presbyterians Which tho-by it self makes not a full medium to prove that Presbytery yet with the other suppositions taken with it makes very much to prove it section 10 2. Place is Acts 20. 28. The Elders there are shewed not to be Elders of many Churches which Paul sent for but the Elders of the Church v. 17. of one Church of the Church of Ephesus and charging them to attend to the stock and not to flocks ver 28. here is no joynt veice of various commissioned Elders Answ To passe that some of his own the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly once in their Reasons against the instance of the Church of Ephesus make these both Elders and flocks to whom the Apostle speaketh to be of all Asia not only of Ephesus where no doubt there were more particular Churches To passe this because indeed these same Authors a little after when it may serve their turn they confine them to Ephesus We grant 't is true they were Elders of one Church the Church of Ephesus But withall we say that one Church was not one single Congregation but made up of more then one and consequently was one Presbyteriall Church This is proven by sundry Learned particularly by the Reverend Assembly of Divines in their instance of the Church of Ephesus and all the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren brought to the contrare fully discussed in their Answers threunto As for the Authors Grammaticall Argument they are called Elders of the Church in the Singular Number not Churches and they are bid attend the flock not flocks Ergo it was but one single
not wanting cryes comming up to the ears of the LORD by oppression of persons in managing of the Independent power of Congregations Sure I am it is more apt an hundreth fold to cause such cryes 'T is a remarkable Story Mr. Caudrey hath to this purpose in his Epistle before his Vindic. Vindicia in the fourth instance of mischievous consequences of the Independent way I need not transcribe it but refers the Reader to the place But now seeing Mr. Lockier directeth this bitter charge against the thing it self in its own nature so he propounds in the beginning of his third Reason we shall comfort our selves in this that it is no new thing and ought not to seem strange to us that sin is imputed to the truth and pure Ordinances of God by adversaries and Gods anger alledged to be drawn on by cleaving to the same We remember how Hezekiah was upbraided upon this account Is 37. 7. 10. SECTION XI Examination of Mr. Lockiers 4th Medium pursued from his SECTION 40 to 47. section 1 HIs fourth Medium is that a particular Congregation is compleat and sufficient in it self without an associate Presbytery over more Congregations Whereby he intends to prove such Presbyteries uselesse and a device of man and no divine institution because God would not appoint uselesse things His Argument fully set up is this If every particular Congregation rightly constituted and compleated hath sufficiencie within it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ to Ordaine to Excommunicate without the larger Elderships then larger Elderships are uselesse But every particular Congregation rightly constitute and compleat hath sufficiencie within it self c. Therefore c. Answ Ere I reply particularly first we would understand what the Author doeth understand by the compleatnesse of a particular Congregation and what may be understood by having sufficiency within it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ for the former I conceive the Author meaneth a particular Congregation to be compleat in its constitution when as beside the body of private Prosessours there is in it an Eldership made up of all the integrall parts thereof Pastours or one Pastour Teachers or one Teacher at least and some competent number of Ruling Elders three at least so many Officers according to our Brethren make up a compleat Eldership for a Congregation For the other we would consider that by sufficiencie to exercise the Ordinances of Christ we must understand not only a competencie of gifts and abilities of wisedome and understanding for exercising such and such acts But also power and authority by a divine warrand institution and call A private gifted man may have the competencie of gifts for Preaching the Gospel Administration of Sacraments yet he hath not simply sufficiencie to exercise that Ordinance because he hath not power and authority by calling from God to do it These premised for Answ 1. The major Proposition is a grosse non-sequitur and injurious to the wisdom of God in his Ordinances for there may be for a certain end a mean appointed of God which is by it self sufficient for effecting that end simply and another mean appointed of God for that same end and yet this is not uselesse because the other is sufficient Because this may be for the better more easie more safe effecting of it Manifold instances might be given of this the promise of salvation or of the blessing of Believers is of and by it self sufficient enough to give assurance to the Children of God of the immutability of Gods counsell and purpose of their salvation Was therefore the oath added to the word of promise uselesse God forbid it should be said it is added of superabundant good will that we might have the more aboundant assurance and consolation Heb. 6. 