A Little Stone Found to be Counterfeit, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 11
SECTION XI. Examination of Mr. Lockiers 4th Medium, purſued from his SECTION 40, to 47.
section 1 HIs fourth Medium is, that a particular Congregation is compleat and ſufficient in it ſelf without an aſſociate Preſbytery over more Congregations; Whereby he intends to prove ſuch Preſbyteries uſeleſſe and a device of man and no divine inſtitution, becauſe God would not appoint uſeleſſe things. His Argument fully ſet up is this: If every particular Congregation rightly conſtituted and compleated hath ſufficiencie within it ſelf to exerciſe all the Ordinances of Chriſt, to Ordaine, to Excommunicate, without the larger Elderſhips, then larger Elderſhips are uſeleſſe; But every particular Congregation rightly conſtitute and compleat hath ſufficiencie within it ſelf, &c. Therefore, &c. Anſw. Ere I reply particularly, firſt we would underſtand, what the Author doeth underſtand by the compleatneſſe of a particular Congregation, and what may be underſtood, by having ſufficiency within it ſelf to exerciſe all the Ordinances of Chriſt: for the former, I conceive the Author meaneth a particular Congregation to be compleat in its conſtitution, when as beſide, the body of private Proſeſſours, there is in it an Elderſhip made up of all the integrall parts thereof, Paſtours, or one Paſtour, Teachers, or one Teacher at leaſt. and ſome competent number of Ruling Elders, three at leaſt, ſo many Officers, according to our Brethren, make up a compleat Elderſhip for a Congregation. For the other we would conſider, that by ſufficiencie to exerciſe the Ordinances of Chriſt, we muſt underſtand not only a competencie of gifts and abilities of wiſedome and underſtanding for exerciſing ſuch and ſuch acts; But alſo, power and authority by a divine warrand, inſtitution and call. A private gifted man may have the competencie of gifts for Preaching the Goſpel, Adminiſtration of Sacraments, yet he hath not ſimply ſufficiencie to exerciſe that Ordinance, becauſe he hath not power and authority by calling from God to do it: Theſe premiſed, for Anſw. 1. The major Propoſition is a groſſe non-ſequitur, and injurious to the wiſdom of God in his Ordinances: for there may be for a certain end a mean appointed of God, which is by it ſelf ſufficient for effecting that end ſimply, and another mean appointed of God for that ſame end, and yet this is not uſeleſſe becauſe the other is ſufficient; Becauſe this may be for the better, more eaſie, more ſafe effecting of it. Manifold inſtances might be given of this, the promiſe of ſalvation or of the bleſſing of Believers, is of and by it ſelf ſufficient enough to give aſſurance to the Children of God of the immutability of Gods counſell and purpoſe of their ſalvation: Was therefore the oath added to the word of promiſe uſeleſſe. God forbid it ſhould be ſaid, it is added of ſuperabundant good will that we might have the more aboundant aſſurance and conſolation, Heb. 6. 17, 18. So the Preaching of the Goſpel is of it ſelf a mean ſufficient of faith and ſalvation: Are therefore the Sacraments, and Diſcipline, uſeleſſe? God has appointed, in his Church, means for his ſpirituall works therein, not only ſufficient but aboundant, not only for their eſſe ſimpliciter, but alſo for their bene eſſe, yea for their optimum eſſe. So that although a particular Congregation have ſufficiencie to exerciſe all theſe Ordinances of Chriſt, yet larger Elderſhips of more Congregations aſſociated together, may be of much and ſingular good uſe, for the better, or beſt performance or exerciſing of them, for exerciſing them with leſſe danger of erring and miſcarying, with the more authority, and to the begetting of the more reverence, reſpect and obedience in people. So Mr. Lockiers major which he