distributes it among the Officers respectively Then say I your middle way fals out to be the extreme of Brownists who make the people the first subject of all power But I thinke the truth is That the Apostles betrusted the power of the Officers not first with the Churches but with the Officers themselves They and Evangelists ordained Elders in every City not the Churches Paul gives Timothy a charge to commit that which he had received of him to faithfull men that might be able to teach others also 2 Tim. 2.2 To conclude this You said above That the Keyes were distributed into severall hands the Key of Liberty unto the Brethren the Key of Authority unto the Officers and is not this a contradiction to what your first proposition doth assert That the particular Church of Brethren is the first subject of all Church-offices and of all Church-power and so of the Authority of the Officers consider it 3. Propos When the Church of a particular congregation walketh together in the truth and peace the Brethren are the first subject of Church liberty and the Elders thereof of Church-authority and both of all Church-power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves This is very cautelously delivered yet not enough to cover your contradiction Either this proposition is the same with the first or else it contradicts it There you said that the particular congregation of Saints was the first subject of all the Church-offices with all their spirituall gifts and power Now you divide this power between them and the Elders giving the one Church-liberty the other Authority 2. There is a limitation for this too it is but when they walke in truth and Peace But if they walke not so what is the first subject of all that power Have not the Brethren their Liberty and the Elders their Authority as the first Subjects when they differ If so then your caution is idle when they walke in truth and peace If not then neither of them single nor both together are the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves And we shall heare anon a Synod is the first subject of all power needfull to be exercised amongst themselves When there are divisions and factions among them page 47. Yet againe in your other Tract you give the particular Congregation of Brethren the whole power of chusing ordaining Officers and censures of their Officers if they be hereticall 1. That the Brethren are the first subject of Church-liberty you labour to prove thus By removall of any former subject whence they might derive it Not from their Elders for they had power to chuse their owne Elders Not from other Churches for all Churches are equall Not from a Synod they of Antioch borrowed none of their Liberties from Ierusalem I answer the enumeration is not sufficient For though they received it from none of those yet they might derive it from some others namely from the Elders of other Churches by whom they were first converted to the Faith For the Liberties or priviledges that a Congregation hath as distinct from Elders comes to them by vertue of their interest either in the Body mysticall or Catholicke visible Church which is in Order before their membership of a particular Congregation They must be visible Saints before they can gather into a congregation of visible Saints and every one single hath a liberty or priviledge to associate before they can all be associated Now thence it followes that those Elders that first converted them did virtually derive that liberty or priviledge to them Faith comes by hearing How shall they heare without a Preacher Remember your owne words The Keyes p. 10. The Key of knowledge or which is all one the Key of Faith belongeth to all the faithfull whether joyned to any particular Church or no which argueth that the key of knowledge is given not only to the Church but to some before they enter into the Church Now who gave them this key of Faith instrumentally but the Ministers by whom they beleeved Therefore the Church of a particular Congregation are not the first subject of Church-liberty but every particular Beleever hath it first and that derived from some Elders And certainly in the first plantation of Churches the Officers Elders I meane were before the Churches themselves The Planters were before the plantation The Apostles being first converted and ordained by Christ himselfe were sent abroad and converted people many times single afterwards when they were increased they united into Churches Now you suppose the Church to be before the Elders because they chuse their owne Elders which is not generally true Though it may be so in Churches planted yet not in the first plantation of Churches Indeed in your way the Churches are before their Elders and doe chuse and ordaine their Elders but from the beginning it was not so And besides Elders now in order of nature if not in time are before the Churches in all Reformed Churches being ordained for the most part to be Elders before they be Elders to this or that particular Church And though your Churches doe chuse their Elders yet I hope they doe not make or ordaine them Elders but after they are ordained chuse them to be theirs The Keyes p 55. You speake sometimes of translation of an Elder from one Church to another which in my apprehension implyes him an Elder before he be translated to another Church Though I know you are not constant to your selfe herein holding it as a principle Elder and flocke are relates and giving the Brethren without any Officers power not only to chuse but to ordaine their Elders and so your Churches are before their Elders and give them their power by election and ordination and Brownists doe no more I would gladly know a reason why if the Churches had power to chuse and ordaine their owne Officers the Apostle should trouble himselfe and them to send Timothy and Titus to ordaine Elders in every City had it not been easier to have written to the Churches to doe it themselves 2. That the Elders are the first subject of Rule and Authority you endeavour to prove 1. Because the charge of Rule over the Church is committed to them immediately from Christ But this first is contradictory to your first proposition which made the particular congregation the first subject of all Church-officers and all Church-power and the Church communicates and derives that power to the Officers chusing and ordaining them 2. If the charge of Rule be immediately committed to them from Christ how can the Church be the first subject of all power The Apostles indeed had all their power immediately from Christ but other Officers had it immediately from them and from others intrusted by them with that power When you say The Office it selfe is ordained by Christ though the Elders be chosen to their Office by the Church of Brethren You vary the question For the question is not