17 18. So the Preaching of the Gospel is of it self a mean sufficient of faith and salvation Are therefore the Sacraments and Discipline uselesse God has appointed in his Church means for his spirituall works therein not only sufficient but aboundant not only for their esse simpliciter but also for their bene esse yea for their optimum esse So that although a particular Congregation have sufficiencie to exercise all these Ordinances of Christ yet larger Elderships of more Congregations associated together may be of much and singular good use for the better or best performance or exercising of them for exercising them with lesse danger of erring and miscarying with the more authority and to the begetting of the more reverence respect and obedience in people So Mr. Lockiers major which he neglects to prove but supposeth as if it were without Question is rotten and false and consequently the whole frame of his Argument by this fals to the ground so that we need not insist upon the minor or assumption But 2. here I would ask Mr. Lockier What if a particular Congregation be not compleat have not an entire Eldership of its own I suppose Pastour and Teacher be removed the Ruling Elders only remaining or all of them being removed in this case whether has the particular Congregation sufficiencie in it self to exercise these ordinances to Ordain to Excommunicate If he Answer yes as it is most absurd and contrary to the Scriptures of God to make a Church exercising the publike Ordinances of Christ without the Officers and Ministers of Christ So if so what needed him propound the Argument of a Congregation compleat If he Answer no May not a Classicall Presbytery be of use here Else how shall their ordinances be exercised to them For certainly there will be a necessity of exercising some of them of Ordination at least But see the minor also section 2 A particular Congregation rightly constituted and compleated as was expounded before having with the body of Professors a Pastor Teacher and a competent number of Ruling Elders three may be the number hath sufficiency in it self to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ to Ordain to Excommunicate by it self without forraign we say larger associated Presbyteries Ans 1. We conceive that a particular Congregation may be compleat in Mr. Lockiers sense i. e. having an Eldership intier in all parts thereof such as is an Eldership consisting of one Pastor one Teacher and three Râ—…ing Elders five in all who may be have not sufficiency of abilities as is requisite for due and safe exercising these Ordinances of Ordination and Excommunication But 2. Suppose they had competency of gifts for managing the exercises of these Ordinances yet we say they have not sufficiency in themselves to exercise them without an associate Presbytery where they may conveniently associate because they have not authority and warrand from God in his Word to do it I say where they may convenâ—…ntly associate For we deny not but a particular Congregation being in such a case that it cannot enjoy association with other Churches through a physicall impossibility or impediment in this case of necessity may as it is alone exercise such acts
of Government but particular Congregations where they can conveniently associate together they are oblidged by the rule and warrand of Gods Word to associate under common Presbyteries Classicall and Synodicall and in this case that a particular Congregation ought not nor may by warrand of Gods Word exercise these acts of Government of publike and common concernment as Ordination and Deposition of Ministers Excommunication of persons by it self alone But these acts ought to be done by the common Presbytery Classicall or Synodicall And that a particular Congregation ought not nor may not by warrand of Gods Word perform any act in maters particularly concerning themselves so without the common Presbytery of the association but that there should be liberty of appeal to the common Presbytery And that the common Presbytery may juridically and authoritatively cognosce and judge upon their proceedings and actings In a word it may do things of Government particularly belonging to it self in and by it self but with subordination to the larger and common Presbyteries these things have been abundantly proven by sundry learned men as Mr Gillâ—sp in his Assert of the Government c. Mr. Rutherfurd Gull Apollon in his consideration of sundry controversies Jus Divin The Ass of Divines come we to see what Mr. Lockier bringeth for the contrair section 3 First It is granted by our Brethren sayeth he that such a Church hath this sufficiency in the exercise of some Ordinances as Preaching Administration of Sacraments without seeking the consent or help of the Classes Nor were the Church to neglect these Whence he concludeth that it may also exercise the other Ordination and Excommunication And gives for a proof of the consequence upon that grant If they may do the greater surely they may do the lesser and there is no dispensation of so choise an excellency as Preaching as Paul witnesseth making it the chief part of his errand I was sent to Preach the Gospel not to Baptize Answ 1. 