Prelaticall or Papall tyranny â—et all indifferent men judge When as we put the authoritative and judicall Power of censures in the hands of the Eldership or Rulers of the Church onely we make not people meer spectators or witnesses of what is done But give unto them a rational obediential consent so that they are not oblidged to give their obedientiall consent and concurrence to the Elderships acts if they find theâ—… not agreeable to the Word of God And your own most judicious and best advised make the dogmaticall determination of censure which they ascribe to the sole Eldership as obligatory upon the people for their obedience as we do the Presbyteries sentence and as their Preaching of the Word of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. whereas in the Presbyterian way inferior Elderships are countable for their proceedings to Superior more ample and larger Elderships and incase of grievance by the sentence of an inferior appeal and recourse may be had to a Superior more ample which is far from the Prelaticall or Papall way wherein the procedure is from moe to fewer till you come to one A Lord Metrapolitan or an universall Pope but in your way three Elders giving a dogmatical determination with four or five private brethren concurring with them as they are obliged to obey their determination as much as their Preaching of the Gospell may Excommunicate a man and are accountable to none on earth in a Church way to recognosce or â—edresse if they do amisse and if they should deliver souls enough to Satan unjustly there is none on earth that can authoâ—itatively call them to an account in a Church way to say to them What do you Now let the World judge whether of these two be nearest a * See a sad instance of this related by M. Caudrey vindic vind Epistle to the diss Papall power three Elders with some few private brethren having supreame Power on earth to Excommunicate persons unaccountable uncorrigible by any Superiour on earth Or some Presbyters acting in subordination to a larger Presbytery to whom recourse may be had for recognoscing their proceedings and sentence and rectifying it if amisse and if these haply fail then recourse may be had yet to a Synode may be consisting of a hundred Ministers and as many or more choise Elders of all the Churches of a whole Province Yea and if haply th◠〈◊〉 a failing there recourse may be had to a Synode of severaâ—â—undreds of the choice Ministers and Elders of all the Churches of a whole Nation I say again â—et all indifferent men judge whether of these wayes be nearest to the Papall Power 2. It s a foul misreprâ—sentation that our Interpretation of the place 1 Cor. 5. 4. is the very Doctrine of Iesuits of Rheâ—s We confesse we say as they because therein they say with the truth that authority of giving sentence was not in the whole multitude of the Church and that the Power of binding and loosing was not given to the whoâ—e Church at the subject but for their good as the end and in this they say righter then they that say the contrare which they falsly ascribe to all Protestant Divines But the Rhemists Jesuites puts that power in the hands of the sole Prelates Officeâ— that were never of Gods appointing excluding all other Ministers of Christ we with the Word of God disclaiming all Prelates maintain it to be in all the Ministers and Elders of the Church to â—e exercised by them conjunctim Rhemists with other Papists make their Prelaticall power and authority lordly soveraigne dictatorian tyrannicall oblidging the people to absolute blind obedience We give no power to Elders but Ministeriall the actings and determinations whereof ought not to be received by people in a way of blind obedience but may and ought by them be tryed and proven in the judgement of private discretion whether they â—e agreeable to their rule the Word of God or not 3. When as Mr. Lockier sayeth that Gods people are deprived of their best liberties when they have not joint authoritative concurrence and vote in the Acts of Government but these are only in the hands of the Eldership and that is a bondage to them and that 't is little oddes under whom they have this bondage one Prelate or many Presbyters 1. I think upon more serious advice and deliberation he will take up that word againe where hee calls liberty of judiciall authoritative voteing in Acts of Government the best liberties of the people of God I think he will find they have liberties much better then that But 2. does Mr. Lockâ—…r indeed account it a depriving of people of their Liberties and a bondage to be under the Government of Rulers with whom they may not all and every one of them joyn 〈◊〉 â—…tively in the Acts of Government Certainly this principâ—…â—s under his words here and beleeve tho it may please Levellers well for it is just their language yet it will not â—ellish very well to such as have the present Government in their hand â— When he sayeth that Presbyters take power to themselves without the word viz. in acting in Government without joynt authoritative concurrence of the people and therefore may justly have the same title with other usurpers c. we say the Author buâ— begs the Question that they take that power without the 〈◊〉 which he has not yet proven nor ever will The Word of God being clear for it that they are Rulers set over the Church to govern them and people commanded to give obedience unto them in that relation â—nd therefore to call them as 〈◊〉 whom Jesus Christ never appointed to be Rulers over his Church usurpers is nothing else but to call good evill and light darknesse section 11 The Authors second instance to make out his generall Assertion undertaken SECT 6. is taken from the proceedings of the Synod of Jerusalem Acts 15. Where the Apostles themselves were present and diverse Elders with them the matters being of great consequence as well for faith as practice Yet nothing was done in the beginning carrying on or ending of the same but with interessing the Congregation and the Brethren their names being to the Letters they speaking in the Assembly they having satisfaction by Argument and not overborn by Authority and these joining their assent in sending back chosen Messengers from amongst them as Judas and Silas to other Churches they were the Apostles Elders with the whole Church that joyned in it Acts 15. 22 23. If at any time the Church might been left out it might have been at such a time aâ— this when the inspired Apostles were present and in matters of this nature yet would they not leave such an example to future Churches of such a way Ans Were Mr. Lockiers cause he pleadeth for never so good yet I must crave leave to say it is ill managed in this instance If I have not ground to say so I â—ave to impartiall men to
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
have power and authority graâ—en upon them and are such names as not only heathen writers but also the Greek Version of the Old Testament by the 72. and the Originall of the New Testament are wont to give to politicall Officers to expresse their politicall power and government now all these titles and denominations are attributed to Christs Officers in his Church as cannot be denyed And are not any where in Scripture attributed to the whole Church or any other member of the Church whatsoever besides Church Officers Nay they are ordinarly attributed to the Officers in contradistinction to the body of the Church But see we what the Author answers section 8 Minuta's saith he first in generall in Parables must not be fastened on but principalia what is their main scope Ans What And are all these names given to Christs Officers in his Church nothing else but parables Or are they Parables at all taking them as titles or names given to the Officers in the Church I have thought a Parable as we take it now in the Scripture sense to be narratio rei verae vel verisimiliter gestae ad simile significandum seu explicandum as Pareus describeth Math. 13. 3. i. e. a narration of a thing truly done or probable to signifie or explain a like thing and not a simple term or title given to a thing Indeed some of them no doubt are metaphoricall But a simple Metaphor for ought I know is not a Parable And I pray when the Apostle saith Rom. 12. 8. He that ruleth let him do it with diligence And 1 Corin. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church governments And 1 Thessal 5. 11. Know those that are over you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Lord and other such places is the Apostle in these places speaking parables But be it so that the Author takes a parable for a simple Metaphore Will any man but the Author say that all and every one of these forementioned names are attributed to the Officers of Christ in the Church only Metaphorically and none of them in a proper signification Indeed some of them I confesse are Metaphoricall as Father Pastors or Shepherds Stewards But withall others of them as Presbyters in the politicall sense of the word Rulers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are as properly and univocally attributed to them as unto such as in the civil Common-wealth have the same names attributed to them The Philosopher tells us Categor c. 1. that these are Synonyma and so participate a name properly which have not only the name common but also the same definition accommodate to thâ—t 〈…〉 â—o it is here as 〈…〉 Ecclâ—siaâ—… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 a comâ—… 〈…〉 indued 〈…〉 â—ay of 〈…〉 â—…ndent 〈◊〉 will no◠〈…〉 same 〈…〉 being 〈…〉 proâ—… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 Church â—o import in thâ—… 〈…〉 authority 〈…〉 we 〈…〉 to his mor◠〈…〉 section 9 Elders 〈…〉 should 〈…〉 not absolute â—ow 〈…〉 power is to make th◠〈…〉 self and oâ—hers 〈…〉 as being 〈…〉 stock Ans 〈…〉 brought by 〈…〉 â—…urch of the 〈…〉 borrowed â—rom the 〈…〉 â—…ether Ecclesâ—…stick 〈…〉 â—…at can be said to â—lude the 〈…〉 â—…tive power of Government 〈…〉 abundantly dâ—shâ—d by 〈…〉 â—…d Book â— c. 9. pag. 〈…〉 his read I wonder â—ow 〈…〉 sâ—ry answer he hat◠〈…〉 Author hath on this purpose 〈…〉 him adding what 〈…〉 true that the 〈…〉 which of thâ—m yâ—u 〈…〉 Rulâ—… of the Woâ—d 〈…〉 â—o more 〈…〉 to direct 〈…〉 â—…sell or 〈…〉 the Rul◠〈…〉 having 〈…〉 others 〈…〉 rules aâ—… 〈…〉 superio◠〈…〉 as Beza 〈…〉 vit no◠〈…〉 word 〈…〉 â—xim◠〈…〉 Sep◠〈…〉 â—the◠〈…〉 thâ— is 〈…〉 use 〈…〉 of Government 〈…〉 Church 〈◊〉 it 〈…〉 Mr. Loâ—â—… 〈…〉 the only 〈…〉 â—…me name 〈…〉 whic◠〈…〉 way of counsell and 〈…〉 of â—…wer and 〈…〉 to all the Church 〈…〉 way of 〈…〉 to authority and 〈…〉 simple 〈…〉 forth of â—…ght 2. 〈…〉 this 〈…〉 â—…uted to the Office 〈…〉 were to makâ—… 〈…〉 â—…erse exposition 〈…〉 think the Authorâ—… 〈…〉 â—representing oâ—… 〈…〉 â—ording 〈…〉 unto 〈…〉 â—steriall not 〈…〉 but also limited 〈…〉 â—…sts 〈…〉 people 〈◊〉 obligâ—… 〈…〉 of the wor◠〈…〉 simple direâ—… 〈…〉 and perswasâ—… 〈…〉 â—governâ—… 〈…〉 â—…all Go◠〈…〉 Presbyteriaâ—… 〈…〉 not meerly 〈…〉 â—reater knowledg◠〈…〉 â—an of knowledg◠〈…〉 â—oer of 〈…〉 Erastian sayeth 〈…〉 â—differ one from an other 〈…〉 â—ost contrary to common 〈…〉 â—…ment 2. I would 〈…〉 who le body of the 〈…〉 then meeâ— diâ—ection 〈…〉 â—thoritative power of government 〈…〉 that their power over 〈◊〉 absolute 〈…〉 â—ver their â—aith I think◠〈…〉 say that 〈…〉 Ministeriall and such 〈…〉 very place 2 Cor. 1. as in v. 24 â—…ed by the Author he affirâ—… of himself and other Officers that they did not take unto themselves a 〈…〉 power ovâ—… 〈…〉 of the Church So in the 〈…〉 Officers had a 〈…〉 then of meer 〈…〉 To spare you 〈…〉 power to corâ—… 〈…〉 â—…oved to have 〈…〉 Go we on with the 〈…〉 section 10 They ar◠〈…〉 such 〈◊〉 should use diligent inspeâ—… 〈…〉 to the â—…ck that none go astâ—… 〈…〉 â—…oof consolation c. 〈…〉 â—…ops or Lording Presbyâ—… 〈…〉 dominantes in Ecclesiâ—â—… 〈…〉 â—…stle doth not by that 〈…〉 ove◠〈◊〉 in◠〈…〉 or Lording Presbyteâ—… 〈…〉 Church by force and violence Mr. Lockier but stand 〈◊〉 the Doctrine of Presbyterians in 〈…〉 â—…tation of the tâ—rme upon them and fights 〈…〉 own 〈…〉 We 〈◊〉 no other sort of powâ—… 〈…〉 to Presbyterâ— over the Church than he 〈…〉 to the Congregation and Presbyters joyntly 〈…〉 particular member Unlesse he will with State-sycoâ—…t â—rastiaâ—… deny all Ecclesiastick rule and government and I 〈◊〉 he will not say this is Lording or Lordly rule dominiering by 〈…〉 violence The Question between Presbyterians and Independâ—… is not touching the nature of Ecclesiastick power of government in it self whether Lordly domiâ—ering or not but touching the Subject in which it is and by which it is to be formally exâ—…sed whether the Officers of the Church or the whole collective body of the Church We say the Officers or Elders only and that the nam◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 importing a ruling power and authority given to them by the Spirit of God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contradiâ—…ction to the body of the Church proveâ— this which is not infringed by what is said by Mr. Lockier here For â— when as he â—…yeth that they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because of diligent inspection waâ—…fulnesse heed taking to the flock that none go astray for want of counsell 〈…〉 consolâ—… 〈…〉 whether be means inspecâ—… 〈…〉 over 〈…〉 â—…hibiting reproof consoâ—…on 〈…〉 a not-authoritative 〈…〉 we have our point For 〈…〉 by that name and the 〈…〉 â—guished from the rest of 〈…〉 that the power of râ—…ing is only 〈…〉 by them only If he say the later 〈…〉 and 〈◊〉 to every single Beleever 〈…〉 11 12. Coloss 3. 16. Galat. 6. 1. and 〈…〉 might have the name of
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
did apostatize much and so forsook their assemblings and so their exhorting one another with all these means of grace and life which God hath instituted in this new house and so indeed grew worse and worse till at last they came as the rest of the Jewish Churches to nothing As long saith the Apostle as ye hold fast the practice and power of what you profess so long you are a Church but when you let go this you unchurch your selves and should it be persued upon you you should be thrown out as unhallowed mater but if others which should do it will not do it the Master himself who is faithfull will do it He wil cast such a Church wholly off which thus suffer his institution to be corrupted and so indeed he did write Loammi upon the first Churches quickly after the Apostles time for this thing section 7 Ans If this be not to force Scripture and make it speak what men please I know not what else is Let 's first mark some groundlesse Assertions and then we shall come to the main point of our Answer 1. I wonder at that rash assertion in the close of this and so indeed did he write Loammi upon the first Churches quickly after the Apostles time for this thing What and were the first Churches so soon casten off by Goâ— as no Churches What divine warrant is brought for this Assertion Sir produce the Bill of Divorcement given to them from the Lord. And was there never a Church since untill they were erected of the new Independent frame and model Were all the Christian Churches in Asia Africk and Europe in the times of the four famous Generall Counsels the first whereof was about three hundred years after the Apostles time now no Churches at all Here indeed look out the Donatists ubi cubas in meridie especially if we 'll consider upon what account the Author unchurches them because forsooth they admitted members into their fellowship which were not true Converts partakers of the sure mercies of David c. this is very Donatism in grain 2. The Author supposeth that the Apostle here is speaking to a Church of the Jews i. e. to one particular Congregation distinct from all the rest of the Jewish Churches This is but a bare Assertion without any proof or semblance of proof joined with it We know that some of the Learned Interpreters take this Epistle to have been written not to any particular Church or Congregation but to the whole multitude of the Jews professing Christian Religion scattered abroad through the world as were the Epistles of James and Peter and have for them an argument not improbable from that 2. Epist of Peter c. 3. v. 15. 'T is true that others think otherwayes upon consideration of what we read Heb. 13. 19. where the divine Author desires them he writes to to pray for him that he might be restored the sooner to them which seemeth to import a more limited compasse then the whole dispersion But granting this that it was not written to all the Jews why might it not be written to all the Christian Jews that were in Palestina and Judaea Most part Interpreters take it so but that it was written to one single Congregation of the Jews as Mr. Lockier would have it who will believe upon his bare word 3. He seems to suppose a clear untruth of these to whom the Apostle speaketh viz. that they did apostatize much forsook their Assemblies their mutuall exhorting with all the means of grace and life Indeed the Apostle warneth them to take heed of these things and speaks of some that did so but as for them he writeth unto he layeth no such thing to their charge as done by them but giveth testimony to the contrair c. 6. v. 9 10. cap. 10. v. 32 33 34 39. 4. The maine mistake groundlesse supposition here is this that when the Apostle saith whose house ye are if ye hold fast c. he meaneth this of an outward Visible Church-state So long saith he as ye hold fast c. so long ye are a Church he meaneth a stated Visible Church but when you let go c. you un-Church your selves c. And so as we see will have the words to involve a threatning of losing that visible Church-state upon failing of performance of that which is urged viz. holding fast the confidence c. contrary to the current of all Orthodox Interpreters * See Pareus Hyper. others in Morlorâ—t Excellent is Mr. Dav. Dickson a man of exercised senses in the Word of God his opening of these words N. 3. He the Apostle addeth a condition if we hold fast c. i. e. If we continue stedfast inward ly gripping the promised glory by hopâ— outwardly avowing by confession CHRISTS Truth Whereby he neither importeth the possibilitie of finall apostacy of the Saints nor mindeth to weaken the confidence of Believers more then he doubteth of his own perseverance or mindeth to weaken his own faith but writing to the number of the visible Church he putteth a difference between true believers who do indeed persevere and time-servers who do not persevâ—re to whom he doth not grant for the present the priviledge of being the house of God And then he hath this 2d. Doct. such as shall make defection finall are not a part of Gods house for the present howsoever they be esteemed I believe any judicious Reader will see this Interpretation somewhat more genuine then that of Mr. Lockiers who expone that whose house ye are of the state of grace and spirituall communion with Christ proper to the Mysticall Invisible Church in regard of which Christ dwells in the heart by faith and consequently conceive not the context of the verse to import a turning of them out of one state which now they were in into another estate upon non-performance of that duty which is required But to intimate that the non-performance thereof would discover that they were not in that state which they professed themselves and seemed to others to be in And I prove that it is to be Interpreted thus and not as Mr. Lockier will have it The Apostle meaneth the same here whose house ye are c. which he saith v. 14. We are partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence c. So Interpreters agree that one and the same thing is said in both verses and the very purpose it self evidenceth so much But now is partaking of Christ nothing else but to be in a Visible Church state Yea for confirmation let it be observed that the Apostle saith not whose house ye are but we are so that he speaks of some what under the metaphor of house which he supposeth common to him and them together What was this Visible Church-member-ship of a certain we are not told where residing particular congregation of Jewes Mr. Lockier hes not heeded this or has purposely passed it over 5.
