Reader
A Little Stone Found to be Counterfeit · James Wood

A Little Stone Found to be Counterfeit, Treatise · Part 2 · Section 8

SECTION VIII. His firſt Ground brought againſt a Presbytery, having Authoritative juridicall power over more Congregations (proſecute by him, Sect. 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.) Examined.

section 1 MR. Lockier undertakes by four mediums to prove that a Preſbytery having juridicall power and authority over more Congregations is but an humane invention. 1. Becauſe they are without a foundation in the Word. This he undertakes to make good by clearing theſe Scriptures on which ſuch Presbyteries are built: And brings in four Scriptures, Act. 1. 15, 23. Act. 4. 35. Act. 15. 28. 1 Tim. 4. 14. So that his firſt Argument comes to this much in full matter and forme. If ſuch a Presbytery over more Congregations had any foundation in the Word it were in ſome of thoſe four places: But in none of thoſe hath it foundation, therefore not at all in Scripture: But now tho his aſſumption were granted, and he did clearly evidence that in none of theſe mentioned places, it hath ſufficient foundation: Yet I muſt ſay, he does very groſſely deſpiſe his Reader (to ſay the leaſt) in his major propoſition. What, did never Mr. Lockier read in Presbyteriall writers any other Scripturall grounds brought to prove ſuch a Presbytery but theſe 4. places, might he not at leaſt have read ſundry others? Let him read them over again, and I believe, beſides theſe mentioned, he ſhall find other grounds of Scripture brought to prove ſuch a Presbytery, as he ſhall never be able to withſtand the force of. For inſtance, let him conſider the Argument grounded upon Matth. 18. 17, 18. brought by Gul. Apoll. conſiderat. of certain controv. c. 6. p. 94, 95. on which place Parker himſelf, de Polit. Eccleſ. lib. 3. c. 24. groundeth the authority of Synods. 2. The Argument grounded upon 1 Cor. 14. 32. in that ſame Author, pag. 98, 99. 3. The Argument brought from what the Scripture holdeth forth concerning the Churches of Jeruſalem, Epheſus, Antioch, Corinth, Aſſembly of Divines 3. Propoſition concerning Preſbyteriall Government, with the defences thereof againſt the Reaſons of the Diſſenting Brethren. Jus Divin. of Church Government, Part. 2. c. 13. 4. The Argument grounded upon practice of the Church under the Old Teſtament in matter of Government, wherein it was not paedagogicall and ceremoniall, but eſſentiall and of morall conveniency and ſo perpetuall. Gul. Appollon. pag. 96, 97. Did Mr. Lockier never Read theſe grounds of Scripture urged in this matter by Presbyterians, that alledging here that ſuch a Presbytery hath no foundation in Scripture, and taking upon him to make out this, by clearing ſuch Scripture grounds as are brought for it, paſſeth theſe in ſilence? If not, I wonder much he ſhould come to handle this controverſie, having taken ſo little pains to be acquainted with his adverſaries grounds: Or if he has read them, why has he paſſed them by without an eſſay to cleare them. If he contemned them, we tell him it is eaſier to contemne them, then to anſwer them. But come let us ſee the places he has been pleaſed to take notice of, and what he hath upon them to the purpoſe.

section 2 The firſt is, Acts 1. 15, 23. &c. The eleven Apoſtles here meet together, and theſe as a ſupreame body over all others, conveen the Church at Jeruſalem, dictat what and how to be done, in that caſe of loſſe upon the Church, which ſhews that there is a forrain (put out that name, as none of ours, but a nick-name and miſcalling of the thing feigned by your ſelf) authoritative Elderſhip over particular Churches. Anſw. I do not remember of any Presbyterian Writer that bringeth this place as a full proof of a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations, albeit, may be, ſome arguing from the Government of the Church of Jeruſalem, viz. 1. That that Church conſiſted of more Congregations then one. 2. That theſe diverſe ſingle Congregations are held forth as one Church. 3. That they are under one common Presbytery Governing them; Some, Iſay, may be, bring that place jointly with others to make up a proof of that complex medium. Let Mr. Lockier point us at the man that brings it as a full proof by it ſelf. 'Tis an eaſie thing for men to deviſe, at their own pleaſure, Arguments as uſed by their adverſaries and then ſeem to get a victory over them, when as indeed they are but fighting againſt their own fictions. So we need not trouble our ſelves with following Mr. Lockiers Anſwers to this place. Only I ſhall note ſome few things ſaid by him in his Anſwers, which are two.

section 3 In the firſt. The ſtation of the Apoſtles (ſayeth he) was extraordinary to take care of all Churches: Being therefore by this place Elders in all Churches, might and did interpoſe their power in ſeverall particular Churches—And therefore what they did modo extraordinario, is not competent to be exemplary; extraordinary practiſes, are not fit matter to make up ordinary precedents. Anſw. That it pertained to the extraordinary Office of the Apoſtles, as Apoſtles, to exerciſe their power of Teaching and Governing in all particular Churches, without any particular call, we confeſſe it true. But that their Ruling of more particular Congregations then one, ſimply, was extraordinary, and that when they did this, they did it modo extraordinario, may well be confidently ſaid, but will never be proven. And how will Mr. Lockier prove that there were no ordinary Elders with the Apoſtles in that meeting. I think he ſhall find this an hard ſtick of work. But paſſing theſe things now. I would here ask him one thing. Why is it that he bringeth this as a ſolution to this place, Act. 1? Does he mean indeed that the Apoſtles acted in this matter modo extraordinario, and according to their Apoſtolicall Office? Why then did he before, Sect. 10. alledge the managing of this matter of Matthias call, as a ground and patern for ordinary ordination of Elders?