'T is true we grant that such a Church i. e. a particular Congregation having all its Officers hath sufficiency in it to exercise these Ordinances of Preaching and Administration of Sacraments i. e. the Pastors of a particular Congregation may Preach the Word and Administer the Sacraments without speciall consent or help and concurrence of the Classicall Presbytery to every act nor were he to neglect or cease from these if the Classis should forbid I mean without just cause Yet it may be and it is so indeed by the warrand of Gods Word that the particular Congregation cannot have in the ordinary way of the Church in a setled and constitute state the Pastor to exercise these Ordinances but by the consent and potestative mission and Ordination of the Classis or some associate Presbyterie and tho the Pastor of the particular Congregation his exercising these Ordinances be not dependent upon the actuall concurrence in the severall individuall acts Yet therein he is subordinate to their Ministeriall Authority to try and judge his Preaching according to the Word of God and if they find just cause may forbid him to preach and they forbidding he must obey But 2. It s a grosse non-sequitur a particular Church or the Pastors in a particular Church have sufficiency or power to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments without the help or concurrence of the Classicall Presbyterie Ergo they may also exercise these other Ordinances Ordination and Excommunication without their concurrence And the proof of it is invalide because that is greater and if they may do the greater alone by themselves they may also do the lesser For by that same reason it should follow A Pastor hath sufficiency and power by himself alone to preach the Gospel to Baptize without the help and concurrence of his fellow-Elders in the Congregation Ergo he may also by himself alone Ordain and Excommunicate without their help and concurrence Why That is the greater and if he may do the greater alone he may also do the lesser The Author himself will not I conceive admit the Consequence here The truth is the interest of persons to exercise this or that or the other Ordinance is not to be attended or determined according to the greater or lesser excellency of the work But according to Christs commission institution and grant of power to them The exercise of Ecclesiasticall power in some things which is commonly called power of order as Preaching of the Word Administration of Sacraments is given to Christs Ministers severally and a part considered as single Pastors So a Pastor may preach the Word and administer Sacraments alone without concurrence or speciall consent either of the whole Church or other Rulers to every act But in other things these of the power called the power of jurisdiction the exercise and power thereof is not given to one but to an unity To the community of Governours of the Church united together not any single Rulers severally Therefore tho a Pastor may preach and baptize alone yet he may not Censure nor Excommunicate alone And if he should do this the act were invalide both in foro Dei and in foro Ecclesiastico Now the power of Ordination and Excommunication being given to a community the Question is whether this community be a particular Congregation having an intire particular Eldership or the Eldership of a particular Congregation by it self and independent from a larger Presbyterie this Mr. Lockier saith but his Argument grounded upon our grant to prove it is impertinent as we have seen section 4 But further he would prove that a particular Congregation hath power to exercise all Ordinances as well as any thus Sect. 41. The Keyes are not divided The Keyes are all given to Peter as personating the Church of beleevers in the Gospel that Kingdom of which Christ said he would build And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth Mat. 16. 19. Surely this particular here used is not in vain but to set forth that every Gospel-Church every particular Congregation of beleevers united as a visible organicall body for Gods Worship have ability a power given to it as to such an end he means to exercise all the Keyes alone and by themselves which he expresseth thus they have not a lame commission part of the Keyes at their girdle and strangers and forrainers carrying another part Answ 1. As to that of dividing the Keyes we have said sufficient before 2. As to that alledged the Keyes were all given to Peter as personating the Church of Believers c. we have spoken also before in the Examination of his first proof of the first Assertion Now we adde but these things here 1. I would ask Mr. Lockier what he means by the Church of Believers in the Gospel Whether the universall Church Visible of Believers Then he must acknowledge a Church Universall Visible individually one For certainly the article the denotateth
eorum professione non moveremur Vt quod apud potestatem seculi erant confessi in Ecclesiâ constituti comprobarent Quamobrem Maximum Prespyterum jussimus locum suum agnoscere caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus I need not comment upon the place it speaks plain enough of it self what we are pleading for section 18 3. That the giving of definitive sentence in questions of faith or making Ecclesiastick constitutions and canons concerning order to be observed in the Church in these ages did ordinarily pertaine only to Ministers of the Church Bishops and Elders that though others privat Christians might be present hear and consult that yet these only did sit and vote as ordinary Judges is undenyablie clear by the Historie of all Councels that were then held in the Church I say ordinary For I deny not but that sometimes such as were not in any such Ministeriall office did also sit and concur in giving definitive sentence But these were not any whatsoever privat Christians promiscuously But eminent learned and pious men and having authoritie and calling thereunto either by antecedent agreement of the Churches that were to meet in the Assembly or by a subsequent assuming and calling of them by the Assembly it self Which was an especiall vocation