lawfull Decrees of all gracious Synods Did not of old the Fathers of Nice and of late the Fathers of Dort through the inspiration of the holy Ghost who remaineth with the Church especially with gracious Synods to the worlds end pronounce from the holy Sctipture their Decrees of the Godhead of Christ against Arrius and of the grace of God against Arminius Shall we for this cause ascribe to the Canons of Nice or Dort any greater authority then Ecclesiastick and Humane Howsoever that the Apostles in framing the Canons at Jerusalem did proceede in a way meerely Ecclesiastick and farre different from that they used in dictating of Scripture and publishing truths meerely Divine appeareth from this first that these Canons were brought forth by much Disputation and long discourse But Divine Oracles without the proces of humane Ratiocinations are published from the immediate inditing of the Spirit 2 Pet. 1.21 The Prophesie in old time came not by the will of man but the holy men of God spake as they were moved by the holy Ghost Secondly Oracles meerely Divine are published onely in the name of God Thus saith the Lord but these Canons are proclamed not onely in the name of God but also in the name of man It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us Thirdly The Oracles of God are dictated to the Church by the Ministry only of the Prophets and Apostles and men inspired with an infallible Spirit Ephes 2 20. Being built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles But the Canons of that Synod Acts 15. are declared to be the worke not onely of the holy Ghost â—d the Apostles but also of the Elders and of all who Voyced to them So it is cleare that in the making of these Canons the Apostles as else-where oft did come downe from the eminent Chaire of their Apostolike and extraordinary authority to the lower place of Ordinary Pastors that in their owne persons they might give an example to ordinary Pastors in what manner holy Synods might be rightly celebrated to the worlds end Had not this been their end how easie had it beene either for Paul or Barnabas at Antioch without the toylesome voyage of a long journey to Jerusalem or for Peter or John or James or any one of the Apostles at Jerusalem without the superfluous paines of any convention or disputation as infallible Apostles to have pronounced Divine and irrefragable Decrees of all the matters in question Our fourth argument A Church subordinate is not Independent but a Parochial Church is subordinate to a Presbyteriall For a lesser Church is subordinate to a greater as a part to its whole wherein it is contained Now a Parochiall Church is lesser and the least of all Churches a Presbyteriall Church is greater Of the quantity that the one is lesser the other greater there is no doubt but of the matter it selfe there is question whether there be any such thing as a Presbyteriall Church Now this was proved before and hereafter also will be more cleare the cheife plea here is against the second major which we prove thus A smaller number of the faithfull is subordinate by Christ to a greater number of the faithfull But a lesser Church is a smaller number of the faithfull and a greater Church is a greater number of the faithfull The Major is proved from the 18 of Math. v. 15.16.17.18 If thy Brother trespasse against thee c. Here the Lord in admonitions and Church censures institutes a subordination a gradation a processe from one to two or three from two or three to moe Understand those moe not absolutely and at randoun but in a society bound togeather by the orderly ligaments of divine policy such as we suppose the Churches to be from the smallest to the greatest till you come to the very Church universall Here they distinguish the Major granting that in this place a subordination is appointed by Christ of fewer to moe within the same Church but not without it We might oppugne the application of the distinction to the Minor and prove that a Presbyteriall Church is a greater number of the faithfull within not without the same Church for a Congregationall Church may not unfitly be compared with a Presbyteriall as a part with its whole especially if you compare the meeting of the Officers which rule the Parish with the Presbytery these two are not extrinsecall the one to the other for the Sessions or Consistories or Classis are in the Presbytery which is composed of the Commissioners from Sessions as of its owne and intrinsecall Members But leaving this we oppugne the ground of the distinction as it lyeth in the Major breaking the one halfe of it upon the other The subordination of fewer to moe in the forenamed place is established say they within the same Church Ergo say we without the same Church we meane with them without the same Parochiall Church the consequence we prove by three arguments First there is a like reason for the subordination of fewer to moe without the same Church as within the same for the cheife reason why the Lord ordaines us in admonitions to proceed from one to two or three from two or three to a number sitting as Judges in the Session of one Congregation is because in the admonitions of two or three more authority gravity and wisedome are presupposed to be than in the admonitions of one alone and that a Delinquent is striken with more feare shame and reverence by the faces and mouthes of many who sit as Judges in