A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline, Chapter 9

A Survey of the Sum of Church Discipline · Chapter 9

p. 94CHAP. IX. Of the Nature and Being of a Presbyteriall Church.

THe Qualification of the Church, as totum essentiale, consisted in the Order and Precedency of it, in regard of her true Officers, and that we have now dispatched in the answer to the former question.

Consider it now, as it stands in comparison and competition with that, which our Brethren call a Presbyterian Church; and here we shall take in the second question. Which, however it fall far lower, if we look at the proper place thereof, yet because it fits our purpose in hand, and the laying open of the nature thereof in this place, will give light to that which follows, we shall use this Crypsis of method, to make our next enquiry about IT: and this enquiry may be referred unto four Heads.

1. Wherein the essence of a Presbyterian Church consists, and how made up.

2. Lay down some grounds, which may clear the right discovery of such a constitution.

3. Reason from such grounds against it.

4. Answer such examples as carry some semblance at the first appearance touching it.

Section 1.

A Presbyterian Church results, and ariseth upon three main principles, which are as the pillars of its speciall constitution.

1. There must be severall Congregations, made entire of such members, as Christ hath appointed, to make up an integrall body, of Officers which rule; and people, which are led and ruled by them.

2. These Congregations neighbouring together, so that their communion may be accommodated with more ease, and incourageable conveniency, and the scandals that may prejudice and taint by their infectious example, may be more easily cured and removed: p. 95And such a number of them should enter into combination each with other in the concurrence of common government, which may relieve the common good of all.

3. These so combined, are to send their Rulers, according to mutuall agreement, to manage the great censures of Christ, and determine the emergent doubts and difficulties that may arise amongst the combined Congregations: and to such dispensations and determinations all the severall Churches combined are to submit, as to acts of jurisdiction, proceeding from such, as are set over them in the Lord for that end.

These Elders and Presbyters of these combined Churches, thus assembled, are called, A Presbyterian Church: because this Representative body is made up only of Presbyters and Elders.

And of this we are now to enquire, and to lay down such grounds, as may clear the enquiry and discovery of such a constitution: and these are as followeth.

Section 2.

Ground 1.

There is no power of jurisdiction aaJurisdiction when it is taken in the largest sense, it hath a respect sometime to the fraternall power of the community, which they may and doe put forth according to their place, and the priviledge Christ hath licensed them with. And therefore they are said to judge, 1 Cor. 5. (whereof we shall intreat fully, when we come to the proper place thereof, but I intend it not in this place,) and therefore when I speak of the power of the community, I call it judgement, following the phrase of Scripture. 2. There is jurisdiction officiall, the specification whereof lies in this, that take it in the peculiar manner of dispensation, it issues only from the office, and can be acted, but by an officer, and so I here look at it, as ever having an eye to order, which in the phrase of the School, carries an office with it.1 Cor 5, but that which ariseth from the power of Order, which stands by the appointment and institution of Christ.

By power of Order, following the expressions of the School, Papists, and other Writers, I understand nothing else, but Office-rule, at which they all look.

And jurisdiction to be the exercising of that, as fit object and matter of things and persons are presented. For the very nature of the terms gives in testimony to this truth, Executio juris, or, Dictio juris, the Authoritative proclaiming or executing of this kinde of power, being jurisdiction. This act presumes a Ruler, and that an Office, and a Call to a place of power, fit for that end and purpose.

And hence the School, when they will p. 96give their understanding leave to exercise the liberty of reasonable men, according to the rules of reason, they confesse as much, as this amounts to, and may necessarily be collected and maintained from their own principles.

For Scotus and Thomas, and with them their followers, 4. Sent. dist. 18, 19. define the power of the keyes by binding and loosing; and in the binding and loosing all jurisdiction bbI take here what serves my purpose in hand, to wit, jurisdiction in a narrow sense, but mean not to take all that they give, as intending to include the exercise of all power thereby., (in their sense,) is contained: and this presumes a key, a place and office, unto which the person must be called; a power wherewith he must be invested, before he can put forth those acts.

So Capreolus and Durand: Capreolus, 4. Sent. distinct. 19. conclus. 1. Potestas conficiendi, & potestas clavium est unum & idem.

Only when they would gratify their great master the Pope, and do homage to the Church of Rome, they then devise a way to put out the right eye of their reason, and to crook the rule and crosse their own principles, that they may promote the primacy and plenitude of the power of the Pope.

They would, The Inferiour Priests to have the power of the keys, and this power of order to extend it self (quantum est de se) to absolve all; and therefore Christ saith indefinitely, quorum remiseritis &c. whosoever sins &c. But the use of this power must be presupposed according to that commission granted to Peter, and so the Pope ordinarily, that he may extend it, or restrain it as he will.

So Durand: Per ordinationem Ecclesiae factum est, ut quilibet sacerdos non possit absolvere: (ubi supra contra secund…m conclusionem.) Thus men are forced to turn the edge of their reason against an acknowledged truth, and that against ord…nationem Christi, to maintain Ordinationem Ecclesiae, & tyrannidem Papae.

But whatever they conceit, the evidence of the truth is so undeniable, that it will constrain the understanding to yeeld to that which is here required. For this Jurisdiction (in the sense I take it) in the exercise thereof, either requires one called or authorized by office: or else any without this authority may doe it. But none is a Steward unlesse set over the Family. Governments are not in the Church, unlesse they be appointed by Christ, 1 Cor. 12.27.28. yea the blinde Pharisees could grope at this in the darknes of their delusions, as appears by the question they put p. 97unto our Saviour,Mat. 21.23Matt 21:23 BY WHAT AƲTHORITY dost thou these things, and who gave thee this Authority? So that the putting of this Jurisdiction and Rule i. e. Authoritative or Office jurisdiction (whereof we now speak) into the hands of any, who are not appointed to the Office of rule, is meerly the usurpation of that Man of sin, or a preparation to bring him in; or a remainder of him, not fully cast out, not the native and naturall institution of our Saviour, the Lawgiver of his Church, and therefore you shall observe,

What ever may promote the plenitude of the Popes power, and bring the last resolution of all thither, It is so given to some of his creatures in eminent place, that in issue it may be confined within the compasse of his Triple-crown. Hence the Bishop, which is the Popes vice-gerent, he will dispense his power to his poor underlings by such pittances and allowances, that the poor Snakes may be trained up by their daily experience to acknowledge, where the treasury of this power is stored up, and whether they must go to fetch it.

Hence First, He must be made a Deacon, and allowed to read, but not preach; to administer Baptisme, but not the Supper; not that one Sacrament is of greater eminency then the other: but that the servant must know, they have no power further then they have his allowance.

At the next turn he is made a Priest, and to that he hath fresh writings, and fresh Seal, and fresh ordination. And when that is attained, yet he cannot preach in any Assembly besides his own, but he must have a license and allowance for that. And all this ad placitum.

And therefore when all is granted, he must do none of these, if his Lord Bishop be present, and will officiate in his own person. So much power the Bishop hath over so many Parishes, that by this means his power being received from the Pope, the fulnesse may be derived from him, and returned to him again in a ready way.

But (as I said) this is the Popes usurpation, not Christs institution.

Hence the second ground I lay down, is this.

There is no Office in the Church, but only such which are appointed by Christ; and therefore there is no Iurisdiction or rule can be exercised, but only by the officers of Christ.

p. 98The first part of the conclusion hath been cleared before.

1. Officers and Offices are Coronation mercies: gifts which proceed only from the Ascention of Christ. Eph. 4 11, 12. When he ascended up on high, —He gave gifts unto men, some teachers, some Pastors, Its Christs prerogative royall to bestow such gifts.