unto the Ministeriall office ad tempus and in relation to these particular acts which were to be done in the Synode and in so far did exempt them è sorte out of the state of meer private Christians But that such as were meer privat Christians i. e. were neither ordinary Ministers nor had a speciall calling extra ordinem concurred to give definitive sentence in Assemblies was a thing unknowne See what Junius a man well versed in antiquitie sayeth to Bellarm Cont. 3. lib. 2. c. 25. n. 2. speaking in relation to ancient Councels Eorum qui Conciliis intersunt varia esse genera Esse audientes qui in Doctrina ordine ex auditione informantur Esse doctos qui ad consultationem adhibentur Esse denique Episcopos Presbyteros qui decidunt res ferendis sententiis And again Cont. 4. lib. 1. c. 15. n. 15. qui sine authoritate Ecclesiae adjunt eorum alii etiam consultationibus adhiberi possunt ut docti praetertim Ecclesiastici sed dicere sententiam definitivam non possunt section 19 I hear of two main Objections which use to be be made against what I have been pleading for and for the concurrence of the people in the exercise of the Government of the Church 1. That is alledged of the Magdeburg Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134. coeterum si quis probatos autores hujus saeculi perspiciat videbit formam gubernationis propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem fuisse To which may be added that of learned Whitak Cont. 4. q. 1. c. 1. sic partim Aristocraticum partim Democraticum partim etiam Monarchicum n. si velimus Christum ipsum respicere as he sayeth a little before est semperque fuit Ecclesiae Regimen Answ That these Authors called the Government of the Church either much like unto a Democraticall or in part Democraticall their meaning and intention was not that the whole body of private Professours did formally concur in the exercise of such acts as are formally authoritative and judiciall acts of Government which were requisite to make the Government formally and properly Democraticall either in whole or in part But only because of such things competent to them as we have mentioned § 14. which are no authoritative or judiciall acts of Government And first for the Magdeburg see how they explicate that which they say in the next following words Singulae enim Ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum Dei pure docendi Sacramenta Administrandi absolvendi excommunicandi Haereticos sceleratos ceremonias ab Apostolis acceptas exercendi aut etiam pro ratione aedificationis novas condendi Ministros eligendi vocandi ordinandi justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi In these words there are two things expresly observable to our purpose 1. That they in explicating the Democracy they speak of speak not of the power of single persons as to maters of Government but of single or particular Churches Singulae enim Ecclesiae say they parem habebant potestatem c. whereby it may easily and evidently appear that while they say that the Government of the Church was much like a Democracy they mean this not to take away the Government out of the hands of Christs Officers of the Church to put it in the hands of the whole people at least to joine these with them in the formall and proper actings of it But in opposition to that authoritative and juridicall superiority of any one particular Chutch over other particular Churches as the Prelaticall men pleaded for authoritative superioritie in their cathedrall Churches over all particular Churches in the Diaecese and the Papalins for an universall superioritie and supremacie in the Church of Rome over all other Churches in the world 2. It is to be observed that among other things which they reckon up as parts of the Church Government which they say was much like Democracie they put in the Preaching of the Word and Admistration of Sacraments which themselves before say and no man of sound judgment will deny are acts proper to the called Ministers of Christ Whence also it is manifest that they mean not a Democracie properly so called which putteth the formall power and exercise of Government in the hands of all and every one of the multitude which the Independent Brethren plead for And indeed will any man consider what the particular Churches were to which these Centuriators attribute private Synods Cent. 2. c. 7. pag. 130. wherein it may possibly be conceived that Democracie could have place especially and it may easily be perceived that they were such as the whole body of the people for whose right to concur in juridicall acts the Independent Brethren pleads could not possibly meet together in one or be present at once in their Synods when assembled for exercise of jurisdiction For most part at least of them which they call particular Churches were of such amplitude and so numerous that such an assembling of their whole body was not possible and in truth they were Diaecesan or Presbyteriall Churches and not such single Congregations as the Question between us and the Independent Brethren concerneth For mark it in that very place last cited speaking of these particular Churches and their private Synods they bring in the Romane Church for an instance And who knows not how numerous the Christians in Rome were become ere that time Adde to these things that these same Authors Cent. 3. c. 7. p. 151. say expresly that jus tractandi de excommunicandis aut recipiendis publice lapsis penes Seniores Ecclesiae erat and cite Tertul. Apolog. for it read also c. 6. ejusdem Cent. pag. 129 l. 30.
