A Little Stone Found to be Counterfeit, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 2
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 Bel…ever. Only by the way, firſt, 'tis 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 ſubjoyned to his vindiciae vindiciarum. I ſhall here note ſome few of them to this purpoſe for the Reader, who, may be, has not the book at hand.
1. The keyes were given to Peter as an Apoſtle, as an Elder, and as a Believer: So the ſenſe is moſt ſit: the Keyes, pag. 4.
The power of the keys is given to Peter, not as an Apoſtle, nor as an Elder, but as a profeſſed believer. The way, Peter received not the Keys meerly as a Beleever, but as a Beleever publickly profeſſing his faith. The way cleared, P. 2. fol. 39
9. It appears that Chriſt gave the Keys to the fraternitie, with the Preſbytery, ibid. and the way cleared, Part. 2. pag. 22.
A particular Church of Saints, profeſſing the faith (i. members without Offificers) is the firſt ſubject of all the Church Offices, with all their ſpirituall gifts and power: The keys, pag. 31.
9. As the keys of the Kingdom of heaven be diverſe, ſo are the ſubjects to whom they are cōmitted diverſe▪ The Keyes, pag. 11.
So Lockier here, but that he addeth not profeſſed.
The Apoſtles were the firſt ſubject of Apoſtolicall power, ibid. 32.
A Synod is the firſt ſubject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned, ibid. pag. 47.
Not believers as believers, but believers Convenanting and fitly capable according to Chriſts appointment, Hook. Surv. P. 1. p. 203.
9. The power of the Keyes belongs firſt to a Congregation of Covenanting beleevers, Hook. Surv. Part. 1. pag. 219.
The power of the Keyes is in the Church of beleevers as the firſt ſubject, ibid p. 195.
That conceit is wide to make one firſt ſubject of this power and yet others to ſhare in this power not by means of that, for this is to speak daggers and contradictions, ibid.
section 3 Now ſee the Authors Argument, upon the confeſſion of his faith, had he this truſt bequeathed to him, Mat. 16. 16. Therefore to the Church of Believers, and believing with ſuch a faith as fleſh and blood cannot reveal, was the Keyes of power primarily given, and to the Elders in the ſecond place, as exerted out of this firſt eſtate, and as Officers and Servants of it. Anſw. And firſt note ſomewhat upon the conſequent.
section 4 1. The conſequent as here inferred is much different from that which is propounded in the beginning of the paragraph, there it was propounded thus, the power of the Keyes was not firſt given to Peter as, &c. but as a beleever, here it is the Keyes of power, the former expreſſion, (ſuppoſing there were ſuch a diſtinction of Keyes, as Keyes of power, and another ſort of Keyes different from theſe) being indefinite, may import both, but the latter importeth a ſpecification of a definite ſort of Key…s. What means this variation? That the Reader may underſtand this myſtery the better, 'tis to be obſerved, that when as hitherto in the Church of God, by the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, being underſtood the Ordinances of Jeſus Chriſt which he hath appointed to be adminiſtrate in his Church, or the power of adminiſtring theſe Ordinances under himſelf, theſe Keyes have been diſtributed unto the Key of Knowledge, or Doctrine, which is the preaching of the Goſpel, taking in therewith the Sacraments as the Appendicles and ſeals of the Goſpel, and the Key of Juriſdiction, or Diſcipline, which conſiſts in Cenſures and abſolution from Cenſures: Independents of late have forged new ſorts of the Keyes, whereby they have confounded themſelves, and wound confound the whole Church of Chriſt in the mater of its Government. They tell us there is 1. a Key of Knowledge or Faith, the firſt ſubject whereof is every Believer, whether joined to a particular Congregation, or not. 2. A Key of intereſt, power or liberty, which is in all the Brethren of a particular Congregation. And 3. a Key of Rule and Authority, which they ſay is in the Elders of a particular Church or Congregation. The meaning and refutation of theſe new forged Keyes ſee in Jus Divin. of Church Govern. part. 2. c. 10. pag. 108, 109. &c. and Mr. Caudreys Vindiciae clav. c. 2. per tot. Now when Mr. Lockier in the conſequent of his Argument ſpeaks of the Keyes of power, it would ſeem he muſt underſtand that ſecond kinde of Keyes. For I know no other going under that name amongſt Independents. Yet may be, by a new conception of his own, he means that all power of government diſtinguiſhed from the Preaching of the Word and Adminiſtration of Sacraments, exerciſed in ordination of Miniſters, and diſpenſation of cenſures. Again ſee another great variation. At firſt he propounds that the Keyes were given to Peter firſt as a beleever. This may import (and as ſpoken there by the Author without any explication, cannot be otherwiſe underſtood but that it doth import) that they were given to him as a ſingle beleever; but now in the conſequent inferred in the pretended proof, he ſayeth thus, they were given firſt to the Church of beleevers, this is a ſociety of perſons collectively and unitedly taken, and not perſons ſingly. 2. Where ſhall we ever read, the Elders or Miniſters called the Officers and Servants of the Church, that is, (as Mr. Lockier meaneth) by way of relation to the Church as a Superiour, or Miſtreſſe, deputing and imploying them to officiat and act in her place? We find indeed they are called the ſervants of the Church of beleevers by way of relation of a means to an end, for their good, 2 Cor. 4, 5. 1 Cor. 3. 22. as Angels or Miniſtring Spirits ſent forth to Miniſter for them who ſhall be heirs of ſalvation. Heb. 1. ult. But they are only Chriſts Officers and Servants, by way of relation of Deputs to officiat, and imployed to ſerve unto a Superior and Maſter deputing to officiat, and imploying to ſerve in his place, and are ſet over the Church by him.