the name of the whole Congregation than he would be by the mouth of two or three onely Doeth not this power virtue and weight of admonition increase with the number of admonishers as well without as within the same Congregation For as the admonition and censure of tenne sitting in the name of one Congregation hath greater weight then the admonition of two or three of that same Flocke who represent none but themselves so the admonition of thirty Ministers and Elders representing in a Presbytery fifteene Congregations whose commissioners they are shall have more weight then the admonition of ten which represent but one flocke for it is according to reason that those thirty Members of the Presbytery should exceede in wisedome zeale gravity and other qualities which adde weight to an admonition these ten which in a Session represent one Congregation so farre as those ten goe beyond the two or three severall persons of that Congregation Secondly unlesse in this place be established a subordination of fewer to moe as well without as within the same Congregation the remedy brought by Christ will be unable to cure the ill for which it was brought The Lords meanes will be disproportionable and unequall to its end but this were absurd to say of the wisest of all Physicians The reason of the Major is this Christ is prescribing an helpe and cure for brotherly offences now one may be
Ghost the sonnes and daughters of the Father must be understood as many such priviledges of the universall and invisible Church or when any of them are to be applyed to a particular visible Church they must be understood of that Church not according to every one but only the living and gracious members thereof That such priviledges of the Catholicke invisible Church when they are applyed to a particular visible Congregation are to be understood according to this distinction of members Robinson him selfe while yet in his rigid separation grants it expresly The places thus expounded prove not the point for grant to every Congregation so high priviledges as you will yet if they must be verified of that Congregation only according to some members and not according to all if they be to be understood only of the Elect in that Congregation who have the sanctifying Spirit of Christ not of many others who are dead in nature and yet are such members who have right from God according to our Brethrens own Tenet to perform Church acts such as are the preaching of the Gospel the celebration of the Sacraments the admission of members the execution of censures with such authority from Christ as makes all these acts truly valid for the comfort and salvation of the Elect they prove not the true grace of every person whom we must acknowledge to be a true member of a Church If you will extend these places to every singular member of particular visible Churches as indeed the Argument if it have any strength doth import the absurdity will be great for so it will carry to the Pelagianisme of Arminius in the extent of the true grace of God beyond the Elect to all the members of a visible Church also to the totall and finall Apostacy of many who are the Temples of the holy Ghost the members of Christ the faithfull and sanctified children of God For the Argument maketh every member of any visible Church to be such daily experience proves that many members of every visible Church are castawayes Yea the Argument drives further then any of the Arminians will follow for however they extend the true and saving grace of God beyond the Elect members of a Church yet none of them ever said that this sanctifying and saving grace must be in every person before they can bee admitted members of any Church For this is that grosse errour which the Independents have learned not so much from Arminius as Socinus to put all men unconverted without the Church that in this condition they may be converted by the preaching of private men and if by Pastors yet by their Preaching not as Pastors but as private men dealing with these who are none of their Flock but without the Church Neither doe the Socinians so farre as I know extend their Tenet thus farre as to require all before they be members of the Church to be truly regenerate as if the only instrument of regeneration and conversion were the preaching of private men without the Church and the preaching of Pastors within the Church did serve only for the continuing of the sence of justification and the encrease of sanctification as being performed of purpose only unto these persons who at their first entrance into the Church while yet they were without and but comming in have demonstrate the certainty of their enjoying these graces The second Argument God receives none to be members of the visible Church but those who shall be saved but the Stewards of Gods house may receive none but whom God doth receive Ergo the Stewards of Gods house may receive none to bee members of a visible Church but those who shall be saved Answer The Conclusion is subject to the most of the faults observed upon the conclusion of the former Argument which I doe not repeat only consider that this conclusion beareth expresly that none may be members of a visible Church but these who shall be saved and so who are truly Elect. We would not be deceived with their distinctions of inward and outward holinesse of seeming and reall grace of charitable