Appendix For the present what we have said is sufficiâ—nâ— to shew that Iohn baptized such as came to him upon th◠〈◊〉 profâ—ssion without any delay of time or waiting for tryall of the sincerity of their saving Conversion section 11 In like maner find we that the Apostles admitted to Baptism persons as soon as they made profâ—ssion of the Christian Faith without delay â—or triall of the truth of grace in their hearts as Acts 2. 38. 41. We read they baptized and so added to the Church three thousand that same day that they first professed without delay of the mater for so much as one day when as so great a number might excused the delay if they would have taken longer time to the buâ—…nesse And certainly it being 〈◊〉 the conversion of these men was so suddain one would think 〈◊〉 Apostleâ— would have waited for a triall and proof of their sincerity if so be such a triall and proof had been by Christs institution necessary to go before the admission of men into the Visible Church But the Spirit of God which acted and directed the Apostles did dictate them no such thing In like maner the Samaritâ—… men and women were baptized without any delay Acts 8. 1â— So Simon at that same timâ— albeit to that very day he had been a Sorcerer dementâ—d that people with his devillish enchauntments and with sacrilegious impiety given himself out as the great powâ—… of God yet as soon as being convinced by thâ— sight of miracles he professed the Christian Faith was baptized by Philip. Finally whosoever were baptized by the Apostles that we read of were baptized after this same maner nor can there be given from Scripture so much as one instance of any one man who professâ—…g the Faith and desiring the communion of thâ— Church was râ—fâ—sed Baptism for a time untill he should give a trial and evidence of the siâ—…erity of the work of grace in his heart section 12 To the practice of John Baptist and the Apostlâ—… adde the practice of Jesus Christ himself 'T is worthy of observation saith Mr. Baxter well against Tombs pag. 127. that it is said John 3. 26. he baptized viz. by the Ministry of his Disciples and all men came unto him Whereby it is evident that he baptized men presently and without delay as soon as they came and professed themselves his Disciples Shall we then miserable men not content with our Lords example take upon us to be more severe and exact in his maters then himself Verily I cannot look upon this too great diligence but as a counsell of mans pride shuffling it self in under a maske of purity â—…d accuracy in the matters of God section 13 What further may be excepted against this Argument built upon that ground whereon as a sufficient qualification Christ his Apostles and John Baptist admitted persons to baptism I know not unlesse some haply will say that baptism doth not constitute one a member of the Visible Church as Reverend Hooker contends in a large dispute Surv. p. 1. c. 4. pag. 55. seq and that to be admitted to baptism and to be admitted a member of the Visible Church are not one and the same thing and that more may be required as a necessary antecedent qualification to this then is to that But as to this exception 1. I yeeld that baptism in it self gives not the being of a member of the Visible Church But that one must be first a member thereof de jure which we say is given by such externall profession as we have described before to men of years and to Infants by federall holinesse derived from their Parents otherwise baptism could not constitute one a member Neverthelesse we hold this for certain that baptism is the ordinary Ordinance whereby solemne admission and initiation into actuall communion of the Visible Church is performed Neither since the time that baptism was instituted can their be shown in Scripture either precept or example of any externall way or means of admitting members of a Visible Church beside baptism further let me aske of the adversaries that they would produce from the holy Scriptures an instance of any one man who being admitted to baptism was not presently and ipso facto esteemed a member of the Visible Church They cannot it is a thing unheard of in the Word of God Therefore it is clearly evident that upon what condition men were â—dmitted to the Laver of baptism that same was accounted qualification sufficient in foro Ecclesiastico to constitute a member of the Visible Church and how grosse an absurdity in theologie were it to say that a man tho orderly baptized and no new impediment interveening yet were not a member of the Visible Church For hence it should follow that a baptized Christian even after he is such were yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. amongst these that are without Pagans and infidels 1 Cor. 5. 