SECTION I. Wherein is examined his Analysis and Explication of the Text, for laying a Ground to his Doctrine, concerning the Matter of the VISIBLE CHURCH.

section 1 IN the entrance I must professe it was a matter of some wonder to me, when this Piece came first to my hands, to see a man of such account as M^r. Lockyer, for grounding his Doctrine he inten­ded, pitch upon this Passage of Scripture; which I am ready to think few else would have dreamed much appearance of weight could been laid on for that purpose. Sure, a man that would in Preaching hold forth to the People of God Doctrine as truth and received from the Lords mouth, and would convince people that it is such, had need be sure that the Scripture he presents for it, doth indeed carry it, either expresly, or by necessary and evident consequence. Otherwayes, as he doth much wrong his own cause, giving his hearers that are judi­cious occasion to suspect the Doctrine, can have little or no [Page 2] ground at all in Scripture, when they see that which is presented to them as the very seat of i [...] ▪ giveth it no light: so he doth nota­bly abuse the Word of God, and I may say, in a kinde, take his Name in vain, before his people, by alledging the Lord to speak and give a testimony to a point, by a Scripture wherein it is not at all intended. Yea let a point of Doctrine be most true and ne­ver so certain in it self (such as that maintained in this Lecture is not, as we trust, through the Lords assistance, to make evident) yet to Preach it from a Text that speaketh it not, is an abuse of the Word of God. If there be not just cause of charging this upon M^r. Lockier here, I leave it to be judged by all discerning and un­partiall Readers from what followeth in this Section.

section 2 In the next Section I purpose to state the Question in hand as clearly as I can, and ingenuously to bound the differences between us. Now in a word only take notice what M^r. Lockiers purpose intended in this Lecture is, to treat of the proper and allowed mat­ter of a visible Church; which he will have to be such persons on­ly, as are truely converted, sanctified, and sealed by the Spirit of God as his; at least so far as men truely converted and very spiri­tuall can discern, (of which additionall qualification afterward) and his Text for this Doctrine is, Acts 15. v. 3 And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Sa­maria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. Now let's see what the Author bringeth for evidencing his point, or any thing like it, to ly in, this Text.

section 3 The principall things (saith he) in this vers. are these, viz. a Church of the New Test. described by its proper matter, and by a proper effect and operation, which this hath upon such who are indeed turned unto the Lord, and able to discern spirituall beauty. and glory: it causeth great joy to all such. [And being brought on by the Church] what the matter of this Church is, read the next words and they will tell you,—they declared the conversion of the Gentiles, pag. 2. and 3. begin. Ans. That the Holy Ghost here intendeth as the principall purpose, to describe a visible. Church of the New Test. by the proper constituent matter there­of, is but the meer conceit of the Author forced upon the Text, [Page 3] and no wayes deduceable from the words themselves; the genuine purpose of the words being simply to note some circumstances of Paul and Barnabas and the other Commissioners joyned with them, their journey from Antioch to Jerusalem, whether they were sent for resolution upon the Question then in controversie at Antioch. As 1. The Christian courteous respect that the Church at Antioch put upon them, they were brought on their way. 2. What these commissioners did as they were on their journey: that they declared to the Christians that lay in their way, that same thing that they had declared before at Antioch, Chap. 14. v. 27. viz. that God had been mightily with the Preaching of the Gospel even amongst the Gentiles, so that many of them (as the Story rela­teth the particular countries and places, Chap. 13, and 14.) were converted to the Christian Religion. 3. What effect this pro­duced amongst the Christians to whom it was declared: that they had great joy at these tydings, that the Kingdome of Christ was so spreading, and that even the Gentiles were brought in to it. Here indeed are grounds of usefull points of Doctrine: but what is all to that which M^r. Lockier intends, the description of a visible Church by its proper matter? A Church visible to M^r. Lockier is a particular Congregation participating together the Ordinances of Christ. Doth it any wayes appear that the Spirits intention in these words, is to describe unto us what sort of persons were ad­mitted into the constitution of such a Congregation? viz. as he would have it, not any professours whosoever, but such only as were tryed and found, by truely converted, and very spiritual men, able to discern and judge, to be truely regenerate. What evidence is brought to shew that this is intended in the Text? This, to wit, that first it is said, being brought on by the Church, and then, sayes he, what the matter of this Church is, the next words tells, they declared the conversion of the Gentiles. Answer. What? must these latter words be a description of that thing which is mentioned in the first, i. e. the Church, viz. of Antioch (for that is the Church spoken of there) because, for­sooth, the one followeth immediately after the other in the series of the narration? I must say this is strange Logick, and interpre­ting of Scripture. I am not here to deny but the Church of An­tioch [Page 4] did consist of such as are here mentioned, i. e. converted Gentiles: but my purpose is to shew how impertinently the Au­thor hath chosen and made use of this Scripture to be his Text for his Doctrine concerning the matter of a visible Church.