neglects to prove, but ſuppoſeth as if it were without Queſtion, is rotten and falſe, and conſequently the whole frame of his Argument by this fals to the ground, ſo that we need not inſiſt upon the minor or aſſumption: But 2. here I would ask Mr. Lockier. What if a particular Congregation be not compleat, have not an entire Elderſhip of its own, I ſuppoſe, Paſtour and Teacher be removed, the Ruling Elders only remaining, or all of them being removed, in this caſe whether has the particular Congregation ſufficiencie in it ſelf to exerciſe theſe ordinances, to Ordain, to Excommunicate? If he Anſwer yes, as it is moſt abſurd and contrary to the Scriptures of God to make a Church exerciſing the publike Ordinances of Chriſt without the Officers and Miniſters of Chriſt: So, if ſo, what needed him propound the Argument of a Congregation compleat? If he Anſwer no; May not a Claſſicall Presbytery be of uſe here? Elſe how ſhall their ordinances be exerciſed to them? For certainly there will be a neceſſity of exerciſing ſome of them, of Ordination at leaſt. But ſee the minor alſo,
section 2 A particular Congregation rightly conſtituted and compleated (as was expounded before, having with the body of Profeſſors a Paſtor, Teacher, and a competent number of Ruling Elders, three may be the number, hath ſufficiency in it ſelf to exerciſe all the Ordinances of Chriſt, to Ordain, to Excommunicate, by it ſelf, without forraign, we ſay, larger aſſociated Preſbyteries. Anſ. 1. We conceive that a particular Congregation may be compleat in Mr. Lockiers ſenſe, i. e. having an Elderſhip intier in all parts thereof, ſuch as is an Elderſhip conſiſting of one Paſtor, one Teacher, and three R…ing Elders, five in all, who, may be, have not ſufficiency of abilities, as is requiſite for due and ſafe exerciſing theſe Ordinances, of Ordination and Excommunication. But 2. Suppoſe they had competency of gifts for managing the exerciſes of theſe Ordinances: yet we ſay they have not ſufficiency in themſelves to exerciſe them without an aſſociate Presbytery where they may conveniently aſſociate, becauſe they have not authority and warrand from God in his Word to do it. I ſay, where they may conven…ntly aſſociate: For we deny not but a particular Congregation, being in ſuch a caſe that it cannot enjoy aſſociation with other Churches, through a phyſicall impoſſibility or impediment, in this caſe of neceſſity, may, as it is alone, exerciſe ſuch acts of Government: but particular Congregations, where they can conveniently aſſociate together, they are oblidged by the rule and warrand of Gods Word, to aſſociate under common Presbyteries, Claſſicall and Synodicall: and in this caſe, that a particular Congregation ought not, nor may, by warrand of Gods Word, exerciſe theſe acts of Government of publike and common concernment, as Ordination and Depoſition of Miniſters, Excommunication of perſons, by it ſelf alone: But theſe acts ought to be done by the common Presbytery Claſſicall or Synodicall. And that a particular Congregation ought not, nor may not, by warrand of Gods Word, perform any act in maters particularly concerning themſelves, ſo without the common Presbytery of the aſſociation, but that there ſhould be liberty of appeal to the common Presbytery: And that the common Presbytery may juridically and authoritatively cognoſce, and judge upon their proceedings and actings: In a word, it may do things of Government particularly belonging to it ſelf in and by it ſelf, but with ſubordination, to the larger and common Presbyteries, theſe things have been abundantly proven by ſundry learned men, as Mr Gill…ſp. in his Aſſert. of the Government, &c. Mr. Rutherfurd. Gull Apollon. in his conſideration of ſundry controverſies. Jus Divin. The Aſſ. of Divines, come we to ſee what Mr. Lockier bringeth for the contrair.