There seemeth to me in Mr. Lockiers words here somewhat very like the Arminian apostacy of Saints while you hold fast saith he the practice and power of what you professe and when you let it go c. is he indeed of this judgement that men may have the practice and power of godlinesse and afterward let it go If he say he meaneth of such as have had it so far as men could judge c. well this qualification if in any place should have been mentioned here where without it there might be so readily an apprehension of apostacy from true grace But tell me doth the Apostle when he saith if ye hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of hope firm unto the end mean thus if ye have and hold fast these things so far as men can judge What vestigium of this appeareth in the Text Nay is not the Apostle in that whole Chapter speaking of grace to be performed and held fast in veritati rei * Which if he wil have to be the requisite qualification of the matter of of the visible Church in the Ecclesiastick Court he may as soon get a Visible Church as a new World in the Moon or Mr Mores Vtopia in very deed Was there ever any Interpreter that expoundeth him otherwise SECTION IV. The Authors Texts which he calls hints and shadows of his Doctrine section 1 THe first is Mat. 16. on which place the Author thus note these things 1. That Christ doth not speak here of the Invisible Church For he speaks of the power of the keyes binding and loosing on earth the Invisible Church is the greatest part in heaven and they which are in earth considered as one with them as one intire universall Body whereof Christ is the Head are not capable of Visible and limited Discipline therefore I judge we are to gather from Christs Words that he speaks by way of anticipation of that visible order which he did purpose to institute after his departure by his Apostles whereof Peter was one 2. Observe of what mater he saith this building should be viz. of such as have a faith which flesh and bloud cannot reveal and to a body thus constitute is the power of the keyes and both these represented and personated to us in Peter I do not find the learned and Orthodox of latter times apply this place to the Invisible Church and I think I am not then a forcer of the Scripture in the sense I gave of it section 2 Answer I wonder much how this has fallen from the Authors mouth and Pen that he saith he doth not find the learned and Orthodox of latter times to apply this place to the Invisible Church Do not all the learned and Orthodox Writing against the Papists on the Controversie of the Church refute the Papists expounding it of the Visible Church and prove it to be understood of the Invisible Church and every member thereof and do not the learned Orthodox commonly Writing against the Arminians upon the controversie of perseverance apply it to the Invisible Church and use it as one of the prime Arguments for proving the certain finall perseverance of true Beleevers See these noted on the Margin Whittaker de Ecclesia centies notentur praesertim illa loca q 1. c 1. Ecclesia aliquando totum corpus electorum fidelium sanctorum significat ut cùm in Symbolo dicitur Credo Ecclesiam Catholicam sic in hoc loco Math. 16. 18. c. 13. par 1. per tot q. 2. c. 1. he propoundeth the Question with the Papists thus De Ecclesiâ in Petra aedificatâ quaeritur inter adversarios nos sitne visibilis an invisibilis And part 3. he determines according to the Protestant Doctrine that it is invisibilis c. 2. Bellarminus dicit Calvinum non potuisse unum Scripturae locum proferre ubi nomen Ecclesiae invisibili Congregationi tribueretur Resp inquit falsum hoc esse nam Ecclesia aliquanâ—o invisibilem Congregationem significat ut in hoc ipso loco quem tractamus Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam q. 3. c. 2. §. 2. 2 â— Adversargumentum sumitur ex iis locis in quibus nomen Ecclesiae expersse ponitur ut Math. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. in utroque loco inquit Adversarius agitari de Ecclesia visibili tamen ipsam veritatem audivimus asserentem portas inferorum non praevalituras Resp inquit Whitt illam quidem Ecclesiam de qua loquitur Christus nunquam posse deficere sed quod assumit illam Ecclesiam de qua loquitur Christus esse visibilem illud affirmo esse falsissimum Here is a plain and round contradiction to M â— Lockiers note upon this place Joan. Alsted suppl Chamier de Eccles nat l. 1. c. 17. par 2. Resp 2. Duo ista loca N. Math. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. agunt de Ecclesia Catholica invisibili seu interna quae constat ex solis bonis neque enim Ecclesia visibilis quae constat ex bonis malis est fundata super Petram Anton. Wall Loc. Com. de Ecclesia militant on the question An Ecclesia possit errare in Ans to the 2d. Obj. of Papists upon this place Math 16. 18. Negamus inquit hunc locum esse intelligendum de Ecclesia visibili sed universali invisibili cui proprie competit haec firmitas insuperabilis The Orthodox in Colloq Hagien and Amesius in his Coron presse it as a prime place for the perseverance of Saints We might instance very many moe but we need not the thing is known to all acquainted in Orthodox Writers Nay some eminent Papists themselves have acknowledged that is spoken not of the Visible Church but of the Invisible Ferus non loquitur de Ecclesiâ ut communiter sumitur pro his qui Christiani dicuntur sive boni sint sive mali sed de Ecclesiâ secundum Spiritum quae solos electos complectitur So Cajetan on the same place Adversus Ecclesiam quae constat ex Congregatione fidelium unâ side spe charitate c. Mr. Lockiers reason brought to prove that it is not spoken of the Church Invisible is but weak which will appear the better if it be put into form for it is somewhat confusedly propounded by himself as I conceive it may be thus That Church is understood here which is capable of visible limited Disciplin but the Church Invisible is not capable of this Therefore c. Ans 1. How is the Major or first Proposition proven By insinuation thus He speaks of the power of the keyes binding and loosing on earth What thence Ergo he speaks before of such a Church as is capable of visible limited Discipline If I deny the Consequence how will he prove it I do not see it nor think he shall ever be able to make it out 2. But to passe the Proposition let 's see the proof of the Assumption The
candid construction and Interpretation upon his conclusion let it be so that by mater not approven and not-allowed of the Lord in the Visible Church is meant not-approved and not-allowed no simpliciter but in relation to Ecclesiastick proceeding in foro exteriore and by persons meerly professing be meant persons not truely gracious not of necessity in truth of existence but at least so far as men can discern and judge Come we now to see what shadow of this point is in the Scripture alledged here I shall go through the grounds laid down from it in order section 7 To the first â—t hath some shew of contradiction that he saith 1. That the Visible Church shall not be left and ruined and then again that it shall be raised from its ruines made by unsound men If he say that in the former he means utter and lasting ruine and in the latter ruine in part and for a time Well that would have been expressed so it appears not well how this said here the state and welfare of the Visible Church shall not be left and ruined can consist with that said pag. 11. that the institution of Christ was so corrupted in the first Churches that Christ did write Loammi upon them and that quickly after the Apostles dayes But I would ask here the Author what he means by the Visible Church that shall not be left and ruined Whether any one particular Congregation or the Catholick Visible Church If the Catholick Visible Church I shall grant that the state and welfare thereof though never so much infested shall not be left and ruined utterly But I doubt much if Mr. Lockier will acknowledge such a Visible Church sure I am these of his way are very averse from acknowledging it though it be a thing most certain and clear in the Word of God because indeed the granting of it undermines all the frame of their Independent way Yea and he himself all along his Peece treating of the mater of the Visible Church speaks of a Visible Church which is nothing else but a particular Congregation If he mean any one particular Congregation which is most suteable to his way I see not how it can be truely said that it shall not be left and ruined sure we find no promise in the Word for this and the experience of many particular Churches that have been ruined utterly and never raised again proves the contrary 2. He saith that by the Temple in that place Rev. 11. is meant the Visible Church and doth no more but say it that which is alledged from Marlorat * Note the passages cited out of Marlo here by Mr. Lockier and to be cited by us are not all Marlorats own words yet because they are by him gathered from others they may be accompted his by approbatioÌ„ so be conveniently cited under his name maketh nothing for this This Author only saith hunc in modum jubet ut Ecclesiam Joannes metiatur c. but saith not Ecclesiam Visibilem Nay it may appear evidently to any attentive Reader that this Author all along his comentary upon the place in hand understands by the name of the Church the Church Invisible the society of the Elect true Beleevers who are Christs Mysticall body See especially these passages * â— On these words datus est mihi he calls them pios Dei cultores item electos 2. On these atrium quod c. calls them Ecclesiam de qua non sunt haeretici hypocritae quanquam in ea versari vidcantur and cites for clearing thereof 1 Joh. 2. 19. which all Orthodox against Arminians on the point of perseverance expounds of the elect and truly gracious i. e. the Church invisible 3. On these ne metiaris illud calls it spirituale aedificium quod nunquam corruere poterit and distinguisheth such from these that are casten out as elect from reprobates noted in the Margin But let it be so that by the Temple is meant the Visible Church we conceive this may well be meant and the differencing and distinguishing thereof from the Antichristian Synagogue falsly arrogating to themselves the title and priviledges of the Church Go we on then to see what the Author out of this and what followes will make out for his point section 8 For the 2d ground Albeit by the Altar some learned and Godly commentators as namely Paraeus understand Christ Yet let it be as the Author saith that thereby is meant by a Synecdoche the whole Worship of God and passing the third As to the fourth I would first inquire why the Author saith by way of restriction that the worship and worshippers now under the Gospel are to be measured and kept regulated to an exact rule viz. the Word of God What were not the worship and worshippers under the Old Test also to be measured and kept regulated to the Word of God Were these things then left loose to be disposed on and ordered at mens pleasure I wot not well what this restriction means but sure I am it looks ill-favouredly The Author will do well to clear himself in it 2. But how will he prove that which he only takes here for granted that the intention of the Spirit of God in this Scripture is to hold forth a generall rule concerning the outward constitution of the Visible Church as to the mater thereof and how members ought to be qualified for admission to it and not rather in a Propheticall vision to fortell what was to come to passe de facto concerning the Church-worship and adherers to the true worship sundry learned Interpreters conceive that this latter is the intention and purpose of this vision that the true Church the true worship of God and the worshippers after that true maner of worship of God instituted by himself was to be brought to great straits obscurity and paucitie in comparison of the false and Antichristian Church worship and worshippers and that this is meant by the measuring with the Rod and not the regulating of the state of the Church and qualification of members See both Brightman and Merhiston vpon the place But 3. Grant the meaning of the place to be as if the Spirit had said to John hold forth dogmatically that the Church as to its constitution the worship and such as are to be acknowledged worshippers are to be regulated by the rule of the Word of God which we deny not in the generall then I ask what is that particular rule held forth in the Word by which persons are to be regulated and discerned in relation to their admission to fellowship of outward worshipping section 9 He goeth about to make this manifest in the fifth and sixth grounds we marked laid down by him to which and what is said by him in the following forth thereof we repone these things 1. The Court which is without or as some others read within and to be casten out others understand far otherwayes not
Author to the Hebrews saith and made Jews inwardly a holy Nation according to inward call and choise and so a spirituall Priesthood section 11 Answ 1. Here again we are to mark the Conclusion that Mr. Lockier would be at touching the mater of the Visible Church such as are all indeed from above as have indeed an internall consecration the Law given into the mind made Jews inwardly an holy Nation according to inward choise and call Here indeed is an Anabaptisticall model of the Visible Church all reall saints and not in the judgement of charity only Mr Lockiers so far as spirituall men can judge as it is wholly left out by himself so it cannot well be admitted to have any place here 1. Because he saith they are all indeed from above and have indeed an internall consecration that indeed I think to every mans apprehension noteth veritatem rei in se or judicio veritatis as they call it as contradistinguished a judicio charitatis of spirituall men 2. Because that place Heb. 8. 10. cited from Jer. 31. 33. brought in by him for confirmation of his purpose he is speaking of of the impertinency whereof to the purpose in hand I mean the constitution of the Visible Church we shall speak presently speaketh of truth and reality of grace in the heart I may say in the very judgement of God himself under which there is no possibility of mistake But to the grounds he goeth upon from this Text. 2. He taketh for granted that this whole Chapter is taken up to shew the state of the Visible Church in its constitution as such and that it is the Spirits intention in the vision set down in it to give unto John a patern thereof to be a rule to him and others then and succeeding ages for regulating the constitution of it and particularly in the point of Church-members but why did he not assay some proofe of this Must we take every thing upon his bare assertion 'T is true Learned Brightman in his commentary conceiveth that this vision containeth a common Type of the holy Church in all ages But 1. In all the progresse of his commentarie on that Chapter I find not any evident passage pointing at any particular in the vision as a patern type or rule concerning the qualification of such as are to be admitted in the external fellowship of the Visible Church as the homogeneall parts of the outward visible body 2. Though I will not stay here to examine the intent of all the particulars in that vision and though I esteem much of the judgement of that learned and pious man yet in the generall I must say I find no convincing argument nor much appearance of any argument at all brought by him to prove that the intent of the vision was to give John a patern a certain portraicture or resemblance of the Church whereby we might know which is she Yea albeit I confesse sundry particulars in the vision are things of the Church in the Interpretation whereof I would not much disagree from Brightman yet I think he is mistaken in taking that for the generall intent and purpose of the vision and conceives that John being now to receive a new Propheticall Revelation concerning these things that were to come to passe in and upon the Church from that time to the end of the World ver 1. fin The intention of the vision of this Chapter is to describe and set forth the Glory and Majesty of God the Father the first Author of the Prophesie as in the next Chapter is described the Son the Mediatour and subordinate Author thereof as it is ordinary when the Lord is to communicate to his Prophets and by them to the Church Propheticall Revelations of great things to come to passe concerning the Church to present by way of preparation some glorious representation of himself as we may see Esay 6. and Ezek. 1. See these words of the learned and judicious Gomarus upon that Chapter on the Margin * Sequitur to wit from v. 2. descriptio Authoris Coelestis partim ratione visaeillius Majestatis partim praeceptae honorationis ejusdem Cujus descriptionis scopus est primum commendatio apocalypseos ex Authore Caelesti deinde Ecclesiae in fide timore Dei ac patientia confirmatio ex Majestate honoratione illius promanante Quae describuntur opportune nam revelandum est hoc libro mysterium status Ecclesiae afflictissimae c. so Gomar And certainly had it been the purpose of the Spirit by this vision to hold forth a patern portraicture and resemblance of the true Church common to all ages least because of troubles and disturbances we should either think it utterly extinguished or at least through ignorance of her right form and figure we should be lesse able to know which is she as Mr. Brightman saith it seemeth the wisedom of the Spirit of God would have portraicted the figure and form of the Church in these things that are most substantiall in the constitution of it so as Christians of ordinary capacitie might been able to discern take up the true Church by but Mr. Brightman himself is even troubled to find what things are meant by every particular in the vision And in some he bringeth but meer conjectures yea and likely is mistaken as could we stay might be very probably shown as for example in his Exposition of the sea of Glasse like Christall before the Throne 3. But what is the particular in the vision from which Mr. Lockier deduceth his conclusions this viz. that it was in Heaven he saw it a door was opened in Heaven and the Throne was set in Heaven this saith he was to shadow that the worshippers should be indeed from above c. and to make it the stronger it is confirmed by a comparison of what was done with Moses Moses had his patern upon the Mount nigh Heaven c. Answ 1. Here is a thing begged for a ground that as Moses was taken up to the Mount to get a patern of these things which he was to appoint in the ancient Church so Iohn is here taken up to get a patern of the Visible Church and the things to be ordered in it under the New Test This I say is groundlesly supposed For these things that were to be done by Moses were but now a instituting and to be first set up and therefore it was necessary that he should have a patern of them represented to him to regulate him but ere the time of this revelation Christ had fully instituted all particulars belonging to the Church of the New Testament and many Churches through the World were already actually setled and ordered according to that institution and beside sundry of the Books of the New Test written wherein the institution and rule was already plainly written down and this indeed is one reason which inclineth me to think that the scope and intention of the Spirit
Passage of Scripture that holds forth a rule or warrand of any larger latitude touching admitting of members into the fellowship of the Visible Church then what is said of these Churches He must prove then the assertion in the latter sense viz. that these Churches were constitute of persons all truely godly as far c. formally considered as such and under no other consideration in their in-taking and being reckoned members in their outward visible societie If he could prove this of any one of them we should go over to his side of the controversie But now see how he proveth this nay all that is brought or can be brought by him is only this that the Apostle Writing to these Churches calleth them saints beleevers sanctified in Christ Iesus and the like which should we grant to mean inward true grace of regeneration and to be spoken not of the whole body collectively and confuse only giving the denomination of the whole from the better part but distributively of all and every one of them yet nothing else could necessarily be concluded from this but that they were such de facto and quo ad eventum and not that they were gathered and received into the externall fellowship of these Churches formally upon this and no other account that they were such reall internall truely regenerate saints The Apostles in the place cited speaks not nor intimates one word concerning the order of proceeding or account whereupon the proceeding was made in the visible externall constituting and setting up of these Churches or admitting of members into them neither doth Mr. Lockier so much as once assay to make a proofe of this point only after he hes cited some passages concerning the Corinthians he saith pag. 22. end and pag. 23. begin that these expressions should import that they did constitute gather together upon any other account but as there was the true grace of God evident as far as men could judge I cannot indeed see Alas 1. Is this to prove that which being the very main pinch of the Question to say no more for it but you cannot see how it was not done so 2. But I forbear to exaggerat this way of reasoning We are sure he might see in Scripture how persons were gathered and received into the fellowship of the Visible Church upon another account and trust by the Lords assistance ere we have done to let it be seen by such as will not shut their eyes upon the light of the Word Thus we have said already doth sufficiently discover the weaknesse and nullity of the inductive Argument to the point in controversie And I must say I wonder that Learned men such as I do with all respect acknowledge our Independent Brethren to be should have put such confidence in it section 3 But 2. Let 's see if he can prove that all these Churches were de facto and quo ad eventum constitute and made up of persons all truely Godly so far as Godly and discerning men could make judgement such as upon tryall would give evidence of the true grace of God in them as far as men could judge First then for the Romans is cited chap. 1. vers 6 7 8 9. where they are written to by Paul who surely was able to discern in spirituall maters and durst not complement with persons in things of eternall concernment under the styles of the called of Iesus Christ called Saints beloved of God these whose faith is spoken of through all the World and the Apostle writes to all that are at Rome and thanks God for them all and made mention of them all in his prayers Well what hence I cannot think saith he that a faith of so high esteem with Paul and of such renown through the Christian World and the mater of such servent Prayer should mean only a temporary faith Why Some of these were such as laid down their neck for Paul Rom. 16. 4. the rest surely in danger of their own necks every day by their profession living in the mouth of that Tyranne Nero as Paul calleth him it should be Lion or Dragon as Iohn calls all Heathen Emperours of that place Answ 1. We will not say it is a temporary faith he speaks of we grant it to be a saving persevering faith and for confirmation of this he might added a stronger ground from the Text then these he hath chosen that they are all called beloved of God and called Saints where as Estius noteth well intelligitur vocatio non communis externa c. i. e. is understood not common and outward calling but that whereby men are effectually called to faith holinesse and salvation which is the calling according to purpose and Predestination But now will Mr. Lockier or any man take upon them to say that Paul mean'd that all and every one in the Visible Church of Rome were such as had not a temporary faith only but a true saving faith and so were all and every one such as were to be undoubtedly saved I doubt he will hazard upon this assertion or if he will I doubt much if he shall have any other to bear him company in it May be he will say he intends not that but this that they were all and every one such so far as in his judgement he could discern and he was a man very able to discern in spirituall matters as he saith a little before But 1. This is an addition to the Text and how will he prove that it was Pauls mind to speak with such a qualification 2. He supposeth that Paul had acquaintance and experience of every one of them sufficient to discern what they were so doth that he saith import read Paul who surely was able to discern in spirituall matters But this behoved to have been by conversing with them coram and that he could not have it seemeth * Aret Rp. 1. 7 Calvin 1 Cor. 1 2. P. Mart. Rom. 1. 7. Calv. Gal. 1. 2 Er. Sar. cer Eph. 1. 1 Estius Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1 2. because he had not yet been at Rome to meet with every one of them there nor is it likely that every one of them had come from Rome and met with him otherwhere or he behoved to have it by communication by Letters from every one of them And what ground of conjecture have we for this I think to say it would be accounted a Dream As for report of every one of them and their severall evidences of grace by others 1. We have as little ground of conjecture for that though we find that there hes been great fame of their faith in common and in generall ver 8. 2. Report may be a ground of charitable beliefe I take beleef here in the generall logicall signification of it as it is contradistinguished from opinion and science but it cannot be a ground of a positive discretive judgement such as Mr. Lockier attributeth to Paul touching the Romanes faith for it
implyes a mans own personall experience of things 2. We say the Apostle in these titles of beloved of God Saints Beleevers meaneth true saving grace truely existing and not in the judgement of charity only But speaketh there not of all the Romanes universaliter distributivè as we say all men are sinners but communiter collectivè confusè i. e. in common collectively and confusedly because undoubtedly saving grace was amongst them and he could not take upon him to determine whether moe or fewer of them were endued with it and as it seems knew nothing to the contrary of any of them particularly but they might be such Thus verily I think the Apostles writing to whole Churches and calling them generally by the name of Saints faithfull c. may well be understood and no other thing can be demonstrate of their meaning Take herewith the judgement of the Learned Commentators on the place all of which do unanimously determine that these titles of Saints faithfull and the like are given by the Apostles to the Churches partly in respect of the end of their calling and the duty of every one in the Church viz. that the end of their calling and their duty is to be such and partly by a denomination taken à parte potiori from the better part because there were true reall Saints and beleevers amongst them And I think it is a worthy and solide consideration which my worthy Collegue in the Ministry and my Reverend Superior in the Colledge I live in hath in his due right of Presbytery pag. 259. in answer to Mr. Cotton upon this same Question and Argument the styles given to the Church of Corinth are too high to be given to hypocrites such as many of Mr. Lockiers truely godly so far as men can judge may be and often are but these styles are not given to that Church precisely as Visible and as a professing Church but as an Invisible and true Church of Beleevers He Writeth to a Visible Church but he doth not speak of them alwayes as a Visible Church but as of an Invisible when he calleth them Temples of the Holy Ghost c. section 4 What we have said ro his alledgeance concerning the Church of Rome is applicable to what is said to the most part of the rest so that we shall not insist much on them Only a word or two of some of them And 1. For the Corinthians after he hath set down what is spoken to them chap. 1. vers 2 4 5 6 7 8. and chap. 4. 15. he subjoyneth persons having such grace in them as shall be confirmed to the end as keepeth them waiting to the coming of the Lord Jesus as are the comfortable seals of a faithfull Ministry that all this should signifie but an outward Profession or to say that this Church should constitute and Congregate together upon any other account but as there was the true grace of God evident as far as men could judge I cannot indeed see Answ 1. Let it be marked how in citing the place chap. 4 15. he maketh an addition to the Text for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you all this all is put in as the Apostles word when as in the Text there is no more but I have begotten you This is a gross foule slip I will not say it hath been done out of designe may be it hes been done inconsiderately without present turning over to the place however adding to the Word of God is a dangerous practice 2. As for that to say that this Church did constitute and gather upon another account c. we have noted on it sufficiently before I adde now this by what Mr. Lockier saith here and indeed by the Doctrine of all the Independent Brethren of his way in this mater of the constitution of the Visible Church it appeareth that their conception about the order of gathering the Visible Church by the Apostles was this that men being first turned to the Profession of Christian Religion there was a tryall made of their evidences of true inward saving grace and such as evidences satisfactory of this were found in these were gathered in and the rest casten by which I dare say is a meer fiction of which not the least vestige can be shown in Scripture and never man dreamed of untill these sad times broodie of many new fancies under the name of new lights 3. I confesse persons having such grace in them as shall be confirmed to the end as keeps them waiting for the coming of Christ as are the comfortable seals of a faithfull Ministry are not outward Professours only but are reall Saints and Elect and thence I conclude it cannot be understood universally of all and every one of the Visible Church of Corinth Will he say that all and every one were reall Saints Elect to be confirmed unto the end and so eternally saved if he say yes in Pauls judgement so far as he could judge upon evidences of true grace I say 1. That is an addition to the Text Paul saith simply he shall confirm you unto the end c. not so far as I can judge he shall confirm you Yea 2. It enervats the comfort held forth by the Apostle to them he speaks to for it imports no more upon the mater but this possibly ye may be confirmed to the end and so when all is done ye may be possibly not confirmed to the end mans judgement can go no further and is contrary to the strain of all the Orthodox writing against the Remonstraints in the Article of perseverance who understand the place of Saints and the Lords effectuall gracious preserving them in veritate rei and so make use of the place and presse it against the Remonstrants But let Mr. Lockier rid himself here if he will have Paul to speak thus of all and every one of the Visible Church of Corinth either he must conceive it spoken only with relation to the state of that Church as its first up-setting or also in relation to what it was at the present time of the Writing of this Epistle The former cannot be said because it s most evident all along that Passage Chap. 1. he is speaking of it as still at the time of his writing standing in that condition he expresseth in his words albeit some of the Verbs be used in the preterit perfect tense no man can deny this who hath any judgement If he say the latter the very Epistle it self will confute it wherein to wit so grosse wickednesses and impieties are discovered to have been amongst them and laid to their charge schismes contentious suits of Law fornications communion and fellowship at Idolatrous Tables drunkennesse at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper deniall of the Resurrection Will any man say that the Apostle knowing such things to be amongst them speaks of all and every one of them as reall inward Saints as far as men can judge section 5 For the
