A Little Stone Found to be Counterfeit, Treatise · Part 2 · Introduction – Section 1
I Have been, I confeſſe, well long upon the Examination of Mr. Lockiers Lecture, becauſe I found not ſo clear and diſtinct handling of that mater in others, as I could have wiſhed: and I thought it expedient that, in regard he ſpeaks with ſo great a deal of confidence in it, and others made ſo much noiſe of it, and this new-fangle itching-ear'd age is ready to take with every new fancy, busked up with gay words, and, like children, to be carried about with every wind of doctrine; In this regard I thought it expedient the more fully to diſcover the weakneſſe and unſatisfactorineſſe of his alledgeances therein. I ſhall not need, nor mind I to inſiſt ſo largely upon the Appendix*I mean as to every particular Queſtion handled here; For here are more particular queſtions handled. The mater therein touched, viz. What is the proper ſubject of Eccleſiaſtick Authority and Government: And whether there be an union of more Congregations and Churches under one common Preſbytery: has been already ſo learnedly and fully cleared by others, that it were but needleſſe labour for me to inſiſt on it; And I confeſſe, I mervail much that Mr. Lockier ſhould have preſented the world with ſo ſory a diſcourſe upon theſe maters (as I think every judicious Reader will perceive this Appendix to be) when as there are abroad ſo learned Tractats and Debates on them. Alwayes we muſt be at the pains to animadvert upon this part of the Stone too, elſe the world ſhould be made believe we were fell'd dead with it: But we ſhall do it as briefly, as to particulars, as we may, and ſhall refer M. Lockier to ſuch Pieces as are written already, for further buſineſſe and work to him, as occaſion ſhall require.
Mr. Lockiers APPENDIX. SECTION I.
section 2 HIs firſt Aſſertion is this: That the Elderſhip which is within the particular Congregation, is not in moſt weighty things, to exert power, without the conſent and approbation of the Church whereof they are. By things moſt weighty, I mean theſe things which are moſt eſſentiall to the ſtate of a viſible Church: as admiſſion of Members, ordination of Officers, and excommunication of either.
section 3 'Tis worthy Obſervation how the Author manages this mater of his firſt Aſſertion, the point he propounds to be proven, is that the Elderſhip of a Congregation may not, in moſt weighty maters, exert power without the conſent and approbation of the Church, and for proof of this, his firſt Argument, SECT. 2. is an allegeance, that the power of the Keyes was primarly given to the Church of believers, as the ſubject thereof, Math. 16. 16. which allegeance he is pleaſed to paſſe with a very light and ſlight ſhew of a proof, as if it were a mater of ſmall Debate. Whether thus he has done from deliberate and adviſed policy, to ſhun Debate upon that which is the very foreign, in this Queſtion about Eccleſiaſtick Juriſdiction, and to make his common Readers the more favourable to his part, as pretending only to diſpute for intereſt of conſent and approbation to them in acts of Juriſdiction Eccleſiaſtick of greateſt concernment (and indeed as mans pride naturally carries him with a deſire to have a finger in rule, ſo it is a plauſible ſubject to ſpeak for it to him) or if he has done it from ſome other principle, I will not determine; Let the judicious Reader conjecture, what he thinks moſt likely. Only I muſt ſay it ſeemeth to me a very ſtrange and irrationall way of procedure, to take ſo great pains and make ſo much adoe, as Mr. Lockier doth here in pleading for a certain condition of perſons formall intereſt and concurrence, in acts and the exerciſe of juriſdiction, and to make this the Queſtion or concluſion to be inſiſted on: And mean while, to take it almoſt for granted without proof, or at moſt, in a ſlight overly word to alledge, that they are chiefly inveſted with that power and authority from which theſe acts muſt flow, when as he knoweth, at leaſt might have known that his adverſaries, not only deny, but by many conſiderable Arguments goes about to demonſtrate, that, that condition of perſons never were inveſted with, never received ſuch a power or authority, from him to whom it belongeth originally. Mr. Lockier does juſt here, as if a Papiſt or Jeſuite, going about to Diſpute the Controverſie concerning the Popes ſupremacy, ſhould be taken up all along the Diſpute in bringing ſome topical Arguments, that this and that and the other act