2. They are proper means of his worship, and therefore it is only proper to him to injoyn them.

3. It is in his hand only to blesse and succeed them in their spirituall dispensations, to the attainment of those supernaturall ends. Mat. 28.20. and therefore it appertains to him alone to appoint.

The inference of the second part of the Conclusion is clear, from what was formerly proved.

All jurisdiction must issue from an Order or Officer.

But there is none, but Officers of Christ allowed in the Church.

Therefore no jurisdiction spirituall, ecclesiastick, can be exercised, but by an Officer of Christ.

And therefore Surrogates, Chancellours, Arch-deacons, Deans, Officials, Vicars-general, Abbots, Monks, Friers, Cardinals, Jesuites, &c. which are hatched and spawned, by the pride and luxury, ambition and tyranny of that Man of sin, as vermine and strange creatures out of the slime of Nilus; They are none of the Orders and Officers of Christ. And therefore have no authority by any right from him to exercise any jurisdiction in his Churches, or amongst his people.

Ground 3.

Hence, He that is now called, and appointed an Officer according to God, and the rules of the Gospel, as he needs no oth…r power, but that of his Office, to authorize him to execute it, So there is no power, that can by rule and right hinder him in the due execution thereof.

For it is in Christ alone, as to appoint the calling and Office; so to lay out the bounds and limits, to specifie the severall actions and operations thereof, therein required; and to exact the performance thereof. Therefore they must attend to teaching and exhortation, Rom. 12.7, 8. They must rule with diligence, take heed to themselves, and to the flock, Act. 20.28. They must binde up the broken, recall the straying, tender the weak, Ezek. 34.4.

True, by violence and cruelty they may be oppressed, persecuted, p. 99imprisoned, and by strong hand hindered from doing their work, and then God cals for suffering, not doing; otherwise, Whether it be better to obey God or man, let any judge, Act. 4.19.

Hence, These two, Order or Office, and Jurisdiction, are not members or species of power, put in way of opposition one against the other, but are in subordination one to the other.

Hence, There must be an Office before the Jurisdiction, or Rule issuing there-from.

Therefore, Where, there is no office, there is no right of Rule or jurisdiction, as such, whereof we here speak.

Hence, They, who have the same, or equall Offices, they have the same and equall Office-rule or jurisdiction.

Hence, What ever is added, beside office, it adds no jurisdiction or rule ecclesiastick at all to any.

From these grounds thus laid, I shall take leave to dispute.

Argument 1.

If the Churches combined have no more power, then they had before they were combined; then they can exercise no more jurisdiction then before: and therefore have no Presbyterial power; are not distinct Presbyterian Churches.

But they have no more power after their combination, then before.

Therefore no Presbyterian jurisdiction: and so are no Presbyterian Churches.

The Assumption, where the doubt only lies, is thus made good.

They who have no more offices nor officers, then they had before, they have no more jurisdiction; as in the first ground.

But they have no more officers; because each send their own.

Therefore they have no more power.

Argument 2.

If they have jurisdiction, then, either over all the Churches in the combination, or only over some.

Not over some only in the combination, for that is contrary to their institution and definition of a Presbyterian Church.

Therefore they must have jurisdiction over all particular p. 100Churches; it may be ten or sixteen more or lesse in the combination.

But this they have not.

If they have jurisdiction over all these, then are they Officers, Pastors, Teachers, Ruling-Elders, in office to them all. For there must be an Office, and so Officer, before jurisdiction, as in the third ground. There is no jurisdiction exercised, but by an Officer; as in the second ground.

But to say they are Pastors of them all, is to make a rode and ready way for Pluralities, Tot-quots, Non-residencies, &c.

The proof of the minor, namely, If they have jurisdiction over all, then are they Pastors and Teachers, &c. This M.R. denies.

Though they rule many Congregations, yet they do not bear that relation of watchmen and proper Pastors to every one of these Congregations, that a Pastor of a particular beareth to his particular flock. l. 2. p. 325, 326.

Thus M.R. becomes like Naphthali, gives us pleasant words, but I fear they are but words, 1. Then we will see how they will accord with himself. 2. How with truth.

I. His own words, lib. 2. 335. are these.

We think the relation of the Eldership to a whole Classicall Church, is not founded upon an office different from the offices of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are cloathed with, in relation to their particular Congregations; but authoritative acts of the same office.

Whence, I would reason,

If the relation of the Eldership to a Classical Church be founded upon the s…me office that a Pastor hath to his particular Congregation; then the Elders bear that relation of watchmen to a Classical Church, which a Pastor doth to his particular flock. For where there is the same office of Pastor, there is the same relation of Watchman and Pastor, the one issuing from the other.

But M.R affirms the first: namely, that the relation of the Eldership to a Classical Church is from the same office, which Elders had in relation to their own.

Ergo, They are proper Pastors to the one, as to the other.

Again, They who put forth authoritative acts, which issue only from proper Pastors, as in that relation, and in regard of the office, p. 101they are proper Pastors to such, upon whom they exercise such acts, otherwise they had no warrant to put them forth.

But that also he affirms.

II. We shall secondly enquire, how it sutes with the truth.

These authoritative acts, which are put forth, issue from him, either as a Pastor, or as no Pastor, Ruler or no Ruler:

If as no Pastor, then acts of jurisdiction, and those authoritative, and supream may be expressed and exercised by one, who is no Ruler.

And this M.R. and all men gain-say.

If they proceed from him, as a Pastor, then as a Pastor of his particular, or as a Pastor of another Congregation.

Not as a Pastor of another Church, beside his own. For then one man may have two Pastorall offices, and two Churches, which is contrary to Scriptures, and all sound Divines.

Ergo, They must proceed from him, as he is Pastor to his own particular flock, Quod fuit demonstrandum.

Again,

If he put forth such acts as a Pastor, then those upon whom he puts them forth, either are his flock, or are not his flock. His flock they must be, if he be a Pastor and shepherd to them; for that the nature of relation requires.

If his flock, then either the same, he first had, his Congregation, or another.

The Churches combined cannot be his Congregation, because these are many and distinct. Ergo, He must be a Pastor of many flocks: namely of his particular, And these also. And so there is a ready way and road, for Pluralities and Tot-quots, Quod fuit demonstrandum.

And let the Reader COMPARE these expressions.

It is true, they are called the Elders of the Presbyteriall Church of Pergamus, but there is a generall and DIFFERENT RELATION from that which each Pastor doth carry to his own flock lib. 2. p. 326. lin. 4, 6.

And these words, p. 333. the three last lines.

The Relation of an Eld…rship to a whole Classicall Church is founded, not upon a different office from the office of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are cloathed with, IN RELAtion p. 102to their particular flock.

How these will sute, we cannot see, without some help from M. R.

Consider we now the DIFFERING ACTS that are in the Eldership of a Presbyterian Church, from a Congregationall, as M. R. laies them down.

Difference 1.

The Presbytery are Elders to the Classicall Church foreign, not in things proper to each Congregation, but in things common to all, or in that which is the proper object of Government; to wit, those things which rather concern the consociation of the thirty Churches, then the thirty combined Churches in particular, lib. 2. pag. 326.

The practice of the Classis opposeth this expression. For take a private offence, admonish then the offending party. 2. Upon not hearing, take one or two: 3. The offending party persisting, let him bring it to the Church.

This is proper to the Congregation: Yet by Classical principles, the particular Congregation must not admonish: For that Church, that must speak to the Offender, in case he doe not hear, that Church may cast him out. So the words, Mat. 18.17. If he will not hear the Church, let him be as an Heathen. But the Classis allows not this.

Again,

Suppose the party be admonished by the particular Congregation for this his private fault, thus persisted in, and yet shall continue to be obstinate: This obstinacy, is, Res propria, to this Church, Why may she not now cast him out without a Classis? For this pertinacy did innotescere only to the Church.