yeeld the thing In a large sense Authority may be acknowledged in the people As 1. when a man acteth by counsell he is then Lord of his owne action But that 's nothing to the objection The people of the Assizes act by counsell in approving the sentence If you grant the Brethren no more you mocke them and grant them nothing 2. But you grant them far more Election of Officers concurrence in censures determination of Synodall acts c. you might have added Ordination and then you had given them full Authority by these they have a great stroke or power in ordering Church affaires A great stroke indeed as full Authority as you give the Elders And this you grant when you give your reason to the contrary and would allow them only liberty For say you no act of the peoples power or liberty is binding unlesse the authority of the Presbytery concurre with it No more doth any act of the Presbytery bind unlesse the power of the people joyne with it So say your Prefacers Epist p. 4. So say your self when you allow them such a power as the want thereof retards the sentence But why doe you darken your owne meaning by such ambiguous answers when you grant the Government to be democraticall The way 100 but not meerely democraticall yea if I understand any thing you make it as meerely democraticall as Brownists themselves when you give them power without any Officers to chuse ordaine censure even Officers themselves as we have often told you I pray Sir when the Brethren ordaine or censure Officers without a Presbytery doth not that act of theirs properly bind It must or it is meere vanity having no Presbytery to joyne with them And if so is not this properly Authority without more adoe But you would prove Elders to be the first Subject of Authority from removall of other Subjects They have is not from the Elders of other Churches or from a Synod All Churches and all Elders are equall But 1. This is apparently false in the Scripâ—ure way For the Elders of the first Churches were ordained by the Apostles and Evangelists who were Elders of all Churches and as Elders not as Apostles ordained Elders and so gave them their Authority immediately from Christ 2. Your reason because they are all equall will hurt your selfe For if that be a good reason why they cannot derive it from Elders of the other Churches because they are equall it is much more strong against you they cannot derive it from the people who are their inferiours Besides by this rule Elders of their own Church cannot ordaine any Elders to that Church when they want for they are all â—quâ—ll But by your favour he that is to receive the Office and with it the Authority of an Elder is inferiour to those Elders who are to ordaine him for the lesser is blessed of the greater though when he is once ordained he be their equall And though the Elders of a Synod be equall singly considered yet joyntly they are superiour to any one single and have more Authority than he hath or else all you speake of Synods is but vanity But if they have not their Authority derived from Elders of other Churches nor from Synods nor from the Elders of their owne Church because they are all equall either they must derive it from the people or they have none of all and so the people have as much Authority as any Elder of them all yea in your way more 3. The third branch of the third Propos Both Elders and Brethren together are the first subject of all power needfull amongst themselves You prove it by instance 1. In point of Ordination which is compleat when the people have chosen him and the Presbytery of the Church have laid their hands upon him But 1. I observe that here you make Ordination an Act of Authority and place it in the Elders ergo either the Brethren cannot ordaine Elders which yet you say they may or else they have Authority which yet you seeme to deny 2. Some of your Brethren here hold Ordination to be nothing but a ceremoniall solemnity the substance of a Ministers calling is say they in the peoples election ergo either Authority is in the people who give the substance and liberty only in the Elders who give but the ceremony or the calling of a Minister is compleat without Ordination and yet you require Ordination to the integrity of it But if the Brethren may ordaine without their Officers then they alone are the first Subject not of Liberty only but of Authority also And so this Proposition is needlesse A second Argument is taken from their independent and indispensable power in Church censures which are ratified in Heaven The same answer will serve to this also For first the Brethren alone without Elders say you may censure and if rightly done it is indispensable not to be reversed by any power on Earth because ratified in Heaven ergo they are the first subject of all Church-power needfull within themselves 2. And that the rather if they can ordaine Elders too for then the Elders derive their power from them 3. But suppose which is possible enough the Brethren and Elders erre in their censure of a member is not the censure then reversible I aske by whom if all power needfull for themselves be within themselves what shall the wronged party doe Is he remedilesly miserable If it be dispensable and reversible it must be by some other Church or Clâ—ssis c. But then a Congregation of Brethren and Elders are not the first subject of all power needfull amongst themselves If you say you meane when they walke in truth and peace you should yet have told us what the party must doe when they walke not in truth and peace And if they have not a power to right a wronged party they have not all power needfull to be exercised among themselves The Objections by you brought and answered rather concerne the Episcopall than the Presbyteriall way at least some of them only 2 or 3 may be vindicated Obj 1. To tell the Church is to tell the Presbytery of the Church Sol. We deny not the offence is to be told to the Presbytery yet not to them as the Church but as the guides of the Church Reply This is partly to yeeld the cause For you grant that the businesse is to be told first to the Presbytery who if upon hearing the cause and examining the witnesses they find it ripe for publicke censure they are then to propound it to the Church c. And you grant the people no more but consent to the judgement and sentence of the Elders The Presbytery also are to admonish the party authoritatively and if he will not heare them to passe the sentence upon him ergo the Presbytery is the Church there meant and not the people who neither admonish nor censure authoritatively but only discerne the nature of
Authority and ergo could not authoritatively forgive him as nor authoritatively bind him The same power binds and looses But the Elders only did or could authoritatively bind ergo Obj. 2. Some in the Church of Corinth did it viz. the Presbytery Sol. It is apparent by the Text that the Brethren concurred and that with some act of power viz. such power as the want of putting it forth retarded the sentence and the putting it forth was requâ—site to the administration of the sentence Reply This is not evident in the Text yea if such power be in the Brethren surely it is more than liberty it is direct authority viz. a negative vote to retard the sentence which is as much as the Elders have If you meane only a judgement of discretion and a withdrawing to execute the sentence it is true that liberty they have a rationall consent or dissent but that is rather a passive than an active concurrence to the sentence But the question is whether the sentence be null if they will not concurre to it If so then the Apostles own sentence might have been nullified when he delivered this party or Alexander to Satan and he could not say I have delivered him unto Satan For it was in the peoples power and a liberty you say purchased for them by Christ to retard or speed the sentence Not one of your reasons prove that the Brethren concurred actively to the sentence For 1. the whole Church might and were reproved for not mourning and for not withdrawing for their parts not for not sentencing of him 2. The Commandement was directed to the Church when gathered together yet not to all alike the presence of the Brethren the sentence of the Elders Many things are so directed to a whole Church which yet must respectively be executed As if the Apostle should say when you are all gathered together I will that there be preaching and administration of Sacraments doth this command concerne actively