section 4 In his ſecond ſolut. I ſhall take notice of theſe things. 1. That, true it is the eleven Apoſtles were here together becauſe they were commanded by Chriſt to abide in Jeruſalem, untill they were endowed with the Holy Ghoſt from above. But there was nothing here done, but any one of them might have done it. I would ask what he intends by this? Is his meaning, that it was but by accident that they did act together in Collegio, in this buſineſſe, and that they acted as Apoſtles only, becauſe what they did any one of them might alone have done what they did? And therefore it is no wayes a patern for a Colledge of ordinary Elders acting jointly their ordinary power? But 1. tho it be true that they were together in Jeruſalem, by Gods command waiting together for the powring out of the Holy Ghoſt: Yet it follows not, that by accident they did joyne in Collegio for that buſineſſe: Becauſe being together, by Chriſts inſtitution they were to joyne together in managing the affairs of the Church; They were bound and it was neceſſary that they ſhould do ſo. 2. True, what was done might have been done by any one of them alone; had they been alone: But it followeth not that, being all in one place, where they might joyn together, hic & nunc, any one of them might do it alone: Nor does it follow either, that they acted as Apoſtles, becauſe any of them might have done it alone. Any of the Apoſtles might alone, by deciſive ſentence, determined the controverſie Synodically concluded, Act. 15. yet the Author will not for this, ſay, that in that buſineſſe the Apoſtles acted as Apoſtles The next thing I note, is a great miſtake of our mind concerning the nature of the Presbytery ruling over more Congregations then one. That it ſhould be a combination of appropriate Elders to ſeverall particular Churches, which theſe Acts 1. were not, but generall Officers. We do not think it is neceſſary to the eſſence of ſuch a Presbytery, that it be made up of Elders, appropriated to ſeveral fixed Congregations. We ſay, at the firſt where there were more Profeſſours then could meet in one Congregation, their Paſtours and Elders did teach and rule them in common, not being diſtributively appropriated to the ſeverall Congregations, and that yet in ſome Cities where there are more Congregations, it may be ſo, as it is at this day in ſome Proteſtant Churches: Tho we think, that now in the ordinary condition of the Church, it is convenient that Congregations be fixed, and have their ſeverall fixed Officers. Therefore we ſay further, what ever uſe be to be made of the preſent paſſage, Act. 1. in the Queſtion in hand, it is but a poor Argument the Author inſinuateth. There was not here concurring Elders of other Churches, this of Jeruſalem being the firſt and only Goſpel Church, Ergo, there was not here a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations then one, it doth not neceſſarily follow. For that very Church of Jeruſalem might be made up of ſeverall Congregations, nor can the contrary be proven; the number of names ſet down, v. 15. will not prove it, becauſe it cannot be demonſtrate that that was the whole number of Chriſtians in Jeruſalem.

section 5 The ſecond Scripture he meeteth with is, Act. 4. 35. For as many as were Poſſeſſours of lands, &c. ſold them and brought the price and layed it down at the Apoſtles feet. And how this place will maintain a *This nickname the Author wil put in at every turn, which we deſire may be as often rejected as wrongfully given to the Preſbytery we ſpeak for.forraine coercive Elderſhip I do not yet under, ſtand. Anſw. Here againe is a groſſe miſtake or a wilfull wronging of his adverſaries. I know none that alledges this place by it ſelf as an intire Argument to prove the Preſbytery we ſpeak for; the truth as to the uſe of this paſſage by Preſbyterians in this controverſie is this. They alledging the inſtance of the Church of Jeruſalem for a patern of more Congregations than one, under one governing Presbytery, and for making out this, alledging that Scripture holdeth forth. 1. That Church to conſiſt of more Congregations then one. 2. That yet theſe are called one Church. 3. That over theſe Congregations called one Church was one Presbyteriall Government in common: To prove the laſt of theſe points whereof the Argument conſiſteth, alledging that the Scripture mentioneth the Officers of that Church as meeting together in common for acts of Government, they bring this place for one inſtance of an act of Government for which they were met, viz. to take charge of the Churches goods, and of the due diſtribution thereof, See Jus Divinum of Church Govern. part 2. pag. 210. Now ſee we his anſwer if it hath any thing to infringe that for which this is indeed alledged.

section 6 The Apoſtles though they had a capacity over many Churches, yet then there were not many Churches, when this was done. Anſ. Yes, Sr, there were many, more than one Church, I mean more particular Congregations, even in Ieruſalem, ſee this proven as by ſundry others, ſo particularly by the Aſſembly of Divines in their third propoſition concerning Government, and their anſwers to the reaſons of the Diſſenting Brethren, and by the Authors of Jus Divin. 2. part pag. 193, 194, 195, 196. & ſeq. and the exceptions brought to the contrare by your ſtrongeſt heads fully cleared. I wonder the Author ſhould ſo contemne his Readers, as to obtrude his bare Aſſertions upon them, in a mater concerning which he knows ſo much reaſon hath been brought, as is extant, to the contrare of what he affirmeth. If he hath any new exceptions againſt the proofs of that particular, which hath not been brought by theſe of his ſide before him, he would done beſt to have produced the ſame; Or let him do it yet, and we ſhall take them into impartiall conſideration.

2. And this capacity (to wit, that the Apoſtles had over many Churches) was as they were Apoſtles, and not as ordinary Elders. Anſw. That a capacity, to act acts of Church Government over many Congregations, ſimply, was competent to them only qua Apoſtles, and ſo not competent to ordinary Elders, is a maine part of the Queſtion in hand, and ſhould not be begged or nakedly affirmed, but proven.

section 7 3. And in this mater they did an extraordinary thing, becauſe the Officers fit for this work were not yet ordained. Anſw. What is this? And was the Apoſtles receiving and ordering theſe alms, the doing of an extraordinary thing? Sure it was not extraordinary in the nature of the acts: For then it ſhould not be an act competent to any ordinary Officer in the Church, which is confeſſedly falſe, it being an ordinary act which may be, and is dayly done by ordinary Officers. Nor yet can it be ſaid to have been an extraordinary deed as done by ſuch Officers, the Apoſtles: The Author indeed imports this in his reaſon. Becauſe the Officers fit for this work were not yet ordained, ſo he would ſay the Apoſtles were not fit Officers for that work, and therefore their doing of it was extraordinary, but either they were not fit Officers in point of qualification and endewment requiſite to manage that work, and this I think the Author will not ſay: Or they were not fit in point of vocation to exerciſe ſuch an act; But as little reaſon has he to ſay this, becauſe, altho that buſineſſe was not the proper act of their Apoſtolick vocation and office, nor the maine and principall work thereof, and therefore ſay they, Act. 6. 2. It is not reaſon that we ſhould leave the Word of God and ſerve tables: And therefore it was neceſſary ſome Officers ſhould be ordained who's more proper and chief work it might be to ſee to that buſineſſe: Yet certainly the Apoſtolick office, containing in it eminently, the power of all inferiour Officers in the Church, it was an act formally belonging to their office, and no Queſtion even after theſe ordinary Officers were appointed particularly to attend that buſineſſe, yet the Apoſtles did not then altogether ceaſe from joining in acting thereanent, where they might conveniently without hindring their main work, the preaching and ſpreading of the Goſpel.