If it be said, When he is cast out, the neighbouring Churches must shun and avoid him, upon knowledge given.

I answer, so must the Churches of another Classis, of another Province; and therefore there is no more need the one should have a hand in the censure then the other.

The second Difference M. R. adds (p. 326.) is this.

The Presbytery doth rather take care of the regulating of the acts of Governing in all these Churches, then the Governed Churches.

Answ. They expresse their care in these judiciall acts, and that p. 103directly and immediately upon scandals and scandalous persons in any Congregation under the Presbytery, both censures of Admonition and Excommunication; as also in the direct decision, and so removing, at least stopping any errour of any member arising, so that they fall upon the Church to be governed directly.

The third Difference.

The Elders of the Classicall Presbytery are Elders to all these Churches, as the Elders themselves are in Collegio Presbyterali, and properly, as they are in Court. So he.

But I assume; The Elders there, are proper Pastors of their own particular Congregations. Therefore they must (if at all) be so here.

That these differences do not in the least measure shew a different relation from that which each Pastor doth carry to his own flock, appears thus,

Those acts which a Pastor puts forth in his proper place to his proper flock, those cannot shew any different relation in that office.

But all these actions specified, a Pastor doth put forth to his proper flock, when he acts as such a Pastor. Instance.

A Pastor in an Island, where, as a Pastor he cannot teach, admonish, excommunicate, but in caetu Congregationali, not severed from his Church (as we say) or his Consistory, or Collegio Presbyterali (as they say) yet this doth not hinder, but he puts forth these acts in relation to his proper flock. Therefore if an Elder in a Classical Presbytery put forth the like actions, these do not prove, nor can hinder, but he may still be to them as a Pastor to a proper flock in those regards.

Difference 4.

The Presbytery hath a Church relation to all these thirty Churches not taken distributively, but collectively, as they all are united in one Church classical, under one externall Government.

Answer.

1. If the Presbytery put forth acts of jurisdiction upon those Churches distributively, as they are severed; then they have a Church-relation to them distributively considered. For jurisdiction issues from Church-relation, and indeed from Church-office, els it could never be exercised.

But that their practice evidenceth, for they admonish, censure, severall persons of severall Churches.

p. 1042. These Churches taken collectively, are nothing but a Classis, or so many Pr sbyters meeting together: and to say they are Elders over Elders, and exercise Jurisdiction over them, hath been conceived absurd in the like case by M^r Rutherfurd.

That which M.R. adds in the next place, p. 327. As

Elders of an Independent congregation are not Elders of their single congregations, bring separated from their Court, and extra collegium Presbyteriale.

This Assertion at first sight seems a Paradox. For if their office remains the same, when separated as well, as when assembled, when in the Court and Congregation, as out, & contra. Then their relation holds, and their jurisdiction.

At verum primum.

Its true they never put forth publike acts of jurisdiction, but in the Court, nor act of pastorall teaching and administration of Sacraments, but in assembled Church: Doth any therefore conclude, That they are not teachers, nor have both Jus, and Power of teaching, when they are separated from the Assemblies?

Difference 5.

Classical Elders in the Court have power of jurisdiction in relation to this Presbyterial or Classical Church: but they have not properly an ordinary power of Order to preach to them all, and every one. 327.

Answer.

If this jurisdiction issue from the same office of Pastor, then they have power of order; and that to preach.

But that it so issues, hath been shewed, and is also granted.

M. R. adds.

The Elders of a particular congregation have power of order, and power of JURISDICTION without the Court: but they have not power of CHURCH-JURISDICTION, but in the Court. For there is a difference betwixt power of jurisdiction, which Elders have as watch-men, and a power of Church-jurisdiction which Elders have not, but in foro Ecclesiae.

Answer.

If they have the same office, whence all these acts of jurisdiction arise, as well without the Court, as within; then they have the power of jurisdiction, as well without the Court, as within.

p. 105Its true, they cannot exercise some acts of jurisdiction, but in Court; no more can they put forth the acts of publike preaching and administring Sacrement, but in foro Ecclesiae. Yet I never yet heard any man affirm, That they had no power to do these, when they were not in foro Ecclesiae, as though their entering into the Assembly should adde this power.

That example of the great Sanhedrim toucheth not this cause, or else destroies it, if it be paralleled in all the particulars of it. I will sute it with a more sensible patern every way alike. A Justice of peace in the Countrey, or Burgesse in a Corporation, are chosen to be members in Parliament, the one a Burgesse, the other a Knight of the Shire: Here are now two speciall places or Offices distinct, and here we can see a plain and open difference. And if M.R. will grant the like, that when a Ruler of a Congregation is appointed a member of a Classis, he hath a new office distinct from the office he had in the Congregation, we shall then know where to finde this classical mystery, and discover the crossenes of it to Christs Government.

He adds lastly.

I distinguish the proposition: If they be Elders in these common affairs, which concern Government in general; then are they Elders in feeding by the Word of knowledge, and in Governing in all the particulars which concern the Government of each Congregation: that I deny, saies he.

Answer.

1. Its obvious to each mans apprehensions, that every Elder and particular Governour in his Congregation, as he hath the nature of an Elder in generall: so out of power he can, and doth put forth generall actions that are common to other Elders, and so also meet with those generall things which concern Government in generall. For where the act is, the object must needs be in its proportion, and all this he doth without any Classis in his particular station. For the species determines the act of the genus: as Socrates confines the acts of humane nature to himself.

2. Its well known, That the Classis meddles with the particular offences of particular persons in all particular Congregations, even such which are as speciall, as any Elder in an Island doth meddle with in his own place.

3. If all acts of jurisdiction, whether they be authoritative p. 106preaching, as well as authoritative governing, and that in particular, as well as in general, issue from one and the same office; why there should be the office over all, and towards all, and not the same act, no word warrants.

4. Its as undeniable, There be generall acts in preaching and watching, which are common to all Congregations, which the Classis nor doe, nor can dispense conscientiously, because they cannot attend them. Nor yet will it suffice to say, That he was Pastor to the Catholick Church before, for then before this combination he had as good power to exercise jurisdiction, as any who be in the combination. But M.R. his own principles will not permit such an Assertion: For he affirms, That one Congregation hath not power over another, one Classis over another: and therefore these Pastors and teachers are Officers by an especiall appropriation, which others out of the circuit are not.

Argument 3.

That course which divides the things which God hath joyned together, and ought fo…ver to go together, that is unlawfull.

But to sever jurisdiction and teaching, is to part the things that God hath joyned together. For both issue from the office of Pastor and Teacher, and if one be required, by the same reason may the other be exacted: and yet the Presbyterian combination severeth these. The first part is past denial.

The second I shall thus make good.

What acts and duties the office of a Pastor requires to a flock; those acts and duties an officer or Pastor is bound to put forth.

But ruling and teaching belong to the office of a Pastor and Teacher, because they have the power of the keyes, and to them it appertains to use all these in binding and loosing, as the flock shall require: And these cannot be fully used in binding and loosing, but by teaching and ruling, Act. 20.18. 1 Pet. 5.1, 2.

Again, Those actions of their office, which are of necessity required to procure the end and good of the flock, those they must put forth.

But both these of teaching and ruling are of necessity required to attain the end of their office, and that is, The gathering and perfecting of the Saints, Ephes. 4.12. And this will not be attained, but by the use of all these to their best advantage; both teaching and ruling being serviceable, according to God, for the quickning of p. 107the soul in the waies of grace, and the preventing and purging out of all that leven of sin, which may be prejudicial or hurtfull to that work of the Lord.

To this M. R. answers many things, l. 2. p 329.

As Grand-fathers and Fathers do bear a relation to the same children divers waies: both are Fathers, but both are not begetting fathers: So also doe the Classical Elders, and Elders of a Congregation bear divers relations to the flock.