12. for there the Apostle divides the whole satitude of mankinde into these two Classes of those that are within and 〈◊〉 that are without and as by these that are within he understands such as are of the Visible Church whom also he calls Brethren v. 11. so by those who are without he understands infidels whom he calls the men of the world v. 10. This much for our first Argument section 14 Arg. 2. If our Lord Jesus Christ has not given to any man or society of men upon earth judiciary power authoritatively judicially and positively to pronounce sentence touching the inward spirituall condition of all men professing true Christian Religionâ— and submitting themselves to the Ordinances of Christ whether they be regenerat or not Then it cannot be by Christs institution a necessary qualification requisite to the admitting of persons into the outward fellowship of the Visible Church that they be in foro Ecclesiastico judged truely converted and regenerated But the former is true therefore so is the latter The connexion of the proposition is evident of it self As to the assumption let it be noted 1. That I deny not but a Minister has power from God with Ministeriall Authority to determine Doctrinally and in thesi men regenerated and in the state of grace and reconciliation or unregenerate and as yet in the state of nature according as they want or have the characters of true regeneration and faith They have a warrand from the word of God to pronounce all men that have never been humbled before God for their sins that esteem not Christ more precious then all things beside in the World that walk not after the Spirit but after the flesh c. to be unregenerat men and strangers from the life of God contra â— I grant that Ministers have power and authority to apply the generall Doctrinall sentence to particular persons in â—…pothesi but conditionally whom also they may and ought earnestly to presse to make positive application in their own consciences and as they perceive more
he could find used by Presbyterians to prove the power and authority of Ecclesiastick Government to be in the hands not of the people but only of the Church Officers I cannot think he will say so if he has been at the pains to Read them Why then has he passed others in silence if he minded to give his rationall Readers satisfaction touching his Tenet in this Question We refer the Reader to see these touched at by the Author here more pregnantly managed and others besides them in Jus Divin of Church Government part 2. c. 10 and c. 11. Sect. 2. Gul. Apollon Considerat of certain Gontrov c. 4. Spanhem Epist to David Buchan q. 2. Mr. Ruth Peaceable Plea and Due Right Now come we to Mr. Lockiers second Assertion SECTION VII Mr. Lockiers 2. Assertion touching Presbyteries of many particular Congregations combined whether Classicall or Synodicall and their power considered and the true state of the Controversie touching this matter between Presbyterians and Independents layed forth section 1 IN the former Assertion the Author would throw the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven the power of the Government of the Church out of the hands of them whom Christ has appointed to be Rulers over the Church his Officers to put the same in the hands of all and every one of the people And in the second he would so put them in the hands of one particular Congregation may be of seven or ten persons For of so many may a Church be compleatly constitute by their way as that they shall exercise all that power even to the highest acts thereof Independently as the supream Tribunall in Ecclesiastick Government under Jesus Christ upon earth So as that if there should be any errour committed by such a particular Congregation suppose the greatest errour or heresie in Doctrine maintained by it or a man unjustly Excommunicated and casten out of the Church there is no Ecclesiastick authoritative remedy under Heaven to redresse such an errour No Ecclesiastick Judicatory to which a grieved person may have recourse by appeal for Authoritative recognition or redresse of his grievance But see we his Assertion section 2 That Presbyteries or Elderships without the particular Congregations exercing authoritative and coercive power over it are an invention of man Having thus propounded his Assertion He explaines the subject of it thus By Presbyteries or Elderships without the Congregation I mean such an Eldership as is chosen out of severall particular Congregations assuming to themselves superiour and decisive power over them Afterward he calls it forrain Eldership SECT 20. And so forth in the rest of his Book And then again undertaking to explain the nature thereof sayeth I find among our Brethren themselves that Elders and Brethren sent and impowered from their severall Congregations respectively to transact and conclude such and such Ecclesiastick affairs within such a limited bounds ex sua potestate are a forrain Presbytery A note or two upon these things and then we shall more clearly and distinctly set forth the true state of the Controversie and what is our Doctrine therein 1. Whereas he propounds to himself to Dispute against the Authority of an Eldership or Presbytery without the particular Congregation i. e. as he calls it afterward forrain to the Congregation he but enters in a conflict against his own fiction And whereas he sayeth SECT 20. that he finds amongst their Brethren he means Presbyterians that a Presbytery sent from severall Congregations is a forrain Presbytery I humbly conceive for ought