section 3 Firſt, It is granted by our Brethren (ſayeth he) that ſuch a Church hath this ſufficiency in the exerciſe of ſome Ordinances, as Preaching, Adminiſtration of Sacraments, without ſeeking the conſent or help of the Claſſes: Nor were the Church to neglect theſe. Whence he concludeth that it may alſo exerciſe the other, Ordination and Excommunication. And gives for a proof of the conſequence upon that grant. If they may do the greater ſurely they may do the leſſer, and there is no diſpenſation of ſo choiſe an excellency as Preaching, as Paul witneſſeth, making it the chief part of his errand. I was ſent to Preach the Goſpel, not to Baptize.—Anſw. 1. 'Tis true, we grant that ſuch a Church, i. e. a particular Congregation having all its Officers hath ſufficiency in it to exerciſe theſe Ordinances of Preaching and Adminiſtration of Sacraments. i. e. the Paſtors of a particular Congregation may Preach the Word, and Adminiſter the Sacraments without ſpeciall conſent or help and concurrence, of the Claſſicall Presbytery to every act, nor were he to neglect or ceaſe from theſe, if the Claſſis ſhould forbid, I mean without juſt cauſe; Yet it may be, and it is ſo indeed by the warrand of Gods Word, that the particular Congregation cannot have, in the ordinary way of the Church in a ſetled and conſtitute ſtate, the Paſtor to exerciſe theſe Ordinances but by the conſent and poteſtative miſſion and Ordination of the Claſſis, or ſome aſſociate Presbyterie, and tho the Paſtor of the particular Congregation his exerciſing theſe Ordinances be not dependent upon the actuall concurrence in the ſeverall individuall acts; Yet therein he is ſubordinate to their Miniſteriall Authority, to try and judge his Preaching according to the Word of God, and, if they find juſt cauſe, may forbid him to preach, and they forbidding, he muſt obey. But 2. Its a groſſe non-ſequitur, a particular Church, or the Paſtors in a particular Church, have ſufficiency or power to preach the Goſpel, and adminiſter Sacraments, without the help or concurrence of the Claſſicall Presbyterie. Ergo they may alſo exerciſe theſe other Ordinances, Ordination and Excommunication, without their concurrence; And the proof of it is invalide, becauſe that is greater, and if they may do the greater alone by themſelves, they may alſo do the leſſer: For by that ſame reaſon it ſhould follow, A Paſtor hath ſufficiency and power by himſelf alone to preach the Goſpel, to Baptize without the help and concurrence of his fellow-Elders in the Congregation. Ergo he may alſo by himſelf alone Ordain and Excommunicate, without their help and concurrence. Why? That is the greater▪ and if he may do the greater alone, he may alſo do the leſſer. The Author himſelf will not, I conceive, admit the Conſequence here. The truth is, the intereſt of perſons to exerciſe this, or that, or the other, Ordinance is not to be attended or determined, according to the greater or leſſer excellency of the work: But according to Chriſts commiſſion, inſtitution, and grant of power to them. The exerciſe of Eccleſiaſticall power in ſome things, (which is commonly called power of order) as Preaching of the Word, Adminiſtration of Sacraments, is given to Chriſts Miniſters, ſeverally and a part, conſidered as ſingle Paſtors. So a Paſtor may preach the Word and adminiſter Sacraments alone, without concurrence, or ſpeciall conſent, either of the whole Church, or other Rulers to every act: But in other things (theſe of the power, called the power of juriſdiction) the exerciſe and power thereof is not given to one, but to an unity: To the community of Governours of the Church united together: not any ſingle Rulers ſeverally. Therefore tho a Paſtor may preach, and baptize alone, yet he may not Cenſure nor Excommunicate alone; And if he ſhould do this, the act were invalide, both in foro Dei, and in foro Eccleſiaſtico. Now the power of Ordination and Excommunication being given to a community, the Queſtion is, whether this community be a particular Congregation, having an intire particular Elderſhip, or the Elderſhip of a particular Congregation, by it ſelf and independent from a larger Presbyterie, this Mr. Lockier ſaith, but his Argument, grounded upon our grant, to prove it, is impertinent, as we have ſeen.