Reply.

If they have such relations to their flocks as Grand-fathers and Fathers, then, as a Grand-father cannot be a father; or a Father, a Grand-father, to the same childe, so an Elder cannot be a proper Elder, and a Classical Elder to the same Congregation.

These relations of Grand-father and Father come from several grounds, from which the relative respects issue. But classical and proper Elders issue from one and the same office, which they have, and are cloathed with, in relation to their proper flock, l. 2. 333. yea his words are expresse. Elders proper and classical have not two offices, but only they perform two acts of one and the same office. lib. 2. 334.

Lastly, he answers.

The judicatures of Classis and Congregation doe not differ formally or specifically, but only in more or lesse extension of power, lib. 2. p. 338.

From whence to my understanding, such collections seem fair and to follow undeniably.

If there be one office in the constitution, then there is the same definition of an office belonging to the Elder of a Classis and Congregation: then the same causes, then the same election and choice. Then what he doth by vertue of his office to one, he is bound to do to the other. Then what operations he putteth forth in the one, he can put forth in the other.

Again, If they differ but in extension, then vis intrinseca and intensive is the same in the Elders of a Congregation, as of a Classis. Therefore there is no specifical act, that the one puts forth, but the other can put forth, as occasion shall require. For, Gradus non variant speciem. Therefore in case there be objective matter presented for Ordination or Excommunication in a Congregation, they can put forth such operations: for they have p. 108the same intrinsecall and intensive power, and in that are all the causes of these operations seen, when a fit object is presented.

Those expressions that in the Court Assembly at Jerusalem, Act. 15. they are Elders in relation to the whole Churches of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, and the Gentiles, collectively taken, in those dogmatical points: And the same Elders were in special manner Elders to the congregations of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia, taken distributively.

The Reply is, The Elders did the one as Counsellours, they governed the other as Rulers, as we hope will appear in its proper place.

But that other, to wit, l. 2. 330.

By that same official power, that a Pastor teacheth his own flock, viva voce, by vocal preaching as a Doctor, he teacheth other Churches by writing.

This is an invention, I confesse I never heard, nor saw before, and whether ever it saw light or no, I cannot tell: only I suppose it will not be offensive to make some enquiry after it, if it be but for mine own information.

Clear then it is, He teacheth other Churches by writing.

But that this, thus teaching of Churches comes from the same official power that he teacheth his own flock vivâ voce, is questioned upon these grounds.

1. It crosseth the nature of the office.

For, first, That officiall power by which he preacheth to his proper flock, he received by election from the people, stands bound to them, may be rejected by them in case of delinquency notorious.

Secondly, By that official power, he can require all his to hear.

Thirdly, In case they gain-say offensively, to censure.

If his writing proceeds out of that power, then by vertue thereof he could challenge and require them to reade it, and censure them for not reading. Nay, upon this ground he should not only have power over the Churches within the Presbytery or Classis, but over those, who are under other Classis, nay other Provinces, Nations, &c. Nay the case may be that he may have official power over all the Churches in the world, for they all may be taught by his books and writing: yea, those that are infidels, and yet have p. 109but knowledge of the language, they may be taught by this, and why may he not be Pastor to perform acts from his office to them all?

2. It misseth that right ground of power: for if this power proceed from his office, then it is some where required, that each man should as well print, as preach. For to preach vivâ voce is required of every Pastor, out of his office: but if printing issue from the same office, the one should as necessarily be required as the other: and hence, what he preacheth he must print: for he is bound to teach his people vivâ voce, by vertue of his office, and if his office cals for this, he is bound to this also, as well as to that: but that we finde writ in no Gospel that I know of.

3. That which another may doe with as much authority and more; I mean authority of truth, as being more able, yet being out of office, That cannot belong to the power of an office.

When it was asked, Whether are the Classical Elders, Ruling Elders, or Teaching Elders to the classical Church?

M.R. answers p. 330. They are both, and they are neither in divers considerations. They are teaching Elders in all the Congregations distributively taken: They are ruling in all collectively taken. They are teachers foreign, in some reserved acts, not constant teachers. Its true, he that is a ruling Pastor, is also a teaching Pastor, but not to that same flock alwaies.

The Reply is,

When we enquire, What kinde of Elder a Classical Elder is, we are told, that they are Elders teaching in all Congregations distributively, i. e. take classical Elders, as they are Congregational Elders; and that is all one, as to say, No classical Elders, and then they are teaching Elders: for so far as they have reference to their proper flocks, they were teaching Elders before the combination, and so all that is gained, is this, A classical Elder, as he is no classical Elder, is a teaching Elder; and so there is not a distinction, or divers consideration of a classical Elder (which should have been the term distinguished) but a non-consideration of him, as such.

Further, It hath been often said, That these acts of the Elders, issue from one and the same office: now where there is one and the same office, there is one and the same officer, p. 110and so the same power of teaching and ruling, and the same duty.

Lastly, We have here that for granted, which before we concluded, That a person may have many flocks: he may be a teaching Pastor in one, and a Ruling in two or three, or thirty: for its affirmed, That a Ruling Pastor is also a Teaching Pastor, but not to that same flock alwaies. Therefore he may have many flocks. And so the Lord Bishop may be a teaching Pastor in the Cathedral at Canterbury, but a Ruling Pastor in all the Province collectively taken.

Obj. He arrogates this alone as one.

Ans. But shew a rule of Christ, why the Elders may not give that to him, and liberty to take many to help him, as well as you joyn many to concurre with him in that work.

I believe he hath no power to take many with himself to rule a Province of 30 Churches, besides his own. And I beleeve you have no rule of Christ to join many, to rule many Churches, beside their own particular charges. A shepherd ought to have but one flock: one is as much as he can rule, one is as much as he hath authority to rule. Relatorum unum uni tantum.

Its lastly added, p. 330.

Neither is this true, because power of jurisdiction is founded upon power of order, Therefore teaching should be every way commensurable with ruling. For the Eldership convened in Court, and only formalitèr in foro Ecclesiae, in this Court hath Church power of jurisdiction, in a Congregation, and in this Court they govern: But the Eldership in this Court neither doth preach, nor can preach.

Reply.

Ruling and teaching appertain to the Pastor in suo more, and as his peculiar properties, and therefore they are made a description of them, Rom. 12.7, 8. with 1 Tim. 3.5.

2. His flock will need, and every shepherd should do the one, as well as the other.

3. Without both he cannot fulfill his Ministery, and attain his end in procuring the good of his flock commended to his care. Therefore the reason alledged here, and propounded formerly, hath no evicting force in it.

For the Elders, if Pastors, and in office, when from the Court, then have they Church jurisdiction cut of the Court. But the first is true.

p. 111Adde hereunto also, That all publike censures ought to be dispensed in the Congregation; and there, I suppose, its not onelyonly possible that the Elders may preach, but they must preach also.

Argument 4.

That which laies a burthen upon teaching Elders, which God never laid, nor are they ever able to discharge, that is not sutable to Gods will and Word.

But this Classical course doth so.

The Assumption, which only can be questioned, is proved by M. R. his words, who imposeth an office-care upon one over many flocks, when as one is sufficient to improve all abilities of the most able Minister on earth: And therefore the Apostle appointed Elders in every Church, and charged them to attend the flock, not flocks.

Besides, I had thought the loathsomenesse of pluralities had been not only hissed out of the world, but abhorred of all conscientious men.

M.R. that he might remove the loathsome distaste, wherewith this reason loads the cause, he labours, Clavum clavo pellere. And therefore would bear the world in hand, That the way of watching over sister-churches, and other Christians of other Congregations (which we and all the world allow, as that which piety and Christianity, the law of Religion and Reason require) to be as dreadfull, for onerous, carefull, laborious watchfulnesse in way of conscience as to be bound thereunto by way of office.