section 5 But now conſider we how this conſequent is proven. The Argugument as propounded by the Author is Enthymematick, and muſt ſuppoſe another premiſſe beſide that which is expreſſed, which muſt be true as well as that expreſſed, to make the conſequence good. Now I humbly deſire him to give us that ſuppreſſed and ſuppoſed premiſſe. Verily, keep him to one ſyllogiſme, and it is impoſſible to do it, obſerving the rules of good Logick and reaſon. But it may be done, may be, by two proceſſes; Well then, they muſt be theſe for ought that I can conceive, (if he can do it otherwiſe and better, let him do it, and we ſhall conſider of it) the firſt is this, that which was given to Peter upon the confeſſion of his faith, was given to him as a Beleever: But the Power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon the confeſſion of his faith Ergo, &c. then taking this concluſion for a ground of the ſecond it muſt be thus That which was given to Peter as a Beleever, was given to the Church believing with ſuch a faith as Peter believed. But to Peter as a Believer was the Keyes of Power given Ergo, &c. It might be noted upon the major or firſt propoſition of this latter ſylogiſme, that which was given to Peter as a Believer was given to the Church as believing with ſuch a faith, as he believed with; That if in the attribute thereof, the Church be underſtood collectively, for the ſociety of ſuch Believers, as united and aſſociated; and withall when it is ſaid, that what was given to Peter as a Believer was given to the Church (thus taken collectively) believing with ſuch faith, the meaning be, that it was given only to the Church conſidered, viz. collectively: then the connexion is not neceſſary (and ſo it is falſe, becauſe it is materially and indeed an hypothetick propoſition, and in an hypothetick propoſition, if the connexion be not neceſſary, the propoſition is falſe, as Logicians knows) for that which was given to Peter as a believer, might be given to the Church as believing diſtributively, i. e. to every one of the Church believing, ſingly. If it ſhall be ſaid, that that propoſition may be mended thus that which was given to Peter as a Believer not ſingly conſidered; But as aſſociated with others, that was given to the Church, &c. 1. That qualification is not once mentioned by this Author, nor hinted. 2. Seeing this qualification muſt be again taken in alſo in the aſſumption, thus the Keyes of Power was given to Peter as a Believer, not ſingly but as aſſociate, then I ſay, ſuppoſe we ſhould grant that in the Text now under our hand, Math. 16. 16. the meaning were that the Power was given to Peter as a Believer: Yet, what could the Author bring from that Text to ſhew that it was given to him as a beleever, not ſingly; but as qualified with this conſideration, as aſſociat with other beleevers? There is not the leaſt hint for this in the Text: But ſomewhat to the contrair. See Caudrey Review. Of Mr. Hookers Survey. cap. 11. p. 172.