section 8 But in all this where are joint voices and ſuffrages of Officers, Elders and Brethren of diverſe particular Churches, commiſſionated to this work to make up this Preſbytery, we ſpeak of. Anſw. There was joint acting of Officers of more Congregations than one, the many Congregations whereof the Church of Jeruſalem did conſiſt (whether they were diſtinguiſhed and fixed, in Members and Officers, or not, is all one) and theſe Officers, Elders to theſe Churches, the Apoſtles, who as they were Officers, ſo were Elders too, and acting as Elders becauſe in a mater competent to ordinary Elders, and jointly. 2. Brethren not Officers, may be preſent in ſuch a Presbytery and ſpeak and give their conſultative judgement orderly: But as no conſtituent parts of this Presbytery in our judgement, nor according to the truth. 3. When the Preſbytery of more Congregations than one is made up of all the Elders of theſe Congregations aſſembled together perſonally, a particular commiſſion for that is not neceſſary. Indeed in ſuch Presbyteries as all the Elders of the ſeverall Churches meet not perſonally, but by ſome of their number delegated, it is (as in Synods) neceſſary that theſe who make up ſuch a Presbytery be commiſſionated from their ſeverall Churches reſpectivè: Yet by that commiſſion, they get not power ſimply to act, the acts of Government therein; (that they have by their ordination to their office) but a particular warrand and call to act that power hic & nunc for the good of the Churches in the combination.

section 9 In the ſame SECT. viz. 25. from what he has anſwered to the former paſſage, he labours to anſwer other two places. 1. That Act. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6. about the chooſing of Deacons and their ordination. To which his anſwer is. The Apoſtles as extraordinary perſons layed hands on theſe; But what appears from hence of ſuch an Elderſhip, excerped and commiſſioned from ſeverall Churches, as Preſbyterians now aſſert and uſe, is yet to find. Anſw. 1. I wonder that Mr. Lockier ſhould obtrude upon us ſuch a naked Aſſertion, that the Apoſtles did lay hands upon and ordain theſe Deacons as extraordinary perſons. i. e. as Apoſtles and not as Elders, without making the laſt eſſay of anſwer to that reaſon brought by the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines againſt the diſſenting Brethren aſſerting the ſame. Anſ. to the reaſons of the Diſſenting Brethren, pag. 52. I preſent it here in their own words, that the Reader may conſider if it be not of ſuch weight as Mr. Lockier had cauſe to take it unto conſideration if he had not thought fitter to dictate to, then by light of reaſon to convince the judgement, of his Readers. As for that ordination, Act. 6. we doubt not to ſay that in it they did act partly as Apoſtles, partly as Elders: In conſtituting an office in the Church which was not before, they did act their Apoſtolicall authority: But in ordaining unto that office men whom the Church had choſen, they did act as Presbyters; And we doubt not but that our Brethren will herein concur with us: For if they will not ſay that they did herein act partly as Apoſtles, and partly as Elders, they muſt ſay they acted either only as Apoſtles, or only as Elders. If only as Elders, thence it will follow that all Elders have power not only to ordain men, but to erect new Offices in the Church: If only as Apoſtles, then hence is no warrand for any Elders, ſo much as to ordain men unto an office. But I yet wonder ſo much the more at this Aſſertion of Mr. Lockier here, remembering what he had delivered before, SECT. 10. where he drawes an Argument from ordination of Elders performed by the Apoſtles for regulating the ordination of Elders in Churches now, and thereupon alledging (tho groundleſſely) that the Apoſtles in ordination took in the people to concurrence with them, concludeth, that now alſo they ought to concur formally in that act. If they had acted as extraordinary perſons, as Apoſtles, the people could not concur jointly with then in ſuch an act, nor could it been an Argument brought as a patern in ordinary. Now if they acted not by their extraordinary office and power in ordaining Elders, what reaſon is there to ſay, that in the ordination of theſe Deacons, they acted in that way? 2. As to that, but what appears from hence, &c. We ſay, ſuppoſing that the Church of Jeruſalem was made up of many Congregations, and theſe Congregations were one Church (which are proven from other Scriptures) we find from hence, for proving ſuch a Presbytery as we ſpeak for, Officers of theſe Congregations meeting together for Government, and joining in an act of Government, ordination of Church Officers, viz. The Apoſtles doing this, and that as Elders, which is the thing it is brought for by Presbyterians; Which tho-by it ſelf makes not a full medium to prove that Presbytery, yet with the other ſuppoſitions taken with it, makes very much to prove it.