Church of the Galatians is cited Gal. 4. 9. chap. 6. 1. the latter whereof is so impertinent to the purpose that I wonder how it came in his minde to alledge it The point to be proven is that the Church of the Galat. was constitute of persons all truely godly so far as men could judge The Apostles meaning in this place is this much if any amongst you through infirmity or ignorance be surprized and fall into a fault such among you as are spirituall i. e. more advanced and confirmed in knowledge and piety and more experimentally skilled in Christianity being conscious of your own lyablenesse to temptations apply your selves to recover and restore such an one with meeknesse and gentlenesse what is this to that conclusion If Mr. Lockier had assayed to make up a Syllogisme upon it for inferring that conclusion he would I no wayes doubt have perceived the impertinency of his alledging it Neither yet doth the former prove the point for let that knowing of God and their being known of God be understood of reality of saving grace Yet the speech is but indefinite after ye have known God or rather are known of God And every body knows what an indefinite speech can bear in materiâ contingente section 6 For the Church of Ephesus is cited Eph. 1. 1. 13. and Acts 20. 28. 32. For the first citation I mean what is said in the Epistle we need say no more then what is said upon the Romanes and Corinthians The places are all alike and the same answer serveth all Only I will say I am astonished that any man should think or say that these high Heavenly blessings priviledges and graces spoken of by the Apostle to the Ephesians as blessed with spirituall blessings in Heavenly places chosen before the foundation of the World predestinat to the adoption of Children to the praise of the Glory of His Grace accepted in the Beloved having Redemption through His Blood the forgivenesse of sins obtained the inheritance sealed with the Spirit of promise quickned with Christ raised up together with him to sit in heavenly places c. are all by the Apostle spoken of and attributed to all and every one in the visible societie of the Church of Ephesus so far as he could judge wherein he himself clearly intimats there were some and he speaks according to his own knowledge that were given to teach other Doctrine giving heed to fables 1 Tim. 1. 3 4. some that had swerved aside to vain jangling desiring to be Teachers of the Law c. v. 6 7. that teached otherwise not consenting to wholesome words proud knowing nothing doting about Questions and Strifes of words c. 6. 3 4. some addicted to the love of Money and Covetousnesse v. 9 10. striving about words to no profite but to the subverting of the hearers vessels to dishonour as vessels to honour Reprobates and Cast-awayes as well as Elect the foundation of the Lord having the seal of Gods Eternal Predestination Fore-knowledge set upon them 2 Tim. 2. 19. 20. those that oppose themselves and were to be brought with meeknesse unto Repentance and recovered out of the snare of Satan who had them captive at his will v. 25 26. such as had a forme of Godlinesse but denyed the Power thereof Misleaders and Mislead cap. 3. 6. 7. compare with v. 5. who will dare to say that the Apostle writing to a Church and giving them all these high stiles and commendations mentioned before did intend them to all and every one severally and distributively in that Church Neither will it avail to say that this Church might been so constitute at first as that all the Members might been such as these stiles might been given to them as far as men could judge though afterward many of them degenerated and discovered themselves Unlesse Mr. Lockier make it good that such was the state of that Church in all the Members of it at the time of the writing of this Epistle to the Ephesians he alleadgeth what is said in it to no effect for his purpose But it is certain that the first Epistle to Timothie was written long before it this being written long ere he came to Rome as Interpreters agree and that being written from Rome and that as most think in the time of his second imprisonment there and so it seemeth but a little before the second to Timothie which was the last of all section 7 For the other citation Acts 20. 28 32. 1. The latter vers 32. any man who sees any thing may see it clearly impertinent to the purpose in hand 2. To the other feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood We Answ That by the Church bought with the blood of Iesus Christ true God is not meant the Visible Church as such as if the meaning of the words were bought with the blood of Christ in the judgement of charitie or so far as men can judge which is a meer addition to the Text but the Invisible Church of the Elect really redeemed So do all Orthodox Divines writing against Remonstrants on the Article of Redemption expound it of the Church of the Elect only and presse it as an Argument against the Remonstrants Universall Redemption and Remonstrants upon the contrare would have it meant of the whole Visible Church Mr. Lockier hath given no proof that it is spoken of the Visible Church as such but thought it enough to point us to the place and to suppose it be as he would have it But because Reverend M. Hooker in his Survey par 1. c. 3. pag. 39 40. asserteth the same interpretation of the place with Mr. Lockier against my Reverend Collegue Mr. Rutherfurd and assayes to give some reason for it albeit I doubt not ere long the Church shall have a sufficient answer from Mr. Rutherfurd himself to that and other things in the Survey Yet I must crave humble leave of him to say somewhat to Mr. Hooker in this particular seeing it cometh so far in my way and otherwise Mr. Lockier and his followers might haply say I had purposely shun'd it section 8 The Church here sayeth he whether Congregationall or Presbyteriall must needs be visible Ans That is not the question nor the thing he should have proven for we shall confesse the Church here spoken of and as spoken of in the context must be visible but he should have said and proven the Church here spoken of and said to be bought with the blood of Christ must be the Church Visible and as such considered according to its visible state and consequently that the attribute of the enunciation is enunciat of all and every one in that state see we then if the argument he formeth maketh out this That over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend to feed by Doctrine and Discipline this must needs be a visible Church for unlesse they did see them and know them how could they execute censure
upon them but these viz. over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend and feed c. are called the Church Redeemed with the Blood of God The conclusion is suppressed but according to the terms of the premisses It can be no other then this Ergo the Church here spoken of must needs be visible And this we may and do grant and yet without any prejudice or disadvantage for that may well stand with this assertion that only the Elect or the Church Invisible are intended by that name Church when it is said there to be bought by the blood of God For why because the Elect or Invisible Church is visible i. e. persons seen and obvious to the outward senses Physically visible and certainly Mr. Hooker speaks of no more in his Major and the proof thereof unlesse they do see them and know them c. the thing that he should have concluded was this Ergo they are called redeemed by the blood of God as the visible Church or according to their Visible Church state but that will not be inferred upon his premisses If any man will say his argument may be upon the terms taken in it mended and urged to the point thus These over whom Officers and Elders are set to attend and feed by Doctrine and Discipline must needs be a Visible Church and that considered according to its Visible State and as Visible but these over whom Elders and Officers are set c. are called the Church Redeemed by the Blood of God Ergo these called the Church Redeemed c. must needs be a Church Visible and that as such and considered according to its Visible State Then I say yet the conclusion toucheth not us for these that are called the Church Redeemed may be granted to be a Church Visible and that considered as visible viz. in relation to some other adjunct of it distinct from that epithet contained in the subject of the conclusion viz. the denomination of Redeemed by the Blood of God and this argument as thus formed carrieth no more But yet if one shall infer the conclusion thus Ergo. these are called the Church Redeemed by the blood of God as a Church Visible or considered according to their Visible Church state Then I say this putteth the Syllogisme out of the wits and whole frame of it takes the medium into the conclusion for the minus extremum or attribute of the assumption for the Syllogisme is in the third figure and jumbles the majus extremum and minus extremum the attribute of the Major Proposition and the attribute of the assumption together in the attribute of the conclusion and so makes the Syllogism in whole to consist of four terms in a word let any man take these premises of Mr. Hookers mend them shape and change them as he will he shall never be able to infer the conclusion that should be inferred to his purpose that the Church Visible is called the redeemed by the blood of God as it is visible or according to its visible state section 9 But saith he if any man say that the Elect are only there intended by that name I answer that conceit is contrary to the very strain of the words and scope of the Text for they must attend 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the whole flock The charge puts no difference between person and person nor most their care be different nay upon this ground the Elders should not know what their care was nor upon whom they should bestow it for they might reply Lord we cannot search into thy secrets who are Elect and Invisible Saints we cannot discern them and therefore we cannot tell how to feed them whereas by the current and common sense of the Scriptures taking redeemed and sanctified as visibly though not really such the stream of the Text runneth pleasantly without the least appearance of doubt Answ 1. Reverend Mr. Hooker affirmeth more then he proves well in calling that answer a conceit contrary to the stream of the words and scope of the Text. His first Argument comes to this much All these are of the Church which is said to be redeemed by the blood of God whom the Elders and Officers are required to attend But the Apostle requires them to attend all the flock without putting difference between person and person ergo all the flock i. e. every one of the Visible Church are of that Church which is said to be redeemed c. Ans What ever might be said of his Interpretation of the flock to be the Visible Church as Visible we deny the necessity of the Major Proposition The flock as it is the object of the Ministers externall charge and administration of Ordinances may be of a larger extent and comprehension then is the signification of the Church as it standeth under that attribute of being redeemed by the blood of God And that you may see that is not my conceit see it expresly given by worthy and Learned Whittaker in answer to Bellarmine proving that the Church is Visible from this very Text de Eccles q. 2. c. 2. Resp ad locum 5. particulares Ecclesiae such as was Ephesus of which the Apostle is speaking Christi Religionem profitentes dicuntur Ecclesia Synecdochicâ—s propter sanctos nimirum electos qui in iis sunt sed quia Pastores non possunt electos à reprobis discernere itaque totum caetum pascere regere curare debent judicium Deo relinquere where it is evident that this Learned Author understood that that whole Congregation or flock of the Ephesians which the Pastours are required to attend is called that Church which is redeemed not properly but synecdochically because of a part of it and that is in effect as much as to say not the whole flock but a part of it is the Church redeemed by the blood of God The second argument nay upon this ground the Elders should not know c. To say it with reverence to the memory of the Author is clearly to any body of common judgement exceedingly weak For 1. How followeth that if the Church redeemed by the blood of God be the Elect only then the Elders should not know what their care was nor upon whom they should bestow it for it must have this for a reason of it that Church which is said to be redeemed is the only object of the Elders care which they are required to attend This we deny we say they are part of it with Whittaker 2. How weak is that they might reply we cannot search into thy secrets to perceive who are Elect and therefore we cannot tell how to feed them Then it seems by the Reverend mans reasoning when our Lord laid that charge upon Peter Joh. 20. feed my Sheep my Lambs which are no other but these same he speaks of Joh. 10. 26 27. i. e. only elect ones v. 27 28 29. he might have replied Lord I cannot search thy secrets to know who are
these thine elect and therefore I cannot tell how to feed them It is not necessary or a Pastour to feed the Elect that he know distinctly who are the singular persons by the head but for feeding by publick Doctrine it is sufficient that he know them confusedly that they are there in the Congregation and if he have any grounds of a positive judgement concerning particular persons that indeed gives him further advantage to apply himself to those in a more particularly applicatory way If indeed it were the Ministers work to feed efficaciter to give the increase as the Apostle expresseth the actuall efficaciousnesse or efficiency of grace and they were required to feed the elect that way I confesse if the Lord did not distinctly point out the particular persons to them then they might make such a reply Lord I cannot search into thy secrets to perceive who are these c. but the efficiency of grace is in Gods own hand alone and the Minister has upon him but an externall morall suasive administration which he is to dispense for the good of the elect but he needeth not for that know them distinctly it is enough he knowes they are there where he dispenseth them and let God discern and waile them out from the rest 3. It is a groundlesse supposition and contrary to the truth that in the current and common sense of Scripture that redeemed being spoken of spirituall redemption from sin and eternall wrath as for the name sanctified it is not in this text and therefore is impertinently brought in here is taken for redeemed visibly though not really I doubt he can bring many passages of Scripture wherein it can with any appearance be so exponed yea visibly redeemed is an expression in my judgement strange to Scripture Let this suffice us in answer to Mr. Hooker in this particular We doubt not but Mr. Rutherfurd will have more full and acurate considerations on it section 10 I shall adde a word or two for proofe that by the Church redeemed by the blood of Christ cannot be understood all and every one of the Visible Church but only the Elect desiring Mr. Lockier to take the same to his consideration if the Church which Ephes 5. 25 26 27. Christ is said to have loved and given himself for that he might sanctifie and cleanse it be not the Visible Church as such and so all members of the Visible Church then neither is it so to be taken here the consequence and connexion of this proposition is necessary and clear because the attribute enunciate of it in both places is all one upon the matter for what else is it that Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it that c. but that he redeemed it by his own blood But that Eph. 5. by the Church is meant only the elect i. e. the Invisible Church is the constant Doctrine of all Orthodox Divines in their disputes against the Remonstrants universall Redemption for the Redemption of the elect only and likewise of all Orthodox Divines writing against Papists on the Question concerning the members of the true Invisible Church the Mysticall body of Christ and also upon the Question of the Visibility of the Church I instance but a testimonie of one viz. Learned Whittaker de Eccles q. 1. c. 9. tert arg where you shall find him not only affirm but solidely prove this we say reasoning thus from the place Christ is not the Head * This is to be understood of such headship as has allusion to the head of the naturall body which hath a reall influence into the body so no doubt Christ is an head in a politicall sort to the Visible Church having a morall influence by command c. but of that Church which he shall save which he shall present to himself on the day of Judgement glorious not having spot or wrinkle But only the predestinate shall be saved Ergo. only the Elect belong to the Church of Christ i. e. the Church mentioned there and to Bellarmin's answer that Christ is Head to that Church which he shall not save he saith falsissimum esse Read that whole paragraph and you shall find sundry other solide Arguments brought by him from that context to prove that only the elect are that Church spoken of there 2. Again I desire him to look forward from v. 28. to ver 30. of this very 20. chap. of the Acts and see what the Apostle saith also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away Disciples after them Whether we expone of your own selves of the whole body of the Church of Ephesus or particularly of the Elders and Officers thereof is all one to our purpose It will not be denied that the Officers were members of the Church of Ephesus and as Christians were partakers of the common Priviledges and Titles competent to the Visible Church now if Paul shall be conceived to speak that redeemed by the blood of Christ let it be out of the positive judgement of charity and so far as he could judge universally of all the Visible Church of Ephesus how could this consist with what he saith v. 30. * Surgendi verbo quo utitur significat iam lupos illos fovere clandestinam perniciem donec occasione sibi datâ erumpant Calv. in loc that he knew there was some amongst them presently fostering secret and clandestine wickednesse who would afterward openly kyth apostatize from the truth and become seducers of others Could the Apostle have a judgement such as is mentioned of such that they were Redeemed by c. Sure understand the Word v. 20. as Mr. Lockier would and we shall have clearly contradictory judgements of Paul at once I judge the Church of Ephesus Universally all and every one of you Redeemed and yet I know some among you are lurking traitours who will kyth afterward he sayeth not may be some of you will but positively some of you will section 11 For the Church of the Philippians is cited chap. 1. v. 6. and chap. 4. v. 15 16. For the latter I see nothing in it that hath any colour of a ground for his point nor yet doth the former hold forth a proof of it The Apostle writeth to all the Saints at Philippi and v. 6. declares the confidence that he had that God who had begun the work in them would perfite it to the coming of the Lord Jesus Will it follow hence that all and every one of the Visible Church of Philippi were reall Saints so far as man could judge * The 6. vers by the Orthodox writing-against the Remonstrants upon the head of perseverance is applyed only to the Elect and true Believers in the judgement of verity or truth of the thing it self See Ames Coron art 5. arg 2. proving this by solide reasons no Logick will evince this from these words cited If he had taken in the 7. vers he might had a
there were wicked persons in these Churches therefore we may constitute Churches now in the dayes of the Gospel with good and bad with truely good and seemingly good such as make onely a profession though we know nothing of the power of Religion in them To this I Answ 1. Will you with Anabaptists have the Church under the New Testament constitute onely with truely good and not at all with seemingly good this indeed is your frequently repeated assertion in this lecture But first 't is contrare to the expresse judgement of some of the most judicious and advised of your own side how often hath Mr. Hooker this that these of whom the Church is constitute may be seemingly good not savingly not really gilt not gold Saints in the judgement of charity though they be not inwardly sanctified 2. It contradicts himself in his additionall qualification which sometimes he inserteth as farre at least as men can judge Well then a Church Visible now in the dayes of the Gospel may be constitute of any who are truely good as far as men can judge but many such are but seemingly good and really bad for mans judgement cannot discern the power of Religion in the heart neither intuitively nor yet by discourse from outward effects infallibly but only probably cui judicio potest subesse falsum it may be deceived and the object of it is but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which seemeth but is not alwayes what it is judged to be 2. We forme not our objection so naked and waterishly as you make it there were wicked persons in these Churches therefore c. But take it thus and answer it then In these Churches at least severalls of them there were persons whose wayes were such that they could not positively be accounted so far as men could judge truely gracious such as God could bear witnes to as sealed for his by his holy Spirit and the Churches are not required to un-Church and Excommunicate any upon that account that they were not such as might be so accounted and judged of c. Ergo c. But this is not the onely objection we have against this inductive argument he may find some others before this Now to his answer section 15 1. Sayeth he à facto ad jus non valet argumentum because such things are therefore they ought to be will not hold Because bad men were in the Churches the generall state of which in such a time of the world John speaks of Rev. 11. 1 2. therefore they should be there will not follow for then why is John bid cast out that which is without and not measure it what is allowed to abide is rather the Index shewing what is the allowed and proper matter the true constitution of Church-state Answ Here are a heap of things to be noted 1. If that maxime hold good à facto ad jus non valet argumentum because such things are therefore they ought to be will not hold then Mr. Lockier your inductive argument for any thing alleadged in it falls to the ground without force for all that you have alledged in it is a mater of fact and therefore I may retort upon you thus Because these Churches did consist of persons truely good so far as men could judge which is the only thing you can alledge from what is said in the Epistles to them and yet proves not therefore they should consist of such only and no other will not follow 2. You wholly loose your Argument taken from them again if you grant but that de facto there were other persons in them then truely godly as far as men could judge at that time when the Epistles were written to them For unlesse you assert that at that time they were constitute of persons all such you alledge the Epistles to no purpose because the Epistles speaks to them with relation to that very time they were written in 3. It is rashlie and inconsideratlie said by Mr. Lockier without exception limitation or qualification especially he being now speaking of maters of Religion à facto ad jus non valet Argumentum why then let all Arguments which Orthodox Writers have brought from the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Churches registrate in Scripture to prove they ought de jure so to do as in the mater of sanctifying the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath and many others in other matters be casten as null If Mr. Lockier say this he shall gratifie much the Papists for their Doctrine of the necessity of unwritten traditions but shall be disclaimed in this by all Protestant Divines who give us sundry cases in matters of Religion wherein it is good and solide reasoning from facts and practises registrate in Scripture to duty so such persons did and therefore so ought we to do especially in matters of Church Government hath this way of reasoning place the Lord having left many things belonging thereunto only in examples of practises let the Reader see concerning this purpose the Authors of jus divinum of Church-Government part 1. cap. 4. from which we are to gather and take our rule Now amongst other rules belonging to this head this certainly is one what was the practice of Primitive Churches registrate in Scripture in maters of Religion of common concernment to the Churches in all ages and is not dissallowed nor dissapproven in them especially when many other things are reproved in them nor is against a generall precept otherwhere in Scripture such a practice hath the force of a rule and we may well reason ab hoc facto ad jus See Perkins Heb. 11. 6. pag. in fol. 29. col 1. A so they did therefore so may we lawfully But I assume these Primitive Churches admitted and retained members all of which were not truely Godly and Saints as far as men could judge and were not reproved for this even when they were reproved for other things done by them Nor can their be a generall precept shewn in the word contrary thereunto Ergo c. 4. What may seem to be alledged by him from Rev. 11. 2. as containing such a generall precept is sufficiently discussed before The intention and scope of that place is not to hold forth a rule concerning the ordering of the constitution of the Church but to foretell an event that was to come to passe upon the Church in time of Antichrists prevalencie that which is without signifieth not persons but the face outward state of the Visible Church and casting out is not un-Churching of persons but judicial giving up the outward state of the Visible Church to Antichrist and his followers and by measuring there is not meant regulating of the constitution of a Society but a typicall prediction of the straitnesse that Orthodox and Godly Worshippers were to be at that time redacted unto 5. But what meaneth Mr. Lockier when being about to infringe the objection brought against his induction of these Churches viz.
that there were wicked persons in them and saying that because bad men were in the Churches it doth not follow therefore they should be in them he casteth in that the generall estate of which in such a time of the World John speaketh Rev. 11. 1 2. what meaneth he I say by such a time of the World wherein the generall state of the Churches were such if he mean that time wherein the Epistles were written to the Churches 1. That passage of the Revelation is impertinently alledged for be the meaning of it what it will it speaks in relation to another time long afterward to come 2. It is certain 't is the alledgeance in his own induction that these Epistles importe that then they were all constitute of truely good ones so far as men could judge If he mean another time then that he speaks this as impertinently for the objection speaks of these Churches in relation to the time when the Epistles were written to them 2ly Saith he in his answer Churches may be negligent and not so strict to their rule to examine and prove the grace of God in such as offer to joyn themselves as the Church of Jerusalem did if Churches do not mind diligently their rule they may have evil persons among them enough and yet not be able to maintain that it should be so 't is like the Asian Churches and most of the first quickly after the Apostles time grew faulty in this kind Ans 1. Reader see here pretty Logick Mr. Lockier in his induction undertook to prove and conclude a rule from the examples of these particular Churches that because these particular Churches were constitute of persons truely good therefore all Churches ought to be constitute only of such persons it is objected there were many other persons then such in these Churches and now he answereth Churches he must apply it to these Churches else he is extraâ—oleas may be negligent and not so strict to their rule is not this a running in a round These Churches were constitute of such members Ergo so ought all Churches generally to be if they were constitute of any other it was because they were not strict to their rule i. e. in plain Language because they were not constitute as Churches ought to be 2. But let go this and the inductive Argument for it is clearly quite here and refuge had to the generall rule I say where is that rule of examining and proving the grace of God in such as offer themselves to joyn that they were not so strict to as they should And where have we an instance of the Church of Jerusalems greater strictnesse to that rule then these other Churches Thus to set down naked assertions is it not to despise hearers and Readers 3. To what purpose do ye speak of the Churches of Asia and other first Churches their pâ—actice after the Apostles time The objection speaks of these Churches even as they were when the Apostles were living and did write to them these Epistles out of which you labour to instruct your induction of them 3ly Or Churches saith he though very diligent and duely strict in this mater yet are not infallible and therefore hypocrits may deceive a Church for a time and so get in where they have no right to be the Apostle Jude doth confesse so much v. 4. not only persons may thus creep into the Church but also into office and still escape the first judgement made upon them by the Churches of which they are The Apostle doth intimate this to Timothy lay hands suddenly on no man and his charge on this may make a man tremble 1 Tim. 5. 21 22. We are as appears by this compared with other Scriptures to use all care as much as in us lyeth to prevent by the first judgement of the Church all that are not godly from coming to a state to which they are not approved by God but if men by subtilty creep in where they should not be they are to be cast out by the after judgement of the Church which is Excommunication when it doth evidently appear that they are hypocrites though not drunkards and such kind of bodily-sinners which is far lesse simply considered then hypocrisie which after-judgement is an Ordinance to cleanse the house of God and keep it pure And doth strongly confirme the point I am on that the mater of the Visible Church should be reall Saints Ans 1. All this is just nothing to the purpose in hand Mr. Lockier to prove his generall Doctrine that a Church Visible ought to be constitute in its matter of such as are truely Godly at least so far as men can judge had undertaken to shew by induction that these particular Churches were constitute of persons all such It was objected that they had in them some others Now here he tells us in answer that Churches not being infallible may be deceived and consequently so might thir be in taking in such as ought not to be within Once granting that it was so in these Churches hes he not quite again his alledgeance concerning them in his inductive Argument and taken him to the generall rule which was the thing he undertook to prove and but begs the thing in Question But to the mater in this branch of the Answer Then 2. When he saith hypocrites have no right to be in the Church or as afterward should not be there if the meaning were that men though they make a profession of Religion yet continuing hypocrites and gracelesse in their hearts do sin in adjoyning themselves to the Visible Church and that they have no right in foro interiori this we should not deny but if his meaning be that no hypocrits have a jus Ecclesiasticum and in foro exteriori to be in the Visible Church we deny it and he shall never be able to prove it 3. 'T is true that Jude saith that such men creept in unawars into the fellowship of the Church who afterward kythed to be such as I shall not deny they ought to have been casten out But Jude saith not that these when they made a Profession of Religion and did not vent such abominations had no jus Ecclesiasticum to be admitted by the Church into their fellowship 4. All that Mr. Lockier here bringeth in concerning admitting persons into Offices in the Church is idly and impertinently alledged to the point in hand We acknowledge that none ought to be put in such Offices but such as give evidences of all manner of godly conversation We have an expresse and full rule for this 1 Tim. 3. And hands ought not to be laid upon any man without a foregoing tryall and proofe of these things But where will ye shew us in all the Scripture from the one end to the other such a rule requiring such qualifications in persons and such a tryall of them before and in relation to their admission into the fellowship of the Visible Church And
by most impertinent Citations What is there in this place to the purpose of the constitution of the Visible Church as to its matter or Members the Apostle here ver 10 11 12 13 14 15. is speaking of Doctrines fundamentall and superstructed and that these ought to be suitable and agreeable to that what is this to the mater of the Visible Church Ay Yes by Analogie would he say first because the Apostle useth the same medium and argues as I do that if Christ be layed as a foundation c. Ans And must that hold Universallie because one using a medium in one mater reasons truelie and solidlie therefore another using that medium in another mater and reasoning that same way for forme must also reason truelie and solidelie What if this other erre in the application of the medium and if some of his premisses and principles whereof his argument consists be false upon the matter so it is here The Apostle reasoneth well and concludently upon that principle that the superstructure should be suitable to the foundation that Teachers should take heed what Doctrines they teach in the Church Because he assumeth well that Christ or the Doctrine of Christ is the foundation-point of Doctrine in Religion and all other Doctrines are the superstructures But Mr. Lockier assumeth amisse that the Visible Church as such is the superstructure built upon Christ as the Foundation The Scripture sayeth no where so a Visible Church-state or to be received unto or to be in the Visible Church state is not to be built on Christ as a Foundation but is to be taken in under or to be under the means of being built either first or in a further degree of advancement on Christ as a Foundation But further sayeth he see how he applyes this ver 16 17. incongruous superstructions if in point of Doctrine c. Ans This is somewhat spoken in the mist but for ought I can conjecture or conceive the meaning seemeth to be this that wrong Doctrines taught in the Church makes persons unholy and so unfit mater for the Church to consist of and so destroyes or defiles the Temple of God which is as he conceiveth the Visible Church And thus he will have the Apostle v. 16 17. to apply that which he had been speaking in the preceeding verses Now if this be not a forceing of the purpose and meaning of these two verses let any understanding man in the Christian World judge The plain genuine intention and purpose of the Apostle in these verses is to warne and dehort the Corinthians from defiling and laying waste the Church either by corrupt idle or curious Doctrine not suitable to the foundation Christ or by Schismaticall addicting themselves to this or that man who were teachers among them which was the purpose whereupon he began this discourse v. 4. or both and that upon these three grounds 1. The consideration of the dignity they were advanced to that they were the Temple of God consecrated by the indwelling Spirit to him 2. That such things did defile and lay them waste 3. That God would severly punish such as any wayes defiled and destroyed them that were a Temple consecrated to him Ay but 3. Saith he it is added for the Temple of God is holy which Temple ye are i. e. such arâ—â—he Temple of God which are holy which hath the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else Ans 1. Mr. Lockier then conceiveth that these words are brought in as a reason why he that teacheth wrong or incongruous Doctrines defiles or destroyes the Temple of God To this sense the Visible Church consists of such as are holy and hes the Spirit dwelling in them and none else therefore men by teaching incongruous Doctrine making men in the Church incongruous mater i. e. unholy destroyes the Temple i. e. the Visible Church A meer forgerie contrary to clear shining evidence of the Apostles context wherein any man that is not blind may see that these words for the Temple of God is holy are given as a reason why these that defile the Temple will be severly punished of God the reason of which consequence clearly intimate in the words is because God will not indure the defiling or violating of that which is holy and consecrate to himself 2. True indeed such are the Temple of God which are holy and none else So Mr. Lockier supposeth but without reason or proof Sure the Apostle borroweth this denoâ—…ation from the typicall Temple of Jerusalem but that was no type of a Visible Church but of Christs Mysticall body and every member thereof And hence I reason thus the denomination of the Temple of God is such as is competent to and predicable of these to whom it is attributed not only collectively i. e. to the whole society of them but also unto every one severally * Martyr in loc non solum fidelium caetus qui Ecclesia dicitur templum Dei dicitur sed unusquisque credentium in Christum reperitur ita cognominatus nam postea de fornicatione agens Apostâ—lus cap. 6. corpus cujusque credentis vocat templum spiritus Sancti But if it be taken for the Visible Church it could not be attributed to every member thereof Every one in it is not a Visible Church 3. If such only be the Temple of God in Mr. Lockiers sense i. e. a Visible Church which are holy and has the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else he may seek such a Visible Church in the new world of the Moon In the end of this paragraph he prompts us another Argument equivalent to this first from this that Christ is called the Head and the Church the Body In form it must stand thus If Christ be the Head there must be an homogenealnesse in the Church to him he meaneth they must be truely gracious and endued with true saving faith But Christ is the Head and the Visible Church his Body Therefore c. The reason of the connexion of the first Proposition is because else there can be no mutuall derivation from one to another Ans 1. Protestant Divines will with one consent deny your assumption as Popish and tell you that it is the Church of the Elect that is the Body of Christ the Head See but Whittaker de Eccles q 1. c. 13. pag. 449. in fol. Yet 2. For more clear and particular answer we are to consider that Christ may be said to be the Head and the Church his body either in a politicall sense as a King is called the Head of the Common-wealth and the People are called his Body Or to speak so in a physicall sense according to the similitude of mans body Now we grant that Christ is a Head to the Visible Church and the Visible Church hath unto him the relation of a body in the former sense Christ is a King of the Visible Church and the Visible Church is his politicall Body