section 6 But the weight of all this proof brought by our Author here, hangs upon the major or firſt propoſition of the former ſyllogiſme, viz. what power was given to Peter upon the confeſſion of his faith, was given to him as a beleever, i. e. conſidered under this formality, to be a power competent to him, ſimply as he was a beleeving perſon. The weight of all the proof, I ſay, hangs ſo upon this, that unleſſe it ſtand good and be neceſſary, all falls to the ground, and indeed it is but a groundleſſe ſuppoſition, of no neceſſity, and may be as eaſily denyed, as it is ſuppoſed. Why? Might it not be, that Chriſt did upon Peters making ſo eminent a confeſſion of faith give unto him a power, competent to him not ſimply, as beleeving with ſuch a faith, and ſo not common to all beleeving with ſuch a faith: But officiall competent to him as in ſuch a particular office amongſt beleevers, or conſtituting him formally, ſuch an Officer? What evidence or neceſſity of reaſon can be brought to the contrair of this? I think Mr. Lockier did wiſelier to ſuppreſſe and ſuppoſe this baſis of his proof, then to have expreſſed it, becauſe the expreſſion of it would too evidently diſcovered the weakneſſe of his proof of his main point, that the Keyes of power, or power of the Keyes, was firſt given to beleevers, and not to the Officers in the Church. And now I muſt profeſſe, I wonder much, that (after ſo many learned men have debated ſo much on that Text and brought ſo many conſiderable Arguments to prove that it cannot be meant in that place, that the power of the Keyes was given to Peter ſimply as a beleever, or to the Church of beleevers; And given ſo conſiderable anſwers to all Arguments brought by others to the contrair, a man of reputation) as Lockier, ſhould come forth with this poor one, that power was given to Peter upon confeſſion of his faith. Ergo, it was given to him as a beleever, or under that reduplication, as if this were enough to daſh all, and in reaſon to convince all gain-ſayers. The Lord pity them that are caried about with ſuch a wind of Doctrine. I think it not needfull here to waſte time and Paper in bringing Arguments to prove that, the power of the Keyes was given to Peter not as a beleever, nor to the community of beleevers; but as a Miniſter and Officer in the Church, there is aboundance ſaid to this purpoſe already by learned men, to whom I refer the Reader: namely, Jus Divin. of Church-Government, Part. 2. C. 10. pag. 93. & ſeq, Mr. Rutherfurd peaceable plea C. 6. pag. 63. Due right. C. 1. pag. 8. &c. C. 8. pag. 179. &c. Caudrey vindic. vindiciar. Cap. 1. Sect. 1. and Review of Hookers Surv. c. 11. Baily diſſwaſive from the errours of the time, c. 9. What is brought againſt any of theſe upon the point by Hooker in his Survey, I doubt not but will be ſufficiently examined by another more able then 1. If Mr. Lockie… will be at the pains to repreſent any thing upon their Arguments, we ſhall be ready, with the LORDS aſſiſtance, to take it to conſideration.
section 7 To that which the Author citeth from Gerſon, Claves dat… ſunt Eccleſiae, ut in actu primo, & Petro, ut in actu ſecundo. I could have wiſhed that the Author had pointed us to the place where we might have found it, and conſidered antecedents and conſequents. I confeſſe I have not ſo much leiſure as to read over every mans writs to find out every paſſage that may be cited out of them at randome. Yet for Anſwer, this of Gerſon, maks nothing for the Authors purpoſe. For, 1. By the name of the Church, Gerſon underſtands the Church Univerſall, as is clear to any that knows any thing of his and the Pariſian Doctrine of his time. Our Author means a particular Congregation, to which the Independent way aſſerts, the fulneſſe of the power of the Keyes to have been given, of ſuch a ſubject recipient of the power of the Keyes, Gerſon never dreamed. 2. Gerſons mind was not, for ought can be perceived in his writs, that the power of the Keyes was given firſt to the Church, as diſtinguiſhed from the Rulers and Officers, as the ſubject in whom it is formally inherent and ſo to be acted formally thereby: But to the Church as conveened and repreſented in a generall Counſell, in the Church Synodically conveened. Poteſtas Eccleſiaſticae juriſdictionis, ſi ſit Eccleſiae data, Concilium generale repreſentans Eccleſiam, habet illam; imo videtur quod Eccleſia sparſim conſiderata, non habet illam poteſtatem, niſi in quodam materiali ſeu potentiali, ſed Congregatio & unitio quae fit in Concilio generali dat ei formam. De poteſt. Eccleſ. Conſid. 4. Whence it is evident that in theſe words, Claves datae ſunt Eccleſiae, ut in actu primo, & Petro, ut in actu ſecundo, Gerſon is not to be conceived to ſpeak of the Church denotating the body of beleevers only, as contradiſtinguiſhed from all Officers and Miniſters, and ſo is not ſpeaking of Peter as comprehending or repreſenting all Officers and Miniſters, but of Peter under the imaginary notion of a Pope or Head of the Church, and as ſtanding in contradiſtinction both to the body of beleevers and alſo to all Inferiour Officers and Miniſters, even conveened in a Councell, and ſo of the Church, as comprehending all Inferiour Officers and a generall Councell of them. And here, becauſe ſome are ready for the Independent Tenent, concerning the firſt ſubject of Eccleſiaſtick juriſdiction, to alledge the judgment of the Pariſian Theologs, at, and after the time of Councells of Baſil and Conſtance, affirming the Church to be that firſt ſubject, it is to be obſerved carefully, beſides that theſe Theologs, means not a particular Church, but the Univerſall Church; That the Queſtion which they had in hand with their adverſaries the Papaline flatterers, was not between beleevers as ſuch, and all Officers and Miniſters as ſuch, but between the Univerſall Church as comprehending Inferiour Officers, and that as conveened in a generall Councell, on the one part, and the Pope of Rome on the other: Whether the precedency of Eccleſiaſtick power and juriſdiction, was ſeated in the Pope, or in the Univerſall Church ſo conſidered as we have expreſſed? This was the ſtate of the controverſie, and that for which the Pariſian Doctors ſtood, was the latter of theſe. This is clear to all that have read any of theſe Doctors Writings upon that mater: So that to alledge their Aſſertion concerning the firſt and ſupream ſubject of Eccleſiaſtick juriſdiction, for the Independent Tenent in this Queſtion, which is between a particular Church of beleevers on the one part, as contradiſtinguiſhed from all Officers and Miniſters, and Officers of the Church upon the other, is very impertinent.