and veritable discerning for this and the other Argument inferres flatly that no other must be received as members in a visible Church but such as first are tryed and found to bee really holy and who shall be saved We Answer therefore to the Minor That it is evidently false for the Reasons which we brought upon the Minor of the former Argument The place of the Acts brought for the proofe of it is detorted such as were to be saved were added to the Church is this indefinite proposition to be understood universally that all who were to be saved were added to the Church the former Argument maketh this no necessary truth for if men must be justified sanctified and put in the way of salvation before they be added to the Church then though they were never added to the Church they may well bee saved They would doe well here to remember their own ordinary practice contrary to that which here they professe to be the way of God Why doe they not adde to their Church all that are to be saved why exclude they many whom they grant to be truly gracious and Elect upon this ground alone that they cannot approve of their Independency or Covenant Or suppose the proposition to be universall yet must it be reciprocall and convertible Be it so that all who were to be saved were added to the Church yet must all who are added to the Church be saved This is an evident untruth Will they that all the members of their Church must be saved or doe they think that all the persons of their Churches who shall not be saved were never true members of their visible Church Iudas was made a member of the Apostolick society by Christ and many men were brought into the visible Church by the Prophets and Apostles who shall not be saved Shall damnation and want of true grace cast them all out of the true Church and take from them their power and right to do the actions of a Church-member The third Argument If it be put in any forme will readily fall under the exceptions of the first but since the Author puts no forme upon it I shall only consider its matter It consists of the misapplication of three Scriptures first of Peters Confession Matâ—h 8. they alledge that such a profession of Faith as the Father reveales to particular persons is the ground of a visible Church and so who ever is a member of that Church must both professe Faith and have the Spirit to indite that profession Answer This is a strange Argument For first we may not admit that the Church founded upon the Rock is every particular visible Church The priviledges of the Catholike and visible Church which the Iesuites by all their wrestlings have never been able to extort from us for their Idoll
hath the power of Ecclesiasticke Jurisdiction to them the Lord hath given the Keys of Heaven for the remitting and retaining of sinnes But to none of the people the Lord hath given these Keys Ergo. The Major is not controverted The Minor is thus proved To whom Christ hath given the Keys of the Kingdome of Heaven to retaine and remitt sinnes they are in some Ecclesiasticke Office They are sent out by Christ as Christ was by his Father they have some part of the Apostles ordinary charge but these things are not true of the people Ergo. The Major is proved John 20.21 As my Father hath sent me so send I you and when he had said this he breathed upon them and said receive yee the Holy Ghost whose sinnes yee remitte they are remitted and whose sinnes yee retaine they are retained What was promised to Peter Mat. 16.19 is here performed to him and the rest of the Apostles and to their Successours in their ordinary Office of Elders for this was a power necessary for the Church to the end of the world The Minor also is cleare for these things were not given to all the Disciples but to the twelve and to their Successours What was promised to Peter was not promised to every faithfull person and to every Orthodoxe Confessour for so all and every one should be bearers of the Keys and Ecclesiasticke Officers which is against the Scriptures of the first Argument Thirdly to whom these acts of Jurisdiction doe belong they are the eyes eares hands and principall Members of the Body of Christ for the eminent persons and Officers of a Church are compared to these Members because of these actions But the people are not the eyes eares hands are not the principall Members of the Body of Christ for if so there should be none left in the Church to be the feete or lesse principall Members all should become eyes and hands and the Church should be made a Body Homogeneous contrary to the doctrine of the Apostle 1. Cor. 12 19. If they were all one Member where were the Body but now are they many Members and the eye cannot say to the hand I have no neede of thee nor the head to the feete I have no neede of you Fourthly Who have a right from God to the acts of Jurisdiction they have a promise of gifts needfull for the performance of these acts For a divine right and calling to any worke is backed with a promise of Gods presence gifts and assistance in doing of that worke but the people have no promise of any such gifts For besides that daily experience declares numbers among the people to be altogether destitute of such knowledge wisedome and other gifts which are necessary for the performance of these acts of Jurisdiction The Apostle himselfe teaches that such gifts are not given to all but to some onely Fifthly