severally as well as collectively and joyntly But if it signifie the Visible Church it cannot be predicated of every one of the persons severally each person is not a Temple in this sense a Visible Church Ergo c. Obj. But the Apostle is speaking here to the Visible Church of Corinth Ans True but every thing he speaketh of them is not for that competent to them as a Visible Church section 7 I cannot but wonder much at that wherewith Mr. Lockier closeth this reason and so how can God have glory in the Church throughout all ages Eph. 3. 21. Ans And doth continuation of the Glory of God in the Church throughout all ages depend upon his particular way of constituting particular Visible Congregations of all true Saints and a particular Congregations firmnesse and constancy in holding out the truth Hes God then not been glorified in the Church throughout the many preceeding generations wherein there was never heard of Churches so constitute untill of yesterday Separatists and Independents erected theirs And yet waile them as well as they will they shall never get one such as Mr. Lockier would be at in this Argument And how many particular Churches have fallen away and for their part letten truth fall section 8 The 3d. Argument grounded on Malachi 1. 11. must be thus If the mater of a Visible Church be not persons truly Godly then there cannot be offered up in Gods house a pure offering and the Churches of the Gentiles cannot fulfill that Prophesie Mal. 1. 11. For why Vnto the impure and unbeleeving all things are so every mans offering is as he is let his offering be what it will let a man make up his offering of never so much cost and worth yet it is still in the account of God as the man is if the man be impure so is his offering But it is contrary to that Prophesie to say the latter Ergo. c. Ans Mr. Lockier himself will not be able to avoyd the stroak of this Argument no not by his own way as some times he expresseth it for thereby all such as may be accounted truely godly so far as men can judge are to be acknowledged and admitted as mater of a Visible Church now many of these may be and undoubtedly are really impure and unbeleeving and so of necessity must their offering be impure If it be said yet it is not the fault of the admitters that they do so Ans That 's nothing to the purpose for whether they be faulty or not still it standeth good that by that way it cannot be avoyded but impure and unbeleeving will be in the Visible Church such as cannot offer a pure offering 2. It reproacheth the dispensation and wisdome of the blessed Lord God himself because he hes not left in his Word a rule and way whereby the Church Visible may be constitute so as that Prophesie and his decree revealed therein concerning his service among the Gentiles may be fulfilled for he hes given no rule whereby the Church Visible may be gotten so constitute as that all the mater thereof shall be persons truely Godly But there may be and cannot but be in it many impure and unbeleeving who cannot offer a pure offering But 3. To answer directly we deny the connexion or consequence of the first proposition 't is grounded upon a false supposition that there can be no pure offering in the Church unlesse all the mater that is members of the Visible Church be truly godly What may there not be a pure offering to God in the Church and so that Prophesie be fulfilled of the Churches of the Gentiles if some in the Churches Visible be truely Godly though all be not such Therefore he takes paines without necessity to prove that impure and unbeleevers cannot offer a pure offering that we grant I mean not this materially and objectively for so an impure man may offer a pure offering he should have proven to make his consequence good that if all the mater be not such as cannot offer a pure offering there can be no pure offering in the Church at all If Mr. Lockier say here that not only the offering of the unbeleeving and impure themselves but also the offering of all that are in the Visible Church-Communion with them is impure This is plain and down right Separatism and is disclaimed of all the pious and learned amongst the Independents at least in dogmate and is most contrary to the Word of God section 9 For further confirmation of this Argument he bringeth 1 Pet. 2. 5. but to no purpose for the point in hand and what he comments on it is to no purpose We grant it all 1. That Christ is a suitable foundation to the superstructure there mentioned 2. The Stones must be living to make a Spirituall House 3. That else they cannot be a Holy Priest-hood to offer up Spirituall Sacrifices holy and acceptable to God through Christ That the offering and Offerer are one That the offering may be Spirituall Holy and acceptable the Person offering must be such That persons that have but only a profession of Religion are dead stones But what is all this to the point can there be no Spirituall offering in the Visible Church if all be not such as can offer a Spirituall offering that 's the thing should been alledged to strengthen the former Argument but it is evidently false If it be said that the place may be alledged by it self as holding forth an instance of the generall Doctrine that that Church the Apostle is speaking to was constitute of all such I answer the Apostle is not speaking to any particular Visible Church but to all the effectually called Elect Jews scattered throughout Pontus Galatia c. cap. 1. 1 2 3. If it be said but he intended his Epistle to the severall particular Churches Visible in these several parts I Ans True but it followeth not therefore that every thing he sayeth to them is spoken of them as a Visible Church and so spoken of all and every one of them in that state What is spoken by way of declaration and imposition of duty may be is spoken to all and every one But what is spoken of by way of assertion as a priviledge or blessing existing it is not spoken Universally of all and every on in their visible societie But indefinitely which may be verified though it be competent but to some among them Yea though it were spoken Universally of them all Yet it would only prove what they were de facto and quoad eventum and not what their Visible Church ought to have been by necessity of a command that it might be a right constitute Visible Church section 10 The fourth reason must be formed either of these ways 1. Thus if the Jâ—ws be to be provoked by the glory and purity of his Worship and Worshippers then a Visible Church i. e. every Visible Church ought to be constitute of
this concludes Thus no doubt was Simon very diligent and full of care and circumspection to carry it so in all things that he might carry it with all beholders equally to the Apostles themselves that he might be still as high in every ones opinion even in the opinion of the Apostles themselves as he was in the opinion of the blinded and deluded people Ans 1. Mr. Lockier supposeth that Simons continuing with Philip which is spoken of in the Text was antecedent to his receiving unto the fellowship of the Church and the ground upon consideration of which he was received But let him shew me in the Text volam auâ— vestigium of Peters admitting him unto the fellowship of the Church after and upon consideration of this Nay it is not unworthy the observation that Mr. Lockier in all this discourse upon Simon Magus doth not so much as once point his Reader to the Chapter where the story lyeth by his custome in making use of other Passages which makes me apprehend he saw that the Reader turniâ—g over to it would easily seen the weaknesse of his discourse by the conteâ—… of the words Saith not the Text it self that when he was baptized 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. after he was baptized and so after he was received into the Church he continued with Philip And so what ever may be imported by this continuing let it be never so much evidence of inward grace it is nihil ad rhombum nothing to the purpose in hand For we are speaking now of what was found in him before and in relation to his receiving If Mr. Lockier shall say that he was not received into the Church fellowship when baptized or by baptisme I repone first Then he must grant that 〈◊〉 was required in adultis for baptizing them then for admitting them to Visible Church fellowship 2. Then it must follow that persons then were first baptized and then tryed a while further ere they were admitted Visible Church members let me see either precept or practice for this in all the Word oâ— God let Mr. Lockier or any for him shew me in Scripture one baptized and not hoc ipso made a member of the Visible Church 2. That his continuing with Philip whether antecedent or consequent to his admission is but a poor ground to prove what Mr. Lockier alledgeth it for viz. that Simon had such outward appearance of real inward grace that so far as man could judge he seemed a true and reall Saint I pray what is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he constantly followed and waited on Philip this is all that the word iâ—ports when joyned to a name of a person * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est ab alicujus latere non discedere sed assiduum comitem praesta re Constantin in lex Graec. Lat. Mr. Lockiers further criticisme upon the word is to little purpose and that he was astonished at the miracles and signes that were done That which Mr. Lockier alledgeth that no doubt Simon Magus was very diligent and full of care and circumspection to carry it so in all things c. is no doubt a confident assertion without bottom in the Text and yet is this evidence enough that a man is a true and reall Saint as far as men can judge I wonder how a judicious man before judicious men can assert such a thing I confesse this cariage of Simons was ground to repute him not a grosse hypocrite a dissembler and a mock-professor But it can be a ground of no further I find indeed sundry of the Interpreters saying that Simon would have been equall in reputation to the Apostles themselves But they speak not of this as his designe in his continuing with Philip as the Author mistakes for that was not a sufficiently â—pparent mean to obtain that reputation but as his designe in seeking to have the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost for his money which was the very discovery of his rottennesse so far was it from being any part of diligence carefulnesse and circumspection to carry it so in all things c. section 13 For consent of the Learned Interpreters he citeth some words of Pisc English annot Junius Premellius Pellicannus Beza And then tells that he addeth all these testimonies for the Learneds sake that they may see and know that Simon he caried the mater that he seemed another man then a meer professor otherwise the Apostles had not received him And when thus his hypocrisie did appear the Apostles rejected him as one not in Christ and as one whâ— had no share in reall grace and upon that ground rejected communion with such an hypocriâ—… that all else might know what they had to do namely to follow that rule of the Apostle 2 Tim. 3. 9. Having a forme of godlinesse but denying the power thereof from such turn away Which place saith he shewes plainly that it was the power and not the Prosession and not the forme that was looked and is to be looked at in the admission of members of the Visible Church Answ I wonder how the Author could so contemn the Learned who might read him as to say that for their sakes he had added these testimonies cited by him that they may see and know that Simon carried the mater so that he seemed another man then a meer Professour i. e. as he meaneth a true and reall Saint had he been pleased but to English these testimonies cited by him as it was his prudence to let them ly under the Latine vail the very unlearned who had common sense would evidently have seen and known them to import no such thing For this I appeal to the judgement of all that understand Latine and will be pleased to read them For I think it not worth the while to translate and insert them here the most that any of them amounteth to is that which the word ested from the English annot hath that he made outward profession of faith and conversion Might he not done this much and yet not carried it so in all things as to give ground positively to repute him as far as men could judge to be a true and real Saint Will Mr. Lockier acknowledge that a man hath said enough of another for that end when he saith no more of him but this he was so convinced by miracles as to professe faith and conversion Nay he 'll say it s the power of Godlinesse not profession that 's to be looked at 2. That when Simons hypocrisie did thus appear the Apostle did abominat the impiety of his deed discover and bear in upon him the perversenesse of his heart and his miserable estate and denunce the temâ—le deserved Judgement of God against him is clear in the Text But that he did reject him from outward communion of the Viâ—…ble Church I see it not Nay what ever became of him afterward about it Writers are of different judgement see Calv. in loc there
appears to be some grounds in the Text to think the contrary viz. these 1. That Peter with his severe objurgation and denunciation joynes a serious exhortation to Repentance and Prayer with an insinuation of some hope of mercie v. 2â— 2. That the Historian has registrate that Simon did not shew himself obstinate but accepting of the words of Peter and touched with the terrour of the threatned Judgement sought the help of the Apostles Prayers to escape it 3. But supposing that Peter did at this time Excommunicate him yet that it was done upon this account simply that he was not in Christ that he had no share in reall grace has no footing in the Text we will find a further mater â—…d to his charge an atrocious crime of seeking to buy the gift of the Holy Ghost with money Nay that for non regeneration simply a man should be Excommunicat is a wild assertion unheard of in the Word of God which enjoyneth this censure only in the case of obstinacy and contumacious contempt of the Discipline of the Church or at farthest in case of an atrocious scandall which case yet is doubtfull as may appear in the debates of Learned Men about the Excommunication of the incestuous Corinthian 4. The place 2 Tim. 3. 5. is most contrary to the scope and purpose of the context alledged as a rule holding forth that all professours not having true grace of Regeneration or not giving evidences thereof so far as men can discern and judge are for that to be casten out of the communion of the Visible Church It is clear as nooâ—-day that the Apostle by the men of whom he saith they have a form of godlinesse means not every professour unregenerate or not giving evidences convincing so far as men can judge of Regeneration but persons openly and grossely in their conversation scandalous flagitious blasphemous c. As is evident both by the words going before and following section 14 Thâ—â—ast Object he laboureth to answer the Apostle 2 Tim. 2. 20. But in a great house there are not only vessels of Gold and of Silver but also of Wood and of Earth and some to honour and some to dishonour by house he meaneth Visible Church therefore the Visible Church may consist of good â—…d bad Mr. Lockier propounds Arguments against his Tenent as himself pleaseth in the most â—oft way for his own advantage We hope in the next Section to give an Argumeâ—… from this and other like descriptions of the Visible Church formed somewhat more pungent now we shall only consider what he answâ—…eth unto it as laid down by himself His Answers are two section 15 First That there may be bad men in a Church hath not been denyed because Hypocrites may delude the judgement of the best men but he the Apostle saith not that these vessels of earth are there allowedly but they are there to dishonour That is being creept in where they should not be they are to be cast out of the Church as dishonourable as indeed was Hymeneus and Philetus of whom and of one Alexander see what the Apostle sayeth 1 Tim. 1. 20. which shews that when men put away that which they seem to have faith coupled with a good conscience they are to be put away to their master as vessels of dishonour appointed for wrath Answ 1. Passing now that expression that bad men are not in the Church allowedlie having pondered before in what sense it may be granted and in what not passing this what a wilde and forced Interpretation is that vessels to dishonour i. e. that are to be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastick censure Excommunication Who ever dreamed of the like before Clear it is that the Apostle in the back or outside of the comparison by being to honour means appointed and imployed to more honest and honourable uses in an house And by to dishonour meaneth not casting out of the house to Interprete him so were ridiculous but to be appointed and imployed to more base and fordid uses And in the kirnell or application of the similiâ—ude under the name of vessels to honour is meaned the elect of God sanctified and prepared to every good work and ordained â—o glory as is clear by the verse going before and the verse following And so by vessels to dishonour are meant cast-awayes whom being in the Visible Church God makes use of for such ends as he pleaseth and in end will separate them to that wrath and confusion they are fitted for whether ever here-away they break out into such scandals as shall make them to be casten out of the Visible Church or they continue in the heap or in the house to their ending day That this is the genuine meaning of the words I think no intelligent man will deny 2. It is a false supposition which Mr. Lockier insinuateth that bad men in the Church i. e. men void of true grace and unregenerat as and becausâ— such are to be cast out of the commuâ—…on of the Visible Church the Scripture allowâ—…h no casting out of men but because they are scâ—…dalous and contumâ—…ous or at least atrociously scandalous which latter yet as we said before is questionable and it alloweth men that are such to be casten out though they be haply in state truely regenerat and justified And therefore 3. It is a most inconsiderat word of the Authors where expressing the nature of Excommunication he â—ayeth they are to be put away to their master as vessels of dishonour and appointed unto wrath i. e. in plain words as reprobates ordained to eternall damnation This is very different from Pauls theologie 1 Cor. 5. 5. to deliver unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus Far be it from me and from the Churches of Christ to use Excommunication upon such a consideration of a person and for such an end as Mr. Lockier determines here which in effect makes the Church in the sentence of Excommunication to determine concerning mens reprobation a secret which God hath keped up to himself and is altogether hid unto and undiscernable by men except in the case of sinning against the Holy Ghost which yet is hard for any to determine upon 4. The Excommunication and casting out of Hymeneus Philetus and Alexander is impertinently alledged to the purpose viz. that all men that are not true Saints or have not true grace so must Mr. Lockier's bad men be understood are upon this account to be cast out of the Church these were not such men simply but taught abominable heresies denyall of the Resurrection perverse seducers of people from the faith blasphemers and for these they were cast out 2 Tim. 2. 18 2 Tim. 1. ult section 16 His next Answer is this Moreover by this great house he Paul First means the Church of the Ephesians for whose sake Paul wrot to Timothy and what they were according to the judgement of
the Apostle who wrot to them ye have heard Answ We take what the Author saith that this great house is the Church of the Ephesians and it may well be so taken as applicable to the Church of Ephesus or any other Church then I say he hath furnished a weapon against himself for if this house be the Church of the Ephesians to which â—he Apostle wrot then when as writing to them he â—…lled them Saints he meaneth not that â—f all and every one of them but spake it 〈◊〉 the body indefinitely and confusedly why Should that bâ— understood universally it should be a flat contradiction to what he saith here that the Church of the Ephesians is a great house in which there are some vessels to dishonour non-saints yea very reprobates appointed to wrath It will not salve the mater to say as Mr. Lockier insinuateth that the Apostle in writing to the Ephesians speaketh of what they were in his judgement For Paul is speaking his judgement here too Now how can these two judgements consist in one man To my judgement all and every one of the Church of Ephesus are reall Saints sealed as his and yet I pronounce there are in the Church of Ephesus some reall un-saints very reprobates Indeed if the Apostle here had not determined positively and purè But by way of suspence and modaliter in this house the Church of Ephesus may be or possibly there are some vessels of dishonour there would not be such repugnancie or incompatibilitie of this with the former But he speaks absolutely and positively there are some vessels to dishonour SECTION IX Some further Arguments confirming our Doctrine and everting the adverse opinion about the necessarie qualification of Members of the Visible Church section 1 MR. Lockier hath chosen out some Objections against his Doctrine as made by his adveâ—sarie but indeed framed at his own pleasure only two of them are in causâ the other are but extrinsecall to the cause Reflections and prejudices against persons this I confesse has been wittily done for gaining advantage in the minds of Hearers and Readers unacquainted with the controversie for his own and against his adversaries cause But it is not very ingenuous dealing What has there never a reason more been brought against that Tenet of his by learned men but these two I cannot think but he has seen and read Gul. Apolon consideration of certain controversies c. sâ—nt to the Assembly at Westminster 1644. Spanhems Epistle to Mâ— Buchanaâ— Mr. Rutherfurd his fiâ—st and second book aâ—ainst the Independent way however he might have read them and found therein besides other writings of Orthodox Divines some other arguments to answer Well because he has thought it fit to content himself with these two which yet how he has satisfied we leave it to the intelligent Reader to judge we shall adde some few more not troubling our selves nor the Reader with repetition of all that hath been said by others section 2 Arg. 1. If Moses did admit as Members into the external communion of the Visible Church under the Old Test men professing the true God of Israel the Covenant with him and his true Worship without enquirie for the Work of true Grace in their hearts or positive evidences that they were truely converted regenerate and gracious so far as men could discern and judge Yea knowing assuredly that many of them were as yet unconverted and hard hearted Item if Iohn the Baptist the Apostles and the Master Builder and Lord of the Church Jesus Christ himself did admit into the externall communion of the Visible Church of the New Test such as did professe the Christian Faith as soon as they did professe without delay for trying and searching evidences of the Work of Grace in their hearts Then in all Churches persons ought to be admitted upon the same termes And it is not a necessary qualification in foro Ecclesiastico for constituting one capable of Visible-Church-Membership that he be truely converted such as God who knoweth the hearts of all men can bear witnesse to as indeed sealed for his by his Spirit so far as men truely converted and very spirituall are 〈◊〉 to discerne and judge but the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof Ergo c. section 3 As to the consequence or connexion of the proposition it is likely Mr. Lockier will not acknowledge it upon the first part of the antecedent viz. the manner and ground of admitting Members into the Visible Church of the Old Testament because his judgement as seemeth is that the constitution of the Visible Church of the New Test in this point is essentially different from that of the Old for he restricteth his Thesis concerning the matter of the Visible Church to the dayâ—… of the Gospel not once which to me smelleth â—…nk of Anabaptists who as we know denying Infant Baptisme upon this ground because they cannot give evidences of Faith Being pressed with the Argument taken from Infants Church-Membership and sealing with the initiating Sacrament under the Old Testament to eschew if they could the dint of that argument do run upon the assertion of an essentiall difference between the constitution of the one Church and of the other and so deayes the consequence from practise in the one to the other as we see Mr. Tombs doeth in his dispute with Mr. Baxter I will not think that Mr Lockier doth run the Anabaptists length in making use of that difference Buâ— certaiâ—… if he assert as he seemeth to do an essentiall difference 〈…〉 one and the other he for his part gives them a fair ground 〈…〉 that argument used by all Orthodox Divines for Infant Bapâ—…e but the Orthodox have solidely asserted and maintained that the constitution of the Church under the Old Test and New differ not in essentialls but in accidentals only If our Author be otherwise minded I desiâ—… him to ponder and answer what the learned and acute Divine Mr. Baxter hath on that purpose in his dispute against Tombs pag. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36. and I will in the mean time suppose with the consent of all Orthodox Divines the consequence of the Proposition even upon that first part of the Antecedent to be valide section 4 As to the consequence 〈◊〉 the other part of the Anâ—…cedent viz. the practice of John the Baptist the Apostles and of our LORD JESUS CHRIST himself under the New Test admitting persons to the fellowship of the Visible Church upon their first professing faith and subjection to the Ordiâ—…nces without any delay of time for trying the sincerity â—…d â—rutâ— of the work of grace in the heart I know what uses to be excepted against the practice of the Apostles and the consequences there deduced from it viz. that the Apostles were men induâ—… with an eminent gift of discerning and therefore although th◠〈◊〉 admit men as soon as they made profession without further deny or tryall yet that they did this as
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
professours but yet unregenerat to invite and so to be means of bringing in such to communion with Christ and participation of his saving grace set forth under the Parable of a Feast Hence then 't is evident that the Ministry and Ministeriall dispensation of the Gospel is ordained and instituted in the Church to be an ordinaâ—y means of Conversion 2. 2 Cor. 5. 18 19 20. Hence we reason thus The Ministry of the Gospel iâ— a Ministry of Reconciliation i. e. for bringing men from their estate of enimity to peace with God and it is the Office of Ministers as ambassadours in Christs stead to treat with souls and bring them in to Reconciliation with God Therefore they are appointed to be the ordinary means of Conversion 3. 2 Tim. 2. 24 25. The servant of the Lord must not strive but be gentle to all men apt to teach patient In meeknesse instructing those that oppose themselves if God peradventure will give them Repentance Then 't is evident Ministers are instituted to be means of Converting souls and they must be qualified in relation to this as the work of their Ministry It is well marked by Estius tho a Papist yet in most things a judicious solid Interpreter docet hic locus Deum ad convertendum peccatores uti velle operâ hominum qui externum adhibeant Ministerium correptionis Doctrinae 4. Rom. 10. 14 17. 'T is so clear from this place that the Ministers of the Gospel by their Ministeriall Preaching thereof are the ordinary means appointed by God for Conversion and begetting faith that it cannot be avoyded but by denying absurdly with Arminians Socinians and others everters of the Ministry that by a sent Preacher is not understood any other but any gifted man though not called and set apart to the Office of the Ministry We conclude then that seeing the Ministry of the Gospel is ordained of God to be an ordinary mean of converting the elect and bringing them to Christ it cannot be a condition necessarily requisite in the members of the Visible Church antecedently to their admission into the society thereof that they be already converted or supposed and judged to be such so far as men can discern And that which followeth upon the contrary That privat Christians and not the Ministry of sent Preachers are the ordinary means and instruments of converting souls is a meer dream having no warrand in the Word of God * Hooker Sur. p. 1. c. 7. pag. 84 85. I know Mr. Hooker stormes at my Reverend Collegue for charging this absurdity upon them And he confesseth that is a dream and hath no warrand in the Word and wonders how such an absurdity is so continually in the eare and minde of Mr. Rutherfurd and sayeth he knoweth not whence it cometh But verily the good man was angry at Mr. Rutherfurd without cause For it cometh as naturally from his principles as any conclusion can come from its premisses For if a Visible Church cannot be constituted of any but such as are supposed to be before converted and an Visible Church is prior to an ordinary Minister neither can there be a Minister but in a constitute Church as themselves maintain I pray what must be the ordinary means for there are not alwayes Apostles extraordinarily sent of God of converting souls but privat Christians What the good man sayeth pag. 84. materialls of new gathered Churches with us are such as have been converted by Ministers in their severall Congregations With reverence of his memorie be it spoken is childish and nothing to the purpose for first the Question is not how or by what means de facto this or that man is converted but what followeth upon his Tenet And according to the genius of this it followeth clearly that all are supposed to be converted we speak of Conversion ordinarily before ever they come under a Ministry and so by privat Christians And these some of whom you gather your Congregations having them from under other Ministers in their severall Congregations if these Congregations be rightly constitute according to your principles were converted ere ever they came under such Ministers section 27 Argument 5. If the mater of the Visible Church were only reall Saints and the complexion of the Visible Church true holines and saving grace as Mr. Lockier roundly expresseth in his Tenet pag. 29. and that by expresse opposition to seemingly good pag. 25. or such as are positively to be judged such by evidence so far as men very spirituall can discern as other where he expresseth it then it doth follow that a man being in the Visible Church for non-regeneration simply or non-appearance or defect of positive evidence to ground a positive judgement of his Regeneneration ought to be Excommunicat and casten out of the Visible Church but the consequent is false Ergo the antecedent also The connexion of the proposition Mr. Lockier cannot deny for in effect it is his own pag. 28. where he sayeth Excommunication is an Ordinance to cleanse the House of God and keep it pure and according to what it ought to be so far as men can discern according to his Tenet consisting of only reall Saints and not one other And sayeth expresly that if men creep in where they should not be i. e. if men not Regenerat creep into the Visible Church they are to be cast out 'T is true pag. 29. in the end of the paragraph he mincheth the mater and sayeth only not one known to be otherwise can abide within But he should have said by the consequence of his Tenet not one not known positively to be such c. As to the Assumption that it is false that for non-regeneration simply or defect of positive evidences of Regeneration persons are to be cast out of the Visible Church 1. Because there is neither precept nor practice in the Word of God for casting out any upon this account Let Mr. Lockier produce us any thing from Scripture of this kind The Scripture enjoyneth Excommunication for obstinacie in known publick scandalous sins in conversation or heresie in Doctrine or at most for atrocious crimes whether the persons be judged Converts and Regenerats or not but no mention of any other cause of Excommunication And in maters de jure in Religion a negative Argument from Scripture is sure 't is not commanded 't is not written in Scripture Ergo it ought not to be done I do professe this consequent following upon this opinion is one of the considerations amongst others that of a long time has swayed me to think that 't is a way which is not of God But on the contrary tho I esteem reverently of many of the followers of it and has no harsh thoughts of their intentions therein that 't is a subtile device of Satan transforming himself into an Angel of light set on foot by him as to advance Atheism in the World so in speciall to overturn the Protestant Religion and Churches For