section 4 But further he would prove that a particular Congregation hath power to exerciſe all Ordinances, as well as any, thus; Sect. 41. The Keyes are not divided: The Keyes are all given to Peter as perſonating the Church of beleevers in the Goſpel, that Kingdom of which Chriſt ſaid he would build: And I will give unto [thee] the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatſoever [thou] ſhalt bind on earth, Mat. 16. 19. Surely this particular here uſed, is not in vain, but to ſet forth that every Goſpel-Church, every particular Congregation of beleevers, united as a viſible organicall body, for Gods Worſhip have ability, a power given to it, as to ſuch an end (he means to exerciſe all the Keyes, alone and by themſelves, which he expreſſeth thus) they have not a lame commiſſion, part of the Keyes at their girdle, and ſtrangers and forrainers carrying another part. Anſw. 1. As to that of dividing the Keyes, we have ſaid ſufficient before. 2. As to that alledged, the Keyes were all given to Peter, as perſonating the Church of Believers, &c. we have ſpoken alſo before in the Examination of his firſt proof of the firſt Aſſertion. Now we adde but theſe things here. 1. I would ask Mr. Lockier what he means by the Church of Believers in the Goſpel? Whether the univerſall Church Viſible of Believers? Then he muſt acknowledge a Church Univerſall Viſible individually one: For certainly the article (the) denotateth 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, foreign, 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 Ʋnitate 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 uti que & 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 caſe ordaine, or Excommunicate; But we ſay that when there are more Congregations, to aſſociate with and when aſſociation may be had, they ſhould not performe theſe acts alone, but in an aſſociate Presbytery. And we make not the principall ground of this, that the Elderſhip of a particular Congregation, is not ſufficient (viz. for gifts and ability) for exerciſing theſe acts (although there be a ground of neceſſity of it ordinarly from this; It being ſeldome that in particular Congregations there will bee found Elderſhips ſufficient for managing theſe maters.) For although the Elderſhip of a particular Congregation were very ſufficient this way, yet we ſay they ought not to exerciſe theſe acts, by themſelves without an aſſociate Presbytery, at leaſt they ought not to do by themſelves independently, without ſubordination to larger aſſociate Presbyteries (as Mr. Lockier intends) becauſe the Scripture doeth not warrand, Chriſt hath not inſtituted this, but the contrare. Now his reaſon following, being founded upon this miſtake in his Objection, which we have cleared, there is no great need to inſiſt in following it, eſpecially conſidering it is nothing elſe, but, the ſame in very words with the ſecond reaſon by the Diſſenting Brethren to prove the minor of their firſt reaſon againſt the Aſſemblie of Divines, their Propoſition touching Ordination, and you have it fully conſidered and anſwered by the Aſſemblie in their anſwers, ſee their Papers pag. 195. 196. might not Mr. Lockier have read their anſwer, and either ſpared the preſenting us with that reaſon, anew again, or given it with ſome new ſtrength againſt the Aſſemblies anſwers to it? exedit miſeros crambe repetita.
section 7 He further proceedeth thus. Sect. 44. If one particular Congregation ſo conſtituted, as is before mentioned, be not ſufficient to exerciſe the full power of the Keyes, without a forraine (ſtill we muſt bid you correct your nick naming things, and ſay an aſſociate Presbytery) then the firſt Church, to wit, that of Jeruſalem, was lame in its power, till others were erected; And Antioch lame in its power, becauſe but one Church in aſſociation with it, and anſwerably they made lame work, And other Congregations which were ſcattered up & down in Pontus, Cappadocia, &c. Which in all likely-hood by diſtance of place, and by violence of Heathens, were in an utter incapacity, to any ſtanding, aſſociate Elderſhips, were all lame and could not ſupplie the mortality of their Miniſters and Officers, and ſo muſt indeed ſink, from a defect intrinſecall, being not able to relieve themſelves without a forraine, an aſſociate power. Anſ. 1. From that which is ſaid by the men Mr. Lockier diſputes againſt it, to wit, that Elderſhips of particular Congregations, when they may aſſociate with others have not ſufficiencie by divine warrand, to exerciſe acts of juriſdiction of publike and common concernment, alone, and by themſelves, without the concurrence of aſſociate Elderſhips, much leſſe, without ſubordination to them, doeth not follow, that the Elderſhip of one ſingle Congregation, when there is but that one exiſting in the world, (ſuch as he ſuppoſeth that of Jeruſalem to have been at the firſt) Or if a ſingle Congregation, when though there be others exiſting in the Word, yet it is under a Phyſicall incapacity, by ſome inſuperable impediment, to aſſociate with others (ſuch as he ſuppoſeth theſe Congregations in Pontus, Cappadocia, &c. have been) are ſo lame and imperfect, that they cannot in that caſe when neceſſity requireth, or may not exerciſe theſe acts. 