I can remember of any of them he wrongs them exceeding much I do not remember of any Presbyterian that acknowledges the Presbytery of severall Congregations associat in Government to be a forrain or extrinsecall Presbytery to these Congregations Nor is it so indeed It cannot be called a forrain Presbytery to all the Congregations associat under it Because it is made of their own severall Elderships Nor yet can it be forrain or externall to any of them Because every one is a part of it and in it as a part of the whole As a Parliament cannot be called a forrain Judicatory to the whole Kingdom whereof it is the Parliament nor unto any of the severall Cities or Counties which are parts of the Kingdom and are in the Parliament by their Deputies or Commissioners as parts constituents thereof Indeed the Prelate and his Cathedrall consistory taking to themselves the Government and Jurisdiction over all Congregations in the Diocese were an externall forrain Judicatory to these Churches because they excluded the other Congregations and their Elderships from all collaterall concurrence and copartnership with them in the Government But the Presbytery we speak for is made up of the Elders of the severall Congregations which it governs as intrinsecall collaterall parts constituent thereof and therefore cannot be called forrain to these severall Congregations 2. When as he expresseth the power of these Presbyteries against which he propounds this dispute under the name of coercition calling it a coercive power He seemeth on purpose to choise an odious word to render it suspicious by the very name For the word of coercing in the common use mostly seemeth to import outward bodily or civill force exercised upon persons or things to stop and represse their actions ipsis etiam renitentibus we ascribe no such power unto Presbyteries But a power of executing spirituall censures which have no externall force upon persons yea nor Physicall neither but only Morall as administred by the Eldership Tho they may be accompanied by God With a Physicall I mean a reall operation upon the persons either in mercy or judgement And if at any time those who are for Presbyteries over more Congregations speaking of their power call it coercive they mean no other thing but a power of Spirituall jurisdiction exercised in Spirituall censures such as the Author himself and these of his way attributes to particular Elderships of a single Congregation together with the Congregation over every member thereof If the Author had dealt ingenuously with us he should not used such a word without explanation of the thing he knoweth we mean But now let 's see the clear state of the controversie in this mater section 3 The subject in generall whereupon the Question runneth between us and the Independent Brethren is a Presbytery or Eldership of more Congregations then one Concerning which there are some things confessed and uncontroverted where of we should take notice in the first place that we may the better see where the difference and contoversie lyeth 1. 'T is confessed by our Brethren themselves that consociation of more particular Churches or Congregations in one Presbytery or Eldership is lawfull and usefull Hooker Surv. p. 4. c. 1 2. 2. That these consociations are and may be of severall sorts and degrees some lesser some greater Classes Synods and these Provinciall Nationall Oecumenicall Idem Ibid So then there is no controversie about the being simply
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
to alledge that antiquitie for the second point of Independent Government I think these Authors some of them at least for others of them though they all speak in this Epistle referring this to antiquitie yet we may acquite from all guiltinesse of acquaintance with antiquitie knew this very well And therefore they have wittily enough expressed this reference to antiquitie in that whereas in their two former Arguments they affirmed these two points of Independent Government distinctly now in this reference to antiquitie they alledge only generally and confusedly that there was then a mixture of Aristocracie and Democracie and that the people had no small influence in Discipline There is nothing more clear and undenyable in humane Historie then authoritative juridicall Governing Assemblies and Synodes of more Churches in these ages of the Church Oecumenicall Synod there were none nor could be because of the evils of these times after the dayes of the Apostles untill the Nicen Councel yet the thing it self was acknowledged could the benefit thereof been had as is evident by that of Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 8. in Pamel order Epist 40. Cum semel placuerit tam nobis quam confessoribus clericis urbicis item Vniversis Episcopis vel in nostra Provincia vel trans mare constitutis ut nihil innovetur circa lapsorum causam nisi omnes in unum convenerimus collatis consiliis cum Disciplina pariter misericordiae temperatam fixerimus sententiam That Provinciall Synods i. e. of many neigbouring Churches having Colledges of Presbyters and Officers over them were then in actuall use is so clear