section 4 That this may yet more clearly appear, I desire the Reader to consider, that the Historian Luke is not in these two Clauses of this Verse, pitcht upon by M^r. Lockier as a ground of his Doctrine, re­lating the words of one mans continued discourse; so as the one part of them might be taken as exegetick of the other; or as inten­ded to expresse a description of the thing contained in the other; but is relating two diverse actions of two distinct p [...]rties, as cir­cumstances of Paul and Barnabas journey: one, reall, of the Church of Antioch their Christian courtesie in bringing them on a part of their way: The other (so to call it) verball, viz. the discourse that Paul and Barnabas themselves had amongst the Christians by whom they passed, viz. that the Gentiles were con­verted to the Christian Faith: so that any man, that hath but half an eye, may easily perceive that these terms Church and con­verted Gentiles, stands not in the words in relation one to another as a definitum and a definitio, or as a compound and the matter of which it is compounded. Therefore it is but a forcing of the Text, to make up of these two this Doctrine as intended in the words [A visible Church consists of converted ones as its proper matter] what ever truth may be in it of it self. This, I said before, I am not questioning now: but would discover the inconsideratnes of chu­sing and making use of this Text for that purpose, and adds but this: seeing in preaching the Word of GOD aright, any enunciative Do­ctrine which is propounded from a Text, if it ly not in the Text, in expresse and formall, or equivalent terms, yet should be de­duceable by good consequence from it: I humbly desire that M^r. Lockier would build a clear Syllogisme upon any enunciation in this Text, inferring this Conclusion, [the proper matter of a visible Church is converted ones] for in this Text it is not said ex­presly and immediatly, as he would seem to say in the next pro­gresse in these words: The complexion of a visible Church under the Gospel is here said to be conversion: the constituting matter, converted ones. This much might suffice for answer to this Text, [Page 5] as it is alledged by M^r. Lockier for to be a proof of the Doctrine intended in this Lecture: for, unlesse it be first supposed that con­version of the Gentiles is here mentioned and set down as a descri­ption of the visible Church mentioned before; all the pains taken by him afterward to clear what is meant by conversion, is to little purpose, for proof of the point intended, as from this Text. Yet we shall be at the pains to take into consideration what followeth in the opening up of the Text, lest we seem purposely to passe over any thing which may be alledged to speak for the point maintained by the Author. I confesse it had been fitter that the controversie had been first stated: but I am resolved to follow the tract of Mr. Lockiers discourse, that I may shunne the smallest appearance of wronging him. Go we on then.