section 8 His ſecond Argument, SECT. 3. is thus, Elders are ſet over the Church, by the voluntary choiſe of the Church, whereof they are ſuch Officers, who chooſe them to be their Miniſters in the Lord, and may depoſe them again, if they prove unworthy of ſuch a ſtation: Therefore have they no abſolute power over that Church, to which they are ſervants; but in the nature of guides, to direct them in the wayes of the Lord, and ſo long as they go right, to be honoured and followed; but if otherwiſe, to be admoniſhed; and if impenitent to be rejected, i. e. Excommunicated as they whoſe ſins follow after to judgment. Now ſuch judgment could not be exerciſed upon Elders, if ſuch an exempted power be taken to themſelves, without the Church, but might do what they pleaſe with the Church in which they are Servants, and the Church not able, at leaſt not ſufficiently able to do any thing to them; which is to make them Lords over Gods Heritage, 1 Pet. 5. 3. Anſw. Here is much impertinency in the concluſion inferred, and in the antecedent bare Aſſertions, begged but not proven, and never will be: 1. The concluſion propounded in the Aſſertion was, that the Elders in a particular Church are not to exert power in moſt weighty maters, as admiſſion of Members, ordination of Officers, Excommunication, without the conſent and approbation of the Church, i. e. without the judiciall concurrence, conſent, and joynt authoritative vote of the members. Now that which is inferred as the concluſion here, that they have not an abſolute power over the Church, an exempted power to do what they pleaſe with the Church, I appeal to all rationall men to give their judgement if this and that be all one. Why? May it not be that the Elders or Officers ſet over a particular Church may exert power in putting forth ſuch acts of Government without the joynt authoritative conſent and vote of the members of that Church, and yet notwithſtanding, not have abſolute power over that Church, an exempted power to do with the Church what they pleaſe? Yes verily: for notwithſtanding that, they may in their exerting of power of theſe acts of Government. 1. Only act Miniſterially and adſtricted to a certain definite rule over which they have no power. And 2. if they in their exerting their power deviat from that rule and act contrary to the direction thereof, the members may have liberty, upon diſcerning, by the privat judgement of diſcretion to refuſe obedientiall conſent to them. 3. And there may be an authoritative power over and above them to which they may be countable, who may authoritatively correct and redreſſe their deviation, and to which the people may have recourſe for that …ffect. And if ſo, then their exerting of power in the maters of Government tho without the joint judiciall and authoritative conſent and vote of the members therein, is not an abſolute power, an exempted power to do with the Church what they pleaſe. And ſo indeed it is in our Doctrine. The power it allowes to Elders and Officers to exert acts of Gover…ent, without joint judiciall authoritative conſent of the members, is a Miniſteriall power adſtricted to a certain and ſoveraign rule of Chriſts Laws ſet down in his Word: It allowes to people a liberty, yea aſſerts it to be their duety, to prove in the judgement of privat diſcretion, if the Officers in their actings of Government deviat from, or croſſe the rule, or not; And in caſe they do, not to give their obedientiall conſent therunto: And that there is authoritative power above the Elders of a particular Congregation, &c. So that the Author deals not ingenuouſly enough, in inſinuating ſuch an aſperſion upon our Doctrine, that by it is given to the Elders of a Church an abſolute power over the Church, an exempted power to do with the Church what they pleaſe. But now judge if the Independent way (in that ſtrain of it followed by our Author) be not guilty of giving a power very like this to members over Officers: When as it allows to the members, or the greater part of the members, of a particular Congregation (which may be 3. or 4.) to cenſure, depoſe, Excommunicat all their Officers (which muſt be 3. at leaſt) by a ſupream Independent Authority, without any Superiour Authority on earth left to have recourſe to for redreſſe, were their proceeding and ſentence never ſo unjuſt, this I am ſure is very abſolute, exempted, and lordlylike indeed. Well then, correct the concluſion as it is inferred here, and reduce it to the more modeſt and ingenuous terms of the Aſſertion.