'Tis granted in theſe caſes they may. Yet this we ſay withall, a Congregation in ſuch a condition, though it be not in ſuch a caſe of abſolute imperfection, that it cannot perform neceſſarie acts of Government for its own preſervation, yet it is not in ſo compleat and perfect a ſtate of Government, as when it may be and is aſſociate with others, for exerciſe of Government, this is ſufficient to this reaſon. OnelyOnly 2. there is, one or two particulars would be noted. 1. While as he ſuppoſeth that the Church of Jeruſalem was but one ſingle Congregation, if he mean all the time till other Churches in other places were erected, the ſuppoſition is beſide the truth, as has been proven by the Authors we referred to before upon this mater. Yet I doubt much if it ſhall be proven that at any time when there was a Government in it, that it was but one ſingle Congregation. 2. As to that he ſayeth of Antioch by that one Church wherewith it was aſſociate, I conceive that he means that of Jerusalem, but firſt how will he prove that it was not aſſociate alſo with the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Sure there is great likely-hood that it was, at leaſt in that Synod at Jeruſalem, conſidering that the Synodicall letter is directed to them and it jointly: again the very Church of Jeruſalem, at that time at leaſt, was not a ſingle Congregation, but a Presbyteriall Church conſiſting of more particular Congregations, as the Authors mentioned have proven, and ſo was Antioch too. See …us Divin. of Church Govern. P. 2. c. 13. p. 204. Further, did not Mr. Lock before acknowledge that meeting at Jeruſalem, to be a Synod, oftner then once, whether it was an aſſociation of two Churches or more, this he acknowledged, that it was a Synod, 'tis true he would have it to have been only conſultative, and not juridicall: But it ſufficeth my purpoſe in calling to mind his acknowledgment, which is to ſhew that he doth very impertinently bring in the Church of Antioch in this Argument, ſeeing he confeſſeth it to have been in ſuch an aſſociation as made up a Synod, which is an aſſociate Preſbytery ſuperior to a Claſſicall Presbytery.
section 8 To that we ſaid in the Anſwer to this Reaſon Mr. Lockier would, it ſeemeth, ſay ſomewhat in the cloſe of this SECT. 44. To ſay, that in extraordinary caſes, unordinary things may be done, is little to the ſatisfaction of a tender heart, eſpecially in divine things, who is apt to believe, that God hath ſo ſhaped his publick Ordinances, which are injoined to be uſed in all places, that places ſhall not be a ſtanding let to put his people continually to run beſide the inſtituted rule. To this 1. In extraordinary caſes, to do things unordinary, I mean as to the courſe appointed by a poſitive law, may be with very good ſatisfaction to a moſt tender heart, that is, a well informed and rightly tender heart, and not a ſuperſtitious heart: Have ye not read (ſaith our Saviour, Math. 12. 4, 5.) what David did when he was an hungred, and they that were with him, how he entred into the houſe of God, and did eat the ſhew-bread, which was not lawfull for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the Prieſts? It was an unordinary thing for David, or any other men, not Prieſts, to eat the Shew-bread: Yet in that extraordinary caſe, when David and his company were hungry, and no other bread was to be had, let their hearts be 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 la…, 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 P…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 ſil…nt, but often mentioneth the thing of aſſociated Presbyteries, and all exceptions made to the contrary abundantly confuted. 4. What Mr. Lockier has found or not found we know not, nor ſtands on it, but he might have found a Presbytery over more Congregations then one, in Jeruſalem, Antioch, Corinth, Epheſus, and he cannot deny but he has found the Church of Antioch making uſe of an aſſociate Synodicall Presbytery at Jeruſalem, and that that Presbytery was more then conſultative, even authoritative and juridicall has been proven: But I think what ever he conceives that he has found of a Congregationall Elderſhip exerciſing juriſdiction, Ordaining or Excommunicating by it ſelf, he ſhall hardly point us to the place of Scripture where he found the inſtance of it, what he ſaith of the Elders and Church of Epheſus from Acts 20. has been anſwered before.