To which I say, GOD FORBID.

His Reasons are mainly two.

1. We have a divine command, that we be our brothers keeper, and this watch cals for like onerous, laborious care, as if we were in office.

2. We make the ground and foundation of governing a classical Church, to be that bond of love and union of one body of Christ, and this bond of lovely and brotherly consociation commands, and ties us to doe no more in governing and helping other sister-churches, then if we had no further warrant to promote their edification, then the alone relation of brotherly consociation.

The sentence is somewhat imperfect, and that it may reach his purpose, I think it must be thus expressed. The bond of brotherly p. 112consociation tieth us to doe as much, as if we had no further warrant then this: for to say, that brotherly consociation tieth us to doe no more, in governing sister churches, then brotherly consociation can doe, is true, but wholly impertinent, and of no proof to the point in hand; and wholly misseth M. R. his scope, w…ich is to compare the bond and burthen betwixt brotherly consociation and office-imposition, as if that there were a parity betwixt them.

For REPLY, we shall examine, 1. the truth of the Assertion, And 2. give answer to the reasons alledged for it.

1. Touching his Assertion it self, we shall oppose one that is professedly contradictory thereunto.

Assertion.

There is not the like care, onerousnesse and labour required in duties of Christian watchfulnesse in a brotherly way, as to doe the duties to others, to whom we are bound in way of office-relation.

And this imparity appears, partly, in the preparations required to the services; partly, in the execution of them.

1. For preparation to the work of teaching, which the Pastor and Teacher are to attend, by their places, labouring in word and doctrine, (that as good stewards they may lay in provision old and new, and be able to divide the word of truth aright) they are to bestow their whole time and strength, and that constantly to this end.1 Tim 4.13, 16.1 Tim 4:131 Tim 4:16 Therefore they are enjoyned to attend to exhortation and teaching, the main bent of their daily studies must goe that way. They must search to know the state of their flock, Search the Scriptures, Eccles. 12.10.Eccl 12:10and study pleasant words, which may with most plainnesse, and profit, and power convey the truth to the understanding of the meanest under their charge. And therefore they must not be intangled in the affairs of this life. 2 Tim. 2.4.2 Tim 2:4They must lay aside the attending of tables, Acts 6.4.Acts 6:4and give themselves to the word and praier. The Apostles professed to take this course (though extraordinarily gifted and assisted) as occasion did require.

Acts 6.2, 3, 4.Acts 6:2Acts 6:3Acts 6:4If the Apostles laid aside the care of the poor in dispensing the treasury, because that would hinder the work of the Ministery; if there had been any work of like care and onerousnesse, Why should they not have laid aside that also? I cannot see it: and therefore they judged not the exercising the acts of Christian helpfulnes of this nature.

p. 113In a word, to make preparation for the work of the Sabbath, and the publike dispensation and administration of Christs holy things, if the improvement of time and strength be constantly required, if brotherly consociation required the like care, and laid the like onerousnesse upon a Pastor in Christian duties of love, they were no more able to discharge both, then to be Pastors to two or three Congregations, which all men confesse to be crosse to Gods command. But blessed be God it is far otherwise. His waies are full of mercy, wisdome, pity and goodnes, and he exacts no more of his people, then in an evangelical way they are able to performe.

And therefore in our Christian watch, I am bound only to administer occasionally, rebukes, counsels, comforts and exhortations, as I meet with brethren of other Congregations, and I see their occasions require it, so far as God puts present ability or opportunity into my hand, all which labour and burthen is lighter then the nail of the little finger, compared with the body of that care and burthen, which concerns a Teacher in office towards those, to whom he is bound by that relation.

2. Look we again into the dispensation and execution of these services, the imparity also will appear plainly.

If an officer hear of a scandalous course of such, who be his sheep, he is bound to make diligent search touching the truth thereof, and upon proof made, he is bound to convince and admonish: If he shall not hear, to take one or two; if not hear them, then to complain to the Church, of such a delinquent.

But thus I am not bound to bestow my time, and imploy my care with all Christians, with whom I shall meet, in the compasse of the same Classis, or the same Province: for it is impossible, I should so doe. If I hear of many scandals, that many have given in severall Congregations, Countreys, nay, as the occasion of travelling and merchandizing may require; a man shall be forced to see many in many places: Must now the traveller or merchant lay aside all his businesse, and deal with all these? Or in case he return home, the pressures of his imploiments calling him thither, Must he needs go into France, Germany, Holland, to proceed against such Delinquents? I suppose each man sees the absurdity without spectacles. Its impossible any man should attend such a proceeding. And therefore, blessed be our Saviour, who never p. 115required it, never laid such a burthen upon any to practise in this manner; but hath provided in his infinite wisdome a nearer course, which may be followed, with comfort and conveniency: He hath appointed guides in every Church, i. e. Ruling Elders, who are eyed wings to the people, over whom they are placed; they are at hand, they are by office appointed to deal in such cases, and they live and converse one with another, have charge over them, and authority put upon them to that purpose, and are set apart from other entanglements to attend the improvement of all ordinances, for the good of those under their charge, that their evils may be seen, searched and reformed.

Nor let any man think to ease this inconvenience, by saying, that a person is a proper Pastor to the one, and a Pastor foreign to the other removed: for this device, like a warm hand, strokes the sore, but will not cure it. For by this it is granted, that pastoral care is far more onerous and laborious, then Christian and brotherly care in some sense, which is now our question.

2. Its affirmed in the place, and often expressed by M. R. That there is but one, and the same office, whence all this watchfulnesse issues towards all. And therefore as it hath the same bond, so it requires the same service: And therefore all such conceits are meerly coined, to cousen mens consciences, and so to keep them quiet, but they will never goe at the great day of account.

For the question will be, Hadst thou the same pastoral relation to the one as to the other, as thy sheep? If thou stoodest bound to them as thy sheep, by the same Office and Call, the needs of both thou wert bound to supply, and the good of both thou wert in like manner bound to promote, Ephes. 4.13, 14.

3. But lastly, M.R. his own expression will not admit any such consideration, as this: for he intends the comparison betwixt brotherly care and pastoral care to a mans proper stock. For his words are these,

I clear it in this, namely, That there is as great care and onerousnesse, in foro Dei, lies upon a brother, as upon a Pastor, in the watching for the good of a brother. A man is a gifted preacher in a Congregation, in an Island, there is no other gifted of God to preach the Gospel, but he only: I would thinke, as a brother, he were under as great an obligation of care and laborious onerousnes p. 114of conscience, to bestow his talent for the gaining of souls by preaching, though he were not called to be their Pastor, as if he were called to be their Pastor.

The case is here evident, that M^r R. his intendment is to compare the care of a Pastor over his proper flock, and brotherly care over Christians together.

And here also I must crave leave to differ wholly from M^r R. his opinion. For it is granted, that this gifted person is not called to preach, nor will the people in the Island so acknowledge him: Therefore they are not bound to maintain him: Hence I should rather think thus,

He that useth his generall calling so, as that he destroies his particular, he useth it disorderly: For these are in subordination, not in opposition.

But so to preach (being gifted, as in the example given) is to use his generall calling (for he doth what is done out of Christian charity) so as that he destroies his particular: For he must of necessity lay aside the attending tables, i. e. his worldly occasions: that would and did take his time and strength, if he come to bestow himself in his preparations and dispensations in a Pastor-like manner, i. e. as Pastors use to do.

Besides, To doe as much in a generall way of charity, as that which amounts to the work of a particular calling, is to confound generall and particular callings, which God, and rule have distinguished.

When M.R. saith,

I desire to know what the naked relation of authority or jurisdiction addeth to this care and onerousnesse in point of labour by preaching the Gospel.