Gospel like behaviour which is requisite to be a ground of esteeming persons beleevers what at least is requisite and must concurre to make it up and lesse then which will not serve That so we might have the generall determinat rule whereby cognition is to be made and estimation to be passed upon all professours of the truth that they are beleevers or otherwayes For certainly while as they say but indefinitly such a blamelesse and Gospel behaviour and tells not what is requisite to make up such a behaviour they leave the mater in a mist of uncertainty and for ought we can see devolves the weight of that estimation upon mens apprehensions without a rule If they say they were writing an Epistle to friends and could not therein say all that is to be said in the mater I Answer that if they could have told it it might been said in short bounds and it was as necessary for clearing their mind to have been told as the Thesis they have set down it self But yet let them point us to such a rule in the Word if they know where it lyeth For my part I professe humbly I could never yet see in the Word of God an universall definite rule whereby judgement may and ought to be passed upon all and every professour of the truth by others that they are to be held for true beleevers or otherwise 5. When as in the designation of the persons that are fit to be admitted members of the Visible Church they with Parents joyn their children I do heartily acknowledge their Orthodoxy in this beyond others of that way who have omitted wholly that addition and wishes they may continue in that point of truth considering how easie it is as the Authors of that Epistle themselves may perceive by experience in others that went off with them first by that step they have gone on to slide into that other of excluding the Infants of beleevers from the Visible Church But now I would know whether they acknowledge such Infants members compleatly I mean in actu primo or not If they say the former they are at a disagreement with others of the Independent way If they say the latter then we must have another distinction of constitute members and so many sorts of members of the Visible Church and so also we must have many sorts of qualifications of members section 4 But now take the mater of the Thesis as it is that the necessary qualification to make one of years fit to be admitted a member of the Visible Church is together with profession of the truth such a conversation as may make a man to be esteemed i. e. positively judged a true beleever or Regenerat person I shall not here adde any new reasons to what I have brought before But shall come briefly to consider if these present Authors have brought any new strength of reason for that Tenet Only I would desire them in the fear and love of the truth to consider if they can find in the Word of God amongst all these many whose admission into the fellowship of the Visible Church of Christ is mentioned therein any instance of persons or one person who after their first professing Christian faith and Religion was what ever their behaviour and course had been before to that very time delayed of their admission to be Church-members untill they should be seen and found with that their profession to joyn such a blamelesse and Gospel-like behaviour as the Authors requires many of them no doubt untill that time had been of a very blameable and un Gospel behaviour and course of life And certain it is that to be seen joyning with profession of the truth an unblameable and Gospel-like behaviour requires some delay and length of time For my part I could never yet see any instance of this kind but on the contrary finds that persons as soon as they once embraced the profession of the Christian faith albeit to that very time their behaviour had been most blameable were forthwith baptized and so admitted members into the Christian Church Consider this I beseech you dear brethren if so ye will yet suffer your selves to be called and exhorted by me section 5 But now we come to the grâ—…nds of confirmation of their thesis Such say they were the Churches founded by the Apostles which ought to be paterns to us as appears by the title given to them Saints sanctified justified washed by the blood of Christ For Answer we refer to what we said before to that same inductive Argument in Mr. Lockier now in a word only to make this Argument good it must be alledged and made out not only that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apostles at least such as are mentioned in Scripture were actually and defacto consisting of such members as were all and every one Saints justified c. in the positive judgement of charity But also were in their gathering constitute of all and every one formally considered and taken in under the notion of such upon tryall found and judged to be such But 1. 'T is not so much as alledged by the Authors that they were so gathered and constituted nor can these titles let them take them as they will import any thing of this 2. Nor suppose these titles should import that the Churchâ—… to which they are given were eventually consisting of such members as were all and every one such Does it follow that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apostles were so I mean even such of them as are mentioned in Scripture Because these titles are not given unto all and every Church founded by the Apostles or Apostolicall men in the Apostles time We give instance of the Churches Smyrna Pergamus Thyatira Sardis Laodicea nay had the Authors duely considered what is said of these Churches Revel 2 and 3. I think they could not in reason said what they say here Nor 3. Doe these titles import necessarily that the Churches to which they are given did de facto and eventually consist of all and every one such These titles may and must at least of some of them be understood of their visible body synecdochically by a denomination taken from the better part as I would rather say of the body communiter confuse not universaliter section 6 The Authors of the Epistle touches not at the two former exceptions which yet are sufficient to overturn this Argument and I doubt not but one of the Authors he that as I conceive has been the Penner of this Epistle a man well enough acquainted in Argumentation and able to discern what may be alledged to be defective in an induction might well perceived but only labours to infring the third We cannot say they acquiesce to the common Answer that these expressions are to be understood of the better part Answ Yet as good and as judicious as you the whole stream of Interpreters untill Anabaptists
and Separatists did arise have given and acquiesced in that Interpretation of these titles But if you can bring solid reason to prove they must be understood otherwise we shall yeeld as to this We give more assent to one solid reason then to an hundred Authorityes of meer men Come we then to see what reason is brought to prove they ought to be understood otherwise 1. For that say they they are to be understood of them all according to the judgement of charity The Holy Ghost has clearly said Rom. 1. 7. To all that be at Rome beloved of God called Saints And again vers 8. I thank my God for you all This the first then they subjoyn another We hope when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 6. 18. flee fornication none will deny but he speaks to the whole Church Yet to the same persons he immediatly addes vers 19 20. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you you are not your own you are bought with a price this is an Argument taken from the condition of the persons whom he exhorteth thus But the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth Therefore they were all such as the Apostle judged in charity the redeemed of the Lord. Answ Remember what we have said before that tho all were granted that is here alledged yet the main point in Question touching the constitution of these Churches is not proven The main point in Question is upon what formall consideration only the members of which these Churches did consist were received and admitted into the constitution thereof But the most that can be made out of what is alledged here let it all be granted is that all the members were such de facto and eventually this being remembered to the present purpose 1. Suppose it were granted and that the reasons alledged did prove that these titles as given to the Churches of Rome and Corinth were to be understood as the Authors will of all and every one in these Churches that they were judged by the Apostle in charity the Redeemed of the Lord truly sanctified c. It is hereby clear and evinced that so these titles must be understood also when they are given to the other Churches founded by the Apostles I know the chief Author of the Epistle has more skill however it be with others of them in Logick then to think so and hopes he doth not so despise others that have any tolerable knowledge that way as to think they would take such a thing off his hand and therefore wonders that having undertaken to prove that all the Churches founded by the Apostles were constitute of such members as were all positively judged in charity Redeemed and Sanctified because of the titles of Redeemed and Sanctified given to them And then that these titles given to them must not be understood synecdochically by a denomination taken from the better part but of all and every one of them In the proof of this he brings in two of them without so much as one word of assay to prove the like of the rest If it shal be said that if that be proven of one or two it is proven also by consequence of the rest I deny it for the Question being about the sense wherein a title ascribed to severall particular Societies whether viz. it be ascribed to them universally as competent to all and every individuall contained therein Or only by a denomination taken from a better part of these individualls To prove that is to be so or so understood of one or two of them is not sufficient to conclude that so it is to be understood of the rest If yet it shall be replied that there is no reason why it should not be so understood of the rest of these Churches as of these expressed I answer this much at least should have been alledged which is not to have made the Argument in appearance at least to have some force for the main point intended But what if tho it should be granted that these titles are attributed to the two Churches expressed here are to be understood as spoken of them universally yet it shall be shown that in some other of these Churches founded by the Apostles there were persons to whom these titles could not be applyed We conceive this hath been done before in our answer to Mr. Lockier particularly of the Church of Ephesus and that the 2 and 3. of the Rev. hold the same clearly forth of some others But 2. as for that brought for the Church of Rome we refer to what we have answered before to Mâ— Lockier in that same purpose 3. As to the Argument brought to prove that the title of Redeemed and consequently the rest is given to all and every one of the Church of Corinth it lyeth thus in form as propounded by the Authors themselves The Apostle exhorting the Corinthians to flee fornication taketh an Argument from the condition of the persons whom he exhorteth to wit that they were Redeemed but the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth Therefore they were all such as the Apostle judged in charity to be Redeemed of the Lord. Answ I wonder exceeding much that such a loosly formed Argument should have come from the hand of such a Philosophe as I take to have been the principall Author of this Epistle for take it as it lyeth here it looketh not like a peece of arte a syllogism consisting of three terms but seemeth to have some more But to take it in the most candid way I conceive it may be resolved into those two processes to make it formall the first may be thus all these to whom the Apostles exhortation to flee fornication there is directed are by him called Redeemed And so were at least to his judgement of charity But to all the Church of Corinth is that exhortation of the Apostles directed Therefore c. The other is for proof of the major or first proposition of that thus These persons who are exhorted to flee fornication by an Argument taken from Redemption as their condition are called Redeemed by the Apostle But all these to whom that exhortation is directed are exhorted by an Argument taken from that condition Therefore c. Now then to Answer 1. I think the assumption of the first syllogism may well be denyed viz. that exhortation is directed to all and every one in the Church of Corinth the Authors prove it not Only they think it so evident that none will deny it But for what reason they are so confident of this I know not unlesse it be this that flying fornication was a duety incumbent to them all and every one of them But this reason is not constringent for why may not a duty which is in a common obligation incumbent to all be pressed upon some peculiar persons by an exhortation particularly intended and directed for them I can see no circumstance in the Text here why we may
not conceive this exhortation tho to a duty of common obligation yet particularly intended and directed by the Apostle to the elect and truely redeemed amongst them not distinctly by the head and name pointing them out but confusè in the Visible Society they were amongst 2. Passing that assumption of the first syllogism the assumption of the second which is brought to prove the major of the first is as loose viz. that all these persons to whom the exhortation is directed or are exhorted to flee fornication are exhorted by that Argument taken from redemption as their condition This may well be denyed for why may not an exhortation to a common duty directed to a whole society mixed of persons of different spirituall conditions be pressed upon all by some Arguments common to all such as that whereby this exhortation is pressed vers 18. and upon some by some speciall Argument relating properly to them There can be no circumstance of the context alledged to prove why it may not be conceived to be so here supposing that the exhortation is directed to all But 3. To beat out the bottom of this Argument I prove from the very Text it self that the Apostle here speaking to the persons whom he calleth redeemed speaketh of them as such in the verity of the thing or object i. e. as truly and really redeemed and consequently cannot be conceived to speak it of all and every one in the Church of Corinth as the Authors themselves will confesse I doubt not I prove it thus these whom the Apostles calls Redeemed here they are such as might and ought themselves to know and be assured that they were Redeemed and had the Spirit of God dwelling in them But only such as are in realâ—ty and the verity of the thing Redeemed c. may and ought to know and be assured of this of themselves Therefore the second Part of this Argument is clear because otherwise a man might and ought to know and be assured of a lie concerning his estate which is deluded presumption The first part is also clear from the Apostles words v. 19. What know ye not that your bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost c. That know ye not so frequently used by the Apostle especially in these Epistles to the Corinthians and in this very Chapter five times imports a certain assurance of the thing he is speaking of and therefore here the Apostle imports that these whom he is speaking to as redeemed and having the Spirit dwelling in them they are such as may and ought to be assuredly sensible that they were redeemed And is not this place parallel to that of the very like expression 2 Cor. 13. 5. Know ye not that Christ is in you Which all Protestant Divines presse against Papists for proving Believers certain assurance and perswasion of grace and salvation Therefore I conclude That the Apostle by these whom he calls the Temple of the Holy Ghost understands them that are such indeed and in truth of the object and not in the judgment of charity And what an incongruous interpretation were it to put upon these words Know ye not that ye are the temples of the Holy Ghost redeemed with a price this sense Know ye not that ye are accounted in the judgment of charity temples of the Holy Ghost c. 4. Yet I think it cannot in truth be said that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were judged positively by the Apostle in the judgment of charity gracious renewed and sanctified ones even because of the grosse wickednesse he in these Epistles expresseth himself to have known to be amongst them section 7 The last exception the Authors of the Epistle goes about to obviate thus Neither hath it any weight with us to the contrair which is objected that there were grosse faults amongst them as divisions intemperance questioning the Resurrection incest Will not Lots drunkennesse Davids adultery Peters deniall prove these to be sins incident to the Saints tho justly censurable as the incestuous was excommunicate a man who once as is spoken of Gaius hath been approven of the truth it self though he be overtaken with grosse infirmitie albeit for it he be censurable according to the nature of his offence yea the highest Ecclesiastick Censure passe against him yet he is to be esteemed as a brother 2 Thes 3. 15. Answ 1. Tho that objected hath not with you yet has it had with many judicious and godly men in the Church of God both ancient and moderne much weight to the contrair I name for the present but one there be no doubt of many others because of the Controversie he is upon in making use of this consideration The godly Orthodox and ancient Augustine ad Donatist as post collationem cap. 21. where disputing against the Donatists maintaining separation from all other Christian Churches because of the mixture 〈◊〉 many wicked ones amongst them from that place 2 Cor. 6. 14 15 16 17. just as these Authors of this Epistle do afterward from that same very place ut non sit ovum ovo similius answers them from the consideration of these many grosse wickednesses expressed by the Apostle as abounding in that Church that there were many gracelesse persons amongst them yet they neither made nor were commanded to make separation from that Church I humbly desire the judicious Reader to be at the pains to read the whole Chap. and I shall but point at two or three remarkable Passages of it here see the Margine * In eodem quippe ipso populo CorinthioruÌ„ quod dicimus demonstramus ne forte arbitrentur prophetarum tantummodo moris fuisse non ad Novi Testsed ad Vâ—…eris consuetudinem pertinere sâ—c arguere reprehensibiles quasi omnes in eo populo arguantur sic allo qui laudabiles quasi omnes illi laâ—dantur Ecce ad Corinthlos sic Apostalus loquitur Paulus vocatus Iesu Christi per voluntatem Dei Sostheneâ— frater Ecclesiae quae est Corinthi sanctificatis in Iesu Christo vocatis sanctis Quis haec avdiens credat in Ecclesia Corinthiorum esse aliquos reprobos quandoquidem verba ista sic sonant velut ad omnes directa sit laudatio Et tamen paulo post dicit Obsâ—…ro autem fratres ut id ipsnm dicatis omnes non siâ—t in vobis schismata In ipsis etiam Corinthiis ibi erant qui non credebant resurrectionem mortuorum quae singularis sides est Christianorum Attendamus verbailla quibus Câ—inthiorum Ecclesiam in principio Epistolae sic laudat ut dicatâ— Gratias ago Deo meo semper pro vobis in gratia Det quae data est vobis in Christo Icsu quia in omnibus divites facti est is Ecce sic erant ditati in Christo in omni verbo in omni scientia ita ut iis nihil decsset in ulla graetia ut in illis essent qui resurrectionem
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
of the Visible Church formally consists baptizing if Mr. Lockier shall say that this cannot be done without the sentence of the collective body of Professours he 'll speak beside the book of God which holds forth to us baptisme administrate by one Minister alone without the knowledge of any particular Church and mentioneth not any instance so far as I can remember of Ministers requiring the vote of the Church for baptizing any at any time section 8 For the third the limitation of the Elderships exerting of power not without the consent and approbation of the Church Upon this 1. I would inquire of Mr. Lockier whom he meaneth by the Church without whose consent and approbation this ought not to be done Whether the whole Congregation i. e. all Members thereof promiscuously and indifferently or only some certain Members thereof excluding the rest If the whole Congregation and all the Members thereof Then women and children also must have an hand in these weighty maters of the Government of the Church which I cannot well think he will affirme sure I am will not be owned by many of his side and is contrary to the Word of God If not the whole Congregation but some certain Members viz. men these of years of discretion or of a manlyage Then 1. why speaketh he of the Church indefinitely without any such restriction not without the consent and approbation of the Church Are not women a part of the Church yea and children also under age unlesse we shall say that they are without i. e. of the world of heathens and aliens from the Israel and Household of God which is absurd Nay I suppose there may be a Church consisting of only women beside the Officers as in case all the men of a Congregation were removed by death or otherwise for must we say that a Congregation consisting of 40. men and as many women if by Pestilence all the men should be removed excepting the Officers thereof that it should because of this cease to be a Visible Church 2. It cannot consist with what he saith afterward in sundry of his Arguments brought to prove his Assertion In the first thereof he alledgeth that the power of the Keyes are given to persons not as Officers Apostles or Elders but as beleevers to the Church of beleevers and beleeving with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal but I assume that Women are beleevers and beleevers with such a faith as well as Men Ergo by his Argument they must have an hand in the Government by their consent and approbation as well as the men Again in the third whereas he alledges that other wayes viz. than as he asserted the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren for as much as persons may be taken in and casten out concerning which they can have no distinct knowledge I assume that this will hold as well for women little ones of the Church and sisters of tender consciences as well as men Because offending of these must be eschewed as well as of those Further in his fourth Argument he alledgeth as a ground of his Assert that the spirit of discerning is not confined to Elders but may be in great measure in some of the members and a greater gift when all are joyned together in the Name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge And addeth that the Saints shall Judge the World All which take in female Saints as well as male Saints section 9 2. When as there is a consent and approbation of acts of Government privat obedientiall and not-authoritative And a consent and approbation publick and authoritative by way of a judiciall decisive vote Why is it that the Author does not in his Assertion determine which of these he means 'T is true afterward in his 5th Argument he is expresse that the whole Church and so men women and children should be joyntly authoritative about these acts of Government But here in propounding the Assertion involves the mater in an ambiguous generality It would seem to bear the ignorant Reader in hand that we did grant nothing to people about these acts of Government but a passive blind obedience to what is determined by the Eldership It would seem I say this is the drift of it the rather that afterward SECT 5. end he hints at our Doctrine in this expression If the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Presbytery and the people left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills who thus impropriat power But surely this is either a grosse misunderstanding or a foul misrepresentation of the Doctrine of Presbyterians in this mater which may appear by these things which they reach and grant unto the people in relation to matters belonging to Ecclesiastick Government As section 10 First we grant as to the mater of the Calling of Ministers and Officers of the Church that to all the people belongeth the power to nominat and elect the persons to be their own Church-Officers And that to put upon a people who are Christians and in a capacity to elect any Church Officer without their consent and election is unwarrantable intrusion But withall we affirm that this nomination or election is not an authoritative act of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction conferring upon the person any Ministeriall or Officiall power and authority but that this is conferred by the act of ordination 〈◊〉 the ordinary course appointed by Christ in his Church Ministerially under Christ and by vertue of his institution which act is to be performed by the Rulers of the Church and not by the people and that the nomination or election performed by the people is only the designation of the persons on whom this power is to be conferred by ordination if he be one as yet not ordained and is appropriated to be their Minister Besides we grant that any of the people has power to object any just exceptions against a person who is a calling to be their Minister and they ought to be heard and if their reasons be relevant they ought to be admitted section 11 Secondly we grant in like manner as to admission of members that any of the members of the Church has power to represent any just exception and reason they know against any person to be admitted and that their reasons ought to be heard and if relevant to be admitted section 12 Thirdly as to the Preaching of the Word we grant that the people are not obliged to give blind and implicit obedience to what is delivered by the Ministers as if they ought to receive as the Word of God whatsoever is delivered by them but that they have power and ought by the judgement of discretion to search the Scriptures whether the things delivered by the Ministers be so to try the spirits whether they be of God or not to prove all things and hold fast that which
is good Acts 17. 11. 1 Iohn 4. 1. 1 Thess 5. 18. and the like judgement of discretion we grant to them in relation to other parts of worship section 13 Fourthly as to the exercise of Ecclesiastick Discipline and the censure of offenders and particularly Excommunication We grant 1. that privat professours are by the Word of God to exhort and reprove offending Brethren yea and to admonish their Governours if negligent and remisse Colloss 4. 17. but this we say is an act not of authority and jurisdiction but of charity 2. They are to complain to the Church of such as are obstinate in their offences against their privat reproof and admonition but neither is this an act of authority and jurisdiction formally but only preparatory thereunto it is not gradus in re but gradus ad rem of authoritative Ecclesiastick Discipline 3. When a person is sentenced by the Presbytery unto Ecclesiastick censure For example Excommunication they are to obey that sentence and by avoyding the person as a Publican and heathen put it in execution not in an implicit and blind but rationall obedience and assent for they must do it 1. Out of clear knowledge of faith in themselves of the justice of the sentence in materia juris that the offence for which the censure is inflicted is by Gods appointment in his Word so censurable 2. That the person is guilty of the fact for which he is censured so that if the person do not acknowledge and take with it by confession the manner and means of probation of it ought to be signified to them in the generall at least And if they can alledge any just reason against the justice of the sentence either as to the point of law or to the mater of fact they ought to be heard and admitted Nor do we deny but that privat professours being desirous upon just grounds and for their clearing in giving obedience in such maters may and ought to be admitted to hear and be witnesses of the leading and deducing of such processes By all these it may evidently appear how injurious an insinuation that is of the Author wherewith he asperseth Presbyterians that to wit by their way the managing of all things in the Church is so committed wholly to the Presbytery that the people are left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills impropriating this power to themselves This way of managing the Government of Christs Church and binding people to implicit and blinde obedience we abhorre as Antichristian usurpation and tyranny And the Author in aspersing us with it has dealt either uningenuously or ignorantly section 14 The thing we say is this that in these things of Government admission of Members ordination of Officers exercise of Discipline authoritatively to act vote and judge as Judges authorized with Christs Authority belongeth not to privat persons or the body of professours joyntly with the Eldership which is the the thing Mr. Lockier plainly asserteth afterward SECT 6. init but involveth in a mist in propounding his assertion at first for what end he knoweth best himself but only to Christs Officers the Rulers set over his Church Thus having cleared up the meaning of the Question we have in hand with the Author here come we now to consider his Arguments for his Assertion SECTION II. Examination of Mr. Lockiers 1 2 3 4. Argument section 1 FIrst saith he because the power of the Keyes was not at first given to Peter as an Apostle or as an Elder but as an Beleever The consequent he would infer must be this Ergo that the Elders must not in these weighty maters of Government admission of Members ordination of Ministers censures exert power without the authoritative joynt acting and concurring of the Church i. e. the body of professours therein with them Ans 1. If this consequence be good then it must follow as well that Ministers cannot exert power of authoritative Preaching the Gospel but with the joynt authoritative concurrence of the people in Preaching with them For certain it is that the power of Preaching the Gospel is comprehended in these Keyes given to Peter as well as the power of censures c. and therefore if it follow the power of the keyes was not given to Peter as an Apostle nor as an Elder but as a Believer Ergo the Elders cannot exert power in ordination censures c. without the joint authorative concurrence of the body of Professours therein it must follow also Ergo they cannot exert power in preaching the Gospel without their joynt authoritative concurrence therein and so when the Minister preaches all the people must authoritatively preach with him else his preaching is null 2. But waving this and granting it were true that the power of the keyes was first given to believers and so to Peter not as a Minister but as representing Believers I do not see how it must of necessity follow that the body of Professours must act authoritatively jointly with the Rulers in the exerting of that power For we may suppose it was given to the body of the Church not formally but radically and virtually to be by them derived to Rulers to be formally exerted by these only and then the consequent will not follow as suppose it were true which many Politicians and with them some Divines maintain which yet for my self I cannot see solide proof of that the power of Civile Government is first given of God by a naturall right unto the body of people yet from this it followeth not that no Magistrates elected by people must exert power of Government without the joint authoritative concurrence of the people with them Then when ever a King is to exert an act of Government or a Parliament they must do nothing unlesse the people sit down upon the Throne or in the house with them and thus no doubt sundry Divines in former times when they say that the power of the Keyes were given first to the whole Church of beleevers are to be understood to have meant that this power was given to them not to be formally inherent and abiding in themselves to be exerted and exercised by them But virtually by them to be setled upon such persons as they should designe for Ministeriall offices in the Church by whom only it is to be formally exerted and exercised which yet is a mistake section 2 But let 's see how the Author proves his antecedent viz. That the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as an Apostle or as an Elder but as a Belâ—ever Only by the way first 't is worthy observation that these of the Independent way are not at agreement among themselves yea nor some of them with themselves touching this mater of the first subject to which the power of the Keyes was given as we see marked in their own expressions by the learned Mr. Caudrey in his scheme of contradictions and contrarieties in the Independent way
guides and leads the proceedings of the Judicatory 5. The Church if the Elders go wrong may not only admonish them But 6. if impenitent reject i. e. Excommunicate them Ans 1. If the Church ordain their Elders may depose them may Excommunicate them To speak of Elders exerting power but not without consent and approbation of the Church is give me leave to say it without offence upon the mater a Gilli-maufrey The Church can and does exert Power it self by it self without Elders exerting any Power in these weighty maters of Government And what need then to talk of a necessity of their consent and approbation to the Elders exerting the Power nay by these suppositions the Elders as such shall have no Power no judiciall or authoritative Power at all to exert As such they are at most only as Chair-men and Moderators to the Church in its exerting Power But. 2. all these Assertions making up the Antecedent or proof except the first concerning the electing of Officers which is no act of Government nor makes a man a Minister but only is a designation of the person to be made a Minister by ordination or an application of him being a Minister to exercise his office in a particular charge and the 5th concerning admonition which is not an act of jurisdiction or authority but a duty of love and mercy competent to every single Professour except these two all the rest are but bare unwarranted Assertions and a very begging of the things in question More of them severally hereafter Only in a word now here concerning the last that the Church may Excommunicate their Elders however many of the Independents affirme so Yet some of them and these not of least account have scunnered at it yea denyed it down-right and given reason for their so denying As Mr. Cotton Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule and therefore cannot be performed but by some rulers The Keyes pag. 16. The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbyterie because they have not received from Christ an office of rule without their Officers ib. no act of the peoples power doth properly bind unlesse the authoritâ— of the Presbytery joine with it 3. But one word more for the present when the Author sayes that the Elders are set over the Church and yet makes them but servants of the Church in the sense we have before expressed subject to judiciall tryall and censures by the Church c. he gives us but an empty word nomen sine re which is another scorn it is impossible by his way to shew us one act of authority in regard of which they can be said to be over the Church See this I say made good impregnably by Reverend Mr. Rutherfurd due right of Presbyteries pag. * This is to be looked after the retrogradation of the number of pages mentioned by the Printer in admonition about Errata 311. to 323. section 10 As to the Latine testimonie cited by the Author to confirm what he has been saying concerning the Church of believers power to censure their Elders and Officers I professe I know not what Author he means nor have leisure to enquire But to the two Texts of Scripture pointed at in it 1. The former Act 11. 3. 't is true Peter there giveth an account of his going in to the uncircumcised But 1. was he required by a Church of Believers only and contradistinguished from all Elders and Officers in which notion it is that Mr. Lockier is now speaking of the Church to do this before them judicially this is a dream The Church at Jerusalem before whom Peter was at that time consisted of Elders as well as Believers And the Apostles and Brethren that were in Judea heard c. and it is well observed by the Nedder Dutch Notes that under the name of Brethren are comprehended the Elders who afterwards c. 15. 23. are distinguished from private brethren 't is said v. 2. that some of the Brethren contended with him for that deed now supposing that they challenged him judicially and that he made his Apology judicially how shall it be evidenced from the Text that he did it before the body of Professours and not before the Colledge of Apostles and other Elders only sitting and cognoscing judicially upon the mater the sharpest sight in the World will not see a vestige of any thing of this kind in the Text nor can any man shew us either precept or example in Scripture for a Church of Believers alone judicially cognoscing and giving sentence of censure upon their Elders and Rulers 2. Suppose there had been none but private Believers amongst them to whom Peter made that Apologie to remove the scandall Yet that were but a poor ground to prove that he did it to them judicially sitting upon him and as having authority to judge and censure him for why One Christian doing any thing at which offence is taken may and ought to give an account and satisfaction to another privat brother who is offended for removing the offence Yet hath not a privat Brother authority or power judicially to cognosce and passe sentence upon another Brother section 11 2. To the other place 1 Cor. 3. 22. brought for that Peter and so other Church-Officers are the servants and Ministers of the Church 1. 'T is true the Pastours there are said to be the Churches and so also are the world life death things present things to come and all things But I hope none will be so absurd as to say that the World Life Death c. are the Churches as servants in way of relation to the Church as a Mistresse calling commissionating them under Her they are the Churches as means to Her good and so are the Pastors and Rulers Her servants in this sense 2. Tho Independents will not stand to affirme that ordinary Officers are the servants of a particular Church as their Mistresse commissionating them and having Power over them Yet I am ready to think their stomacks will stand at it to affirme so much of the Apostles of Jesus Christ as Apostles And yet by that Text even the Apostles themselves as Apostles are held forth to be the Churches as well as ordinary Pastors and Rulers and that in a like maner for ought can be perceived by the Text. section 12 The 3. Argument SECT 4. Because otherwise if the Elders should exert power in these maters of Government without the joint Authoritative consent and vote of the members of the Church the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren But offence ought not to be given to Christ little ones one of the least of the family Ergo c. To prove the assumption needlesse pains is taken Now if this Argument hold good it will conclude that not only men but women also must have joint authoritative consent and vote with the Elders in these maters of power and Government For