of ſupremacy, as calling of oecumenicall Counſels, to be preſiding in them, finall and infallible determining of controverſies in Religiō, &c. ought to be performed by the Pope of Rome; And mean while ſhould misken the Queſtion, if ever Chriſt gave him a grant of power and authority to perform theſe things, but only ſuppoſe it be ſo, or content himſelf to cite for it as it were in tranſitu, Tibi dabo claves or Paſce oves meas, as if it were out of queſtion clear that theſe places held forth a ſoveraigne power and authority over all things, and perſons Eccleſiaſtick in Peter, yea and in every Pope of Rome, beſtowed on them by Chriſt. I think a judicious adverſary might well laugh at a Papiſts diſputing after ſuch a manner. And ſo may any judicious man at M…. Lockiers manner and method of diſputing here, contending much in ſome topicall Arguments to prove that the people ought to have an hand in ſuch and ſuch acts of Government, and mean while ſlight proving that they have the power and authority to govern granted them by Chriſt. I think a rationall diſputant would have laboured firſt and mainly about this; And indeed were this made once clear, we ſhould ſoon be at an agreement about the acts and exerciſes of government, once prove the forme or habit to be in ſuch a ſubject, and there will be no queſtion about the acts thereof, whether they be competent to that ſubject or not. If any man ſhall ſay for him here, that by ſhewing ſuch and ſuch acts to be competent to the people, it is proven conſequently à poſteriori, that the habit or power from which theſe acts do flow is in them: I anſwer, if that had been his intention ſo he might have done: But then he ſhould not alledged the inexiſtency of the power, as a medium to prove that theſe acts are competent to them (as he doth in his 1. Arg.) for this is nothing elſe but to run in a round: but we muſt apply our ſelves to follow his method.
section 4 To ſpeak a word then to the firſt Aſſertion, I will not queſtion the an ſit, or being of the ſubject of this Aſſertion. Whether there be de jure and of Divine inſtitution, an Elderſhip, or Presbyterie within a particular Congregation, i. e. a Colledge of Elders belonging to one ſingle Congregation by it ſelf having power of Government and exerciſing Eccleſiaſtick Diſcipline; although I know men Learned and much excerciſed in the ſtudy of the Queſtions concerning Eccleſiaſtick Government, are of the judgement, that there is not ſuch an Elderſhip or Preſbyterie; And I confeſſe 'tis right hard to finde in Scripture either precept or example for it: But I ſhall, going along with Mr. Lockier in the acknowledgment thereof, note but ſome few things upon the attribute of his Aſſertion: There be three things therein contained. 1. the acting ſpoken of, viz. exercing of power. 2. the object of that acting, moſt weighty things. 3. The limitation of that acting about this object, as competent to the Elderſhip.
section 5 For the firſt, Mr. Lockier ſpeaketh ſo here as he would ſeem to grant to the Elderſhip ſome power and exercing of it about theſe weighty maters, providing it be with conſent and approbation of the Church, i. e. the ſociety of Profeſſours they are in. But verily by his way the Elderſhip as contradiſtinguiſhed from other profeſſours, and as the Elderſhip has no power, nor can exert any power at all; I mean power of authority in theſe maters: All their part is meerly to preſide and moderate the meeting of the Church, and as a Moderator, or Chair-man, to propone and ſtate a Queſtion; Ask and gather the votes, and declare the ſentence concluded by the votes of the collective body of the Church; conveen and diſmiſſe the meeting; Or at moſt as a Committee of a Judicatory, to prepare maters for publick cognition and ſentence: All which is no Authoritative power. I think therefore that Mr. Lockier would have dealt more candidly to have plainly ſaid, the Elderſhip can exert no power at all in theſe maters; This belongs to the collective body of the Church, and their part is only to preſide and moderat the meeting in exerting its power: But ſuch plain language, which yet ſpeaks the truth of his way, is too plainly diſſonant to the language of Scripture, which ſpeaketh of Church Officers, as Governours of, and to be over the people, and having the rule over them, and many ſuch other things attributeth unto them, which importeth another kind of thing then meer preſiding, moderating, or being the mouth of a meeting or a preparatory Committee.