section 10 2. Place is, Acts 20. 28. The Elders there are ſhewed not to be Elders of many Churches which Paul ſent for, but the Elders of the Church, v. 17. of one Church, of the Church of Epheſus, and charging them to attend to the ſtock, and not to flocks, ver. 28. here is no joynt veice of various commiſſioned Elders. Anſw. To paſſe that ſome of his own, the Diſſenting Brethren in the Aſſembly, once in their Reaſons againſt the inſtance of the Church of Epheſus, make theſe, both Elders and flocks, to whom the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, to be of all Aſia (& not only of Epheſus) where no doubt there were more particular Churches; To paſſe this, becauſe indeed theſe ſame Authors a little after, when it may ſerve their turn, they confine them to Epheſus: We grant 'tis true they were Elders of one Church, the Church of Epheſus: But withall, we ſay, that one Church, was not one ſingle Congregation, but made up of more then one, and conſequently was one Presbyteriall Church. This is proven by ſundry Learned, particularly by the Reverend Aſſembly of Divines in their inſtance of the Church of Epheſus, and all the Reaſons of the Diſſenting Brethren brought to the contrare fully diſcuſſed in their Anſwers threunto. As for the Authors Grammaticall Argument, they are called Elders of the Church in the Singular Number, not Churches, and they are bid attend the flock, not flocks, Ergo, it was but one ſingle Congregation, 'tisfilly, and might well be ſaid among Children, but may bluſh to come out before underſtanding Men. By this Argument when our Saviour ſayeth, upon this Rock will I build my Church. And the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 12. He hath ſet in the Church, Firſt ſome Apoſtles, &c. And Epheſ. 5. He loved his Church and gave himſelf for it: Becauſe it is in the Singular Number, Church, not Churches in all theſe places: Therefore it muſt be only one ſingle Congregation meant in all of them. When as it is indeed the whole Catholick Church, and not any particular ſingular Congregation. So the name flock in the Singular Number, why may it not be taken collectivè for ſuch a flock as contained in it diverſe particular flocks, as Gen. 33. 13. yea and in the very preſent Metaphoricall ſenſe foreign Luke 12. 32. little flock, and foreign John 10. 16. one Sheep fold, tho both in the Singular Number yea, and in the latter place, with the Cardinall number added to it, one, ſignifieth the Church Catholick, and ſo comprehendeth many particular Flocks, Folds, and Churches. As to M. Lockiers laſt words in this Sect. here is no joint voice. &c. indeed we grant that in that meeting there was no joint voting of Elders: Becauſe theſe Elders then were not meet to act in Government, but had been ſent for by Paul, to receive direction from him concerning the managing of their charge: But ſuppoſing that which is proved from other places, that there were more ſingle Congregations in Epheſus then one, we find here theſe Congregations held forth to be one Church, and there were many Elders over theſe many Congregations as one flock, one Church. And that is enough for our purpoſe.

The next place he meeteth with and which he calleth one of the moſt weighty (indeed it is ſo weighty to the purpoſe we are on, that it cruſheth the new ſupream Independent Tribunall erected by our Brethren in ſingle Congregations) is that concerning the Synod, Act. 15. 28. To this the Author Anſwers, 1. Here (ſayeth he) is an Elderſhip of ſeverall Churches (indeed) met: But as touching the coercion of their power, as ſuch excerped Elderſhip enforcing their reſults upon other Churches, this is the other thing to be brought in to make up the buſineſſe we Diſpute againſt. Anſw. Firſt. 'tis well Mr. Lockier acknowledgeth that was an Elderſhip of ſeverall Churches, even a Synodicall Presbytery, a Synod, as himſelf calls it afterward, Sect. 29. Some of his ſide have ſaid otherwiſe, the Diſſenting Brethren in their Reaſons againſt the Aſſemblies allegation of Acts 15. for ſubordination of Synods. That Aſſ. was not a formall Synod but only a reference by the particular Church of Antioch, unto this particular Church of Jeruſalem and no other. But we think Mr. Lockier ſpeaketh the truth that it was a Synod. 2. We muſt here again note his invidious miſrepreſenting of our Doctrine. We do not aſcribe to that or any other Synod, a power of coertion to enforce their reſults upon any, but an authoritative juridicall power to enjoyn authoritatively their determinations agreeable to the Word of God, and to cenſure the diſobedient and diſorderly with meer ſpirituall cenſures, as admonition, Excommunication, which import no enforceing, … propriety of ſpeech. Nor do we ſay, that, that or any other Synod hath power thus authoritatively, to enjoyn their determinations, upon other Churches, we ſay they have this power only in relation to theſe Churches aſſociated in the Synod and none other. So not that which Mr. Lockier ſayeth, but this is the other thing to be brought in to make the Presbytery we ſpeak for (what ever it be that he Diſputes againſt, which oftentimes is his own fiction) an juridicall power authoritatively enjoining its determinations, and which may cenſure with ſpirituall Eccleſiaſtick cenſures the diſobeyers and diſorderly. And this, we doubt not, will be found in this place, Act. 15.

section 11 After this the Author pretending to be clear and full in anſwering this place, he premitteth two things, which Reverend Hocker hath alſo, Survey, Part. 4. c. 1. 1, That the Apoſtles tho they were extraordinary Officers, yet in this meeting they did not act as ſuch, becauſe they joined with them ordinary Churches (what ordinary Churches is contradiſtinguiſhed unto, I know not well) and Officers, and all Diſputed, and enquired. And ſo here was left a ſamplar to all ſucceeding generations. In this we agree with him. Only by the way we note, that we ſee not why he ſhould have ſaid before, Sect. 25. that in the ordination of Deacons the Apoſtles acted as extraordinary perſons, ſeeing there alſo they joined the Church with them, in the election of the perſons to be ordained. His 2. premiſſe is, that the ſentence decreed in that Synod was not Scripture becauſe they decreed it, as ſtill it was when the Apoſtles moved by the proper Spirit of their Apo…olicall ſtation, according to that, 2 Pet. 1. 21. but what they decreed was by debate found out to be either expreſſe in Scripture or undenyably deduced from thence: So by one of theſe wayes, was found to be Scripture, and was therefore decreed and injoyned by them upon others. And then goes out a while in clearing this, which we need not inſiſt on. And to paſſe other things that might be noted in this ſecond premiſſe granting both, what would he infer hereupon? That in the cloſe of Sect. 28. So that what they produced, by debate was materially binding for aſmuch as what they produced was, for the matter of it, no other but the will of God, but not formally as the reſult of ſuch a Collegiat Elderſhip. Anſw. This laſt followeth not upon any thing in the former premiſſes: For tho their decrees were not Scripture becauſe decreed by them, but decreed by them becauſe found to be Scripture, or agreeable to generall rules of Scripture, and therefore injoined by them to the Churches: It followes indeed that their primary and fundamentall obligatorineſſe, is materiall: And were they not ſuch, they could not formally, as decrees of the Synod, be obligatory or binding: But it doth not follow that, ſimpliciter they are not binding formally, as decrees of the Synod. The obligatorineſſe of decrees of a Synod formally as decrees of a Synod is ſecundary, ſubordinate, and regulate, but for that, it is not no obligatorineſſe at all. Yea one of his own contradicts him in terminis, in this, Mr. Cotton ſpeaking of the decrees of this very Synod: Keyes, c. 6. this binding power is not only materially from the weight of the matters impoſed (which are neceſſary, neceſſitate praecepti from the word) but alſo formally from the Authority of the Synod.