Its easie to return, That Jurisdiction implies an office: an office doth not only add a speciall bond, but requires more service with the greater improvement of time, and strength, and constancy therein, as it hath appeared before.

2. The two Reasons, which M.R. propounds for proof of the conclusion, have not solidity enough to settle the understanding of a man seriously judicious.

The frame of the first Reason of M.R. is this,

If we have a divine command to be our brethrens keepers, then p. 116our watch in that regard carries and requires as much care and onerousnesse as office-watch.

Answer.

The consequence is to be denied, as no way sutable to the rule of truth, as it hath appeared at large in the former enquiry, and this one thing is also enough to make it palpable. I am bound by that divine command to keep many brethren from danger, with whom I occasionally meet with once or twice in my life: and therefore can relieve them no more: Am I therefore bound by my office to watch no more, nor lend no further relief to such as be committed to my care? Will it go for good pay at our appearance before Christ, to say, I am bound by office to watch no more over the people left to my care and custody, then I am bound as a Christian to be my brothers keeper, in a Classis or Province? Many of them I could never see, or very seldome lend any succour unto in all my life: Therefore I am bound to doe no more to those that are under my charge: If I occasionally meet with them, to doe good occasionally to them, but never to bestow my time and strength constantly to attend their comfort, to binde up the broken, to recall those that go astray, and to heal and help the feeble. The second Reason comes out of the same mint, and in form its thus.

Reason 2.

If the foundation of governing a classical Church be the love and union of the members of one body of Christ: Then there is as much care, onerousnes and labour, which is required in brotherly consociation to help, as the care and onerousnes, which is required in office-help, or that which is required in the jurisdiction, which comes from officers. The first part is true: Therefore

Answer.

The Proposition deserves a deniall, as not having a semblance of truth in it. Because I love all such as are consociated with me under one National Synod, whom I never had a sight of, never came to speech with all, with whom I could never meet to doe good to them, or receive any good from them in converse: That therefore I should stand bound to put forth the like onerous, laborious care for their spirituall good, as a person that stands charged with them in way of office, one would certainly conclude and readily, either those officers doe too little, or else I am bound p. 117to doe too much, more then I possibly can attain unto.

The officers must doe too little, if they should discharge an office towards such, whom they never saw, nor knew; never did any good to them, nor received any good from them.

Or else I should be bound to do too much (more then its possible I can attain unto) If I should stand ingaged to comfort, counsel, direct, reform, and proceed in censure against such for their evils, which officers must do by Christs appointment, being sent to gather and perfect the Saints, when I shall never converse with thousands in the nation, nor they with me, untill my dying day.

Our 5. Argument.

If they be Pastors over all the Congregations in the circuit, then they were new chosen by the severall Congregations, or not.

If they were not chosen, then a Pastor may be a Pastor by an especiall appropriation to a people, of whom he was never chosen, which is crosse to the rules of the Gospel, and the nature of the relation.

If they were chosen by them all, then each of them is bound as much to all, as the first people, and therefore as much to preach and perform pastorall acts to the one, as to the other. 2. Here is really non-residency brought in. Nor will it satisfie, they are Pastors foreign, for if they stand in the same relation of a Pastors office to a Classis, as a Pastor doth to his own flock, then they must be chosen thereunto, and are Pastors properly, for so Pastors are to their own flock.

But each Pastor in the combination stands in the same relation of a Pastors office to a Classis, as a Pastor doth to his own flock.

Both propositions are M. Ruter. The major, l. 1. p. 56. l. 2. 201, 102.

The Assumption or second part. Lib. 2. 329, 333, 338.

M^r R. tells us, l. 2. p 344. That they are called Elders at Ephesus, i. e. of every Church in that combination, in that sense, that Kings are called Kings of the nations, not because every King was King of every nation: for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon, yet, in cumulo, they did fill up that name, to be the Kings of the nations: So are Elders of Jerusalem called, in cumulo, Elders of all the Churches of Jerusalem collectively taken. And as it followeth not, that the King of Edom (because he is one of the Kings of the nations) is elected to the Crown of Chaldea by the voice of the Nobles: so it is not a good consequence, such a number are called p. 118the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem, therefore the severall Churches should choose them and submit to them.

Reply.

It is true, these are good words, but it is as true, they do not touch the cause in hand, much lesse confute it, if they be rightly considered.

The Kings of the nations are so stiled by way of distinction, because of the speciall rule they have, distinct from the rule which is erected in the Church: And the fair and familiar meaning is, This King is Ruler over those people that are within the compasse of his nation or territory: another over his people, and so every one over his own particular subjects, and hath no Kingly rule at all in anothers kingdom: so here the Elders of the Churches are and may be so called, because they feed and rule within their particular Congregations, but exercise no rule in anothers Church, no more then the King of Edom doth in the Kingdom of Chaldea: and therefore the members of one Church, as they did not choose, so they should not submit to the rule of the Elders of another Congregation, no more then a subject in Chaldea, as he did not choose, so should not submit to the King of Edom; by this expression our cause is confirmed, not confuted.

M. R. addes,

If all the Kings of the nations did meet, in one Court, and in that Court did govern the nations with common royall authority and counsell in those things, which concern all the kingdoms in common, then all the nations were bound to obey them in that Court. And when they do consent to the power of that common Court, tacitely they consent, that every one of those Kings shall be a chosen King of such and such a kingdom.

Reply.

These are words which darken, and by a mistake mislead the reader from the mark, but rightly discerned and searcht into, do nothing make for the cause; for, when it is said, they meet in Court, and govern the nations with common royall authority, this authority was a new superadded authority, which came not from the King of Edom, or from that royall office (let me so speak) of the regall power he had there, for then it should have belonged to none but him. But this is a common royall authority, and that was another authority wherewith, not only he, but all the rest of the confederate Princes were invested, as well as he, and that p. 119was wholy distinct from that Kingly power, that each King had in his own kingdom, and was received, when by the choice of the people or the Parliaments in all the kingdoms, they set up all those confederate Princes: Suppose the King of Edom, Babylon, Emperour of Persia, Prince of Transilvania, Duke of Florence: &c. this one and joint power of confederate Princes, to act in such a manner, in such things, with such limitation, as distinct from that particular princely power they had in their own territories. This is the truth in the example, and let M.R. parallell this in the case in hand, and we shall soon come to an agreement, namely,

That the Elders who had speciall office, and the power of it in their proper charges, yet when by the combination of all the Churches they are to meet in a Classis, and have power put upon them to act in such things and in such a manner, which they never had before; this is not now an office of a Pastor, but the power of a Commissioner, wholly distinct therefrom; and that is a humane creature of mans devising: the Churches dealing therein, as the civil states do, who have allowance, and they in this case take allowance to adde and institute new places and new powers in the Church, so that they were all chosen Commissioners, but never a one of them was a Pastor, which is that which M.R. will not allow, and yet this frame is not able to gainsay it.

The issue then is, had they been Pastors, they must have been chosen and maintained, which was the consequence of the reason, and stands untouched, upon that supposition. But they are Commissioners: And that his words intimate, which the nature of the thing forceth unto, that they promise tacitely obedience and subjection to every one of the Kings of the nations, not simply as they are Kings in relation to such a kingdom; that is, by parity, and proportion of reason, the people promising subjection to Elders, not as to Pastors, but as to Commissioners, which are humane creatures of mans devising.

Argument 6.