section 5 They declared the conversion of the Gentiles: what conversion was this? A meer outside conversion, pag. 3. Nay, would the Author say, an inside truely gracious, heart-conversion. Ans. 1. Do we, any of us, whom the Author takes for his Adversaries, say that no more at all is meant here but a meer outside conversion? He but fains an Adversary and wrongeth us, by intimating so much. We conceive thus, that by Conversion here is meant a forsaking and relinquishing of the Heathnish, and a turning unto and em­bracing the Christian Religion (as the Nether Dutch Notes on the place expound) De Bekee­ringe] [...]el, tot de Chri­stilick Reli­gie. i. e. Conversi­on] viz. to the Chri­stian Reli­on. no wayes excluding, but comprehending un­der it also the inward heart-turning by true faith to Christ: but withall we think it cannot be warrantably said, that when Paul and Barnabas made this declaration of the conversion of the Gen­tiles, they meant that all and every one of these Gentiles turned from Heathenism to the Christian Religion, had also the inward work of gracious conversion and faith in their heart. This had been contrary to truth; for some of the converted Heathens, no doubt, had no more but the profession of Christianity, the preaching of the Gospel being as a draw net that catches good fishes and bad together, and the outward Kingdom of GOD, as a field wherein are tares and wheat growing together. Nor yet can it be said that Paul and Barnabas in that declaration meant, that all and every one of these Gentiles they spake of, were such, viz. true heart­converts to their positive judgement, and so far as men truely con­verted [Page 6] and very spirituall were able to discern. This appears not out of the words of the Text: for first, I think the Apostle speaks of Conversion as including gracious heart-conversion, in the verity of the thing or Object: and not only in the charitative judgement of discerning men; tho not restrictively. M^r. Lockiers addita­ment, viz. [According to what a Christian can discern of a Chri­stian, or in so far as men, &c.] is his own and not the Texts; yea I conceive 'tis contrary to the intention of the Text: because I no wayes doubt but the Apostles meant positively that there was amongst these Gentiles heart-conversion in the verity of the thing. But that which M^r. Lockier sayes by his additament may be con­tradictorily opposite to that: men may be accounted heart-con­verts in the charitable judgement of very discerning Christians, and yet not be heart-converts indeed. 2. Granting that to be the meaning which Mr. Lockier saith to be, in his additament; yet can any thing be alledged from the words, that will import, it must be understood universaliter de omnibus & singulis, i. e. universally of all and every one of these Gentiles: and may not be understood as spoken only de multitudine communiter & indefi [...]i­tè, i. e. of the multitude of them? yet forasmuch as Mr. Lockier hath not alledged, much lesse proved the former hitherto; he hath alledged nothing to his purpose in hand. And yet, although he hath both alledged and proven this much, he had said but little to his purpose; unlesse he could also prove that the Apostles, in that declaration, were speaking of these converted Gentiles with relation to stating in visible Church-membership: which thing he onely supposeth, but doth not so much as hint at a proof thereof from this Text.

section 6 But go we on to consider his Arguments brought to prove his interpretation of Conversion here spoken of (which yet he need­ed not prove, for we have granted more of it then he craves) that we may see if there be any thing therein making for his main pur­pose. The 1. lyeth in these words: Surely if the Brethren had apprehended no more in them (i. e. the Gentiles, of whom Paul and Barnabas spake) viz. then a meer outside conversion, they would have had little matter of great joy. Answ. 1. We say not that the apprehending of no more, was the matter of this their [Page 7] great joy: but will the Author say, that, unlesse they had appre­hended more then outside conversion in all and every one of them (which is a thing he must of necessity take along with him, if he will say any thing to his purposeFor his minde is that these Gentiles are spoken of in relati­on, and as matter of a visible Church, & his doctrin is, that none other, not one other, no not in a whole Church, are fit matter of a visible Church but such as are, &c.) they would had little matter for great joy? I think hee'll be advised before he say so. 2. Nor am I of the mind that outside conversion, i. e. embracing of the Profession of the Gospel and Christian Religion, is so litle a matter of joy to the people of God, as the Author seems to make account. Sure, it could not but be matter of right great joy to the LORDS true people of the Jews▪ for to see Japhet perswaded to dwell in the tents of Shem, (i. e.) the Gentiles by embracing the profession of the Gospel added to the Common-wealth of Israel, and fel­lowship of the Church of God. And it shall be no small matter of joy to Gentile-Christians when they shall see the body of the Jews ingraffed again into the Church. Even outward professing of, and submitting to the Gospel, is honourable to Christ in the world, and so is spoken of in Scripture: though it alone be not the full duty of men, nor sufficient to save them.

section 7 I might, ere I went on further, note here, that whereas the Au­thor in the next words propounds the explaining of moe tearms then one of his Text (for, saith he, let us take tearms as they ly, and see how other Scriptures do explain them) yet in the fol­lowing discourse, I find all runs upon one tearm, viz. conversion, or, converted ones: But to insist upon every such small thing, is not worth the while. Let us see what is said further upon that, what these converted ones (saith he) were according to what Christian can discern of Christian is the thing to be inquired into pag. 3. Ans. Nay, not this only, but two other things also, ought to have been inquired into and made out. 1. Supposing that true heart-conversion is understood here; that the Apostles in their declaration affirmed this universally of all and every one of these Gentiles. 2. That in declaring and affirming this, they did speak with relation to their stating in Church-membership: at least that the Historian Luke reports it in that relation. Neither of which the Author proveth, or so much as once undertaketh to prove: so that, what followeth, tho granted, makes little for the point he driveth at. But we go on.