That is not to be given to the people that brings confusion into the Church for the Lord is the God of Order But the putting of the power of Jurisdiction in the peoples hand brings confusion into the Church for it makes the feete above the head it puts the greatest power into the hand of the meanest it gives power to the Flocke to depose and excommunicate their Pastour Our Brethren were lately wont to digest with the Brownists these absurdities but now they begin to dislike them and rather then to stand to their Prior Tenets they will limit the Minor asserting that the power of Jurisdiction belongs to the people not severally but joyntly with their Officers so that neither they can excommunicate their Officers nor their Officers can excommunicate them But it seemes this new Subtilty will not long please the Inventors of it for as we have saide it makes the Keys of Heaven much more inserviceable for opening and closing then needs must when it hath taken the keys out of the hand of all others and put them in the little weake fist of a particular Congregation it will not permitt them to open or to close the doore neither to the people nor yet to the Eldershippe The Eldershippe cannot remitt nor retaine the sinnes of the Brotherhood nor the Brotherhood of the Eldershippe yea none of the Eldershippe can be censured by all the people without the consentient vote of the Presbytery nor any of the people can either be bound or loosed without the consentient vote of the people In these cases which may be very frequent The Keys of Christ must be layde aside and a new key of the Independents owne invention their sentence of Non-Communion or that much beloved and a little elder key of separation forged by the Brownists must come in the place thereof to be used against any or all other Churches against their owne Church or its Eldershippe or its Brotherhood or any Member of either Our sixth argument concernes Ordination a speciall act of Jurisdiction which all the Independents to this day put in the hands of the people alone when ever a new Congregation is to be erected which to them is no extraordinary nor rare case or when in a Congregation already erected there is no Presbytery which among them is frequent For a Presbytery must consist of more Governours then one and usually their Presbiteryes exceede not the number of three or foure At the death of their Minister suppose one of their two ruling Elders be sicke or absent or the two differ betweene themselves in this case they make no difficulty to cause some of the people out of all office to ordaine a new chosen Pastour Against this very ordinary practice we reason Vnto whom the power of Ordination doth belong they have a Commission from God authoritatively to send Pastours for preaching and celebration of the Sacraments also to lay hands upon them for that effect But people have no such Commission Ergo. The Major is the nature of Ordination for the essence and inward forme of it is the authoritative sending named the outward Forme and Signe used in Scripture is imposition of hands The Minor is proved from three grounds first that the people however they elect yet they doe not send for so they should send to themselves The Senders and they to whom the Preachers are sent should be one and the same Secondly an authoritative mission imports a Superiority in the Sender above the Sent But the Pastours are over the people not under them Thirdly the examples of the New Testament make it evident that the authoritative sending and imposition of hands the signe thereof were never used by any of the people but by the Elders onely 1 Tim. 4.14 With the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery 1 Tim. 5.22 Lay hands suddenly upon no man 2 Tim. 1.6 Stirre up the gift of God that is in thee by the putting on of my hands So it was not onely at the first sending of men to preach but in posterior missions to any
of the Doctrine to try and examine false Teachers lieth principally on preachers This is alike true of the Church of Antioch The hand of the Lord was in the City and a great number beleeved Acts 11.21 Thereafter by Barnabas labour there was much people added v. 24. yea by the joyned paines of Barnabas and Paul for a yeare together there was such a multitude converted that the name of Christians was first imposed upon them Here as in the Metropolitane City not onely of Syria but all Asia beside Barnabas Paul and other Prophets v. 27. Peter also and many other Doctors had their residence Gal. 2.11 It were too long to speake of the rest of the Apostolicke Churches whose condition was not unlike the former Our third Argument No Synod hath authority to impose Decrees upon an Independent Church But some Synods have authority to impose Decrees upon particular Churches whether Presbyteriall or Congregationall Ergo Particular Churches whether Presbyteriall or Congregationall are not Independent The Maior is not controverted our adverse party acknowledgeth the lawfull use and manifold fruits of Synods They grant it is the duty of every good man and much more of every Church and most of all of a Synod consisting of the Messengers of many Churches to admonish counsell perswade and request particular Curches to doe their duty But that any company on earth even an Oecumenicke Synod should presume to injoyne with authority the smallest Congregation to leave the