section 9 The antecedent or proof which the Author brings in this Argument for his Aſſertion (and is very confuſedly ſet down) in effect is made up of theſe Aſſertions. 1. A Church by their voluntary choiſe, not only choiſe their Elders, But 2. makes i. e. ordains, them in their Office, 3. May depoſe them again, the Elders are the Churches ſervants, by way, to wit, of relation to her as a Miſtreſſe. 4. The Elders are only guides to lead the Church, to wit, as a Chair-man or Moderator in a Judicatory, 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 authorit… 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. 'tis 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, 'tis 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. 'Tis 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 he might as well in the propoſition ſpoken, what he ſayeth, of Siſters, whether little ones or of ſtronger, but of tender conſciences, as of Brethren: And it is no leſſe ſin to offend the one, then it is to offend the other. But now ſee we how the conſequence of the propoſition is proven, for as much (ſaith he) as perſons may be taken in and caſt out, and Officers be ſet up and pulled down, concerning either of which, they can have no diſtinct knowledge, or at leaſt no ſufficient ability to hinder, becauſe deciſive ſentence lyes altogether in the Elderſhip. … …lbeit only the Elderſhip exert power authoritatively in theſe …, and ſentence deciſively, yet profeſſours notwithſtanding this, may have ſufficient knowledge for their privat and obedientiall conſent and concurrence with the ſentence of the Elderſhip, as we have cleared before. And ſo that part of the proof of the connexion of the propoſition, that if the Elderſhip only without the Church of beleevers, exert power authoritatively, the Elders cannot but offend, &c. becauſe if ſo, the members cannot have diſtinct knowledge concerning theſe things, &c. this is null, it ſeemeth the Author was ſenſible and therefore paſſeth from that former part to the ſecond with that [or at leaſt] which uſually ſignifieth a tacite paſſing from that which has been ſaid before, and a betaking to what followeth to be ſaid: They can have no diſtinct knowledge or at leaſt (ſaith he) no ſufficient ability to hinder, &c. But 2. here lurks a principle of the groſſeſt Levelling that I have heard of, and abrogating all Government, but of a confuſed multitude; if privat profeſſours, the body of a Congregation, muſt have joynt authoritative conſent and vote with their Rulers in acts of Government, becauſe it will offend them that they have not ſufficient ability by their judiciall and authoritaive interpoſing to hinder the acting of the Elderſhip, the deciſive ſentence lying altogether in the Elderſhip: Then I ſay it is as good a conſequence, that a Major and common Counſell of a City muſt not act without the joynt authoritative concurrence and vote of the body of the Citizens, leſt they be offended for want of ſufficient ability to hinder, by their judicial and authoritative interpoſing, the actings of the Major and Counſell. Again ſee the clear ſtrength of this proof comes to this much, the people ought to have a joynt authoritative conſent and vote with their Rulers, the Elderſhip; Why? Becauſe they cannot but be offended if they have it not: For to have ability ſufficent to hinder judicially and by authoritative vote (of this way of hindering he muſt be underſtood to be now ſpeaking) and that, is all one thing. Now I ſay, there being in caſe of the Elderſhip of a particular Congregation erring and going wrong, ſuperiour authority to which people may have recourſe for authoritative hindering or redreſſing of the errour and wrong acting, and withall a liberty granted to the people▪ upon evident diſcerning in their privat judgment, the errour … the Elderſhip, to withhold their obedientiall conſent to the wrong ſentence (which is ſufficient to keep them from being acceſſory, unleſſe it were firſt clear that by Gods appointment they have a command, calling and warrand, alſo to interpoſe by a judiciall vote to hinder it, whith now in this Argument is the concluſion to be proven and not to be ſuppoſed) if they be offended becauſe they cannot and has not place to hinder it by their own judiciall and authoritative concurrence, and vote with the Elderſhip, the offence is not given but taken.