the Brethren 3. The Apostles words doe not declare this act of theirs to be a judiciall act when he sayes Doe not â—ou judge them that are within Even this first may be referred to the Officers and secondly it is by your selfe understood of a judgement of discretion not of authority of which we speake A judgement of discretion is allowed all the people at an Assizes but this hath no power at all in it properly so called And truly if the Apostles words carry any colour of judgement in the Brethren it may seeme to import a judgement of authority rather than of discretion so he gives them more than you dare plead for though not more than I feare they will ere long usurpe 4. It is granted the Brethren may and must forgive him as well as the Elders but not with one and the same kind of forgivenesse The people at an Assizes doe in their judgement of discretion acquit the party whom the Iudge and Iury doe acquit with the judgement of Authority What poore and weak proofes are these for a matter of such moment as easily denyed as affirmed Obj. 3. Corinth was a Presbyteriall Church Sol. No such thing appeares Reply It more than probably appeares it being a Mother-City where God had much people and they had many Elders and Teachers with excellent gifts as you granâ— it is not likely therefore they had but one Congregation And if there were many it may as probably be said that this command was directed to the Elders of severall Congregations met together as the contrary can by you be proved Arg 4. From the guilt of offence which lyeth upon every Church when any offence committed by their members lyeth uncensured as on Pergamus Thyatira c. Sol. It doth not appeare that those Churches were each but one single Congregation but of some of them the contrary as Ephesus which had many Elders and much people converted c. And besides I desire you would call to mind your owne exposition of some of those Texts when it is said To the Angell of such a Church that is say the Prelaticall party To the Bishop you answer Angell is put for Angels The way p. 49. a company of Elders Not a single person but the whole company of the Ministers of the Church the whole Presbytery of persons more than one as is evident by his speech unto them as unto many unto you and some of you c. whence these 3. things may be collected 1. That the guilt is not imputed to the whole Church but to the Angell of such a Church that is say you the Ministers which quite destroyes your Argument 2. That these Ministers were a whole Presbytery the whole company of the Ministers of the Church therefore it s very probable there were more Congregations than one in each of those Churches and so we find Presbyteriall not Independent Churches 3. That the Church is sometime taken for the Presbytery of the Church which afore you have denyed However I pray consider that the Brethren are never called the Angels of the Church nor yet are the Ruling-Elders any where called Angels but the Ministers only as you call these Angels which makes it more than probable that it is spoken to a Presbyteriall Church the Ministers of severall Congregations even according to your owne exposition at least to the Presbytery of each Congregation which confutes your assertion that the Brethren have any interest in the power of the Keyes 4. Propos In case a particular Church be disturbed with error or scandall and the same maintained by a faction amongst them Now a Synod of Churches or of their Messengers is the first subject of that power and authority whereby errour is judicially convinced and condemned the truth searched out and determined and the way of truth and peace declared and imposed upon the Churches This Proposition you undertake to make good by two Arguments First From the want of power in such a Church to passe a binding sentence because the promise of binding and loosing is made to a Church 1. not erring 2. agreeing truth 18.17 c. In answer hereunto I will not say That this Argument proves not the proposition for it proves indeed that a particular Church is not the first Subject of this power and authority but it doth not prove that a Synod is But this I say that by this way of arguing a Church can seldome or never have power to bind or loose when there is not an universall agreement which how rarely it happens experience tels us now and will doe more hereafter in your owne Churches Few Churches there are that so walke together in peace and truth that there is no disagreeing party amongst them therefore that power is seldome in their hands but upon every difference or faction amongst them their power reverts to a Synod and so a Synod must be called which is not easily done and troubled with every difference of a Congregation which you impute unjustly
as a fault upon the Presbyteriall way 2. You have otherwise determined in the way Suppose the whole Presbytery be in an errour or scandall as they may shall the faction now devest the Brethren of their power and authority to censure and cast them out which you have fully given them there and here doe seem to take away 3. You mitigate the businesse much when you say A Synod of Churches is the first subject of that power whereby errour is convinced c. and the way of â—ruth and peace declared and imposed on the Church For all this is only a doctrinall declaration and imposition not authoritatively by way of jurisdiction The censure you reserve to the Congregation where you had placed it before But what if the Synod of Churches erre or disagree there be a faction also amongst them you will know your owne words An erring or disagreeing Church binds not So all will come to nothing The censure of the Synod binds not for they can but declare what is truth The censure of the particular Church binds not for they are in a faction so you give the Brethren a power and presently take it away againe If then a considerable party fall into errour or faction by variance they presently lose like the Bee her sting their power of binding and loosing and if this be but once knowne as it cannot be hid how easie is it for any Delinquent to make a party or faction and so escape all binding censure seeing neither the Church erring or at variance nor a Synod hath any binding power Your second Argument is From the patterne Acts 15.1 c. When there grew errour and faction in the Church of Antioch they determine not the case but referred it to the Apostles and Elders But first the Church of Ierusalem did only doctrinally declare the truth they did not censure the erring Brethren so you pleaded above but referred that to the Church of Antioch 2. If declaration had been sufficient the Church of Antioch needed not to have sent so farre as Ierusalem Paul and Barnabas were able enough to declare the truth at home and so that particular Church though erring and at variance was the first subject of that power here given to a Synod 3. You mislay the comparison when you say As in the case of an offence of a faithfull brother persisted in the matter is at last judged in a church which is a Congregation of the faithfull so in the offence of a Church the matter is at last judged in a congregation of Churches c. For the judgement is not of the same kind but you doe meerely aequivocate with us The judgement of the Church upon a Brother is juridicall even by way of censure of excommunication But the judgement of a Synod is only doctrinall and declarative If you grant any more you and we are agreed Before I conclude this proposition I only animadvert these few things 1. That you grant the Assembly of the Apostles and Elders at Ierusalem Acts 15.1 to have been a formall Synod wherein your Disciples