section 12 But come we to his clear Anſw. he brings it in by way of reply to an Object. Had then this Synod no authoritative power at all? For what end then is the Ordinance? This indeed is a pertinent Queſtion propounded by the Author to himſelf. And if he, aſſerting, as but in his immediatly preceeding words he has done, that the decrees of this Synod, were binding only materially, as matters revealed in the Scripture, and not formally, can withall Anſwer this Queſtion affirmatively that this Synod had an authoritative power as ſuch an Ordinance, as a Synod, Erit mihi magnus Apollo, nay, I ſhall ſay Mr. Lockier can make contradictories agree well enough. See we then his Anſw. to this. A forrain Elderſhip rightly conſtituted hath particular authority, (i.) a power of preheminent and prevailing counſel, though not a power of juriſdiction to conſtrain their reſults to be practiſed, or to cenſure. Eccleſiaſtically, in caſe perſons, who have the reſult of things produced by them, do not follow them. They have as an Ordinance of God, a power of preheminent and prevailing counſel: That is, their reſult ought to be preferred and prevail more upon our hearts, then what Interpretation other ſingle perſons, and ordinary helps, ordinarily afford. Anſw. Firſt here ere I come to the main buſineſſe, note ſhortly ſome few things. 1. We never attributed authority to a forrain Elderſhip, over any perſons or Churches. Mr. Lockier here ſaying that a forrain Elderſhip hath peculiar authority (if his meaning be according to his words▪ if he underſtand authority indeed) that is an Elderſhip extrinſecall to Churches, yet hath peculiar authority over them, goeth farther then ever Preſbyterians did, and indeed goeth clearly contrary to truth, and in terms, ſpeaketh very like the Prelatick way, which attributed to a forrain Elderſhip, the Prelate and his Cathedrall, authority over all the Churches in the Diocaeſe. But indeed his words and his ſenſe agree not: For his peculiar authority, is no authority, as we ſhall ſee anone. 2. We ſay yet it is but an odious feigned deſcription of that power of juriſdiction, we attribute to Synods and other aſſociated Presbyteries, when it is called a power to conſtrain their reſults to be practiſed, as we have diſcovered it before. 3. It is yet a groſſer miſrepreſentation, that we attribute unto ſuch Presbyteries a power to cenſure perſons Eccleſiaſtically in caſe they have the reſult of things produced by them and do not follow them. Did ever any Persbyterian ſay ſuch a thing as this, that a Synod or Presbytery has power to cenſure perſons who have their reſults by them and does not follow them. For example, that a Synod in Scotland hath power to cenſure perſons, in England or France, that have their reſults by them and does not follow them, or that any Presbytery hath power to cenſure perſons of the Church within the bounds of their aſſociation, who, may be, have their reſult… by them and not follow them? If this has been ſaid out of a miſtake and ignorance we pity it, and wiſhes the Author to know our Doctrine better, ere he take upon him to repreſent it to others. If it has been of purpoſe to render our Doctrine odious, let his own conſcience judge what ſort of dealing this is.

section 13 But to come to the purpoſe in hand, Mr. Lockiers clear and plain anſwer, at laſt to this place of Act. 15. 28. is that that Synod exerciſed no power of juriſdiction, but a power of counſell or advice only; He calls it indeed a peculiar authority. But when he makes it to be but counſell, that is to give it a bare name, for credits ſake; And to deny it the thing of that name. Counſell or advice is but an act of charity, and (if good) of wiſdom and prudence, and not of authority. 'Tis no other act but that which one man may do to a Church, one brother to another, one woman to another, yea as Mr. Rutherfurd ſaith, Abigail to David, a maid to Naaman. That the Author ſaith it is a power of preheminent and prevailing counſell, that it ought to prevail more upon our hearts than the interpretation of ſingle perſons and ordinary helps, availeth not: For preheminent counſell is ſtill but counſell, and ſo that which is attributed to the Synod differeth no wayes from that which is competent to any ſingle perſons to do, or one ſiſter and equall Church to another, but only gradually. And ſuppoſe a company of Chriſtians, Paſtors or others met together, not Synodically, being perſons of known piety and underſtanding in maters of Religion, their counſell would be ſuch a preheminent and prevailing counſell, that it ought to be preferred and prevail more with our hearts then the interpretation of ſingle perſons. So hereby there is no peculiar authority, or power granted to that Synod, as ſuch an Ordinance of God. If yet it ſhall be ſaid that their counſell is preheminent and prevailing, ought to prevail more upon our hearts, &c. not only upon this ground, that they are many, pious and underſtanding men, and liker to find out the minde of God in his Word then ſingle perſons: But alſo becauſe they are ſuch an inſtitute meeting, a Synod. To this, I cannot ſee how Mr. Lockier can ſay this, having but now told us that the decrees of the Synod bind materially, as being the will of God, but not formally, as the reſult of the Presbytery. For what elſe is it to ſay, that their reſults ought to prevail more upon our hearts, becauſe the reſult of ſuch men as a Synod, but that they are binding formally as the reſults of the Synod. 2. If there be a preheminency or power of prevailing in the decree of a Synod, ſo that there is an obligation upon our hearts to be more prevailed with, over and above that preheminency and power of prevailing which is in the counſ…l of a company of pious and underſtanding men, met occaſionally not in a Synod, (which certainly ought to be preferred and to prevail more with our hearts then the interpretation of ſingle perſons) I would ask what is that different power, if it be not a juridicall power: and conſequently of cenſure upon diſobedience? For if it ſhall be ſaid it is not juridicall power, but only dogmaticall or doctrinall, then I ſay this is competent to every ſingle Paſtor; For a truth of the Goſpel taught and delivered by a ſingle Paſtor, ought to be beleeved and obeyed, i. e. bindeth to obedience and faith, not only becauſe it is Goſpel, but becauſe it is doctrinally taught by a Miniſter, and ſo that preheminent and prevailing power ſhall differ from the power of a ſingle Paſtor, but only gradually, and is the very ſame in kinde, and ſo no peculiar authority or power of a Synod, as ſuch an Ordinance of God. But now whereas Mr. Lockier aſſerteth that this Synod at Jeruſalem, Act. 15. had not, nor did exerciſe a juridicall power, but only a power of counſell or advice: We aſſert the contrair, which is abundantly proven by ſundry learned Writers treating upon this ſubject, and maintained againſt all Objections made to the contrair by Oppoſites: We refer the Reader for ſatisfaction, to theſe, namely, Mr. Gilleſpy Aſſert. of the Govern. of the Church of Scotl. Part. 2. c. 8. Aarons Rod, Book 2. c. 9. Arg. 21. Papers of the Aſſem. of Divines. Anſ. to the Reaſ. of the Diſſenting Brethren againſt the inſtance of the Church of Jeruſ. Jus Divin. of Church Govern. by the London Miniſters, Part. 2. c. 14. Mr. Rutherfurd due Right of Preſbyteries, pag. 355. At length treating upon this place. Spanhem. Epiſt. ad David Bucan. claſſ. 3. rat. 3. There is ſo much ſaid by theſe to this purpoſe, that I need not increaſe the bulk of this Book by ſetting down any Reaſons here againſt Mr Lockier, if he will be pleaſed to take unto his conſideration what is already ſaid by them, he may do well. Come we to his Reaſons brought to prove that this Synod exerciſed only a power of counſell, not of juriſdiction. Of four brought by Mr. Hooker, Survey Part. 4. c. 1. pag. 13, 14. he borroweth two.