as cannot be denyed See the Magdeburgen Cent. 2. Cap. 7. in princip they say Duplex atuem regiminis Ecclesiastici forma ut hoc saeculo sese nobis offert consideranda quarum prior communem singularum Ecclesiarum Administrationem Altera vero plurium aut omnium inter se consociatarum gubernationem complectitur note here by the way that those singulae Ecclesiae particular Churches to which they give privatas Synodos afterward were not alwayes at least as we shall shew after this such single Congregations as the Independents stand for which may meet together at one time in one place but more ample Then afterward p. 135. De consociatione Ecclesiar they say si quando Haereses oboriebantur aut aliae Quaestiones graviores Tum conveniebant vel omnes provinciales aut plerique Doctores Et examinata recommuni judicio statuebant quod vitandum aut sequendum esset Euseb l. 3. c. 16. Ex Appollinario dicit etenim fideles per Asiam multis saepe numero Asiae locis ob hanc causam conveniebant nuper natas Doctrinas examinabant profanas pronunciabant haeresiâ—que istam reprobantes Ecclesiâ ejiciebant Excommunicabant Iâ—â—ike manner Cent. 3. c. 7. titul De consociatione plurium Eccles in unâ aliquâ Provinciâ p. 158. Diximus superiori saeculo Ecclesias ejusdem Provinciae solitas esse plerumque ad unam aliquam maximè insignem respicere eamque venerari ab ea consilia mutua officia petere recte monitis obtemperare Ea vero res ut paulatim in consuetudinem abiit ita hoc saeculo observata est Nam in plerisque Provinciis caeterae Ecclesiae eorumque Episcopi Clerici se ad ejusmodi alicujus urbis Episcopum Doctrinâ pietate constantiâ insignem sacerdotum Collegium associarunt ut eorum operâ tanquam communium inspectorum gubernatorum uterentur And in the same Cent. p. 163. l. 40. De consociatione Vnivers they say Si autem graviores Quaestiones aut controversiae incidebant aut alia negotia quae non ad unius Provinciae Ecclesias attinebant sed ad plures tum Ecclesia etiam in diversis Provinciis suas operas conjungebant in petendis aut dandis consiliis in componendis schismatibus in refutandis erroribus in Congregandis Synodis in Excommunicandis Haeretecis aliis facinorosis See also after pag. 166. l. 22. seq See also Cent. 4. c. 7. p. 517. l. 21. pag. 522. l. 8. But why insist we in this instances of Synods of this kind exercising juridicall power authoritatively I mean Ministeriall authority subordinat to the Word of God determining Questions in Religion condemning Heresies Excommunicating Haereticks Schismaticks and other flagitious persons in these ages are notour to all that have read any thing of antiquity Cyprian alone in his Epistles affordeth abundant testimony of this And as for Classicall as we call them Presbyteries what else were the Bishop with his Presbyterium or Collegium sacerdotum * VVhich the Centurists cal Synodos privatas singularum Ecclesiarum in these times I shall not contend here whether in these times there were any single Congregations having a full Presbyterium within themselves albeit I think it shall be hard for any man to give any particular instance in these ages of a Presbyterium of one particular Congregation such as our Independent Brethren speak for But certain it is that the Bishops who were then but constant praesidents differing from other Presbyters ordine tantum non gradâ—… aut potestate with their Presbyterium or Collegium Clericorâ—… for the most part were Diaecesan i. e. over such numerous Churcâ—… as could not be one single Congregation to meet in one place at one time for divine Worship but behoved to be made up of many such single Assemblies which whether they were fixed or not fixed we debate not now nor does the one or the other make any oddes in the purpose we are now upon and so was just such a Presbytery as we call Classicall such was Cornelius in Rome with his Presbytery and Cyprian with his Presbytery in Carthage and other Bishops with their Presbyteries in other populous Cities Certain it is that these Presbyteries were juridicall Ecclesiastick Courts And as certain it is that they were not Presbyteries of one single Congregation such as Independents speak of section 14 As for the other point of Independent Government if we speak of the authoritative and juridicall Acts of Government such as are Ordination and potestative mission of Ministers judiciall determination of controversies in Religion Excommunication of Hereticall and scandalous persons I darre affirm that in antiquitie a man may as soon find a mixture of Aristocracy and Democracy let be Morellian or compleat Democracy which yet is the thing maintained by most part Independents as in sylvis Delphinum We shall not deny that the people then had an hand in the election of Ministers as is evident by many passages of these times see especially Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 4. in Pamel Ord. Epist 68. But election is no act of Ecclesiastick Authority or Government nor doth it constitute any one a Pastour but is only a designation of the person to be authoritatively put in that Office by ordination or to be applyed to some particular charge if he be one already in