here doe discent from you as appeares in their Epistle and call it only a Consultation by way of Arbitration To which Arbitration it seemes the Church of Antioch was not bound to stand for they did not for ought appeares promise or bind themselves to stand to their arbitrement nor might they so bind themselves by your doctrine and theirs too for that were to give away their priviledge purchased by the bloud of Christ 2. You yeeld also The Keyes p. 57. that the Apostles did not act herein as Apostles and determine the matter by Apostolicall Authority but as Elders in an ordinary way as the whole proceeding in the businesse proves as you well observe Yet your Schollers here submit not to your doctrine as they professe in their Epistle though they neither shew any reason for it nor confute yours 3. You call a Synod a Congregation of Churches for what is a Synod but a Church of Churches and yet deny that a Presbytery of Churches is ever called a Church 4. You say The Elders there at Jerusalem were not a few the Beleevers in Jerusalem being many thousands Therefore say wee they were more than could meet together in one place and yet called but one Church whence we may inferre There was not an Independent Church of one but a Presbyteriall Church of many Congregations Lastly you say This patterne plainly sheweth to whom the Key of Authority is committed when there groweth offence and difference in a Church But the Key of Authority if you remember what you said above hath this power in it as to administer the Seales so to bind an obstinate offender under excommunication and to release and forgive him upon repentance Grant but your Synod of Churches such a Key of Authority to bind an offending party or Church and to release them upon repentance and the matter is at an end But if you grant no more but a doctrinall declarative power you grant but what every Pastor single hath And whether this be the Key of Authority given by our Saviour to the Church let every indifferent Reader judge And now you come to your Corollaries concerning the Independency of Churches to shew how they are or are not Independent Wherein I purpose not to follow you and that for this reason because for the most part you doe but repeate what you have said before You say your selfe You take the first Subject and the Independent Subject to be all one Therefore say I if the Church of a particular Congregation be not the first Subject of all Church-power as is evinced above neither is it the Independent Subject of that power I have only some things to observe in your second Corollarie and then I shall conclude You say The establishment of pure Religion and the Reformation of corruptions in Religion doe much concerne the civill peace If Religion be corrupted there will be warre in the gates Judges 5.8 and no peace to him that commeth in or goeth out 2 Chron. 15.3 5 6. But where Religion rejoyceth the civill State flourisheth And this you truly refer to the Civill Magistrate partly by commanding and by stirring up the Churches and Ministers thereof to goe about it in their spirituall way partly also by civill punishments upon the wilfull opposers and disturbers of the same Whereupon I desire to know 1. By what Authority our Brethren here in Old-England having not only Christian Magistrates covenanting to reforme but also calling and commanding an Assembly of Divines to reforme according to the Word doe take upon them to set up and establish a forme of Church-Government of their owne before they have demonstrated it to be the way of God to the great disturbance of the peace both of Church and State 2. I doe demand also why many of your disciples here plead for a Toleration of all Religions which you will not tollerate in New-England which they call Liberty of conscience and the prosecution of such disturbers they call persecution When as they may heare you say It belongs to the Magistrate to punish the wilfull opposers and disturbers of Reformation And more then that you tell them Of the Times of the New Testament it is prophesied that in some cases capitall punishment shall proceed against false Prophets and that by procurement of their nearest kindred Zach. 13.3 And the execution thereof is described Rev. 16.4 to 7. Where the rivers and fountaines of waters that is the Priests and Iesuits that conveigh the Religion of the Sea of Rome throughout the Countries are turned to bloud that is have bloud given them to drinke by the civill Magistrate Does this hold true only against Priests and Jesuits and are all other erroneous schismaticall blasphemous Sectaries to be tolerated I leave them to consider it and you and them to reconcile this and other your many differences and contradictions amongst your selves And when you are well agreed in the way we shall consider how farre you agree with the Truth FINIS Errata Page 7. l. 22. reade offender and often after p. 23. l. last r. institution p. 24. l. 4. r. institution p. 25. l. 16. r. for p. 26. l. 26. for 1. r. 15. p. 30. â— 23. r. except p. 32. l. 15. r. whom p. 34. l. last but one r. Counsell p. 35. l. 8. r. Presbyters p. 45. l. 17. put out the second in p. 53. l. last for And r. from p. 55. l. 2. for feare r. heare p. 76. l. 10. for of r. at
relates which if it be not a fine delusion let the world judge We deny not but gifted Brethren of such abilities as are fit for Office for learning and judgement c. may for approbation exercise their gifts But we only note the difference of these Masters and that these of ours are nearer to Brownisme who by their constant preaching as gifted Brethren countenance and encourage private members supposing themselves gifted sufficiently to preach ordinarily yea and to administer the Seales which as it is lesse * Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospell than preaching so also is annexed unto preaching Mat. 28. as your selfe here speakes and complaine of this practise page 6. 2. A second Act of Authority common to the Elders is They have power to call the Church together 1. You said before Rule was an Act proper to the Office of Elders Now you say it is common you meane perhaps common to both sorts of Elders But then you should have explained the difference or resolved us whether the Ruling-Elders have equall power with the preaching Elders in this Act. For your instance of the Apostles calling the Church together Acts 6.2 is but for one sort of Elders and you bring nothing for the other 2. Besides to call the Church together seemes rather a matter of Order than of Authority For one Elder of either sort may be deputed to this worke But if this be proper to Elders what if the Elders be all offenders who shall call the Church together then Truly this power seemes first to be in the Church in your way who as they had power to gather themselves into one Body without Officers so much more to call an Assembly of themselves That of Ioel 2. for the Priests is weakly alleadged For it appeares not that they were called on to call an Assembly but only to weep v. 17. it was rather the Magistrates Act to proclaime a Fast 3. To examine all members or Officers before they be received of the Church But this according to your principles is spoken to the whole Church and so no proper Act of Elders And expressely above you made this one part of the priviledge or liberty of the people to propound just exceptions against such as offer themselves and if so then also to examine them page 13. 