thee i. e. every one hath need of another his meaning were every one has need of another in authoritative judiciall actings of Government and therefore we must all whatsoever members we are help the good of the whole by concurring in such authoritative acting No such thing But he is there for remedying the abuse of gifts amongst the Corinthians amongst whom there was bestowed great variety of gifts and for preventing Schisms which might be occasioned and produced thereby Amongst many other considerations presented by him for that purpose he is I â—…y shewing generally that the Spirit having distributed variety of gifts in the Church not giving all to every member but some to one and some to another there is no member can stand alone by it self buâ— needs the help of another and the gift thereof whether it be a gift for ruling or for some other operation And 〈◊〉 it is that some of the gifts spoken of by the Apostle there are soul as belongeth not to these acts of Government nor are contributive of light for directing in going about and exerting them As for example the gift of healings the 〈◊〉 of speaking with tongues But would the Author yet duely 〈◊〉 the Apostles Doctrine along that Chapter I am perswaded he might therein find as much as does very clearly evert his Assertion 〈◊〉 to privat professours and members of the Church the 〈◊〉 â—he Keys and joint authoritative judiciall concurrencâ— with the Eldership in the acts of Government Nay I think that one Chapter contains as much as overâ—urns all the Independent Brethrenâ— new way and modell of Churches besides many particulars in 〈◊〉 contrary to severall particulars of this new way that one generall so clearly held forth in it of an Universall Visible Church is â—nough to batter it all to the ground as might be evidenced were it our purpose here But for the present to the paâ—ticular we are now upon doth not the Apostle there as also Rom. 12. declare the Visible Church in the constitution thereof to be a body not similar consisting of parts all homogeneall or of the â—ame nature quality and operation such as water fire and the like are But dissimilar as mans body is consisting of severall heterogeneall parts or members of diverse functions gifts and operations some as eyes some as ears c. some to be Rulers some to be ruled But if all must joyn in the judiciall and authoritative actings of Government all are Rulers all are eyes and if so where are the ears The nature of the body of the Visible Church as it is declared to be constitute by Christ is quite altered into another kind by this means SECTION III. Mr. Lockiers 5th Argument prosecuted from SECT 6. to SECT 11. inclusive discussed section 1 FIfthly saith he SECT 6. in these weighty things forementioned Censures Ordinaâ—ions c. The Scripture is expresse that the whole Church should be joyntly authoritative about them and not the Presbytery or Eldâ—…ship of the Church alone Hitherto we have had some Theologicall reasons such as they are brought by the Author for his Assertion How he has acquite himself in these for his intended purpose we leave it to all impartiall Readers to judge Yet what ever weaknesse be in these if he can bring us expresse Scripture for his Assertâ—on if one expresse Scripture we are ready to yeeld See then now how he makes good this undertaking only Reader take notice here what it is for which he undertakes to bring expresse Scripture That the whole Church should be joyntly authoritative c. if the whole Church then Women and Children are no part of the Church or they also must be joyntly authoritative in these maters of Government Either here is an hasty unadvised expression Or an uncouth undertaking that no sober man I believe will joyn in with him to bring expresse Scripture for Women and Childrens joynt authoritative concurrence in the maters of Church-Government which in effect is as much as to undertake to bring expresse Scripture contradicting it self But come wâ— to see how this undertaking is made good in these severall particulars that Scripture is expresse that the whole Church wâ—ether men of age women and children all together or men alone ought to be joyntly authoritative in these actings section 2 As for censures the command of Christ is that we tell the Church Mat. 18. 17. which word I judge doth mean the whole Church and not the Eldership only unlesse I could find the Church thus used in Scripture for the Presbytery only If it should be said that Church here meaneth the Jewish Synedrion and so by propâ—rtion the Eldership of the Gospel Church To this he Answereth two things 1. That the Synedrion was instituted for civill affairs Numb 11. 17. and then takes some pains to clear that these Officers mentioned in that place weâ—e only Civill Officers notwithstanding that they are said to have received a Spirit whereby they Prophesied and then concludes that to make a proportion between a Civill station to an Ecclesiastick is not regular 2. I see no reason saith he from the context why it should be thought that the Jewish Representative of â—ne kinde or other should be meant their convenâ—… judicum or their conventus Ecclesiastici c. Ans 1. Mr. Lockiers judgement concerning the meaning of the word Church I judge saith he may have its own due respect as the judgement of one man But 〈◊〉 must give us leave to have reâ—…â—oo 〈◊〉 judgement of the many Ancient and Modern 〈◊〉 for the 〈◊〉 part except of late untill Morellius 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 â—…ose have understood by the Church 〈…〉 the Elders and Rulers of the Church 〈…〉 Mr. Rutherf â—oaâ—gable plea cap. 8. p. 88. to whoâ— we might â—…de many moe 2. If so be that the word Church be of such signification as that it has been ordinarlyâ— used to signifie a â—…dge of Rulers and so migâ—… be applyed to signifie a Colledge 〈…〉 â—rgument to say the word 〈…〉 else 〈◊〉 Scripture is used for the Presbytery or Eldership only Ergo neither is it so used here in this place By a 〈◊〉 consequence one might say when it is said 1 Cor. 11 10 〈…〉 ought to have power on her head the word power cannot mean a covering as a signâ— of subjection to the power of the 〈◊〉 a double meâ—…â—… of the thing signified for the◠〈…〉 one Correlatum for another because the word powâ—… 〈…〉 found other where in Scripture used in this meaning Sure if that consequence be good the genuine true meaning of many places of Scripture wherein words are found taken in such meaning as they arâ— not to be found taken in else where should be overturned If a word in some particular passage of Scripture may in congâ—uity of speech bear such a particular sense and to take it in that particular sense in that particular place is not contrary to the Analogie of faith nor puts a sense upon the
judge by these things following â— Let the maters handled and concluded in this Synod be objecâ—…ly of never so â—…caâ— consequence Yet by Mr. Lockiers 〈…〉 prosecution of his 〈◊〉 Assertion namely SECT 30. and 〈◊〉 The Synods Act and determination thereupon was meer counsell and no authoritative juriâ—dictionall decree Nor could they do any more but counsell and 〈◊〉 by the Independent Doctrine which 〈…〉 truth But from this ad hominem If 〈…〉 with Apostles and Elders in a mater of meer counsell and advise What is that to the purpose now in controversie Because privat Christians may joyntly concur with â—…ders in Acts of counsell does it follow that they must also joynt 〈◊〉 â—…thoritatively concur with them in authoritative juridicall Acts of Government â— When he saith that nothing was done in the bâ—ginning carrying on or ending of these maters but with interessing the Congregation and the Brethren 1. Why does he here use so ambiguous a word as interesâ—ing the Congregation and 〈◊〉 not plainly and speciâ—icallâ— but with joynt authoritâ—tive concurrence of c. may theâ— not be a interessing of persons in the managing of such a publick procedure and yet without their authoritative concurrence viz. to be witnesses of the justnesse of the procedure that they may have the more clear satisfaction in their consciences in giving their obedientiall concurrence to have their consultative advice upon the businesse to have their privat tho not authoritative approbation Mr. Lockier in all this Section does not once mention their joynt authoritative concurrence because as I conceive he thought the act of the whole Synod to be no authoritative juridicall act 2. Whom means he by the Congregation without whose interessing in the whole businesse nothing was done Whether the Congregation of Jerusalem alone or also the Congregations and Brethren of Antioch Syria and Cilicia The latter cannot be said as is evident and to say the former First is nothing to make out his purpose Because these other Churches being as much if not more concerned in the maters that were to be concluded in the Synod if nothing could be done without the interessing or joynt concurrence of the Congregation and the Brethren of Jerusalem with the Elders these other Congregations and Brethren ought as much and more to have been interessed and joyntly to have concurred Again nor yet can it be that all thâ—… Congregation or Church of â—…rusalem could â—e so 〈◊〉 to concur jointly in acting and voting that businesse in 〈…〉 with the Apostles and Elders which yet Mâ— Lockie◠〈◊〉 say first the beleevers in â—erusalem were so numerous that they could not all conveen with the Apostles and 〈◊〉 one 〈◊〉 and in one place to act and vote in the 〈◊〉 Theâ— could not all meet together at once in one place for ordinary acts oâ— Worship and so were indeed a Presbyteriall Church as is demonstrat irrefragably by sundrie Mr. Rutherfurd The Assembly in their Answers to the Dissenting Brethren Jus. Divi◠〈◊〉 Church Government and others And therefore the whole Church mentioned v. 22. must not be understood of the whole Church of Beleevers in Jerusalem but of the whole caetus Synodious the Synodicall multitude the Synodicall Church section 12 But to answer directly we acknowledge and maintain that not only this meeting was a proper Synod but also the determination thereof was authoritative and juridicall and as to that which Mr. Lockier intendeth here that the Congregation privat Brethren jointly concurred with the Apostles and Elders in the determination Granting that the Brethren mentioned were privat Christians out of office 1. These were not the whole Churches concerned in the businesse that was determined which yet he must say if he would say any thing to his purpose intended in his first Assertion as has been shown yea nor all the Church of Jerusalem as hath been also shown 2. We deny that these privat Brethren concurred with the Apostles and Elders authoritatively in the determination of the sentence They gave at most but their privat assent and approbation which we grant may be given unto privat Christians in any Synod That they had not authoritative definitive vote seemeth clear from somewhat expressed in the history it self of â—…at Synod observed by Mr. Rutherfurd peace plea. c. 14. p. 213 First these only had definitive vote who met together Synodically to consider of the Question But these were only Apostles and Elders c. 15. v. 7. Non dicit Lucas convenisse totam Ecclesiam Sed eos qui ratione officij erant legittimi judices Calv. com in loc again the Canons of the Synod are denominated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 decrees which were ordaiâ—…d by the Apostles and 〈…〉 Jerusalem c. 16. 4. 21. 25. the particulars reckoned up 〈◊〉 Mr â—…ckier proves not the country 1. That their names waâ— in thâ—â—yhodicall Letters rather the Letterâ— were in their name generally For we read â—…thing of their particular subscriptions First this is no act of authority in it self Secondly Nor doth it necâ—ssarily impâ—… their authorâ—tative concurrence in the determination coâ—…luded in the sentence â—f the Synod and intimate by the Letters to the Churches For as Letters being Writen to a multitude consisting of persons of diverse capacities some publick and in office some privat without office may contain some things peculiâ—r to the one some things belonging to the other yea may recommend one businesse to both but to be acted by them according to their different capacities and stations So Letters as sent from such a composed company in name of all may contain some things as common acts of all in whose name they are written and some things as proper acts of a part of them or somethings as proceeding from all but in a different way according to their severall capacities as proceeding from some authoritatively and from others aâ— giving their privat consent thereunto which may adde more weight to the authoritative determination amongst others 2. For their speaking in the Assemb 1â— It is not said in the Text that they did speak The speech and Disputation that was in the Assemb for ought appears was amongst the Apostles and Elders before the Brethren Not by the Brethren what is said v. 12. that all the multitude kept silence 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proves not that they disputed before the word as Mr. Caudrey well observeth vindic clav pag. 54. signifies no more but this that they were quiet or held their peace from noise or murmuring usuall with multitudes they hearkned attentively 2. Suppose they did speak propose and reason upon the matter as we grant that privat Christians may in a Synod in an orderly way so the 2. Book of Discipline of the Kirk of Scotland c. 7. that proves not â—…t they did vote authoritatively and definitively in the determination that they received satisfaction by reason proves it not neither That may be necessary and given to clear mens consciences in concurring by privat approbation and
had constituted or ordained Matthias to be an Apostle but barely thus Seeing God had chosen and ordained him they accepted him by orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ With this Interpretation agreâ—… that of the learned Nedder Dutch Interpreters in their Annotation upon the place All this 〈◊〉 election they did acknowledge and accept for good And is it 〈◊〉 â—…mmonly by Divines made one of the Characters and Properâ—… 〈…〉 of Apostles 〈◊〉 the â—ad their calling to that function not by the ordinarie 〈…〉 Ministry of men Buâ— extraordinarly and immediately from Christ himself As Paul alledges for himself â—o prove his Apostleship Gâ—… 1. 1. Paul an Aostle not of men this is common to all Ministers nor by men i. e. the interâ—…ening Ministry of men but by Jesus Christ But one word more here That of Mr. Lockiers one would think that the Lords pointing out the man had been enough but least this might prove a meanâ—…â—o justle out the priviledge of the whole Church seemeth to me to say no more very inconsiderately said What more could the Lords full constituting Matthias an Apostle without any interveening Act of the Church prove a means to justle out the priviledge of the Church in maters essentiall than his sole immediate both electing and ordaining all the rest of the Apostles Mark 3. 13 14. section 16 His second Scripture for the peoples formall concurrence in ordination is Acts 14. 23. â—nd when they had ordained them Elders in every Church On which the Author for his purpose commenteth thus 1. On the Margent he rejecteth the opinion of some tho learned men that sayeth here was no ordination but onely an election and giveth a reason why there behoved to be ordination because there was Fasting and Prayer joined with the action 2. Then in the body sayeth he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 From 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a hand and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Attollo to * Not attollo but tendere extendere i. e. to stretch forth lift up Which sheweth what this ordination was in the formality of it That the Apostles in and with every Church of Beleevers where they came did make suffrage who should undergo this great Office of Eldership in such Churches and so joyntly with each Church and not by distinct exempted power above them was this work done according to * In that place is no patern for ordinary ordination of ordinary Elders see before the first paterne Acts 1. for to apply this only to the Apostles in number but two is improper to the nature of the word for two to lift up their hands Suffrage is not a thing to be managed by two as fencing cannot be done by one Answ I grant that here was ordination though I think Lockiers Argument brought to prove it is but weak viz. because Prayer and Fasting was joyned Why may not Fasting and Prayer be joined with other actions besides ordination with election the nature of the businesse it self affords a 〈◊〉 â—oncludent Argument It was a calling of men to a Ministeriall â—…ffice in the Church of Christ and this cannot be done ordinarly without ordination 2. The Author gives us such a description of ordinaâ—…on of Elders as confounds and makes it â—ust all one with election viz. did make suffrage who shall undergoe the office What is this but election Yet in these two Sections he distinguishes election and ordination and brings them as two distinct instances of Ecclesiastick maters wherein he will have the Church of Beleevers to have authoritative concurrence But 3. more diâ—…ctly to the point in hand the whole strength of the Authors reason here to prove that the private Beleevers in these Churches concurred formally with the Apostles in the ordination of these Elders lyes upon the grammatication of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies to give suffrages by streaching forth or lifting up of the hand and so must here be understood that the Elders were ordained by suffrages And suffrage is not a mater competent to two which was the number of the Apostles imployed in this businesse to which 1. Let that force of the word be taken in here and the place rendered when they had by suffrages ordained or constituted yet as Mr. Gillespy well observeth Miscell c. 4. p. 57. out of Calvin instit lib. 4. c. 3. § 15. * Calvins words pondering the same signification are clear that the act of ordination was onely by Paul and Barnabas Creabant ergo ipsi duo Sed tota multitudo ut mos Graecorum in electionibus â—rat manibus sublatis declarabat quem habere vel the sense may be this Paul and Barnabas did make and ordain Elders according to the suffrages of the Churches themselves that is they ordained such as the Churches by their suffrages elected and desired So here are involved two acts 1. Election which is the only act performable by lifting up of the hand in suffrage and in that we grant the people concurred 2. Ordaining and constituting which was not done by lifting up of the hand in suffrage But laying on of the hands as a signe of separating the person to the Office And this we say was done only by Paul and Barnabas But 2ly Albeit that former answer does sufficiently overturn all Mr. Lockiers reasoning from this place Yet I confesse I see no necessity of reâ—dering the word here thus made by suffrages For how ever it be true that the use of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 arises from that manner of suffrage â—…ed amongst the Grecians either in choosing of persons or â—aking oâ— Laws and it be ofte◠〈◊〉 â—sed to signifie expresly the 〈◊〉 oâ— suffrages in such matters 〈…〉 iâ— is â—nown to any that has anâ— knowledge in the Greek Language that sometimes it is used to signifie simply the aâ—… of conâ—tuting or making and 〈…〉 â—eâ—her of a Law oâ— person in an Office not expresly 〈◊〉 the manner or way oâ— doing by suffrages or lifting up oâ— the 〈…〉 And thus simply the Old Latine â—…erpreter â—enders iâ—â—n this place câ—m constituissent illis per singulas Ecclesias Presbyteros c. and I think hardly can it with congruity of speech be otherwayeâ— rendered here For certainly the substantive to the participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the â—…t is Paul and Barnabas and can be no other can be none of the people or privat Disciples as is most evident to any man looking upon the Text and therefore by this word must here be understood an act done by the two alone which cannot be formally suffrageing for as Mr. Lockier sayeth well that can not be done by two but another unlesse ye will Interpret the word in such a figurative sense as I doubt much it shall be found in the like anâ— otherwhere in the world viz. thus and when they Paul 〈◊〉 Barnabas had by suffrages made to them i. e. the Disciples Elders that is when they had
brings he Just two one of yesterday I may say jugling in the businesse and another nothing to the purpose see we them both section 2 First In the first times this was so well known and so frequent in practice that Bishop Whitegift himself one that wanted not wit nor learning nor any other help and setting all his strength to maintain a These contrary to what we are upon yet is constrained to confesse that in the Apostles times the state of the Church was democratiall or popular the people or multitude having hand almost in every thing Defence pag. 182. which word almost doth sute with the thing I am upon For indeed as I have said in all weighty matters the whole body had their joint voice as hath been before proved Answ 1. That Whitegâ—ft set all his strength to maintain 〈◊〉 These contrary to what 〈…〉 presâ—…ation of the maâ— mind The 〈…〉 was that the 〈…〉 Government and juâ—… 〈…〉 hands onely of th◠〈…〉 â—…lats excluding no◠〈…〉 all other Presby◠〈…〉 Church 2. By theâ—… 〈…〉 wherein he saith that 〈…〉 â—nown and frequenâ—… 〈…〉 he means 〈…〉 of the Church 〈…〉 themselves 〈◊〉 or therewith taking in the next 〈…〉 the â—hurch If 〈◊〉 mean the latter I conceive he would â—one much better to 〈◊〉 cited some Writers of these times themseves saying so much then taken the matter upon report from Whitegift But let him if he can produce any Ancient Writers Ecclesiastick of these times either speaking for his Tenet in dogmate or relating any practice thereof in the Church of these times This he will never be able to do If he mean the former 't is true Whitegift sayes so that in the Apostles times the state of the Church for outward Government was popular But 1. Whitegift withall for upholdâ—…â—he power and Government of Prelats in the Church of England excluding all other Church Officers maintains most falsly and perniciously there was no particular form of Government appointed by precept in the New Testament But that the determination of this is 〈◊〉 the power of the Civil Magistrate the chief and principall Governour of the Church in his judgement And therefore granted for his own design that the people had sometimes an hand in matters of Government accidentally because of the want of Civil Magistrates to establish Rulers 2. Who had hand in acts of Government of the Church in the Apostles times can be known best by Scripture it self and no otherwayes câ—…ainly If Mr. Lockier has brought forth any Scripture holding forth either by precept or practice that the body of the people ought or did concur formally and authoritatively in acts of Government tho he has assayed to do and sayes here he has proveâ— it I leave to the Readers to judge Whitegift would never alledge precept of Scripture for this and for practice I find none alledged by him but in the mater of Election of Officers which is no act of government or authority and yet he alledgeth that neither in that did they alwayes concur which I conceive to be an untruth To close this let Mr. Lockiers ingenuity bâ— observed here in speaking for a popular and 〈…〉 of the Church by his applauding of â—his 〈…〉 Whitegifts Independents commonly refuse altogether that the Government they maintain 〈…〉 and professe a disclaâ—… of Moâ—…llius for this But 〈…〉 it is no other And 〈…〉 Author â—ere is ingenuous in tâ—king with and applauding that name For why should not a true thing have iâ—… own name section 3 His second testimony iâ— the Canon of the Councell of â—aodieâ—… â—0 years after Christ yea and 4. if not 8. years more ordaining that the people after that should have no hand in the choise of their Officers unlesse it formerly had What meaneth this Canon â—aith he unlesse formerly it was so that the people had hand in it Answ Let it be so that this Canon doth import that formerly the people had hand in Election of their Officers as we grant they 〈◊〉 ought to have and have with us Election is no act of Ecclesiastick Authority or â—…risdiction nor makes one a Church Officer as was said before But what is this to the purpose His undertaking was to bring common testimony to prove that in the first times of the Church the body of the people the whole Congregation had joint authoritaâ—…ve suffâ—age with the Officerâ— in all maters of greatest weight i. e. in all acts of Ecclesâ—…stick Govâ—…ment is it not a very sufficient making out of this to 〈◊〉 one Canon of one Councell indirectly importing that they â—…d hand in one act and that no formall act of Government and Authority And is this all the common testimony we must be content with Now when as all acts of Ecclesiastick power authority and government in Scripture designed by the Keyes are comprehended in these 1. Publick Preaching of the Gospel 2. Administration of the Seals or Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper 3. Ordination and authoritative sending of Officers 4. Dispensation of Discipline Excommunication and Absolution I would have the Author producing to us common testimony for the peoples concurring joyntly and authoritatively in these or any of them in the first times of the Church section 4 What followeth in this SECT of the Authors is but a flist of big empty words added unto weak reasoning to startle silly Readers to which shortly 1. Whom he meaâ—s by his superintendents once and again reckonâ—… 〈◊〉 with 〈…〉 and Bishops I know not well he may be pleased 〈…〉 That Bishops and 〈…〉 did piece by 〈…〉 of God many 〈◊〉 â—pirituall liberties and 〈◊〉 of Christe is certain But any 〈◊〉 testimony as he 〈…〉 by him very little of this appeareth as appeate very evidently 3. In representing the servants of God that are 〈…〉 new devised modell of popular Government of the Church under the name of the children of these Metropolitans and Bishops is both an unjust and ridiculous slander I beleeve these Hierarchicall Lords never did nor ever will look upon Presbyterians as any of their kinde 4. To order the Church of CHRIST as that therein his Officers and Ministers rule his People under him by his ordinances according to the rule of his Word that the people over whom they are set obey them in the LORD is not the taking from people any thing for which these that teach and hold by that wâ—y need to repent nor know we any words of GOD spoken against them for that way And for â—ans words without Gods Word they stand not Nor have they cause to take any works or blowes or bloods of their body you have taken too much upon you to pronounâ—… upon their soul blood think Sir upon Rom. 14. and let your heart 〈◊〉 you for this as inflicted by God on that account tho they 〈◊〉 they have sinned against him and desires therefore to bear his indignation If men has given them blowes and shed their blood upon that account let them look to
it and Sir take heed your hands be not defiled with it As indeed in this Book ye breath out somewhat that way not once And for your out-cry O Lord how low shall we be c. to it as intended by you I must say to you as Job to his friends upon somewhat the like unjust challenges against him and misconstructions of Gods rods upon him Will ye speak wickedly for God And talk deceitfully for him is it good that he should search you out Or as one man mocketh another do ye so mock him But now Sir look upon the pollutions and layings waste of his dwelling place in England at this day which makes all the Churches abroad the World to lament the case of it and see whether the Presbyterian way or that way you stand for has effected them And I beleeve ye may say it was not without a Providence of 〈◊〉 that ye uttered this exclamation in that 〈◊〉 you have â—…red it in How low shall Wâ— be erâ— Wâ— lay 〈…〉 heart SECTION V. Mr Lockiers Answers to some Objections made against his Assertion from some Passages of SCRIPTURE SECT 13 14. Examined section 1 MR. Lockier now proceedeth to propound against his Assertion and to Answer some Objections and in wisedom chooses a few of many that are extant to the World in Presbyterian Writers of al 's great weight as these he has picked out and propounds some of them in as slender a way as he can that the force of them may appear as little as may be But see we them and his Answers to them as they are section 2 Object First is from 1 Tim. 4. 14. Here is mention mâ—… of a Presbytery or Eldership by the imposition of whose hands and by no other conjuâ—… Timothy was ordained Therefore the Presbytery wholly without the Church may exert power authoritative in most weighty matters and 〈◊〉 and govâ—… the Church alone This place we conceive will carâ—… 〈◊〉 this and more too even a Classicall Presbytery or a Presbytery of moe associat Churches But for the present consider we his answer as to the point in hand The Presbytery here saith he cannot be meaned of an ordinary Eldership which hath its ordination from men because it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to an extraordinary Now such was Timothy to wit an Evangelist And therefore comes not under our Dispute but is to be ranked with extraordinary Apostolicall acts and ordinations to extraordinary Offices which are ceased of which nature sec Acts 13. 43. section 3 Answ 1. Whether this was an ordinary Eldership i. e. A Colledge of ordinary perpetuall Elders or extraordinary yet it was an Eldership and not the people that performed this act of ordination as he himself yeelds What then is become of his Assertion in the preceding Section That iâ— these first times of the Church the whole body 〈◊〉 â—ear theâ— joint â—thoritative voice in all maters of greatest weâ—ght And Sâ— â—… 10. even in an ordination of aâ— extraoâ—dinar Officer of grea◠〈◊〉 then an Evangelist 〈◊〉 Wherein he alledge thâ—…â—at lest it might have proved a 〈◊〉 to lustle out the priviledge of the â—hole Church in maters of essentiall concernment he was enstated aâ—ongst the Apostles themselves not by the â—…ffragâ—… of some i. e. the Apostles alone but by the sâ—ffrages of the whole Church 2. If the Presbyteâ—… here cannot be meaned of an ordinary Eldership what was it I hope the Author will not say with some Pâ—pish and Prelaticall writers that it was an company of Bishops that were both Elders and more then Elders I conceive he can mean no other thing but that same which the Author of the Queries concerning ordination Qu. 19. that they were some other Apostles or Apostles fellows together with Paul who 2 Tim. 1. â— is said to have â—ayed his hands on Timothy and that Apostles are called Elders and a company of Apostles are called a Presbytery or an Eldership I say it seemeth the Author can conceive no other thing to be meant for he sayeth it must be an Eldership that had not * And yet he himself above Sect. â—0 Such exâ—raordinaâ—ie Elders might have their ordination from man le facto Maâ—hias had his so So that by this â—e â—ayeth here Matâ—ias tho an Apostle could not be one of this Eldership ordination from man But this coâ—ceit is so abundantly answered by Mr. Gillespy of worthy memory Miscell c. 8. pag. 104. seq that little needeth to be added to what is said 〈◊〉 him I shall here briefly touch at some particularâ— given in Answer to this 1. Suppose the Presbytery in this place 1 Tim. 4. 14. to be an Assembly of Apostles yet nothing shall be gained thereby to Mr. Lockiers cause For the name Presbytery or Eldership being purposely chosen in this Text which mentions laying on of hands in ordination will prove that the Apostles did it as Elders and as an act of an Assemby of Elders not as a thing peculiar to them as Apostles For no rationall man will imagine that the Holy Ghost intending to expresse some extraordinary thing which the Apostles did as Apostles and which belongs not to ordinary Elders would in that very thing purposely call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Assemby of Elders 2. That the Presbyterie here is not an Assembly of Apostles but of Elders who were not Apostles may be proven 1 By comparing this Text with 2 Tim. 1. 6. The gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands If it had been an Assembly of Apostles that had laid their hands on Timothy and so joined with Paul in that action Paul had not thus distinguished his laying on of hands from that of his fellow Apostles as if the gifts of the Holy Ghost had been given to Timothy only by the laying on of his hands and not by but with the laying on of the hands of his fellow Apostles Of this difference of the Phrase in the one Text and the other see this same worthy Author pag. 101. 2. Apostles and Elders are ordinarly distinguishing names in Scripture the latter signifying the ordinary perpetuall fixed Rulers in the Church So that it must be but a devised fiction to leave the ordinary notion of the word Elder which signifies an Office diverse from the Apostleship and to take the Eldership here for an Assembly of Apostles Nay we do not find at any time in Scripture the name Elder given to the Apostles at least never to them or any of them as Apostles contradistinguished from other Officers 'T is true Peter 1 Epist 5. 1. calls himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But from that very appellation the worthy Author we are now borrowing from doth excellently reason and for our purpose against Mr. Lockier here I need not transcribe his words seeing the Book is common the Reader may have recourse to it self and have much satisfaction See pages 105 106 107.