grossest heresies under the paine of any censure they count it absurd Upon this ground that every Congregation how small soever how corrupt soever is an Independent body and not subordinate to any society on earth how great how pure how holy soever The Minor thus is proved The Synod of Jerusalem imposed with Authority her Decrees upon the Church of Antioch Ergo Some Synod and if you please to make it universall every lawfull Synod may impose its Decrees upon particular Churches The Antecedent is to be seene Acte 15.20 It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden on you then these things necessary The Consequence is good for Antioch was among the chiefe of the Apostolicke Churches in it Barnabas Paul and other Prophets inspired of God were Preachers If this Church was subject to the Authority of Synods what Church may plead a freedome from the like subjection Many things are here replied as usually it hapneth when no solid answer can be brought The chiefe heads of the Reply are three First that the meeting at Jerusalem was no Synod Secondly What ever it was that it did injoyne nothing authoritatively to any other Churches Thirdly That other Synods may not pretend to the priviledges of that meeting since its Decrees were indited by the Holy Ghost and stand now in the holy Canon as a part of Scripture To the first we say that the meeting at Jerusalem is either a true Synod or else there is no paterne in all Scripture for Synods even for counsell or advice or any other use But this were inconvenient for they acknowledge that Synods are lawfull meanes for many gracious ends in the Church Now to affirme that any Ecclesiasticke meeting is lawfull necessary or convenient for gracious ends whereof no patterne no example can be found in Scripture were dangerous But beside this argument towards our adverse party we reason from the nature of the thing it selfe A meeting consisting of the Deputies of many Presbyteriall Churches is a true Synod but the convention at Jerusalem Acts 15. was such a meeting The Maior is the essence of a Synod there are many accidentall differences of Synods for according to the quantity and number of the Churches who send their Commissioners the Synod is smaller or greater is Provinciall Nationall or Oecumenicke according to occasion the Churches sending Commissioners are sometime moe sometime fewer sometime neerer sometime further off also according to the commodity of place and necessity of affaires they come from one Church moe and from others fewer all these are but accidentalls which change not the nature of the thing Unto the essence of a Synod no more useth to be required then a meeting of Commissioners from moe Presbyteriall Churches The Minor is cleare That the Church of Antioch and Jerusalem were moe Churches no man doubts that both were Presbyteriall it was proved before that from both these Presbyteriall Churches Commissioners did sit at that meeting it is apparent from that oft cited Acts 15. Yea that from the other Churches of Syria and Cilicia besides Antioch Commissioners did come to Jerusalem may appeare by conference of the 2. vers of the 15. chap. with vers 23. for that with Paul and Barnabas Commissioners for the time from the Antiochians others also did come it is certaine that those others at least some of them were Deputed from the Churches of Syria and Cilicia it is like because the Synodick Epistle is directed expresly no lesse to those than to this of Antioch also those no lesse than this are said to be troubled with the Questions which occasioned that meeting But to passe this consideration it is cleare that in the Convention at Jerusalem were present not onely the Commissioners of some few Presbyteriall Churches but also they whom God had made constant Commissioners to all the Churches of the world to wit the Apostles their presence made all the Churches legally subject to the Decrees of that Synod though they had no other but their grand and constant Commissioners to Voyce for them in that meeting The second Answer is clearely refuted from the 28. vers where the Decrees are not proposed by way of meere advice but are injoyned and imposed as necessary burdens with Authority not onely of the Synod but of the holy Ghost Concerning the third we say that the meerely Divine and more than Ecclesiastick Authority of these Decrees in their first Formation is not made good from this that now they stand in holy Scripture and are become a part of the Bible for a world of Acts meerely indifferent and which without doubt in their Originall had no more then Ecclesiasticke Authority are Registred in Scripture Was the Presbytery of Lystraes laying on of hands on Timothy any other then an act of Ecclesiastick Ordination The Decree of the Church of Corinth for the incestuous mans Excommunication or relaxation after Repentance was it any more then an act of Jurisdiction meerely Ecclesiasticke Pauls circumcision of Timothy his Uow at Cenchrea the cutting off his haire at Jerusalem were free and indifferent actions The nature of these things and many moe of that kinde is not changed by their Registring in the Booke of God Neither also is the meerly Divine Authority of the Decrees at Jerusalem proved by this that in their first framing they were grounded on cleare Scripture and after proclamed in the name of the holy Ghost for that is the condition of the