4. A fourth Act of their Rule is Ordination of Officers But 1. This is too confused What Elders doe you meane Preaching or Ruling Have the Ruling-Elders power of Ordination of Pastors and Teachers This as it is without all president of Scripture so it is against a Rule The greater is blessed of the lesser which cannot be by the Apostles Divinity 2. This is no Act proper to the Elders but common to the Brethren by your owne judgement if your minde be not altered since you writ The Way p. 50 51. See it 5. To open the doores of speech and silence in the Assembly But 1. one Elder doth this ergo one Elder hath power and authority not over the Church only but over his fellow Elders also 2. You take it from them presently in some cases When the Elders themselves lye under offence the Brethren have liberty to require satisfaction c. That is the Brethren may open the doore and begin to speake And still you are confused not declaring whether this power belongs to either sort of Elders or both alike especially your instance of the Rulers of the Synagogue seeming to carry it to the Ruling Elders 6. To prepare matters before hand for the Church and to reject causelesse and disorderly complaints c. But doe not you hold Mat. 18.17 to speake of the Church of the Brethren with the Elders then that place is impertinently alleadged to prove an Act proper to the Elders 2. Have the Elders power to judge a complaint to be causelesse and to reject it without the cognizance of the people why then have they not power to judge a complaint to be just and to censure it without their cognizance also Doe you not intrench a little too much upon your peoples Liberty 7. The Elders have authority in handling an offence before the Church both jus dicere and sententiam ferre But all this I thinke the Brownists yeeld who yet give the chiefe if not the only power to the people and give the Elders leave sententiam ferre to pronounce the sentence as their mouth and Deputies And you say They are first to informe the Church what the Law of Christ is which is jus dicere and then when the Church discerneth the same and condiscendeth to it by consent to give sentence But what if the people discerne it not or condiscend not that the sentence shall passe Then they may have power jus dicere which every understanding brother hath but not sententiam ferre A goodly Authority 8. They have power to dismisse the Church with a Blessing To this I say little only I say it is too confused what Elders you meane preaching or Ruling and then I say this is but a matter of Order one only does it and yet I thinke you will not say he hath Authority over his fellowes 9. The Elders have power to charge any of the people in private that they live not inordinately c. 2 Thes 3.6 c. This is very weakly alleadged by a man of your strength The Apostle speaks this to all the Brethren the Thessalonians yea it may concerne women sometimes to warne the unruly especially being to be done in private and doe you bring this for the power of your Elders which sort of Elders doth it concerne to doe this for neither are mentioned Againe the Apostle speaks not of charging or warning at all but peremptorily bids them withdraw v. 6. and to note him by a Letter and have no company with him v. 14. 10. If the Church fall away to blasphemy against Christ c. and no Synod hoped for or no help by it The Elders have power to withdraw the Disciples from them and to carry away the Ordinances with them c. But 1. the case is mislaid for Acts 19.9 the Jewes that there blasphemed were not of the Church but only such as came to heare Paul preach which an Infidell might doe but then this was no proper withdrawing as a power of the Keyes For what had Paul to doe or the Elders with them that are without 2. Suppose the whole Church fall away what shall the Elders doe now They may not excommunicate them you said above and if they may withdraw that 's no more power than the Brethren have of the Elders Apostate 3. How can the Elders carry away the Ordinances from them For first the Elders cease to be Elders when the flocke is separated and ceases to be their flocke Secondly the Brethren may keep the Ordinances with them and have power in your way to chuse new Officers to exercise the Ordinances and then what care they for their withdrawing
who ordaines the Office but who ordaines the Officers Those that the Apostles ordained had their Office immediately from Christ but had not their Ordination immediately from Christ that was the priviledge of the Apostles Now from whomsoever the Officers derive their Ordination immediately from them immediately they doe derive their Authority But say you the Officers doe immediately derive their Ordination from the Church of Brethren ergo they derive immediately their Authority from the Church of Brethren And consequently the Church of Brethren is the first subject of authority as well as of Liberty and not the Elders Certainly all your 3 characters of a first subject fall upon the Apostles and their Successors 1. They first received their power from Christ 2. They first put forth the exercise of that power 3. They first communicated that power to others You say here God hath not given a spirit of Rule and Government ordinarily to the greater part of the body of the Brethren and ergo neither hath he given them the first receit of the Key of Authority to whom he hath not given the gift to imploy it But you give the body of the Brethren alone the first receit and exercise too of the Key of Authority when you give them power to chuse and ordaine their Officers which Ordination is confessed by your selfe to be an Act of Rule and authority ergo The way p. 48. you doe directly contradict your selfe without any possibility of reconciliation that I can imagine Obj. 1. How can the Brethren invest an Elder with Rule if they had not power of Rule in themselves Sol. Partly by chusing him to that Office which God hath invested with Rule partly by subjecting themselves unto him Reply 1. Your first reason is of no validity chusing to an Office doth not invest with the Rule of that Office Election gives not an Office but only nominates or designes a person fit for that Office It is Ordination that gives the Office and the Rule or authority of that Office The seven Deacons chosen by the people were not Officers till the Apostles had ordained them If they were not then election gives no Office and consequently no authority belonging to that Office If they were then Ordination is a meere empty Ceremony and the Brethren doe properly give them authority which themselves have not to give Besides election to this or that place presupposes at least sometimes the party invested with authority before as in the case of translation of an Elder from one Church to another and only admits him to the exercise of it pro hic nunc as they speake 2. Your second reason is as weake as the former Because they professe their subjection to him This cannot invest him with the Rule such as we speake of Suppose a company of Brethren chuse a gifted Brother to prophesie to them and professe their subjection to him in the Lord doth this invest him with authority of an Elder to rule over them If it doe then Ordination is a thing not necessary either by the Brethren or Elders yet by and by we shall heare you require Ordination of Elders to make a compleat Elder If it doe not then you have not satisfied the objection Obj. 2. The Church is Christs Spouse Wife Queene ergo she hath the Keyes of Rule at her girdle Sol. There is a great difference between Queens and poore mens Wives The first have their Officers for every businesse and service and so no Key left in their hands of any Office but of Liberty to call for what they want according to the Kings Royall allowance But poore mens wives that have no Officers may carry the keyes at their owne girdles