Paul and Barnabas who were master-builders, and surely very seeing men, that they might not make a meer report, took of those converted ones with them, were brought on by the Church. We tell you (as if they had said) of such glad tydings touching the Gentiles: but what they are, see your selves: here they are: dis­course with them: see if they have not the same soul-complexion with your selves, whether they have not received the same spirit of Adoption, owning and experiencing the same grace of God which ye do. Ans. Here's a pretty fiction or Poesie, but nothing of Lukes Text: yea but something quite contrair to it. 1. The Author saith Paul and Barnabas, that they might not make a meer report (viz. touching the Gentiles conversion, but might shew living present instances thereof) took of those converted ones with them. What hint can he give us from the Text for this? it saith a farre other thing, viz. first that they (i. e. the Church of Antioch) ordained some in joint commission for to go to Je­rusalem about the question then in controversie: and then, that these Cōmissioners were brought on their way by the Church. i. e. (as Grotius exponeth it will, aliquous (que) deducti à fidelium qui­busdam, i. e.) they were convoyed on a part of their journey by some of the Church. This was a Christian, affectionat courtesie, and respect put upon them by the Church: So M^r. Lockier him­self exponeth it, pag. 2. l. 1, 2, 3. forgetting himself in so short bounds. 2. What hint or ground of the least conjecture can he point us at in the Text, that these Commissioners, when they told the Conversion of the Gentiles, did set up some of those Gentiles, before the Churches by which they passed, to be discoursed with, tryed, and examined concerning their soul-complexion, the Spirit of Adoption, their experiences in the work of grace? nugae. 3. He will have those Gentiles whom he thinks the Commissioners brought thus upon the stage, to be the same by whom they were brought on their way. But first, how shall we know that those that brought them on their way were Gentiles and not Jews? for sure, the Church at Antioch did not consist of Gentiles only, and it is not like that the whole Church of Antioch went along with them, and was thus set up. Again, how will it be made out, that those who brought them on their way, went so far on with them as [Page 9] Phenice and Samaria, where the Declaration was made? Hug. Grot. a man well skill'd in the Greek Language, tho little to be respected in Dogmaticks of Divinity, gives us to understand the contrary, from the genuine signification of the word; for saith he [...] i. e. alioquousque deducti à quibusdam fidelium: nam [...] non est se comitem dare itineri, sed honoris causâ aliquòusque prosequi: much more might be noted in this passage, but enough. I leave it to all indifferent Readers, if this be not to do violence to the Word of God, and to make the Scripture speak what a man himself fancies: if not, I know not what is. Yet when all is done, one thing is omitted by M^r. Lockier in this pretty fiction, which, as is the old Scottish Proverb, is the tongue of the Trump. For to all that he makes to have been the substance of the Commissioners Declaration, he should have added this also as spo­ken by them, And we assure you that all and every one of the Gentiles converted to Christian Religion, at least all of them that are admitted to the fellowship of Visible Churches, not one of them excepted, no, not one, in a whole Church, are just such as these you see, of that same soul-complexion, &c. Without this, the rest will not give a certain sound to his purpose. And there is as much ground for this as for the rest in the Text, and that is nec vola, nec vestigium.