section 13 But ſaith he, neither is the offence taken but given, how proves he that? For as much as in theſe great tranſactions, the benefit or hurt of every member, is not only equally, but mainly concerned. The tranſaction of other things, which are meerly prudentiall, are not of generall concernment, or not of ſo great generall concernment, no doubt, do properly, and determinatly belong to that power which the Church doth inſtitute within themſelves, as their eyes and hands, more conveniently, decently, and expeditiouſly to deal with. Anſw. 1. A power as eyes, &c. i. e. Officers inſtituted, i. e. made and ordained by the Church within it ſelf, is a begging of a part of the Queſtion, and a dream unknown to Scripture, which teacheth us that Chriſt hath ſet ſuch Officers in the Church, and as for the inſtituting or ordaining of particular perſons into theſe Offices, either he doth this himſelf immediatly, as to extraordinary Officers, or by the Miniſtry of other Officers, as to ordinary Officers, tho the deſignation of the perſons to theſe Offices may be by the choiſe of the whole Church, 2. Not Officers only, but the whole Church are eyes by Mr. Lockiers Doctrine, attributing to the whole Church joynt authoritative concurrence with the Officers in acts of Government: And where is the reſt of the body if all be eyes? 3. It could been wiſhed that the Author had expreſſed, what are theſe tranſactions meerly prudentiall or not of generall concernment, or not of ſo great generall concernment, which he ſaith, belongeth properly and determinatly to the Officers or Elders; Which had he done I doubt not, but we ſhould have ſeen, either maters of meer order, no wayes importing any ſuch power or authority, as Church Officers have attributed to them in the Word of God: But only ſuch as a Chair-man or Moderator of a Judicatory may do in relation to its judiciall proceedings, who yet as ſuch hath no authority over the Judicatory: Or ſome of them to be ſuch tranſactions as are of as great generall concernment as any can be. I remember Hooker Surv. Part. 3. c. 3. pag. 41, 42. amongſt other things gives to the Elders as properly belonging to them, in mater of cenſure and Excommunication, the Examination of the cauſe, and dogmaticall propounding of the ſentence, and ſayes that the fraternity has no more power to oppoſe the ſentence of the cenſure propounded by them, then they have to oppoſe their Doctrine delivered in Preaching of the Goſpel, and ſo that the one is as binding as the other. If theſe be not tranſactions, more then meerly prudentiall, of very great generall concernment. I profeſſe, I know not what is. Nay, I affirme it, and it is evident, that hereby greater power is given to two or three Elders in a particular Congregation, then ever Preſbyterians attiibuted, I ſay not, to the Elders of a particular Congregation, but to any Claſſicall Preſbytery of many combyned Congregations: For by the way of Preſbyterians, when a Claſſicall Elderſhip has given forth ſentence of Excommunication, there may be an appeal to a more ample and Superiour Judicatory for judiciall recognition and redreſſe. But here by this Independent way, power is given to two or three Elders to propound the ſentence of Excommunication, which the fraternity are bound to joyn with as much as to obey their Preaching, and there is no ſuperiour remedy of judiciall recognition and redreſſe left to the party under Heaven. 4. If any maters of generall concernment wherein the benefit or hurt of every member is concerned, muſt be authoritatively tranſacted not by the Elderſhip alone, but by the members joyntly with them, I ſee not why all maters of generall concernment ought not to be ſo alſo: Magis & minus non variant ſpeciem. But to come to the point wherin lyeth the proof of that, that it is an offence given and not taken when the members are offended, becauſe they cannot by judiciall and authoritative vote, hinder the ſentence of the Elderſhip, the deciſive ſentence lying only in the Elders. If becauſe, in theſe tranſactions the benefit or hurt of every member is generally and greatly concerned; Therefore it is an offence given if they have not ſuch power of judiciall concurrence and vote in the ſentence: Then I ſay women alſo muſt have this power and if they offend for want of it (as they are as ready as men to offend if they have not power to get their will) the offence is given and not taken; Becauſe women being members, are comprehended under that every member, and their benefit or hurt is concerned as well as mens. The Author will never be able to avoid this upon his medium. 6. If becauſe in theſe tranſactions, the benefit or hurt of every Member of the Church is generally and greatly concerned, when they are offended becauſe they cannot by judiciall and authoritative joint vote hinder the ſentence, the deciſive power thereof lying only in the Elders, the offence is not taken but given, and therefore they ought to have ſuch vote, then ſay I by as good conſequence, it followeth, becauſe in the great tranſactions in civill Government, ſuppoſe, by a Major and his counſell, by a Parliament, the benefite or hurt of every member of the city or Common-wealth is generally and greatly concerned; If the Members offend that they cannot by joint authoritative vote hinder the ſentence, the deciſive power thereof lying altogether in theſe Governours, the offence is not taken but given; And therefore they ought to concur jointly and authoritatively in theſe tranſactions with their Governours. Here is again Levelling, backed with reaſon ſuch as it is. 7. Therefore to Anſwer directly, 'tis but a looſe and falſe principle, that in all tranſactions in which the benefite or hurt of perſons is concerned, all perſons whoſe the hurt or benefite is therein concerned, if they offend that they have not ſufficient ability to hinder ſentence, by their joint authoritative vote, the offence is not taken but given, and therefore they ought to have ſuch joint authoritative concurrence and vote. Nay it tends to the everſion of all Government and bringing in meer Anarchy and confuſion. Yet 8. I think from this rightly underſtood may be inferred ſomewhat which Mr. Lockier would conſider in the mater of his next Aſſertion. For if all whoſe benefite or hurt is greatly concerned in Eccleſiaſtick tranſactions, ought to have authoritative joint concurrence in theſe tranſactions, then when as in ſome main tranſactions in a particular Congregation, for example Excommunication, many others benefite or hurt is greatly concerned, beſide theſe who are Members of the Congregation, it muſt follow that theſe others ought to have power of joint authoritative concurrence in theſe tranſactions, or at leaſt ſome for their inrereſt ought to have ſuch power. And this I conceive will amount to the overturning of the ſupreme Independent tribunall (as Mr. Hooker calls it, Part. 3. c. 3.) of ſingle Congregations; and ſetting up an Eccleſiaſtick authoritative Judicatory over more Congregations.