Reply This answer overthroweth it selfe For 1. the liberty which you grant this Queene the Church is part of the power of the Keyes and a great part too if not the whole viz. to chuse and ordaine her owne Officers and to censure them offending which no Queene is allowed to doe ergo the Church hath the Keyes at her girdle which a Queen hath not 2. You say and that truly The Queene hath only a liberty to call for what she wants but hath no power to make her owne Officers The King doth that by some Officers deputed by himselfe for that purpose to set them apart to give them their commission or oath c. Just so it is in the Church All the Officers are given to the Church objectivè for the good and benefit of the Church but they have no power to make and ordaine their owne Officers but only to call upon them for that allowance which the King of the Church hath granted them 3. If poore mens wives may carry the Keyes of any Office at their owne girdles when their husbands have no Officers you seeme to give a greater honour and liberty to them then to Queenes or Ladyes and withall you give us leave to inferre That Churches that have no Officers of their owne are in better case than those that have They that have Officers have put the Keyes in their Officers hands They that have none may and doe weare them at their owne girdles which if you affirme as you often doe I dare affirme it to be flat Brownisme and not the middle way you pretend Obj. 3. The whole body naturall is the first subject of all the naturall power as sight is first in the body before in the eye Soil It is not in the mysticall as with the naturall body there the faculties are inexistent not so here Reply 1. This againe contradicts your first proposition where you say a particular Church is the first subject of all Church-offices and power And here you say they are not actually inexistent how then is it the first Subject seeing accidentis esse est inesse 2. If the Church chuse out of themselves Officers gifted are not they then inexistent 3. You confesse they are in some cases unlesse say you some of them have all the gifts of all the Officers which often they have not True but oftentimes they have either Presbyters or men fit to be Presbyters And then you answer not the objection And if they have Presbyters before they chuse them to be theirs as your words seeme to import they may then they doe not invest them with power of Elders by chusing them as formerly you seemed to assert Lastly you say If the power of the Presbytery were given to a particular Church of Brethren as such primò per se then it would be found in every particular Church of Brethren But say I you assert both the Antecedent in the first proposition Every particular Congregation is the first subject of all Church power and the consequence when you say Every particular Church hath power to chuse ordaine and censure ergo Obj. 4. The Government is mixt of Monarchy Aristocracy and Democracy ergo the people have some power in Government Sol. Your first answer seemes to
than either propagation or multiplication For these very Churches were before all one Church now only divided into two The Apostles and the first Planters did not thus propagate Churches but went into places where no Churches were no Christians and there gathered and multiplyed Churches We have enough of this division of Churches since your way set up but little of the propagation or multiplication Primitive and Apostolicall For I pray Sir tell us next time you write over how many Churches have you multiplyed amongst the Indians in New-England Not one that I ever heard of You have d vided Churches indeed from old England but propagated none And our Brethren at home how many Churches have they divided and dâ—stracted since their returne but have multiplyed none If some new Teachers should arise in New England and gather or rather steale some members out of every of your Congregations would you call this multiplication of Churches or rather division Had you gone into New England and sent out your Pastors who are by calling spirituall Fathers to convert Indians as was pretended or our Brethren here gone and sent into Wales and other parts little better than heathens and converted them and had gathered them into Churches this had been a propagation of Churches indeed But this they doe not nor will doe nor well can doe For their opinion is and yours too in New England that no Pastor is a Pastor to any but his particular Congregation so their Pastors are only Nurses to give sucke not spirituall Fathers to propagate and beget children to God and his Church That they leave to every gifted brother to raise up seed to their Brethren and not to themselves For if once the children be borne and a little growne up then these Fathers in Law take them up or rather steale them from them who have spent their strength in begetting and breeding them travelling in paine till Christ was formed in them But if a Pastor and flocke be relates is a Teacher so too They may doe well then to send Teachers to beget children for their Pastors lest it be said No man in Office hath any skill or will or power to propagate but only to divide Churches Againe why doe you call this a power of the Keyes for a Church to send out a Congregation as an Hive doth a swarm when they are too full This is their liberty not yours They have power without you to gather themselves together and to enter into a Church-way and to chuse their Officers and doe all as well as you had Lastly if Pastors quâ Pastors or Teachers quâ Teachers are tyed to a particular Congregation then cannot they propigate Churches only gifted Brethren can doe that And so gifted Brethren not Pastors and Teachers are the Successors of the Apostles We thinke Pastors and Teachers are Officers to the whole Church as the Apostles were You will say then they are Apostles First will you say your gifted Brethren are Apostles because they goe abroad to convert and propagate Churches Secondly it followes not That which made the Apostles differ from the Pastors is delivered by your selfe to stand in two things 1. The Keyes p. 32. That an Apostle had in him in all ministeriall power of all the Officers of the Church 2. That Apostolicall power extended to all Churches as much as to any one But withall you say That this power conjoyned in them is now divided by them amongst all the Churches and all the Officers of the Churches respectively I aske then what Officer of the Church hath power to plant and propagate Churches Your gifted Brethren are no Officers of the Church I hope Ruling Elders and Deacons are tyed as well to their particular Churches as the Pastors and Teachers ergo it must fall upon the Pastors and Teachers or there is no such thing now as propagation of Churches But take once more your owne grant in this Paragraph where now we are Though the Apostles be dead whose Office it was to plant and gather Churches yet the worke is not dead but the same power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common c. Marke first you call it a power of the keyes to plant and gather Churches and an Office of the Apostles But this power of the Keyes this Office is not bequeathed to gifted Brethren nor to Ruling-Elders or Deacons ergo it is left to the Pastors or Teachers Next you say the same power of the Keyes is left with the Churches in common You should say with the Pastors or Teachers of the Church or with the Churches indeed but in the hands of her Officers Otherwise you make not only the brethren but sisters too according to their measure as you speake Fathers and Mothers To propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Christ throughout all generations as God shall give opportunity But were it so yet then much more would it concerne the Pastors and Teachers the Successors of the Apostles if they have any at all to propagate and inlarge the Kingdome of Christ as God shall give opportunity CHAP. V. Of the Subject of the Key of Authority THe Key of Authority or Rule is committed to the Elders of the Church and so the Act of Rule is proper to their Office But me thinks you should have done well to distinguish both of Authority and Rule and also of Elders preaching from those they call Ruling-Elders For Authority and Rule may be distinguished because there is Rule in those that are called Ruling-Elders but not Authority to preach and administer Sacraments I would not have noted it but that you confusedly reckon up the particulars of Authority and Rule without distinction what belongs to one sort of Elders what to another As if they did equally belong to both 1. The first is That which the Eldâ—rs who labour in the Word and Doctrine are to attend unto chiefly that is the preaching of the word and the administration of the Sacramentâ— For the first the preaching of the Word some of your Brethren say that private gifted Brethren may prophecye that is preach and others say they may baptize too who yet are denyed power in ruling as being not Elders not Officers to whom the Act of Ruling is proper Indeed you seeme to deny gifted Brethren power to prophesie publickly but your Prefacers write Magister hic non tenetur Yet their owne resolution of the case and their practise doth not well agree They say a gifted Brother may occasionally preach not in an ordinary course But we see they doe it ordinarily and constantly witnesse all their Lecturers their double and treble beneficed Lecturers and one who takes a Benefice but perhaps not the charge of soules nor administration of Sacraments where he constantly preaches If you say They are Elders or Pastors I answer they are so to their owne select Congregations but they are but as gifted Brethren to other Congregations for their principle is Pastor and flocke are
than a passive approbation it might be yeelded but if you meane an actuall or active concurrence that they had not been valid without their votes and consent it s far more than liberty as good authority as any the Apostles and Elders had Obj. But Elders in a Synod have no authority to determine any act to bind the Churches but according to their instructions You answer We doe not so apprehend it For what need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction if they be resolved afore hand how far they will goe Reply Here either you destroy the liberty of the Brethren afore granted and give the Synod a binding power which you seeme to deny or else prevaricate in this cause For according to your principles the Synod hath no power to bind the Churches to stand to their arbitrement for that 's the true power of your Synods under any penall censure only they may withdraw And then I returne you your owne words What need Churches send to a Synod for light and direction c. if they be resolved afore hand how far they will goe 3. Q. Whether the Synod hath power to enjoyne things both in their nature and use indifferent You resolve it negatively 1. From the patterne of Synods Acts 15.28 who enjoyned nothing but necessaries in nature or use Sol. This is an Argument from Scripture negativè they did not here enjoyne any thing but necessaries ergo they had no power to enjoyne things indifferent The consequence is naught 2. The Apostles are commanded to teach what Christ commanded ergo if they teach more they exceed their commission Sol. This Argument is like the former They were to teach what Christ commanded ergo they might teach nothing else in things indifferent They might teach nothing as a commandement of Christ doctrinally in matters of Faith or worship but this hinders not but they might enjoyne some things indifferent as they did forbid the use of some things indifferent in their owne nature viz. bloud and strangled If it be said those were not indifferent in their use at that time I answer There is nothing in the individuall properly indifferent in the use because it fals under some generall rules of Scripture and so is to be used or not used accordingly The question therefore should be Whether a Synod may enjoyne or forbid the use of a thing in its owne nature indifferent And then I should answer affirmatively and defend my selfe by this very president of the Apostles Acts 15. Who did forbid the use of somethings in their owne nature indifferent I would not therefore answer Christ speaketh only of teaching such things which he had commanded as necessary to salvation But I would say Christ speaks of matters of faith or worship That they should teach nothing to be beleeved as a Doctrine of Faith or practised as a part of Gods worship but what he had commanded them Otherwise the Apostles did goe beyond their commission in teaching as necessary to abstaine from bloud c. which Christ never commanded them but rather forbad in abrogating the Ceremoniall Law And whereas you say The Apostle 1 Cor. 14.40 doth not at all enjoyne nor allow the Church to enjoyne such things as decent whose want or whose contrary is not undecent nor such orders whose want or contrary would be no disorder I answer that for men to pray or prophesie with their heads covered or with long haire and women uncovered were things in their owne nature indifferent unlesse you make it necessary as a morall duty for men to pray or prophesie uncovered and women contra which no Interpreters upon that Text doe and yet the Apostle enjoynes the Corinthians so to doe ergo the Synod may doe so too And for your instance of preaching in a gowne A gowne say you is a decent garment to preach in yet such an injunction for Ministers to preach in a gowne is not grounded upon that Text of the Apostle For then a Minister in neglecting to preach in a gowne should neglect the commandement of the Apostle which yet he doth not for if he preach in a cloake he preacheth decently enough True he sins not in point of decency but supposing such a custome in a Church as the custome was for men amongst Corinthians to preach uncovered and the women to be convened in the Congregations the Synod might enjoyne all the Ministers to preach in a gowne as the Apostle did enjoyne them to preach uncovered and he that shall preach in a cloke preaches decently indeed but not orderly and so sins against the Apostles rule of order though not of decency You so speake as if there were only one Rule to be observed or two at most in the use of things indifferent whereas there are at least five to that purpose And by the same reason that the Apostle enjoynes men to keep decency he enjoynes to keep order and so other rules concerning things indifferent Doth not the Apostle complaine of disorder in the Corinthians preaching covered yet the contrary Order was not necessary but in it selfe indifferent The eating of things offered to Idols was a thing in it selfe before that decree of the Apostles indifferent 1 Cor. 10.25 1 Cor. 8.8 yet was now forbidden If you say this was offensive to the Iewes and ergo necessary pro hic nunc I answer this reason made it necessary only where such eating was knowne to be offensive but the Canon made it necessary every where 3. A third reason is taken you say from the nature of the Ministeriall Office in Church or Synod which is stewardly not Lordly and ergo they may dispense no more injunctions to Gods house than Christ hath appointed them I answer its true he may dispense nothing as an institution of Christ but what he hath commanded But yet a Steward may require of the Family and enjoyne them the use of things in themselves indifferent for Order and uniformity As that all shall meet in such an houre in such a place to prayers c. So I thinke you doe in your owne Churches It is indifferent to receive the Lords Supper at Morning or at Evening yet some of you enjoyne it to be done at Evening It is indifferent to baptize in a river in a paile in a Font in a Bason yet I beleeve you enjoyne one of these and forbid the other And whereas you say Christ in these things never provided for uniformity but only for unity I answer then the Apostle exceeded his commission in enjoyning the Corinthians uniformity in their orderly praying or prophecying yea unity is much preserved by uniformity But you propound à question Whether a Synod hath power of Ordination or excommunication And answer 1. That you doubt it was not so from the beginning 2. That if any such occasion should arise amongst you you in a Synod should determine it fit to be done but referre the administration of both to the Presbytery of severall