The Classicall Church consisting of so many Elders in a Church representative, meeting together, to exercise Jurisdiction by joint concurrence: therefore the acting and issuing of determinations and censures, must either be carried on by the joint agreement of all, or else of the major part: for if the fewer or lesser number might cast the ballance in cases propounded, then the weaker should overbear the stronger (for they have all equall power in p. 120the Commission to the work) and then some few of those to go on one side, and many on the other side, if the fewer should have the casting voice, then the lesser weight should carry the scales against the greater, which is irrationall. Again, upon this ground, the part should not only over-rule, but destroy the whole, which is absurd. Whence then it is plain, that the greater part hath the power in their hand, to passe sentence in way of decision, as when it is past, to put it into execution.

But what if the most have the worst cause, and erre in their judgement and practice?

The answer is, While the fewer do protest against their proceedings, they quit their hands of sin, and that is all they can do: but the sentence must take place: only, if there be a way of an appeal left, they may take the benefit thereof in their opportunity.

These premised, which cannot be denied, I thus reason.

That course of government, which nullifies the power of the Elders and people of the Congregation, and their proceedings in a righteous way, that is not a power of Christ.

But this doth so: as instance,

The greater part of the Classis may sentence a member of a perticular Church to be excommunicated, when the Elders and all the people judge and that truly, not to be worthy of that censure: here the power of the Elders and people which act in a way of Christ is wholly hindered.

To this M.R. answereth, That,

De jure, the power of the greater Presbytery in this case ought to be swallowed up of the two voices of the Elders of the Congregation.

1. But this we have heard is crosse to all the orderly proceedings of Christ, and rules of reason, that the weaker should overbear the stronger, the part, the whole.

2. This layes open a gap to endlesse dissention; for upon this ground, some few will say, we have the truth on our side, and therefore your votes, and expressions, though the apprehensions of so many, should give way and are to be swallowed up by our argument, and must therefore never appear in sight more.

Lastly, Who must judge, which party hath the better end of the staffe, whether the fewer or the greater number be in the right? either the greater party must judge, or else there must no judgement passe at all, and so it will be in the power of a few to p. 121disturb, yea disanull all publike proceeding, and bring present confusion upon the whole.

Argument. 7.

From the former ground I reason in the seventh place.

That course and proceeding which cannot attain his end, is not appointed by our Saviour, whose wisdome fails not, nor can be frustrate in its preparation.

But the Classis excommunicating, and the people and elders of the Congregation refusing to submit thereunto, their excommunication would be of no force, for they would still maintain communion, and they could not relieve themselves, let them have their full scope to exercise all their Church-power to the full.

Argument 8.

This jurisdiction they now exercise, either issues from the power they had before their combination, or from some new power they have received since their combination.

Not from the place and power they had before the combination, for M.R. maintains it, as a principle, That one Congregation hath not power over another: and reason evidenceth as much. For why should they or how can they, challenge any power over one, but they may challenge power by the same ground over all?

If this jurisdiction issue from some new power, That must proceed from some new order or office received from their combination. For Jurisdiction issues from order, as in the first ground, and no jurisdiction in the Church can be exercised without an Office appointed by Christ, as doth appear by the Second ground.

But there is no order or office added to them at all, for they were Pastors and Teachers and Rulers before the combination, and there be no other officers appointed by Christ.

And therefore this place and power put now upon them, is (I fear) an invention of man.

Before I leave this place I shall offer some considerations, collected from the former disputes, to the judgement of the Reader, that he may releive me and himself, in his most serious thoughts in secret.

p. 1221. A Pastor of one Congregation hath not power over another, for one Church hath not power over another, therefore the power he receives must not come from the office of a Pastor, for that he had before; and yet lib, 2. p. 133. its said, This power issues from one and the same Office in the Congregation and in the Classis.

2. A Pastour as he stands in relation to his Congregation, and in reference to the Classis, hath not two, but one Office. p. 329. 333. And yet they are elect to the Office of a Pastour in the Congregation. l. 1. and lib. 2. p. 201. But not elect to the Office of a Pastor in reference to the Classis: lib. 2. 345.

Which (say I) is very strange, since there is one and the same office.

3. The powers of a Congregation, and of a Presbytery, are not formaly nor essentially different, lib, 1. p. 332. Where powers differ not formaly, say I, their operations differ not formally: and yet the Pastour, he doth not, he needs not, he cannot, watch, over the Classicall Church, he cannot preach to them constantly, they be not constant teachers to watch for the souls of them all, lib. 2. 330. Archippus is not an elder so as he hath to answer to God for their souls. lib. 2. 326. They are denied to be Elders in freding by the word of knowledge, lib. 2. p. 327. But this, I say, to preach, watch, and feed, Elders do and mu…t do, by vertue of the essence of their office. Therefore they have acts formaly differing;

And therefore have powers formally differing.

4. There is one and the same office which Elders act by, in a classicall and Congregationall way. lib. 2. 329. If there be (say I) one and the same Office, then it relates after one and the same manner, then to the Classicall and Congregationall Church after one, and the same manner; If then the Congregationall Church be their proper flock, so is the Classicall Church their proper flock. Quae sunt idem inter se, illa sunt idem tertio, And if one and the same office, then its received at one and the same time.

But these are denied in this dispute. The Classicall Church cannot bear relation to one man, as their proper Elder. lib. 2. 344. 345.

5. Power of Jurisdiction proceeds from the power of order. l. 2. 329 330.

And therefore, say I, they who give no office, give no power.

p. 123But the combination of Churches gives no office to Elders, who were in office before they combined.

Therefore they could give no power.

And yet the dispute saith it doth, and the doctrine of a Classicall Church must of necessity maintain that principle.

Either these are mazes and mysterious twistings, or I confesse I am much mistaken.

Lastly, I would intreat the serious Reader to observe, what depths there lie hid in this device,

1. A Pastor may be a Pastour in relation to a Church, and yet never be chosen. For a Classicall Elder is so: and why may not a bishop be so?

2. Would you see a person that hath the formall essence of a Pastour, and yet never did, nor is bound to preach? so a Classicall Elder is to his Classicall Church, and why may not a Bishop also have the like?

3. Would you see a person, that hath the Office of a Pastour to teach, but must have no power to rule in chief acts of jurisdiction? behold it is the poor Pastor of a Congregation, preach he may, and administer the Sacraments he may in his own Congregation; But the Classis keeps the key of Iurisdiction, they must send in his censures, excommunications. And why may not a Bishop do so, if ye will?

4. Would ye see a person exercise Jurisdiction over Churches, and yet not be bound to preach to them? behold the Classicall Pastor doth so, And therefore why may not a Bishop rule a Diocesse, and preach only at his Cathedrall?

It is all that can be said, that many are joyned with that one in joint power to do this.

True, But what if the Elders met in the Classis, should give power to one man to take many to himself, and exercise all the Jurisdiction without them, not as a Moderatour only, to order the actious of the Assembly, but as having the power of a judge.

HE IS THEN A PERFECT BISHOP.

And I desire a rule of Christ from the Churches in the combination, to convince the Elders meeting of an errour for choosing one amongst themselves, and putting upon him the Jurisdiction of a Judge, which will not condemn themselves for choosing many Elders of other Churches, and investing them with Jurisdiction p. 124of Judge-like authority over so many other Churches, beside their own.

For if they have liberty to institute and commit a power to many which Christ never appointed, why may they not have the same liberty to institute a power, and commit it to one which Christ never appointed?

For when it is affirmed and confessed, that one Congregation hath no power over another, therefore if they receive this power over other Congregations, Its not the Office of a Pastour or teacher that gives that power, for that they had compleatly when they were officers but of one Congregation.

Therefore the power they receive from the combination must be no office-power.

Therefore it must be some other power, beside that.

Therefore Combination gives some power to many, beside the power of office, that Christ hath not appointed, and that is a humane invention.

And why may they not give the like power to one man? and let him take Surrogates, Deans, Arch-deacons, and Chancellours to himself: this is but a humane invention, as the other.