section 10 We proceed. That there was an effectuall work (viz. of true saving Grace) wrought in the hearts of those my Text speaks of, I judge will sufficiently appear, by comparing with my Text these Scriptures, Act. 11. 20, 21, 23. Ans. 1. M^r. Lockier supposeth, at least ought suppose, if he would have his Argument here hold good, that these spoken of in his Text, and these spoken of, Act. 11. 20. the Grecians, are the same persons. But first, some judicious Interpreters, namely the Nether-Dutches, understand by these, the Jews that used the Greek tongue, and the Greek versi­on of the Bible. And indeed the name is [...], ordinarily used for those, and not [...] used for the Gentiles: though I know Beza and others judge otherwayes. But however, understand we Gentiles; yet these were but a small part of them spoken of in M^r. Lockiers Text, whom Hugo Grotius, on the word [...] in the Text, reckoneth up thus, n. Cornelii, Antiochensium, Cy­priorum, [Page 10] Pisidarum, Pamphiliorum, Lycaniorum, Lyciorum. 2. What ever they be, that are spoken of there, Act. 11. yet it can not be proven from any thing in these verses cited, that all and every one of them, had an effectuall work of saving Grace wrought in their hearts. Nay, nor will the Author himself abide by so much; but will come presently in with this qualification, according to what Christian can discern of Christian: which may be no ef­fectuall saving work at the heart at all. I deny not absolutely that there was such effectuall work wrought in hearts amongst them: But I deny that the Text imports that there was such a work in the hearts of all and every one of them. Ye will say, what then mean these expressions? 1. the hand (i. e. the mighty power of the Lord) was with them, viz. that Preached the Gospel, ver. 21. 2. A great number beleeved and turned to the Lord, ibidem. 3. When he came and had seen the Grace of God, v. 23. Ans. 1. It was no small work of the hand of God to bring these men to embrace the Profession of the Christian Religion. Yet I doubt not but the hand of God was effectuall to more. Only I say, it appea­reth not from the Text that it was effectuall to both in a like ex­tension. 2. We know that men are said in Scripture to believe, and to be converted in respect of serious profession: yet I deny not but there was here also, saving heart-believing and Conversion. But it cannot be demonstrate out of the Text, that all of them be­leeved and were converted in this sense. 3 By the grace of God, that Barnabas is said to have seen, is meant the effectuall working thereof in bringing so many to imbrace the Doctrine of the Gospel; as also, I make no doubt, captivating hearts to the obedience of it: but whether all and every one of their hearts, is not said. Nay, the very words of Barnabas exhortation may seem to give an hint that he spake as supposing it might be otherwayes with some of them, he exhorted them all with purpose of heart to cleave unto the Lord. With purpose of heart, i. e. (saith Beza) Non frigi­dè nec simulatè, sed syncero & ardenti studio, quod Hebraei totius cordis appellatione significant, ut ve [...]runt Syrus & Arabs In­terpretes. As if he had said, ye professe now the faith of Jesus Christ: see that ye content not your selves with profession alone, which may evanish: but adhere to him with a sincere, fervent, constant, heart-resolution.

section 11 The Author goeth on by way of confirmation, thus: The next verse (viz. Acts 11. 25.) tells us that he found out Saul and brought him to this Church of Antioch, where they abode a whole year: and these Converts were first called Christians. Barnabas is here said to be a man full of the Holy Ghost, and therefore able to taste his communion,—and he and Paul together, might be competently able to give a judgement what they found amongst these first Christians; and I think 'tis very dangerous to say, that as far as they could apprehend, these first Christians had not both name and thing, for which commended, and in which by these worthies joyed in, pag. 5. Answ. Here is, I may say, much sand without lyme. 1. The Gentiles of whose Conversion, Act. 15. 3. speaks, were of many more places besides Antioch. Now suppose all here alledged were granted; what evidence can Mr. Lockier give us, that Paul and Barnabas, or any such other persons com­petentlie able to judge, had stayed as long in every one of these other places? 2. But to hold our selves to this Church of Antioch: I confesse indeed it were dangerous universally to say, that these first Christians at Antioch had not (I say not only, as Mr. Lockier hath it, as far as able men could apprehend, but) in very deed, both name and thing, i. e. gracious heart-Christianity: But I see it not so very dangerous to say that not all and every one of them had so much. Nay, I think it very dangerous positively to say they had: for 'tis clearly contrary to what the Scripture speaketh of the effect and successe of the Preaching of the Gospel. and to many passages of this very Story of the Acts. 3. True, Paul and Barnabas were discerning men, able to give a good judgement in so much time, what they found amongst those Christians. But what evidence can the Author give us from the Text, that this was their intended work during that space, to examine and try what heart was in every one of these Professours, and that in relation to constituting them a Visible Church after that tryall, and judgment passed thereupon? The only work we find mentioned in the Text, ver. 26. is their teaching, they taught much people. And there is nothing in it so much as hinting at this, that they were not in state of a Visible Church, untill, after that whole years tryall, Paul and Barnabas had given judgement what they did find amongst [Page 12] them as to their inward spirituall estate. Nay, there is a right ap­parent intimation that all along that years space, they were a Vi­sible Church and so esteemed: a whole year they assembled them­selves with the Church, or, in the Church, [...]. 4. I will note but another thing here. The Author intimateth that Barna­bas, his being full of the Holy Ghost, is spoken of in that Text in relation to, and as the Principle of tasting, trying, and judging these Christians soul-complexion for Church communion with them, this is a [...]eer forgerie: It being clear as day light, that 'tis mentioned as the reason and Principle of the zealous exhorting them to sincere and constant continuing in the faith.