section 6 For the ſecond, why does Mr. Lockier here reſtrict his aſſertion, to theſe maters of greater weight? Does he grant that yet they may exert power in maters of leſſe weight without the conſent and approbation of the Church? Nay, he cannot. For, 1. moſt of his Arguments following, if they prove ought to his purpoſe, they prove the Elderſhip cannot exert power in any maters of Eccleſiaſtick Government without the conſent of the Church, whether of greater or ſmaller weight. Yea, 2. in his laſt Argument to prove they cannot exert power in theſe greater maters▪ he aſſumeth that they may not do it in ſmaller maters. For (ſaith he, Sect. 11. Pag. 81.) if in leſſe things the Elderſhip may not act alone, ſurely not in greater. What then needed this reſtriction of the object in the Aſſertion?
section 7 But now what are theſe maters moſt weighty? He tell us, theſe things which are moſt eſſentiall to the ſtate of the Viſible Church; And then reckons up particularly theſe three admiſſion of Members, ordination of Officers, and Excommunication of either. To paſſe that expreſſion of moſt eſſentiall importing degrees in eſſentiality which Philoſophy will not admit, as telling us that eſſentia rei non recipit magis & minus. I do humbly conceive that the fixt Preaching of the Word of God, and right adminiſtration of Sacraments are as eſſentiall (to uſe his words) to the ſtate of the Viſible Church as any of theſe particulars mentioned. Nay they are much more eſſentiall; there may be a true Viſible Church, where theſe are, tho Excommunication be wanting, and that admiſſion of members Mr. Lockier ſpeaks of, unknown to the Primitive Apoſtolick times. It has been the conſtant Doctrine of Reformed Divines, that the ſound Preaching of the Word and right Adminiſtration of Sacraments, are neceſſary to the being of a Church, and exerciſe of Diſcipline only to the well-being. Some Churches have no Excommunication, which though we approve not in this; yet becauſe they have the true Doctrine of the Goſpel taught and profeſſed in them, and the Sacraments therewith adminiſtrat right for their ſubſtance, God forbid we ſhould account deſtitute of the moſt eſſentialls (to ſpeak ſo with him) of a true Church. Now if the Preaching of the Word be a thing moſt eſſentiall to the ſtate of a Church, as certainly it is, muſt the Miniſters of Chriſt, not Preach any Doctrine, as the Doctrine of Chriſt, without the conſent of the Church, i. e. of the profeſſours to whom they Preach? Muſt it be firſt propounded to them to have their vote and ſentence paſſe upon it, and upon that Preached? I conceive Mr. Lockier will not own ſuch theologie. 2. That admiſſion of members which …e meaneth here, is ſo far from being one of theſe things moſt eſſentiall to the ſtate of a Viſible Church, that, as he and others of his mind conceive it, 'tis but a meer new device, unknown in the preceeding ages of the Church, and without ground in the Word of God: He means admiſſion into the fellowſhip of this or that particular Church or Congregation by a Church Covenant as they call it, which he conceives to be that which formally gives Viſible-Church-Memberſhip, and that it muſt be upon ſuch qualification as he has been diſputing for in his Lecture. But as there is no warrand in the Word of God for ſuch qualification as neceſſary to Viſible-Church-Memberſhip (as has been cleared in our former part) ſo it is a plain miſtake that admiſſion unto the fellowſhip of this or that particular Church, is that which formally makes one a Viſible Church Member; And that it is founded upon another miſtake, which is a foreign in the Church way of the Independent Brethren, viz. that there is no Viſible Church Catholick or Univerſall; but that a particular Congregation is the only Church. The truth is, profeſſion of the true Faith and of ſubjection to Ordinances, with the ſeal of baptiſme compleatly makes a man a Member of the Viſible Church, (elſe, ſuch were foreign, without, and ſo but of the world of heathens and ſtrangers, which is abſurd) and admiſſion in this or that particular Congregation, gives him only the opportunity of exerciſe of his Church-memberſhip and the priviledges thereof (whereunto he had right before) hic & nunc, all which has been ſo cleary evinced by judicious and learned Mr. Hudſon, in his Vindication of the Eſſence and Ʋnity, &c. that any man that will not wilfully ſhut his eyes againſt the light, may be fully convinced thereof. So then as for admiſſion of Perſons into this or that particular Congregation, it is not a mater of ſo high eſſentiality to the ſtate of the Viſible Church. And for that wherein ſolemn admiſſion into the ſtate 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? 'Tis 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.