1. Is made up of two proceſſes, the firſt whereof is this. Theſe decrees are ſaid to bind theſe to whom they are ſent: But they were ſent to all the Churches of the Gentiles. This is evident ſaith Mr. Lockier, Acts 21. 25. as touching the Gentiles that believe, we have written and concluded that they obſerve, &c. Ergo, they did bind all the Churches of the Gentiles. Anſw. To this 1. for the Major, where is it ſo ſaid? I cannot remember any place of the ſtory where this is ſaid. If he and Hooker, from whom he hath this, mean, that we ſay and confeſſe this, that the decrees of the Synod bind all theſe to whom they are ſent, that we never ſaid; If it be underſtood of binding as Synodicall decrees. A Synod in one Nation may ſend their decrees unto Churches of another Nation (as was ordinary to do in the Primitive times) yet we ſay not, that the decrees of a Synod of one Nation, binds the Churches in another Nation, though, may be, the mater of them binds them. 2. For the minor: If the meaning be, (as it muſt be, that the Argument may ſpeak to the purpoſe it is intended for) that they were ſent by way of Synodicall decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles (as certainly they were to ſome) we deny it, the place cited, Act. 21. 25. proves it not: For it ſpeaks of the Gentiles indefinitly, and clearly relates, to the Letter written, Act. 15. where the very inſcription bears, that ſo they were ſent only to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia v. 23. 'Tis true Paul and Barnabas delivered the decrees to others as they went through the cities, Act. 16. 4. but it is not ſaid that they were ſent to them by way of Synodicall decrees, as they were to theſe other Churches. But grant that one way or other they were ſent alſo to the reſt of the Churches of the Gentiles, that is, that it was the will and intention of the Synod, that as occaſion ſhould ſerve they ſhould be delivered to them, and we ſhall alſo grant the concluſion of this firſt proceſſe in ſome ſenſe, that they did bind all the Churches of the Gentiles. See we what Mr. Lockier will infer upon this in his next proceſſe.

section 15 Now theſe (ſaith he) (i.) all the Churches of the Gentiles had no Commiſſioners delegated to that Synod: Therefore what the Synod did could not bind them by way of authoritative juriſdiction, becauſe where is no delegation of Commiſſioners there is no right of juriſdiction; They did bind them only by way of counſell and materially, as things clearly held forth in the Word of God Anſw. If Mr. Lockier when he ſayeth, now theſe had no Commiſſioners there, &c. if he mean this Univerſally, that none of the Churches of the Gentiles had Commiſſioners there, it is clearly falſe. If he mean only that ſome of them had no Commiſſioners there, it is true, and we grant that the decrees of the Synod did not bind theſe Churches by way of juriſdiction and formally as decrees of the Synod, but materially. But hence it followeth not that they did not bind at all, nor any, by way of juriſdiction. For ſome Gentile Churches had their Commiſſioners there, and were Members of the Synod, Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, (theſe two laſt, if they had not, yet they might and ought to have had, and it is moſt probable they had) and ſo theſe Churches might be bound by them by way of juriſdiction and formally, for ought that is brought in this Argument, and they did ſo bind them as is abundantly proven in the Authors cited before.

section 16 I cannot here paſſe by the Obſervation of the two Syllogiſtick moulds, whereinto Hooker caſts this laſt proceſſe, that Mr. Lockier has borrowed from him, in the place of his Survey laſt cited. The 1. is this. The decrees of a Synod bind only ſuch by Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction, who delegate meſſengers to the Synod: But the decrees of this Synod bind more then theſe who delegated meſſengers to it, to wit, all the Churches of the Gentiles. Therefore it did not intend to bind by Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction. Truely 'tis a pity to ſee a Godly man beguiling himſelf in ſuch maters, with ſuch illogicall ſillie Arguments. I will not ſtay to exaggerate this to the full, who ſees not the groſſe peccancy of this: And if the Author would have concluded formally and right upon his premiſes, the concluſion ſhould have been this: Therefore the decrees of this Synod did bind more Churches then ſuch as it did bind by Eccleſiaſticall juriſdiction. And this he ſhall have granted by us without contradiction, but alſo without any advantage to his cauſe. His ſecond mould (which he ſayeth is more plain) is this. Theſe who ſend the decrees of the Synod to ſuch Churches who never ſent their Commiſſioners thither; They ſend only by way of counſell. But this Synod ſent their decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles, who n…ver ſen… their Commiſſioners thither: Ergo, they ſent only by way of counſell: This is as louſe for mater, as to his point in hand, as the former was peccant in forme. For as to the Major: The Synod which ſend their decrees to Churches who never ſent (at leaſt ought to have ſent) their Commiſſioners thither, ſend only by way of counſell to theſe Churches, true indeed: But if the meaning be, that that Synod which ſends their decrees to ſuch Churches as never ſent their Commiſſioners thither, ſend only by way of counſel to all to whom they ſend them, this is as eaſily denyed as it is affirmed: and I believe it ſhall be long ere we hear a proof of it. Then to the Minor, That this Synod of Jeruſalem ſent their decrees to ſome Churches of the Gentiles that never ſent their Commiſſioners thither, let it be granted: Yet it is as certain, ſome, to whom they ſent them, bad their Commiſſioners there as members. And ſo for the …, it may be granted that this Synod ſent their decrees to … only by way of counſel: But from nothing in the Argument doth … follow, that they ſent them only thus, to all to whom they ſent them. Having briefly noted thus upon Mr. Hookers two Syllogiſmes, we return to our Author.