section 14 Arg. 4. SECT. 5. Becauſe the ſpirit of diſcerning both reſpecting perſons and things, is not conſined as a peculiar to the Preſbytery or Elderſhip of the Church—but the ſame gift may be in a great meaſure, in ſome of the Members, and a greater gift when all are joined together in the name of Chriſt and his preſence with them to diſcern and judge of a conjunct ſtrength of ſaints what mighty things and glorious are ſpoken in Scriptures? That they ſhall judge the world, Angels, much more able to judge their own affairs: This is the one part of this ſections Argument. There followeth another of which afterward. Now to this, 1. If this Argument hold good, then again Women, at leaſt ſome Women, ought to have judiciall concurrence and vote jointly with the Elderſhip in tranſactions of Government. Why? the ſpirit of diſcerning may be in as great meaſure in ſome Women, as in ſome Men, and the greater will the gift be, when they with the Men are gathered together, and I think it will not be denyed that Women will be a part of the Saints who are to judge the World and Angels, 2. Upon the ſame ground, by proportion, it followes, becauſe many private men may have the ſame gift of diſcerning in a great meaſure, that is in Magiſtrates, in the Members of Parliament; Yea, may be, in a greater meaſure in ſome of thoſe then is in many of theſe, and there is a greater gift when all is joined together; Therefore all ſuch diſcerning men muſt have joint authoritative conſent and vote, with Magiſtrates, with the Parliament, in the Acts of Government. Here is again pleading for Levelling. 3. Becauſe ſome men, may be, have as great a meaſure of knowledge and underſtanding for teaching the Word as Miniſters, it followeth proportionally, upon that ground, that ſuch men may and ought to Preach authoritatively, as well as Miniſters, and as Socinians, ſome Remonſtrants, and Separatiſts teach, a gifted man needs not an outward calling to be a Miniſter; His gift is a calling ſufficient. 4. To anſwer directly, to reaſon from a gift of diſcerning in maters coming under Acts of Government to actuall right and power to concur authoritatively in theſe Acts of Government, is a groſſe and palpable non ſequitur. Let a man never have ſuch a meaſure of a gift, for exerciſing Acts of Government or publick authority, he muſt beſides, have the warrand of Commiſſion or calling to exert them, elſe if he take upon him to exert them, he is but an intruder, as all men will grant that are not againſt both Scripture light, and light of nature, and for turning all Affaires Civill and Eccleſiaſtick into a Chaos of confuſion. 5. Whereas the Author, ſaying, their wil be a greater gift when all (Officers and private profeſſors) are joined together, (viz. in theſe Acts of Government) in the name of Chriſt and his preſence with them to diſcern and judge. We grant, that, when all private Profeſſours with the Church Officers, are joined together, poſſibly there may be a greater gift of diſcerning, by way of aggregation then when the Officers are alone: But whereas withall it is tacitely ſuppoſed, that all may meet in the name of the Lord (i. e. in his Authority) and may the more expect his preſence for aſſiſting the diſcerning & judging in theſe maters of Government: in the former he begs the thing in queſtion, we deny that they do all meet for acts of Government in Chriſts Authority; and in the latter ſuppoſes a great miſtake, for the promiſe of Chriſts aſſiſting preſence for judiciall and authoritative diſcerning and judging, runs not equally along with the gift of diſcerning ſimply; But with his calling and commiſſion to govern. That loe I am with you to the end of the world, as to Acts of Government, is not made to perſons having the gift of diſcerning, ſimply, tho never ſo many of them met together: But to perſons who beſide their gift, are inveſted with his Commiſſion. Therefore you muſt ſhew that perſons have a Commiſſion and Calling, beſide their gift, to exert Acts of Eccleſiaſtick authoritative judging: Or to ſpeak of expectation of the Lords preſence to aſſiſt their judging, let them be never ſo many, is to bid men preſume to act with expectation of his aſſiſting preſence without a promiſe. There may be more of Chriſts preſence expected to aſſiſt a few having a Calling and Commiſſion from himſelf, in exerting Acts of Government; Then with a huge multitude though having gifts enough, but wanting Commiſſion. If it ſhall be ſaid that private Profeſſours have a Commiſſion to judge authoritatively with the Elderſhip in theſe maters of Eccleſiaſtick Government. 1. Then the medium of this Argument is paſſed from, for it alleageth no more but the gift of diſcerning, to prove they ought to concur in authoritative judgement. 2. This is but ſaid and begged, not proven; Shew us the authentick grant of that Commiſſion. This much for the firſt part of the Argument in this Section, he addeth further thus.