the offence and consent unto the sentence The Church there meant is that part of the Church which the party refuses to heare but he refuses to heare the Presbytery who doe speake to him not the people who doe not authoritatively speake to him ergo to tell the Church is to tell the Presbytery Sol. 2. The Church is never put for the Presbytery alone in the New Testament Reply 1. This is to beg the question we say it must so be understood in this place and you doe not disprove it Nay 2. you rather confirme it by your answer to the first objection Our Saviour alludes to the Church-censure in the Iewish Church But there the Church censuring was the Synagogue a Court of the Consistory ergo as shall further appeare in the next Obj. 2. In the old Testament the Congregation is often put for the Elders and Rulers of the Church Sol. Not alone but sitting in the presence of the Congregation Reply That is enough for our purpose For we doe not deny but the people might be present to heare things then and so they may now But if the Elders be called the Church as distinct from the people when they sate in presence of the people much more may they be called the Church when they sit alone And to that custome of the Jewes your selfe acknowledge in answer to the first objection doth our Saviour allude when he sayes Tell the Church But the custome of the Jewes was to tell the Elders and Rulers not the people And whereas you say If a sentence illegall was passed by them the people did sometimes protest against it sometime refuse to execute it and the same they might and ought to doe at any time in like cases Though this may be true when things are done in an illegall way and evidently illegall as the instances are yet it is a dangerous assertion to Government for under that pretence people will take liberty to make void any sentence if they conceive it but illegall Obj. 3. By Church he meant a Synod or Classis of Presbyters of many Churches Sol. 1. We find not any where that a Church is put for a Synod of Presbyteries Reply The question is of this place and you must not beg that it is not here meant of a Synod of Presbyteries If it be meant but of the Congregationall Presbytery it quite destroyes the power of the people But we doe not say it is directly meant of a Synod of Presbyteries but by a just consequence If a Congregationall Presbytery be here meant as we thinke it is to reclaime a particular offending party in a Congregation Then by proportion here is meant a Synod of Presbyteries when a whole Church erres or is hereticall or else Christ hath not provided so well for a whole Church as for a particular person And thirdly we cannot see a reason why a Church may not be taken for a Synod of Presbyteries as well as a Synod may be called A Church of Churches as it is by your selfe page 49. A Congregation of Churches a Church of Churches for what is a Synod but a Church of Churches so you Sol. 2. As a Congregation cannot reach the removall of all offences so it may be said that it were not fit to trouble Synode with every offence and when they doe meet they may erre also and so may a generall Councell and so no remedy for them Reply 1. We doe not say that Synods are to be troubled with every small offence or to take the businesse of a Congregation out of their hands but only with greater matters and when the Congregationall Presbytery cannot end them or is so bad it will not 2. Synods and Councels may erre but not so easily as a particular Congregation And alicubi sistendum there must be an end of pursuit and referre the businesse to the judgement of Jesus Christ the King of the Church As in case of Parliaments the highest Tribunall that we have they may erre and if they doe private persons must sit downe or appeale to the next But that is a strange assertion That it was not the purpose of Christ to prescribe a rule for the removall of all offences out of the Church but only such private and lesse hainous as grow notorious by obstinacy For if they be publicke the Apostle gives another rule to cast such a person out of all communion without that admonition c. Reply The Apostle did not meane absolutely that they should cast out the incestuous person but supposing his impenitency and obstinacy to give satisfaction For I cannot imagine that the Apostle would have an humbled penitent offender cast out of all communion And you know it is supposed by many learned Divines the man was not excommunicated but upon the charge reproofe and admonition yeelded and escaped the censure Of which more by and by But say you What if the whole Presbytery offend or such a party as will draw a faction in the Church The readiest course is to bring the matter to a Synod But you have prescribed two other remedies elsewhere 1. The Brethren may withdraw or 2. they may proceed to censure their whole Presbytery that is I thinke to excommunicate them why then should they trouble themselves with a Synod which is hardly procured If the Congregation be found faithfull and willing to remove an offence by due censure why should the offence be called up to more publick Iudicature and the plaister made broader than the sore They are your owne words page 42. I forbeare the other objections Arg. 3. From the practise and example of the Church of Corinth Obj. This was the act of Paul no act of judiciall authority in the Church but rather of subjection to his sentence c. Sol. The judgement of Paul was not a judiciall sentence delivering him to Satan but a judicious doctrine and instruction teaching them what to doe in that case Reply Thus you may evade that other Text where yet you grant that Paul alone did excommunicate Alexander and justifie his doing of it as having in him the power of the whole Church and when absent from the Church or party he might use it Are not the places paralell I have delivered him to Satan and I have judged already that such an one be delivered to Satan Else it might be said Paul did not deliver Alexander to Satan but only judged it doctrinally that the Church ought to excommunicate him And that the Church did by a juridicall sentence deliver the incestuous person to Satan is not evident as I said afore but rather that hearing of the Apostles sentence decreed against him he repented and so the execution was stayed Sufficient unto the man is the rebuke of many 2 Cor. 2.6 As for their forgivenesse of him it might be only brotherly by way of charity as offended by him not juridicall by way of authority For the brethren by your owne confession had only Liberty not