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
governing yet each acteth orderly in his distinct place viz. privat Christians in their place Elders in their place and station Yet this takes not away the absurdity For seeing Mr. Lockier will have all and every one in the body of the Church formally and authoritatively to act in the acts of Government it followes that all and every one of them are formally Governours and Rulers the privat Christians as well as the Elders and there is no distinction between them at all as to governing except of meer order in acting Certainly if all and every member of the naturall body did formally elicit the act of seeing albeit that part of the body which we now call the eye were supposed to act therein in some respect somewhat distinctly as to order from the rest of the parts Yet all the rest of the parts were as formally and properly an eye as it Therefore as it were madnesse to say that in the naturall body each member doth formally act seeing So it is exceeding absurd supposing the Church to be an organicall body and some of the organes whereof it is composed are rulers governing and commanding in the Lord to whom subjection and obedience in the Lord is to be given by the rest and are as the eyes in the naturall body Yet to say that all and every member in the Church hath a formall authoritative hand or influence in the acts of governing 2. See the incongruity of the Authors comparison The power sayeth he may be fundamentally in the whole viz. body For he is speaking in the immediatly preceeding words of an organicall-body and yet each organ c. for instance the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally c. What incongruity is this to propound in the generall of power fundamentally in a whole body organicall And then for an instance oâ— simile to tell us of powers or faculties in the whole soul originally Is the soul an organicall body But may some say the Author saith the sensitive faculties are in all the soul fundamentally and radically and the soul radically and fundamentally in all the body and so would by consequence say that the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally and radically Answ 1. 'T is a very grosse absurdity to say that the soul is in the whole body fundamentally and radically or potentially as we have shown before It is formally and by way of information in the whole body 2. It is a grosse inconsequence the sensitive faculties are in all the soul and the soul is in the whole body Therefore the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally Nay they are fundamentally and radically in the soul and therefore are not fundamentally and radically in the body neither whole nor part But are formally and by way of inhesion in their respective parts or organs of the body 3. I would fain know of the Author what he does make in the Church answerable to the soul in the naturall body and so that wherein the power of governing is fundamentally and radically as the sensitive faculties of the naturall body are fundamentally and radically in the soul Is it the whole Church as comprehending both people and Ministers That is the body Or is it the people That is a part of the body The truth is Mr. Lockier is at a losse here with his simile Jesus Christ as King of the Church is unto the Church as the soul in the naturall body And the power of governing is fundamentally and radically in him and not in the body of the Church And therefore 3. to make use of the last words of his similitude for which we thank him as making clearly against himself and for us as the sensitive faculties are radically and fundamentally in the soul and act only as he sayeth well by such parts as are fit to act by as seeing by the eye and hearing by the ear and the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work The hands to work the feet to go So to give the apodosis which he had no will to expresse Ecclesiastick organicall powers such as the senses are â—n the naturall body as the power of governing teaching administrating the seals are fundamentally in Christ the King of the Church and act only by such parts as are fit to act by Rulers Teachers and Ministers These are the proper organs of those works section 7 The fifth and and last Obj. he meeteth with is this The Elders of the Church are called overseers stewards shepherds fathers All which in their analogy hold forth a peculiar and sole power to do things fathers govern alone so overseers c. As to this propounding of this Argument 1. We speak not for a peculiar sole power to do things indefinitely in Elders But for a sole power of authoritative acting in maters of Government and not excluding or denying unto people a private judgement of discretion to try and prove the actings thereof by the rule 2. The Author leaves out some of the names and titles given to the Elders which use to be alledged in this Argument besides the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 guides leaders conducters governours Heb. 13. 7 17 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 5. 17. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thessal 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Governments or Governours the abstract being put for the concrete 2 Cor. 12. 28. 3. Because the Author is pleased to propound the Argument from this ground in the softest way for his own advantage we desire the Reader will be pleased to take it thus These persons and these only in the Church have power and authority to govern and consequently are to exercise formally acts of Government to whom in the Scripture by the Spirit of Christ are appropriated such names and titles which do import the power and authority of governing But to the Officers of the Church are such names appropriat as importeth power and authority of Governing Ergo c. For the major or first proposition I think it may be clear to any of it self And if any shall be so wilfull as to deny it I would ask him as doth the learned Authors of jus divin of Church Government Par. 2. pag. 170. to what end and for what reason are such names and denominations importing power and authority of Government appropriated to some persons i. e. given to them and not to others if not for this end and reason to distinguish them that are vested with authority to govern in the Church from others and to signifie and hold forth a duty or work incumbent to them and not to others The assumption see evidenced at length in jus divinum of Church Government Par. 2. pag. 171 172 173. the summe is this These titles Elder Overseer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conducter Governour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Steward Pastor Governments Ruler are names which generally
in his Assertion is that which is asserted by us in the first point Yet some of his Arguments afterward used toucheth not at that but against the third a series of subordination of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour But come we now to consider his proofs such as they are and let the Reader have before his eyes the true state of the Question as laid forth by us SECTION VIII His first Ground brought against a Presbytery having Authoritative juridicall power over more Congregations prosecute by him Sect. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33. Examined section 1 MR. Lockier undertakes by four mediums to prove that a Presbytery having juridicall power and authority over more Congregations is but an humane invention 1. Because they are without a foundation in the Word This he undertakes to make good by clearing these Scriptures on which such Presbyteries are built And brings in four Scriptures Act. 1. 15 23. Act. 4. 35. Act. 15. 28. 1 Tim. 4. 14. So that his first Argument comes to this much in full matter and forme If such a Presbytery over more Congregations had any foundation in the Word it were in some of those four places But in none of those hath it foundation therefore not at all in Scripture But now tho his assumption were granted and he did clearly evidence that in none of these mentioned places it hath sufficient foundation Yet I must say he does very grossely despise his Reader to say the least in his major proposition What did never Mr. Lockier read in Presbyteriall writers any other Scripturall grounds brought to prove such a Presbytery but these 4. places might he not at least have read sundry others Let him read them over again and I believe besides these mentioned he shall find other grounds of Scripture brought to prove such a Presbytery as he shall never be able to withstand the force of For instance let him consider the Argument grounded upon Matth. 18. 17 18. brought by Gul. Apoll. considerat of certain controv c. 6. p. 94 95. on which place Parker himself de Polit. Eccles lib. 3. c. 24. groundeth the authority of Synods 2. The Argument grounded upon 1 Cor. 14. 32. in that same Author pag. 98 99. 3. The Argument brought from what the Scripture holdeth forth concerning the Churches of Jerusalem Ephesus Antioch Corinth Assembly of Divines 3. Proposition concerning Presbyteriall Government with the defences thereof against the Reasons of the Dissenting Brethren Jus Divin of Church Government Part. 2. c. 13. 4. The Argument grounded upon practice of the Church under the Old Testament in matter of Government wherein it was not paedagogicall and ceremoniall but essentiall and of morall conveniency and so perpetuall Gul. Appollon pag. 96 97. Did Mr. Lockier never Read these grounds of Scripture urged in this matter by Presbyterians that alledging here that such a Presbytery hath no foundation in Scripture and taking upon him to make out this by clearing such Scripture grounds as are brought for it passeth these in silence If not I wonder much he should come to handle this controversie having taken so little pains to be acquainted with his adversaries grounds Or if he has read them why has he passed them by without an essay to cleare them If he contemned them we tell him it is easier to contemne them then to answer them But come let us see the places he has been pleased to take notice of and what he hath upon them to the purpose section 2 The first is Acts 1. 15 23. c. The eleven Apostles here meet together and these as a supreame body over all others conveen the Church at Jerusalem dictat what and how to be done in that case of losse upon the Church which shews that there is a forrain put out that name as none of ours but a nick-name and miscalling of the thing feigned by your self authoritative Eldership over particular Churches Answ I do not remember of any Presbyterian Writer that bringeth this place as a full proof of a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations albeit may be some arguing from the Government of the Church of Jerusalem viz. 1. That that Church consisted of more Congregations then one 2. That these diverse single Congregations are held forth as one Church 3. That they are under one common Presbytery Governing them Some Isay may be bring that place jointly with others to make up a proof of that complex medium Let Mr. Lockier point us at the man that brings it as a full proof by it self 'T is an easie thing for men to devise at their own pleasure Arguments as used by their adversaries and then seem to get a victory over them when as indeed they are but fighting against their own fictions So we need not trouble our selves with following Mr. Lockiers Answers to this place Only I shall note some few things said by him in his Answers which are two section 3 In the first The station of the Apostles sayeth he was extraordinary to take care of all Churches Being therefore by this place Elders in all Churches might and did interpose their power in severall particular Churches And therefore what they did modo extraordinario is not competent to be exemplary extraordinary practises are not fit matter to make up ordinary precedents Answ That it pertained to the extraordinary Office of the Apostles as Apostles to exercise their power of Teaching and Governing in all particular Churches without any particular call we confesse it true But that their Ruling of more particular Congregations then one simply was extraordinary and that when they did this they did it modo extraordinario may well be confidently said but will never be proven And how will Mr. Lockier prove that there were no ordinary Elders with the Apostles in that meeting I think he shall find this an hard stick of work But passing these things now I would here ask him one thing Why is it that he bringeth this as a solution to this place Act. 1 Does he mean indeed that the Apostles acted in this matter modo extraordinario and according to their Apostolicall Office Why then did he before Sect. 10. alledge the managing of this matter of Matthias call as a ground and patern for ordinary ordination of Elders section 4 In his second solut I shall take notice of these things 1. That true it is the eleven Apostles were here together because they were commanded by Christ to abide in Jerusalem untill they were endowed with the Holy Ghost from above But there was nothing here done but any one of them might have done it I would ask what he intends by this Is his meaning that it was but by accident that they did act together in Collegio in this businesse and that they acted as Apostles only because what they did any one of them might alone have done what they did And therefore it is no wayes a patern for a Colledge of ordinary Elders acting jointly
their ordinary power But 1. tho it be true that they were together in Jerusalem by Gods command waiting together for the powring out of the Holy Ghost Yet it follows not that by accident they did joyne in Collegio for that businesse Because being together by Christs institution they were to joyne together in managing the affairs of the Church They were bound and it was necessary that they should do so 2. True what was done might have been done by any one of them alone had they been alone But it followeth not that being all in one place where they might joyn together hic nunc any one of them might do it alone Nor does it follow either that they acted as Apostles because any of them might have done it alone Any of the Apostles might alone by decisive sentence determined the controversie Synodically concluded Act. 15. yet the Author will not for this say that in that businesse the Apostles acted as Apostles The next thing I note is a great mistake of our mind concerning the nature of the Presbytery ruling over more Congregations then one That it should be a combination of appropriate Elders to severall particular Churches which these Acts 1. were not but generall Officers We do not think it is necessary to the essence of such a Presbytery that it be made up of Elders appropriated to several fixed Congregations We say at the first where there were more Professours then could meet in one Congregation their Pastours and Elders did teach and rule them in common not being distributively appropriated to the severall Congregations and that yet in some Cities where there are more Congregations it may be so as it is at this day in some Protestant Churches Tho we think that now in the ordinary condition of the Church it is convenient that Congregations be fixed and have their severall fixed Officers Therefore we say further what ever use be to be made of the present passage Act. 1. in the Question in hand it is but a poor Argument the Author insinuateth There was not here concurring Elders of other Churches this of Jerusalem being the first and only Gospel Church Ergo there was not here a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations then one it doth not necessarily follow For that very Church of Jerusalem might be made up of severall Congregations nor can the contrary be proven the number of names set down v. 15. will not prove it because it cannot be demonstrate that that was the whole number of Christians in Jerusalem section 5 The second Scripture he meeteth with is Act. 4. 35. For as many as were Possessours of lands c. sold them and brought the price and layed it down at the Apostles feet And how this place will maintain a * This nick-name the Author wil put in at every turn which we desire may be as often rejected as wrongfully given to the Presbytery we speak for forraine coercive Eldership I do not yet under stand Answ Here againe is a grosse mistake or a wilfull wronging of his adversaries I know none that alledges this place by it self as an intire Argument to prove the Presbytery we speak for the truth as to the use of this passage by Presbyterians in this controversie is this They alledging the instance of the Church of Jerusalem for a patern of more Congregations than one under one governing Presbytery and for making out this alledging that Scripture holdeth forth 1. That Church to consist of more Congregations then one 2. That yet these are called one Church 3. That over these Congregations called one Church was one Presbyteriall Government in common To prove the last of these points whereof the Argument consisteth alledging that the Scripture mentioneth the Officers of that Church as meeting together in common for acts of Government they bring this place for one instance of an act of Government for which they were met viz. to take charge of the Churches goods and of the due distribution thereof See Jus Divinum of Church Govern part 2. pag. 210. Now see we his answer if it hath any thing to infringe that for which this is indeed alledged section 6 The Apostles though they had a capacity over many Churches yet then there were not many Churches when this was done Ans Yes Sr there were many more than one Church I mean more particular Congregations even in Ierusalem see this proven as by sundry others so particularly by the Assembly of Divines in their third proposition concerning Government and their answers to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren and by the Authors of Jus Divin 2. part pag. 193 194 195 196. seq and the exceptions brought to the contrare by your strongest heads fully cleared I wonder the Author should so contemne his Readers as to obtrude his bare Assertions upon them in a mater concerning which he knows so much reason hath been brought as is extant to the contrare of what he affirmeth If he hath any new exceptions against the proofs of that particular which hath not been brought by these of his side before him he would done best to have produced the same Or let him do it yet and we shall take them into impartiall consideration 2. And this capacity to wit that the Apostles had over many Churches was as they were Apostles and not as ordinary Elders Answ That a capacity to act acts of Church Government over many Congregations simply was competent to them only qua Apostles and so not competent to ordinary Elders is a maine part of the Question in hand and should not be begged or nakedly affirmed but proven section 7 3. And in this mater they did an extraordinary thing because the Officers fit for this work were not yet ordained Answ What is this And was the Apostles receiving and ordering these alms the doing of an extraordinary thing Sure it was not extraordinary in the nature of the acts For then it should not be an act competent to any ordinary Officer in the Church which is confessedly false it being an ordinary act which may be and is dayly done by ordinary Officers Nor yet can it be said to have been an extraordinary deed as done by such Officers the Apostles The Author indeed imports this in his reason Because the Officers fit for this work were not yet ordained so he would say the Apostles were not fit Officers for that work and therefore their doing of it was extraordinary but either they were not fit Officers in point of qualification and endewment requisite to manage that work and this I think the Author will not say Or they were not fit in point of vocation to exercise such an act But as little reason has he to say this because altho that businesse was not the proper act of their Apostolick vocation and office nor the maine and principall work thereof and therefore say they Act. 6. 2. It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God
Congregation ' tisfilly and might well be said among Children but may blush to come out before understanding Men. By this Argument when our Saviour sayeth upon this Rock will I build my Church And the Apostle 1 Cor. 12. He hath set in the Church First some Apostles c. And Ephes 5. He loved his Church and gave himself for it Because it is in the Singular Number Church not Churches in all these places Therefore it must be only one single Congregation meant in all of them When as it is indeed the whole Catholick Church and not any particular singular Congregation So the name flock in the Singular Number why may it not be taken collectivè for such a flock as contained in it diverse particular flocks as Gen. 33. 13. yea and in the very present Metaphoricall sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12. 32. little flock and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 10. 16. one Sheep fold tho both in the Singular Number yea and in the latter place with the Cardinall number added to it one signifieth the Church Catholick and so comprehendeth many particular Flocks Folds and Churches As to M. Lockiers last words in this Sect. here is no joint voice c. indeed we grant that in that meeting there was no joint voting of Elders Because these Elders then were not meet to act in Government but had been sent for by Paul to receive direction from him concerning the managing of their charge But supposing that which is proved from other places that there were more single Congregations in Ephesus then one we find here these Congregations held forth to be one Church and there were many Elders over these many Congregations as one flock one Church And that is enough for our purpose The next place he meeteth with and which he calleth one of the most weighty indeed it is so weighty to the purpose we are on that it crusheth the new supream Independent Tribunall erected by our Brethren in single Congregations is that concerning the Synod Act. 15. 28. To this the Author Answers 1. Here sayeth he is an Eldership of severall Churches indeed met But as touching the coercion of their power as such excerped Eldership enforcing their results upon other Churches this is the other thing to be brought in to make up the businesse we Dispute against Answ First 't is well Mr. Lockier acknowledgeth that was an Eldership of severall Churches even a Synodicall Presbytery a Synod as himself calls it afterward Sect. 29. Some of his side have said otherwise the Dissenting Brethren in their Reasons against the Assemblies allegation of Acts 15. for subordination of Synods That Ass was not a formall Synod but only a reference by the particular Church of Antioch unto this particular Church of Jerusalem and no other But we think Mr. Lockier speaketh the truth that it was a Synod 2. We must here again note his invidious misrepresenting of our Doctrine We do not ascribe to that or any other Synod a power of coertion to enforce their results upon any but an authoritative juridicall power to enjoyn authoritatively their determinations agreeable to the Word of God and to censure the disobedient and disorderly with meer spirituall censures as admonition Excommunication which import no enforceing â— propriety of speech Nor do we say that that or any other Synod hath power thus authoritatively to enjoyn their determinations upon other Churches we say they have this power only in relation to these Churches associated in the Synod and none other So not that which Mr. Lockier sayeth but this is the other thing to be brought in to make the Presbytery we speak for what ever it be that he Disputes against which oftentimes is his own fiction an juridicall power authoritatively enjoining its determinations and which may censure with spirituall Ecclesiastick censures the disobeyers and disorderly And this we doubt not will be found in this place Act. 15. section 11 After this the Author pretending to be clear and full in answering this place he premitteth two things which Reverend Hocker hath also Survey Part. 4. c. 1. 1 That the Apostles tho they were extraordinary Officers yet in this meeting they did not act as such because they joined with them ordinary Churches what ordinary Churches is contradistinguished unto I know not well and Officers and all Disputed and enquired And so here was left a samplar to all succeeding generations In this we agree with him Only by the way we note that we see not why he should have said before Sect. 25. that in the ordination of Deacons the Apostles acted as extraordinary persons seeing there also they joined the Church with them in the election of the persons to be ordained His 2. premisse is that the sentence decreed in that Synod was not Scripture because they decreed it as still it was when the Apostles moved by the proper Spirit of their Apoâ—…olicall station according to that 2 Pet. 1. 21. but what they decreed was by debate found out to be either expresse in Scripture or undenyably deduced from thence So by one of these wayes was found to be Scripture and was therefore decreed and injoyned by them upon others And then goes out a while in clearing this which we need not insist on And to passe other things that might be noted in this second premisse granting both what would he infer hereupon That in the close of Sect. 28. So that what they produced by debate was materially binding for asmuch as what they produced was for the matter of it no other but the will of God but not formally as the result of such a Collegiat Eldership Answ This last followeth not upon any thing in the former premisses For tho their decrees were not Scripture because decreed by them but decreed by them because found to be Scripture or agreeable to generall rules of Scripture and therefore injoined by them to the Churches It followes indeed that their primary and fundamentall obligatorinesse is materiall And were they not such they could not formally as decrees of the Synod be obligatory or binding But it doth not follow that simpliciter they are not binding formally as decrees of the Synod The obligatorinesse of decrees of a Synod formally as decrees of a Synod is secundary subordinate and regulate but for that it is not no obligatorinesse at all Yea one of his own contradicts him in terminis in this Mr. Cotton speaking of the decrees of this very Synod Keyes c. 6. this binding power is not only materially from the weight of the matters imposed which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word but also formally from the Authority of the Synod section 12 But come we to his clear Answ he brings it in by way of reply to an Object Had then this Synod no authoritative power at all For what end then is the Ordinance This indeed is a pertinent Question propounded by the Author to himself And if he asserting as
the Churches of God in the times of these famous ancient Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus Chalcedon wherein as in many Provinciall Synods of these times it is well known Orthodox Divines that had publickly and zealously appeared before against the Haereticks of these times did unquestionably sit and vote as Judges in the very controversies they had appeared parties in But yet to put this mater closser â—ome to Mr. Lockier Suppose in one of his Independent Congregations one or two or more members should vent Haereticall Doctrine and labour to instill it into and infect therewith their fellow members I think he will not deny but the Elders of that Congregation yea and every particular member ought to contend against them for the truth in privat refute and condemn their errors and their Schismatick practises Now I think he will not deny except he will deny altogether that there can be any Ecclesiasticall Judicature to condemn errors juridically and authoritatively but these Elders and private Christians though a contrair party to the supposed erroneous persons yet may in the meeting of the Congregation assembled as a Judicatory and Court sit and vote as Judges upon the mater in controversy with their antagonists If this may be in a Congregationall Judicatory and yet not against equity nor conscience nor rule why may it not be so in a Synod too section 20 The last place that Mr. Lockier meeteth with and saith is frequently used by the Presbyterian Brethren is 1 Tim. 4. 14. to which place he saith that he hath spoken somewhat before on the first Assertion which he repeats here That it was not an ordinary Eldership because of the reason he gave there and addes that being an Eldership of extraordinary Officers not praecisely from such and such particular Churches but such as were equally of all as of any one 't will not amount to the nature of a patern and binding praecedent to build upon Answ 1. This place is not so frequently urged as Mr. Lockier pretendeth for this purpose to prove an associate Presbytery over more Congregationâ— then one The thing it is usually urged for is to prove that the Government of the Church whereof Ordination is a principall part is in the hands of Officers and not in the body of Professors and this it doth clearly prove Yet 2. We conceive considerable grounds may be brought that it was a Presbytery not only not of one Congregation this Mr. Lockier himself acknowledgeth but also of ordinary Elders for the most part of severall particular Congregations For 1. There is not an example can be brought from Scripture of the Eldership of one Congregation performing Ordination nor any rule that may warrand such a practice when association with other Congregations may conveniently be had And there is in Scripture example of Ordination by a Presbytery over diverse Congregations as in the Church of Jerusalem where were many Congregations as has been often demonstrated against all exceptions that has been alledged That that Presbytery which ordained in Jerusalem was the Apostles extraordinary Officers is nothing to the contrair Because therein they acted not as extraordinary Officers but as ordinary Elders as hath been shewed before 2. Guliel Apollon reason to this purpose Consider of certain Controv Cap. 6. 9. 2. is very considerable This ordination of Timothy seemeth to have been done in the Church of Lystra as thâ— Belgick Interpreters observe upon the place from Act. 6. 1 2 3. 't is said there that Paul would have him to go forth with him v. 3. viz. to serve with him in the work of the Ministry of the Gospel And v. 1. it is said he had a good report from the brethren of Lystra and Iconium what else could that report be but a testimony of his piety and understanding in the Scriptures of which the Apostle speaketh 2 Tim. 3. 15. which the Apostle requires of a person to be called to the Ministry and seemeth there to be mentioned as given in relation to Timothiâ—s calling thereunto And in this we see the brethren of Derbâ— and â—…ium with these of Lystra concurring as actors under whom are included also the Churches of the Region roâ—nd about as may be gathered from Acts 14. 6. Thâ—… considerationâ— are I conceive of some weight to incline us 〈◊〉 think this Presbytery as iâ— was not Congregationall so was not extraordinary As 〈…〉 Mâ— Lockiâ—r alledgeth to the contraiâ— i. e. to that â—e 〈…〉 Assertion 1. We answered it sufficiently thâ—… 〈…〉 Reader back to our 5. SECT 2. To the little thing added here we say Albeit the Officers making up this Presbytery were not precisely from such and such particular Churches as I conceive his meaning were not fixed and appropriated Officers of particular Congregations which yet cannot be proven yet they might have been a Presbytery of more Congregations such as we stand for Fixednesse of Presbyters to severall particular Congregations is not necessary by any positive divine institution Again though all the members making up a Presbytery were extrordinary Officers and so such as were of all Congregations as well as of one which yet was not the case of this Presbytery yet joining in Collegio in an ordinary act as Ordination they might be a patern and binding pracedent to build upon else from that Ordination Acts 6. can no warrand be deduced for Ordination of Officers by the Elders in ordinary Hitherto we have seen and considered Mr. Lockiers pursuing of his first Medium used against authoritative Presbyteries over more Congregâ—tions then one Let the Reader judge how he has made it good by what we have answered and what we have referred to for further satisfaction in others SECTION IX Examination of his 2d Medium pursued in his SECTION 34 35 36 37. section 1 His second Medium is that such a Presbytery opposes the word His Argument here comes to this much in summe The Scriptures give in their testimony not one or two but in plenty that what power of jurisdiction or ruling an Eldership hath it hath it in the same extent it hath its Pastorall power and no further Yea that an Officers Pastorall power exceeds in extent his Ruling power rather then è contra Therefore a Presbytery over more Congregations then one which extends the Pastors ordinary ruling power beyond the extent of his ordinary Teaching doth oppose the Word of God Answ When aâ— this Argument which is but a limme of that first large â—re brought by thâ— Dissenting Bâ—ethren against the Assemblies third Proposiâ—…on coâ—câ—…ning Presbyteriall Government and all the confirmationâ— thereof brought by these same Brethren hath already received so considerable answers from the Assembly of Divines in their Papers extant to the World I wonder why Mr. Lockier should present it again to us here so barely without taking these answers to consideration or assaying to infringe them any wayes Unlesse it has been his purpose to deâ—pise all his Readers Well we refer the Reader
a certain singular one thing But this I doubt Mr. Lockier will grant A Visible Church Catholick existing really one And however it is not his purpose here to alledge that Peter received the Keyes as personating the Universall Church Visible For the thing he would be at and must prove is that all the Keyes and exercise thereof are given to every one particular Church or Congregation singly and within it self If he say he means a particular Visible Church I ask which is it of Rome or Corinth or Ephesus If any one of these definitely what then becommeth of all the rest Nay but will he say not any one particular Visible Church definitely but indefinitely any and every one But 1. His words are that Peter in this mater personated the Church Visible which in propriety of speech seemeth to me to note a determinate and definite individuall but passing this 2. It cannot be a particular Visible Church whether definitely or some certain one or indefinitely for any one Because as Mr. Lockier himself sayeth the Church that Peter personated is that which Christ saith ver 18. that he would build upon the rock that the gates of hell should not prevail against it But this is not any particular Visible Church but either the Church Invisible of the elect and redeemed ones or the Church Visible Catholick Because any particular Visible Church may be prevailed against 3. That Assertion Surely this particular here used to wit the Pronoun of the second person twise in the sentence thee and thou is not in vain but to set forth that every Gospel Church c. is I may say an Assertion of such boldnesse without proof as any man of understanding may wonder that a modest man should have uttered it before men that have not sold away their judgments to be slaves to any mans dictats What Must our Saviours speaking to Peter here in the singular number be in vain unlesse hereby he intended to set out every particular Congregation and surely it must be so and we must believe it surely to be so because Mr. Lockier saith it tho he do no more but say it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is enough Is there not another possible Reason to be given of this that Christ in this giving of the Keyes directs his speech particularly to Peter but this that Mr. Lockier deviseth so that his speaking to Peter thus particularly must be in vain if this Reason be not taken to make it to purpose Know we not that long agoe Cyprian in his treatise de Vnitate Ecclesiae has given another reason of this which I conceive any judicious man will think much more purpose-like then Mr. Lockiers Quamvis saith that Ancient of this matter Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuat tamen ut unitatem manifestaret unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit hoc erant utique caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur His meaning is that Christ at first spake singularly to Peter in giving the Keyes that he might set forth the unity of the Church spread throughout the whole World We know also that our learned Countrey-man Camero in his praelect on the place gives yet another Reason of Christs thus speaking to Peter singularly which he very probably confirmeth by sundry circumstances in the Text and severall other considerations from other places which I need not insert here but refers the Reader to the Author himself Yea I see not reason why it should be thought that Christs speaking to Peter in the Singular Number should be thought to be in vain unlesse some mysticall signification had been intended thereby Christ having asked a Question of the Apostles in common and Peter one for all the rest having made the answer might not Christ i◠his reply upon the answer speak singularly to Peter without intending any mysticall signification thereby but his speaking in such a way behoved to be in vain I confesse I see not this 4. Mr. Lockier saith here in this Assertion that this particular is used i. e. Peter is particularly spoken to to set forth that every particular Congregation of believers united in a visible organical body for Gods worship c. which is as much as to say that Peter in receiving the Keyes personated every particular Congregation united as a visible organicall body But then 1. How consisteth this with that which he asserted upon the first Ass Sect. 2. That the Keyes were given at first to Peter not as an Apostle nor as as Elder but as a Believer and that in him the Keyes were given to a Church of believers as believing primarily and to the Elders in the second place as exerted out of that state and as servants of it Here they are given to Peter as personating a Congregation of beleevers united as an organicall body and so as personating both simple beleevers and Elders There they are given to Peter not as an Elder nor representing Elders but as a believer and personating beleevers as beleeving 2. If Peter in receiving the Keyes personated a Congregation of beleevers united as an organicall body for Gods Worship that is as now constituted of people and Officers Then who must exercise the Keyes in relation to a Congregation wanting its own organs Ministers and Elders Go we on section 5 And for the Key of Excommunication saith he which is so much denyed to the particular Congregation the Church of Corinth is blamed by the Apostle that they did not this of themselves without him and his urging of them much more without a Collegiat Church sentence Answ True the Church of Corinth is blamed that they did not this of themselves But that the Church of Corinth was but an single Congregation and not a Presbyteriall Church composed of several particular Congregations under one Presbyteriall Government should been proven and not barely alledged or supposed See the contrary proven by Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right pag. 460. seq the Authors of Jus Divin pag. 26. seq upon these grounds 1. The multitude of beleevers 2. The plenty of Ministers 3. The diversity of tongues and languages 4. The plurality of Churches mentioned therein 5. A Presbyteriall meeting of Prophets section 6 He proceeds to reason by way of removing an Objection thus If it be said they be fit to Preach and Administer seals but not to Ordain or Excommunicat because the particular Churches cannot make up a sufficient Eldership This is the Objection he frames to himself as if it were ours on which 1. We say not they i. e. the particular Congregation wholly taken are fit to Preach or may Preach But we say that any one Pastour rightly called is fit to Preach and administer seals his alone 2. We say not simply that the Eldership of a particular Congregation may not in any
never so tender if rightly informed as they did eat so with good satisfaction they might eat it And generally what is not ordinarily to be done by a positive laâ— in an extraordinarie case when necessity requires may be done and a tender heart have good satisfaction in the doing of it even in things divine 2. The nature and constitution of Gods Ordinances is not estimat and defined according to what shape the hearts of men are apt to conceive he has put upon them but according to what his own word saith of his will concerning them It was yeelding to this aptitude of mens hearts in conceiving Gods shaping of Ordinances that baptizing by private persons and even midwives did spring from into the Church of God 3. The ordinary and expresse rule that we speak of that single Congregations should not exercise acts of jurisdiction of publick and common concernment by themselves alone without associat Elderships relates to the case when association may be had But when association cannot possibly be had as if a Congregation be in a remote Iland or divided from all other Churches by some other insuperable impediment of fellowship we say that in that case of necessity it is the ordinary rule to that Congregation to act as it is alone by it self If it shall be said seeing when it is that way alone it may exercise these Ordinances within it self then if other Congregations being in a capacitie to be joined with it may not exercise them alone it is abridged off the former liberty it had before when it was alone by it self I answ this is no abridgement of its liberty but only a strengthening of their power in things of common concernment As suppose there being five Elders in a Congregation while as they are only these five they may act in the Government of that Congregation Yet if other fix be added to them they may not now act without these yet this is no abridging of any liberty they had but a strengthening of their power The truth is that a Congregation in an incapacity of association with other Congregations exerciseth and dispenseth all these Ordinances within it self not as being one single Congregation but as being the whole Church A Congregation in such a case is as if there were not another Congregation in the world and that is to be the whole Church interpretativè Just as there being in a Congregation five Elders only these five act all things belonging to Elders in the Congregation not because they are such a definite competent number but because they are the whole number Because if they did act as being such a definite number they could not admit any moe to joyne with them in the work section 9 Further it is saith he confessed by our Brethren that the Judicatures of Classes and Congregations do not differ specifically but only in extension Then if they differ only in extension the intrinsecall power of the Elders of the Congregation is the same with the Elders of Classes And then there is no specificall act that the one puts forth but the other can put forth too as occasion shall require can Ordain and Excommunicate as the Collegiat Church and so is the Congregationall Church compleat if the Classicall Church be Answ 1. Mr. Lockier is not well enough acquainted it seemeth with the judgement of all Pâ—esbyterians concerning the difference between Congregationall and Classicall Elderships when as he sayeth that they confesse there is no specificall or formall difference between them if he were acquainted better with them he would find some to be of that mind that tho there be Elders of a single Congregation yet that there is not a Presbytery of a single Congregation having power to exercise Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and I confesse it is hard to find any pattern in the Word of God of such a Presbytery But 2. When as he sayeth that in the confession of Presbyterians they differ only in extension he mistakes the judgement of the most part of all Presbyterians who and that indeed according to truth hold that the power of a Classicall Presbytery as to the exercise of Government not only reaches a larger object i. e. differs in extension but also more acts of jurisdiction as Ordination Excommunication which the Eldership of a single Congregation as one single Congregation cannot exercise and that is to differ intensivè But I suppose all were granted which is asked here that Classicall Presbyteries differ not specifically from Congregationall that their power of jurisdiction differs only extensivè that there is no specificall act exercised by the Classicall but the Congregationall may exercise in it self when occasion requires and so that it is compleat this way which is just such compleatnesse as we mean when we say that a Boy is a compleat Man tho all this were granted does it hereupon follow that larger associate Presbyteries juridicall are uselesse devices of men No wayes as has been shewed before Altho it were granted that the Eldership of a particular Congregation may exercise all these specificall acts there may be many cases wherein it may be not only expedient but necessary that the matter be judged and determined by an associate Presbytery as when it is a matter of great difficultie when other Congregations are much and nearly or equally concerned when there is division and difference in the Congregationall Eldership or Church that the matter cannot be agreed upon and determined amongst themselves when there is an appeal propter malam administrationem vel malam administrationem praesumptam c. section 10 Finally SECT 46. If the particular Church had not been compleat to do its own work without a forrain an associate Eldership the Apostles would have mentioned something of this combineing of Elderships and when this might been surely the Church of Christ durst not neglect the use of it And yet we find not the one and do find the other the Apostle when he took his leave of the Church of Ephesus commends it not to associat Elders but both Elders and people as one flock to the grace of God Act. 20. 32. Answ 1. Let it be so that the particular Church is compleat to do its own work Yet 1. Is not every Congregation as a part of the whole body of the Visible Church of Christ to look to the work of fellow members and parts and of the whole according to its measure and proportion of power Should one member say to another I must see to my own work Ought I to care for thee Are there not matters of publick and common concernment 2. No particular Church is politically so compleat as to do every work of its own in every case as has been shewed but it will in this stand in need of an associat Superiour Eldership 3. It hath been abundantly proven by the Authors we referred to before that Scripture is not silâ—nt but often mentioneth the thing of associated Presbyteries and all
offended and to esteem and account as we do a sentence of non-Communion by them by Churches against us upon such scandals wherein they are not satisfied an heavy and sad punishment and to be looked upon as a means to humble us and an Ordinance of God to reduce us If those men pillars of the Independent way had accounted as Mr. Lockier does Presbyterian Churches to be idolatrous would they have professed to hold retain such Communion with them Nay do they not themselves alledge all these things as Arguments to evidence that they are far from the mind of those who accounts them false Churches All this say they is more then as if in nothing they were to be complyed with nor their Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church Communion more is said and done by those who account them false Churches section 3 His second obj Sect. 49. Answ Sect. 50. is but a fiction set up by himself that he may seem at least to gain a victory We use not to reason so many has been converted under Presbyteriall Government doth not this seal it to be of God We know many have been and doubts not but some are at this day converted under Papall Government which is very Antichristianisme But this Sr we tell you that Presbyteriall Government in the exercise thereof has been the blessed means under God of Converting souls reduceing them from their sinfull wayes to God and his Son Christ Jesus the terrour of evill doers the preserver of his Church the Hedge that has guarded the Vineyard of the Lord from Foxes the very Hammer of Errours Haeresies and Haereticks and therefore is so much at this day maligned and hated of all such that in these lamentable times has turned aside unto their loose and erroneous wayes 'T is true Presbyterians takes it for no good Argument to prove Episcopall Government to be of God that many were Converted under it and believes it was a Government of mans invention Yet Presbyterians never thought of Churches under Episcopall Government in which the truth of the Gospel was Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christs institution for their substance as you think of Presbyteriall that they were false Churches But something more of this in considering his next Objection and Answ thereunto which fully unbowels the Authors design against Presbyterian Churches section 4 The Objection he frameth to himself is this But many Godly being in the Presbyterian way is it not more proper to purge then to pull down all To make use of the root and not up with root and branch To which his Answer in summe is that it was just so objected by the Godly in England when the Presbyterians would have down with our Episcopall Church But it behoved to be up root and branch So must now the Presbyterian The Lords controversie has come about to it and means the same And thereupon he gives his plain and faithfull warning to his dear Brethren Does this man know of what spirit he is To speak so Edomitelike of all Presbyterian Churches Down with them raze them to the ground up with root and branch of them Hoc Ithacus velit magno mercentur Atridae I think the man has wished a peece of acceptable service to Antichrist and his father the Devil Lord grant him mercy of it 'T is none of our pleading for the Presbyterian way that many godly being in it therefore simply purging of Presbyterian Churches were more proper then rooting up and pulling down all If any man Sir has come to reason with you thus poorly for Presbyterian Churches we doubt not but ere that time he has dealt treacherously against the truth We tell you the Presbyterian way is Gods way instituted in his Word the contrary whereof you but beggingly suppose in framing your Objection but has not nor ever will prove Yet this we affirme that albeit there be in Churches corruptions not only in the conversations of many persons but also in some things in the Worship and Ordinances yet if they be not such corruptions as everts and destroyes the foundation and substance of Religion But there is therein the substance of the Gospel orthodoxly Preached the Sacraments for their substantialls agreeable to their institution the way to be kept is purge out the old leaven And there is neither in Old nor in New Testament warrand for separating from or pulling down and rooting up such Churches And as to that Mr. Lockier alledgeth that Presbyterians would have down Episcopall Churches Either he has not understood or misrepresented Presbyterians mind in that matter Indeed Presbyterians were zealous to have the corrupt office of Prelacy plucked up root and branch because a plant that God had never planted in his Church and could not hear of a purging or circumcising of it that some would been at by clipping from them officialls and such other appendicles and limiting them thus and thus But that the whole frame of Churches that were under Prelaticall government should be razed down to the ground pluckt up root and branch cast all in a heap of ruine that out of the ruines thereof their should been picked out here and there some stones to build up new Churches it never entered in the thoughts of some Presbyterians Nay but on the contrary even in the time that Prelats possessed their Government sound Presbyterians as with the one hand they did fight against Prelats the corrupt Officers So did they at that same time with the other hand against Separatists with whom Mr. Lockier here agrees maintaining the Churches of England to be true Churches from whose communion it was not lawfull to separat Witnesse amongst sundry others that grave and judicious peece written by sundry non-conforme Divines jointly in the times of Prelats and published by Mr. Rathband An. 1604. section 5 But Mr. Lockier in his SECT 53. goes about to prove that it is not purging that must be applyed to Presbyterian Churches but they must be pulled down and pluckt up root and branch or utterly separated from His discourse in summe commeth to this much When the forme of Churches or their matter is right tho many things may be done amisse then purging may be used but when matter and forme both are corrupt and naught as it is in Presbyterian Churches For forme knit by situation and by forrain forinsecall Elderships For matter three parts of four naught prophane Atheists of Elders and people So that the Church state is quite dead 'T is not a man but a carcase not a Church but a nest of unclean birds a den of theeves to depart is proper But to talk of purging such the dead is discourse full of weaknesse if not of unwillingnesse to see and censure our own shame â—…sw Verily Sr I am of the mind that any judious man that reads your discourse in this Section will account it such as is full of that which ye charge on others weaknesse
and much worse I will not say the worst that might be said but shall rather pray God to be mercifull to you in this matter so blinded with prejudice and transported with passion far otherwise then becometh a man professing to have the meek and wise Spirit of Christ 1. If speaking so broadly he mean of Presbyterian Churches through the World as indeed your discourse here for pulling them down and separating from them runneth generally without any exception or limitation that for their matter three parts of four are naught prophane atheists c. What bold and blind conjecturing is this 2. If ye mean only the Church of Scotland and that therein three parts of four are naught prophane atheists both Elders and people Yet I say who art thou that judgeth another mans servant No doubt many amongst us are nothing such as they ought to be and it has been alwayes so for the most part in Churches from the beginning But that they are so many and so grosse prophane atheists both people and Elders for a man that is a stranger to the most part of our Churches Elders and people thereof to pronounce so peremptorly is more then he dare answer to God or his own conscience upon second considerat thoughts 3. Suppose it were so indeed that three of four in Churches were naught yet supposing in Churches there be the true Doctrine of the Gospel Preached the Sacraments for their substance and essentialls agreeable to their institution the acts of worship for matter pure must therefore Gods people separat from those Churches and the true Ordinances and Worship of God therein Or must the Churches be pulled down and plucked up root and branch Shew us warrand either of precept or practice for this in the whole Word of God Nay the strain of Prophets Apostles and Christ himself are clearly as the Sun-shine against it How often was it so with the ancient Church that we may say more then three parts of four were prophane and naught And yet did not the Godly and the Prophets of the Lord continue in the exercise of the Ordinances and Worship of God in that Church Was it not so in the Church of the Jews in the time of Christ being amongst them upon earth Did ever Christ for that require his Disciples to depart and separat from that Church Or did he not himself never a white the lesse continue in the Church communion thereof Yea when in glory writing a Letter to the Church of Sardis of whom he testifies that they had a name that they were living but yet were dead and that there were but a few names there which had not defiled their garments Yet his wise and meek zeal is not for pulling down and rooting up and separating from the Church Communion in his Ordinances and Worship But that is his direction v. 2 3. Be watchfull and strengthen the things which remain and are ready to die Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard and hold fast and repent 4. But suppose that de facto in some Churches the generality of persons Elders and people were so grosse and abominably prophane that there were no living for godly ones amongst them is this a good Argument to prove that the very species and kinde must be destroyed and plucked up root and branch Unlesse that Mr. Lockier could shew that the way of Presbyterian Churches of it self in its very kind allowes Churches to be constitute so of persons notoriously prophane and atheists that will not follow But if he shall say this we will avow it to be a slander 5. When as he will have our Churches to be destitute of a right forme because they are not united by way of their Church-Covenant but are knit together only by situation and by forrain forensicall Elderships And upon this account will have them no Churches but only carcasses of Churches It is utterly false that we make situation or cohabitation in place or a forrain Eldership the form of our Churches We say according to the Word of God that the form which gives the being to the Universall Church Visible and unto every member thereof is the profession of and entering unto that generall Covenant with God in his Son Jesus Christ and whereby every Christian is oblidged and engaged to walk in all the wayes of God and perform all duties towards God and other Christians in all their relations required of them according as God giveth opportunity and occasion to perform and exercise them As for Mr. Lockiers Church-Covenant distinct from that generall Covenant with God in Christ as the form of a particular Church giving it the being of a Church and right to the Ordinances of Christ 't is nothing else but a new device of men having no warrand of precept or example in the Word of God either of the Old or New Testament And his un-Churching of our Churches for want of such a Covenant as this is like many other things in this peece has more boldnesse in it then understanding or reason Concerning this matter of the Church-Covenant See Mr. Rutherfurd Due Right of Presbytery Caudrey Review of Mr. Hookers Survey cap. 4. Gul. Apollon Consider of certain Controversies section 6 Mr. Lockier going on yet more to vent his Brounisticall separation objects to himself thus SECT 54. But will no my protest serve the turn If things be corrupt in the Church and I protest against them may not I go on with that Church As for instance If they take in corrupt members or admit corrupt or impenitent communicants And I protest against those may I not go on and partake with these and yet be innocent and enjoy as much presence of God in his Ordinances as if all were holy and good To which he answereth SECT 55. 1. If protesting were only words then such a thing will do But to say the precious should not mingle with the vile and yet the man doth this daily and continually is not to protest but to mock and dissemble Because here is not a meer passivenesse in this man as to the going on in that thing which he protests against 2. Again in practical things t is not so much a mans word as his practice which gives the dislike If a man of an idolatrous Church should stand up and protest against the Masse and yet still go to Masse I doubt how well this would please God or deliver him from guilt Naaman implicitely protests against the idolatry he had practised that he would worship no God but the God of Israel and did he continue to bow down Yes say some but he begs pardon for it But most aptly in our last English Annot. The word being rendered in the time past Pardon that I bowed down 3. Protesting is a piece of revenge which is the vehemence of Repentance and the clearing of ones self which how well this will accord with halting and halving is worthy of deep thoughts of heart Can two
de ritibus circa claves and you will finde that the judiciall power of Discipline was not common to the people but proper to the Ministers only some interest therein was for honours sake given to Martyres 2 As to that cited from Whittaker that learned Theologue himself in the words immediatly going before these cited clears in what respect it is that he sayes the Government of the Church was alwayes in part Democraticall when he saith Si totum corpus Ecclesiae n. volumus respicere quatenus in electione Episcoporum Presbyterorum suffragia serebat ita tamen â—t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper à Presbyteris servaretur Democraticum So then he calls it partly Democraticall in this respect that the people had vote in the election of their Ministers which we grant the people ought to have and if any will in this respect call the Government of the Church in part Democraticall we shall not contend about the name only we will say that the election of Ministers being no more but the nomination or designation of a person to the Ministry is no proper or formall act of authoritative power The other Objection made use of is from Cyprian Lib. 1. Epist 1â— in Pamel Ord. Epist 6. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi Donatus Fortunatus Novatus Curdius solus rescribere nihil potuiâ— quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine Consilio vestro sine consensu plebis * Pamâ—meae privatâ sententiâ meâ privatim sententiâ gerere Answ How far that grave pious and zealous ancient was from the Independent way of Church Government amongst many places in his Writings that one famous Passage in Lib. 1. de Vnitate Ecclesiae doth abundantly demonstrate and cleareth as with Sun-shine Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum Ego dico tibi c. to these words Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem And again a litle after from these words quam unitatem firmiter tenere c. to these quomodo Solis multi radii This place as it hews down the Antichristian Papall Monarchy so it is a clear testimony against popular and supream Independent Government in a single Congregation while as therein the Author so clearly asserteth the power of the Keyes to have been given by Christ and put in the hands of the Apostles in an equall society of honour and power 2. That there is one Catholick Visible Church and that this Catholick Church is but one charge Vnus Episcopatus cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur And that unitatem hanc firmiter tenere vindicare debent Episcopi qui in Ecclesiâ praesident ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum unum etque indivisum probent Then which nothing could be said more forcibly against that crumbling of the Church into so many single Congregations Independent in themselves and without all union and conjunction in point of Government But to the place in hand cited from Epist 10. lib. 3. Gulartius and Junius Notes on the place clear the matter well for us Nempe agebatur de aliqua electione quam Cypriano quidam è Presbyterio suggesseraâ— eo quod Ecclesia ex persecutionibus parte sui Presbyterii destituta esset Respondet nihil se in hac causa unquam facere voluisse quin Presbyterii Consilium plebis consensum adhiberet But what is the place and part of the people in election we controvert not Nay we say with the same Ancient Lib. 1. Epist 4. Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes vel indignos recusandi And as he sayes afterward Eligendus Episcopus immaculatus integer praesente plebe c. But shew me a place in that Writer ascribing to the people formall concurrence with the Officers of the Church in any juridicall authoritative Acts of Government as in Ordination of Ministers sentencing persons to censure to Excommunication and absolving from Excommunication judiciall and definitive determination of controversies in Religion But now this Book having grown to bignesse beyond my intention at first I will insist no further but leave these Brethren I have been last speaking with my hearty desire to God on their behalf that he would shew them mercy to remember from whence they have fallen repent and do their first works FINIS