In a word, let M.R. give me but one place of Scripture, or one sound reason for it.

1. That a person may be a Pastour to a people, by whom he was never chosen.

2; And that he may be a Pastour (as the Office of a Pastour is appointed by Christ) to such, to whom he neither can nor should preach constantly.

3. And that he is bound to exercise Jurisdiction of censure, and decision of doubts to such, to whom he neither needs, nor indeed is bound to feed by the word.

4. or Lastly, that the Churches may give power to a man or men that Christ never appointed.

And I shall professe I will willingly yeeld the cause. But they must either make good the three first, or else prove the latter, or else the pillars of the Presbyteriall Church will fall.

Section. 3.

We have now done with one sort of grounds, whereby the constitution p. 125of a Presbyteriall Church may be discerned.

We shall add another, and thence also dispute.

It is then confessed on all hands, and granted often by M. Ruterford,

That a Church in an Iland may dispense all the Ordinances of God, of Ordination and excommunication, because it is a Church properly so called.

1. In that it is a little City, and a little kingdome of Jesus Christ, having within it self power of the word and Sacraments.

2. And also that it is a Church, and hath the essence of a Church, to which agree the essentiall notes of a visible Church. Now preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, are essentiall notes of a visible Church.

From this ground I would thus reason.

If a Church in an Iland may dispense all the censures and all the ordinances then every particular Congregation may.

But the first is granted.

Therefore the second cannot be denied.

The Proposition is evidenced many waies. Where there is the same power appointed to the same ends, there may be and indeed ought to be the same operations. But in every visible Congregation rightly constituted, there is the same power, and that appointed to the same ends.

This second part admits no deniall, because sense and experience give in testimony. There be all the Officers which Christ hath appointed in the one as in the other.

All are enjoyned to put forth all their operations, and to fullfill the work of their ministery, and the duties of their calling, one as the other, and the end is the same in both, the gathering, and perfecting of the Saints.

The Proposition is proved from that principle of reason, that operari sequitur esse, The operation answers the constitution.

The third ground formerly laid, confirms the same.

Where there is an Office or power appointed by God, there needs no other power, but the Office, to authorize to the work, and it requires the performance of it.

And lastly, If the power be the same, and the end the same, then the power must be frustrà and in vain, if it should not be p. 126put forth to the end. And the power should be wronged, and the institution of Christ also, if it should be hindered in the attaining that end.

And let any man shew any power, right or ability, that a Church in an Iland hath to dispense any Ordinance: and it will clearly appear every particular Congregation hath as much, For,

1. All the dispensations of such a Church issue from the intrinsecall power of the Rulers called by Christ to the work, and so it doth in all other Congregations.

2. If neighbourhood of other Churches, be but a separable adjunct, it can add nothing to the constitution, and so to the operation of the Church, for the nature of such adjuncts touch not the essence or constitution of the thing in any measure.

But neighbourhood is but a separable adjunct, as experience and common sense can testify; because either death, or dissention may take away some Churches, and nullifie them, and yet some particulars are preserved.

3. Suppose a Church gathered and erected on a continent in the wildernesse, and is there alone. If this Church could act all these censures, and dispense all Ordinances, before any other was planted by them: and if those that come after, do abridge them of that liberty, they have power over them: but power they have none, for one Congregation hath not power over another.

4. Besides, Those operations which a Congregation puts forth, out of the authority of the Office and Officers, which they have received from Christ, and for which they are called, those operations ought not to be abridged.

5. Nay, If the Officers and Offices remain the same, they ought not, they cannot be abridged. Where the same intrinsecall power of constitution according to God remains unaltered, there the operations remain the same.

Obj. If it be said, they should submit to a combination of Churches, as well as combine as members of a particular Congregation.

Answ. This is, Petere principium, To beg the question.

2. Suppose they will not, then the other Churches cannot exact or command that, no more then a particular Congregation p. 127can command me to be a member.

3. They ought not so to combine as to prejudice the operations of that power, which they have received of Christ, and which they are injoyned to put forth accordingly. And let there be any warrant shewed out of the word, that any person or Church hath power to hinder the operation of a Pastour or ruling elder, in any one act of his office, more then in another.

And Lastly, It hath been proved, that the addition of any thing besides an Office adds no power or right of Jurisdiction. Ground third supra.

6. If the ground of the combination be of no force, nor carries any validity with it. Then the combination and classis falls with it.

But the ground which is given, is a meer fallacy, and hath no validity in it, Namely, The preventing or curing the taint and pollution that a scandall will bring by the neernesse of cohabitation.

That this is no ground it will thus appear.

If the scandall in an ordinary course may, and will fall out among those that are nearer, then many in the combination: then this neernesse is not a sufficient cause of it.

At primum: As in case members trade among people of another Classis, and give scandalous example there.

2. They who live at the outside of the combination, are nearer the Congregation of another Classis then their own.

3 The Scandall given, it goeth far and wide into the provinces and nations also.

Besides, the righteous proceeding according to the rule of Christ in a particular Congregation is a cure appointed to remove the polluting and infecting power of the scandall, be it done never so far off, or never so neer.

Section. 4.

The third sort of grounds taken from the nature of a Church.

1. A Church in the Gospel is never used only for Elders.

2. There cannot be a Definition given, that will agree to a congregationall and Presbyteriall Church.

3. If the Congregations be species specialissimae of a true Church, then there can be no lower species resulting or arising from them, as this doth,

p. 1284. If every Congregation hath all the Integrall parts of a Church, then it is an intire and compleat Church.

But it hath all sorts of Officers, as Rulers and People ruled.

5. If the Classis add no other Officer to them, then they add no new power of such Jurisdiction, because that issues from them.

6. Every Integrum is made up of his members, therefore in nature they are before, therefore Churches before Classis. Therefore what each have they receive from them, therefore they have no Officers but from them, therefore both Ordination and Jurisdiction come from them.

Section. 4.

How far a particular Congregation is bound to meet in one place

Our practice here will be the best exposition of our opinion, and that is usually thus.

In case the Congregation grow too big. and therefore be forced to swarm out, Or in case they transplant themselves from one place to another; So that, par… be forced to go before to make preparation for those that follow, we then send one Officer with the smaller Party, and the greater number remain with the rest: and yet are all but one Church in our account, and under one Presbytery of Elders, chosen Rulers of the Congregation.

But when the Congregations are fixed, and they established in peace, and setled with support about them, there should be no more, then may comely and comfortably meet together, to partake of all Ordinances, the use and benefit of the labour of their Officers.

Hence an Answer may be easily accommodated to the examples, which M. R. brings, for the evidencing of a Presbyterian Church.

1. That of the Apostles Church will in no wise suit his end, or serve his turn, or make good the question. For to make up a Presbyteriall Church, there must be many Congregations, many Elders appropriated to these Congregations, which have power over their own only, and not over others: These must combine, and upon the combination these Elders must assemble, and dispense their censures, and set down their decisions.

But there were no Elders appropriated to their severall charges p. 129and Churches, which had power only over them. And such Elders the Apostles could not be, because though they had all power in them, yet they had no power limited, for that did implicare, and contradict their Apostolicall commission.

The rest of the examples, of Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, though it were granted, that upon their greater growth and increase, and so want of Elders, they might meet in divers places for the while, these might still be under one Presbytery, their Officers in a distinct manner attending upon them. And therefore Gersom Bucerus his answer suits here, Quis adeò ineptire sustinuerit, &c. that because they met in divers places they were under divers Presbyteries or Elders.

2. It doth not appear out of any text, nor any evicting argument gathered therefrom, that (setting aside the Church of Ierusalem) they should need meet in severall places.

3. Let it be considered, whether by Church, many Churches may not be intended, as Saul made havock of the Church, i. of all the faithfull members of all Congregations.