section 18 In the cloſe of this his firſt Argument, for confirmation thereof he addeth thus: That here they did acquieſce, (viz. in …inding the Church… to which they ſent only by way of counſel and materially) and did not further meddle with any juridicall proceſſe upon them, appears by theſe pacifick words, which would they were written not with ink and pen, but with the ſpirit of the Lord upon all Preſbyters hearts who are ſo turbulent in theſe …. Fro… which if you keep your ſelves you ſhall do well. Anſ. Mr. Lockier is here in a great miſtake, while as he inſinuateth, that if the Synod did not meddle with juridicall proceſſe (viz. as I conceive, to cenſure) upon them to whom they ſent the decrees, that it muſt then be ſaid, they acquieſced in meer giving of counſ…ll; … Court or Judicatory had no other act of authoritativ… Juriſdictio…, but proceſſing perſons to cenſure; When as the making … authoritative impoſing of conſtitutions (which indeed makes perſons liable to cenſure in caſe of diſobedience) is an act of juridicall Authority, though there be no proceſſing perſon… …o cenſure preſently joined therewith. And that … this … and authoritatively (I mean Miniſterially) impoſ… … …tions upon the Churches, the they went … to … …ny of them, h…s been abunda…ly proven by the Autho… … 2. Yea they did actually put …orth a … the foreign ſchiſme and diſſe… … Teachers, by ſtigmati… … Teacher…, and … them, by decl… ring them … the Church, …o…tters of ſouls, and …acitely … words, unto whom we gave no ſuch … …o …e … of the Apoſtles and Elder… of Jeruſ…, … to Preach this Doctrine: Th… … of cenſure, and …ended to more, if they … incor…igible and obſti… …. But … good ear…eſt, when as he ſayeth, … of the Synodicall Epiſtle to … Church…, … to theſe matters, … give cou…ſell … Churches, and wiſh that for th… purpoſe they … Wr…en not with … and …, &c. as if for…ooth, becauſe the Syno… …nd their decrees in an Epiſtle (which was a reſpectfull way) becauſe they recommend the practice and obedi… of them by the goodneſſe th…reof; this did neceſſarily impor… they did not enjoin them by authority, but only adviſed them by way of Chriſtian counſell: Verily ſuch reaſoning, …red with ſuch a …hetoricall wiſh, Would they were Written, &c. I think may bl…ſh in the preſent of any intelligent man. As for that bitter …ccu…tion the Auth…r gives in againſt all Preſbyters (he me… Preſbyteri…ns not Preſbyters of his own way, ſure) as turbu…ent perſons, we wiſh the Lord may lay it to his conſcience, but not to his charge. For ou… ſelves, it being caſt upon us for no other cauſe, but for ſtanding to the maintainance and avowing of the Cauſe of Jeſus Chriſt, and the due authority of his Ordinances, we ſhall …ntly … our ſelves with that of his, Bleſſed are ye when men … you—and ſhall ſay all manner of evill againſt … for my ſake—ſo perſecuted they the Pr… phe…s which were before you.

section 19 His ſecond reaſon a…edged to prove this Synod did exerciſe only a power of counſell, Sect. 3… ▪ in … i… this much. The con…roverſie decided in this Synod being between the Church of Antioch and ſome Judaizing T…achers, it is evident that one ſide in the Synod was a party, to wit, them of Antio…h: Now for theſe who were a party, and …onteſted againſt their oppoſites, to be judge in their own cauſe, and to be juridicall upon their Antagoniſts by their own power, cannot equi…ably or conſcionably be imagined. It is (ſaith Hooker) againſt rule. Anſw. I remember this very objection is one of the grounds of th… Proteſtation and Declinator, made by the Remonſtrants againſt that … Reverend Synod of Dort. Becauſe (to wit) a great part of the Members of the Synod were their adverſe party, had by Preaching and Writing before condemned their Doctrine … errour, and that the Law of Nature doth not permit, that … be judge in their own cauſe: Which … unanimous ſuffrage of the … …ull; and the reaſons whereupon they did … it (which are to be ſeen in the acts of the Synod, …eſſ. …9.) do abundantly refuſe this reaſon alledged to prove that this Synod … did only exerciſe a power of counſell and … authoritatively determine the mater … Not being willing to fill up much paper with tranſcription…, I … the judicious Re… der to the ſuffrages of theſe reverend and learned Divi… themſelves for more full ſatisfaction. For the preſent brie…, it is a groſſe miſtake of our Author and Mr. Hooker from whom …e hath it, that theſe Commiſſioners of the Church of Antio…h, members of this Synod, if the Synod did ju…dically and authoritatively judg and determine in the mater that was before them, did judge in their own cauſe, (if he mean their own proper private cauſe) the … ter of their judgement was not the proper private cauſe … any member of the Synod, but the publick cauſe of GOD and his Church; the doctrine of juſtificati… which the Juda…ing Teachers did corrupt, and the peace of the Church which they diſturbed. Now th… perſons cannot be both an adverſe party and Judge in their own private cauſe which concerneth themſelves, yet in a publick cauſe this may be. Even in civill maters this may and muſt be in ſome caſes: The perſons that conſtitute the ſupream Judicatory of a Nation (ſuppoſe the Parliament) they are both adverſe party and Judge in publick cauſes, as in maters of treaſon, &c. Eſpecially this exception, from that Ma…ime which is alledged, that perſons cannot be both adverſe party and Judge in their own cauſe, muſt not have place in maters and controverſies of Religion, otherwiſe there could be no judiciall way at all for condemning falſe and haereticall Teachers: For certain it is that all Miniſters of Jeſus Chriſt are oblidged by their Calling and the Commandement of God, not only to teach and inſtruct the people of God poſitively in the truth; …ut alſo to re…ute the errors, and ſtop the mouths of oppoſers and adverſaries of the Truth, ſo that when any broach and vent errors in the Church of God, the Miniſters of Chriſt muſt not ſtand neutrals and indifferent, but muſt and ought both by word and wri… re…u…e …nd … them, and be an adverſe party to t…m. Muſt they therefore becauſe they do their duty in oppoſing Teachers of errors in their ſeverall particular ſtations, be uncapable in an Aſſembly to judge and condemne theſe errors and abettors of them judicially? Verily this were nothing elſe but to proclaim … to … ſpirits in the world, to teach and ſpread … without any controlement in an Eccleſiaſticall way. And ve…ly this principle, That perſons that are an adverſe party to falſe Teachers in maters of Religion, cannot be Judge… on the controverſie between them and theſe Teachers, was very far from the the thoughts of the Churches of God, in the times of theſe famous ancient Councels of Nice, Conſtantinople, Epheſus, Chalcedon, wherein, as in many Provinciall Synods of theſe times, it is well known, Orthodox Divines, that had publickly and zealouſly appeared before, againſt the Haereticks of theſe times, did unqueſtionably ſit and vote as Judges in the very controverſies they had appeared parties in. But yet to put this mater cloſſer …ome to Mr. Lockier; Suppoſe in one of his Independent Congregations, one or two or more members ſhould vent Haereticall Doctrine, and labour to inſtill it into, and infect therewith, their fellow members, I think he will not deny but the Elders of that Congregation, yea and every particular member ought to contend againſt them for the truth in privat, refute and condemn their errors and their Schiſmatick practiſes. Now I think he will not deny (except he will deny altogether, that there can be any Eccleſiaſticall Judicature to condemn errors juridically and authoritatively) but theſe Elders and private Chriſtians, though a contrair party to the ſuppoſed erroneous perſons, yet may in the meeting of the Congregation aſſembled as a Judicatory and Court, ſit and vote as Judges upon the mater in controverſy with their antagoniſts. If this may be in a Congregationall Judicatory, and yet not againſt equity nor conſcience nor rule, why may it not be ſo in a Synod too.