section 15 The Scripture again ſaith that variety of gifts are given to the Church, as Chriſt will, and when he will, and where he will, and by what door, and by what mean hand he will, for the good of the whole, and light comes in ſome times from a little crany, and hole, when large windows are cloſe ſhut up, and not one window leaf opened, all the while buſineſſes of great weight are in debate; So that the greateſt cannot ſay to the leaſt, I have no need of thee. All this help to the good of the whole, would be void, if the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Preſbytery, and the people left out, to ſee and judge implicitely, by their eyes and wills, who thus impropriat power. Anſw. 1. Here is a foule miſrepreſentation of the Preſbyterian Doctrine, as if it allowed nothing to the people but a Popiſh implicit blinde obedience to the Elderſhips decrees. See this aſperſion diſcovered and wiped away, before in our firſt SECT. and the Author in his own conſcience knowes, may know, this is a wrong. Further, when Chriſt has by his inſtitution appropriat a power to a certain order (and he has, as to Paſtors and Doct…s, the ordinary publick authoritative Preaching of the Word, ſo to Elders in common the power of Diſcipline) for theſe alone to exert ſuch power, is no impropriation. But 2. To the Argument propounded here, I ſay 1. If it hold good, as in the former, it will follow that women muſt not be excluded from joynt authoritative concurrence in exerting power of Government with the Elders more then men in the Church, Why? Women have their ſhare of the variety of gifts given to the Church, and ſome of them a greater ſhare then many men, and light may come in by ſuch a weak hand as a woman, when, &c. And ſo all this help of their ſhare of gifts will be made void if the managing be committed wholly to Elders and other men in the Congregation, and they left out, only to ſee, &c. And the very like Argument may, by proportion, be framed for admitting all privat perſons in a Common-wealth to concur authoritavively in the Civill Government, with Magiſtrates. …. Take this A…ument in plain and full form, it muſt ſtand thus to prove the Authors Aſſertion propounded, SECT. 1. and intended … the concluſion here. If the Elderſhip or Rulers of the Church exert power in theſe acts of Government, without the joynt authoritative conſent and vote of the people or other members, then the help which may be had to the whole, by that ſhare of that variety of gifts beſtowed by Chriſt upon the Church, which is in the other members, ſhould be made void. But this ought not to be, Ergo, nor that. Now I deny the conſequence of the propoſition, the ſhare of that variety of gifts given to the Church, which is in privat members may be of good uſe and help for the good of the whole, tho all of them do not concurre authoritatively in exerting or exerciſing acts of Government of the Church. May not privat members make their ſhare of gifts forth-coming and helpfull for the good of the whole, by obſerving, inſtructing, exhorting, admoniſhing, and provocking to good works one another, in the privat extrajudiciall way of charity? Ay, but it may be ſaid the help of theſe gifts in them to the good of the whole in the way of authoritative acts of Government is made void. Anſw. This ſuppoſeth, that theſe gifts of privat members, are given to them by Chriſt, to be exerted for the good of the whole in the authoritative acting of Government, and that the authoritative actings of Go…ment, are appointed by Chriſt to be managed and caried by the formall influence and concurrence of theſe gifts given to privat members. And this is to ſuppoſe, and ſo, to beg the thing in Queſtion. Yet further, we ſay the gift that is in privat members may be forth-coming to the good of the whole, which is to be effected by the acts of Government exerted by the Elders, albeit themſelves concurre not with the Elders judicially and authoritatively in theſe acts, as by admonition of offenders, and informing the Rulers of the ſtubborn offenders, which is helpfull by way of preparation, …o the good ofthe whole by acts of Government: Alſo by charitative admonition of the Elders themſelves, if they be …miſſe or partiall or otherwayes wrong in exerting acts of Government; by proving in the judgement of privat diſcretion the actings of Government exerted by the Governours, and accordingly giving their obedientiall conſent thereunto.
section 16 As for that mutuall help and need of the ſeverall members of the Church in relation to one another for the good of the whole, ſpoken of, 1 Cor. 12. and hinted by the Author, 'tis impertinent to this purpoſe: For to omit many things which might be brought to clear this from that Chap. this one is ſufficient: That 'tis evident the Apoſtle is not ſpeaking there, of the mutuall need, mutuall help, and mutuall concurrence of the members of the body, by making their ſeverall gifts forth-coming in judiciall Acts of Government for the good of the whole: As if when the Apoſtle ſaith the eye cannot ſay to the hand, nor the head to the feet I have no need of you (i. e. one member whether greater or leſſe cannot ſay to another I have no need of 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 …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, bu… 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 … …he Keys and joint authoritative judiciall concurrenc… with the Elderſhip in the acts of Government. Nay, I think that one Chapter contains as much as over…urns all the Independent Brethren… 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 …nough to batter it all to the ground, as might be evidenced, were it our purpoſe here. But for the preſent to the pa…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 …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.