section 20 The laſt place that Mr. Lockier meeteth with, and ſaith is frequently uſed by the Presbyterian Brethren, is 1 Tim. 4. 14. to which place he ſaith that he hath ſpoken ſomewhat before on the firſt Aſſertion, which he repeats here: That it was not an ordinary Elderſhip becauſe of the reaſon he gave there, and addes, that being an Elderſhip of extraordinary Officers, not praeciſely from ſuch and ſuch particular Churches, but ſuch as were equally of all, as of any one, 'twill not amount to the nature of a patern and binding praecedent to build upon. Anſw. 1. This place is not ſo frequently urged, as Mr. Lockier pretendeth, for this purpoſe, to prove an aſſociate Presbytery over more Congregation… then one. The thing it is uſually urged for, is to prove that the Government of the Church, whereof Ordination is a principall part, is in the hands of Officers, and not in the body of Profeſſors: and this it doth clearly prove. Yet 2. We conceive conſiderable grounds may be brought that it was a Presbytery, not only not of one Congregation (this Mr. Lockier himſelf acknowledgeth) but alſo of ordinary Elders for the moſt part, of ſeverall particular Congregations: For 1. There is not an example can be brought from Scripture of the Elderſhip of one Congregation performing Ordination, nor any rule that may warrand ſuch a practice, when aſſociation with other Congregations may conveniently be had: And there is in Scripture example of Ordination by a Presbytery over diverſe Congregations, as in the Church of Jeruſalem, where were many Congregations, as has been often demonſtrated againſt all exceptions that has been alledged. That that Presbytery which ordained in Jeruſalem, was the Apoſtles, extraordinary Officers, is nothing to the contrair; Becauſe therein they acted not as extraordinary Officers, but as ordinary Elders, as hath been ſhewed before. 2. Guliel, Apollon. reaſon to this purpoſe, Conſider▪ of certain Controv. Cap. 6. 9. 2. is very conſiderable. This ordination of Timothy ſeemeth to have been done in the Church of Lyſtra, as th… Belgick Interpreters obſerve upon the place from Act. 6. 1, 2, 3. 'tis ſaid there that Paul would have him to go forth with him, v. 3. viz. to ſerve with him in the work of the Miniſtry of the Goſpel: And v. 1. it is ſaid he had a good report from the brethren of Lyſtra and Iconium: what elſe could that report be but a teſtimony of his piety and underſtanding in the Scriptures? (of which the Apoſtle ſpeaketh, 2 Tim. 3. 15.) which the Apoſtle requires of a perſon to be called to the Miniſtry, and ſeemeth there to be mentioned as given in relation to Timothi…s calling thereunto: And in this we ſee the brethren of Derb… and …ium, with theſe of Lyſtra concurring as actors, under whom are included alſo the Churches of the Region ro…nd about, as may be gathered from Acts 14. 6. Th… conſideration… are, I conceive, of ſome weight, to incline us … think this Presbytery, as i… was not Congregationall, ſo was not extraordinary. As … M…. Locki…r alledgeth to the contrai…, i. e. to that …e … Aſſertion 1. We anſwered it ſufficiently th…, … Reader back to our 5. SECT. 2. To the little thing added here, we ſay; Albeit the Officers making up this Presbytery, were not preciſely from ſuch and ſuch particular Churches (as I conceive his meaning) were not fixed and appropriated Officers of particular Congregations (which yet cannot be proven) yet they might have been a Presbytery of more Congregations, ſuch as we ſtand for. Fixedneſſe of Presbyters to ſeverall particular Congregations is not neceſſary by any poſitive divine inſtitution. Again, though all the members making up a Presbytery, were extrordinary Officers, and ſo ſuch as were of all Congregations as well as of one (which yet was not the caſe of this Presbytery) yet joining in Collegio, in an ordinary act, as Ordination; they might be a patern and binding pracedent to build upon, elſe from that Ordination, Acts 6. can no warrand be deduced for Ordination of Officers by the Elders in ordinary. Hitherto we have ſeen and conſidered Mr. Lockiers purſuing of his firſt Medium, uſed againſt authoritative Presbyteries over more Congreg…tions then one: Let the Reader judge how he has made it good, by what we have anſwered, and what we have referred to, for further ſatisfaction in others.