section 12 He goeth on thus. In particular Churches some competent judgement may be made of every particular member, by able men in a long tract of time: And so are these worthies else where said with this Church to have had intimat communion, Act. 14. 27, 28.—And there they abode a long time with the Disciples, pag. 5, 6. Answ. I wonder how M [...]. Lockier, speaking of the judgement touching Church members, their qualification as members, talks of it as given by some that are able men: when as the way, main­tained by his side, of judging and admitting Church members, re­quireth this to be done by the decisive votes of all and every one in the Church: all which cannot be supposed to be such able men as he speaks of. But to the purpose in hand: true, able men in a long tract of time, having conversed with every particular member of a Church, may be able to give a good judgement of them: but the matter in question is, in thesi, whether such a judgement grounded upon a tryall of so long a time, must be antecedent to their stateing in Church-membership. And in the hypothesis of the particular now in hand, whether Paul and Barnabas, had so long a time intimat communion with the Antiochian professors, and thereby gave a judgement upon them concerning their spiri­tuall estate, before they were constitute in a Visible Church. This M^r. Lockier should have alledged and made good, if he would had a solide ground for his Doctrine intended. But doth the Pas­sage cited, Acts 14. 27, 28. say any thing for this purpose? Now I report my self for judgement upon this, to any Reader of ordi­nary common capacity; let him but take this to consideration: [Page 13] that before the time of this abode at Antioch, mentioned Acts 14. 28. Barnabas, after the work of the Gospel begun at Antioch, had come thither sent from Jerusalem: he and Paul had Preached there together a whole year, they had gone in commission sent by the Antiochian Christians, with a relief to the distressed Brethren at Jerusalem, Chap. 11. and had returned again, Chap. 12. 25. And having stayed there some time, by speciall Divine appointment they are sent abroad through the Nations about to Preach the Go­spel: and having after a long peregrination returned again to An­tioch, then is said that Chap. 14. 28. and there they abode a long time with the Disciples. Now were not the Antiochians stated in a Visible Church, untill judgement was given upon them after intimat communion in this time of abode? I might bring a multitude of Arguments to prove the contrary from severall pas­sages of the Story going before: But I need go no further then the immediat preceeding Verse, v. 27. When they were come and had gathered the Church. But it may haply be said that the Au­thor brings this Passage to shew, not what tryall and knowledge Paul and Barnabas had of them before they were stated Mem­bers in a Church Visible; but what they might had of them to be a warrantable ground of their report made touching them, Chap. 15. 3. Answer. If so, then say I he alledges it to no purpose as to his scope in this Lecture: for his intention is to have Paul and Bar­nabas, Chap. 15. 3. speaking of the qualification of these Gentiles in relation to their stating in a Visible Church, and accordingly thereupon to build a generall Doctrine touching the proper matter of a Visible Church.

section 13 Adde (saith he) to this, Acts 15. where you shall see further what is solemnly asserted of these Converts in severall verses, as v. 8. And God which knoweth the hearts beareth them witnesse, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us, and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Here is a Text to some purpose: God which knoweth the hearts bea­reth them witnesse, &c. That they have the like powerfull spirituall receptions with the best of them at Jerusalem: And indeed I think it dangerous for any to affirm that all these expressions might not mean effectuall grace, or else be spoken of some only, but not of the [Page 14] whole. Compare with this, v. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19. what he con­cludes, Wherefore my sentence is, &c. pag. 6, 7. Ans. Here is indeed a Text to some; yea to a very great purpose, viz. for the end for which it was spoken by the Apostle Peter, that is, to prove that Circumcision and the rest of the yoke of the Ceremoniall Law, ought not to be imposed upon the Gentiles converted to the Faith. The Argument is clear and undenyable. GOD the Searcher of hearts hath born witnesse to the Gentiles by giving to them the Holy Ghost, as well as to the Circumcised Jews, and without putting difference, purifying their hearts through faith in JESUS CHRIST Preached by the Gospel alone, without Circumcision and other Ceremoniall Performances. Therefore it is his will, that Circumcision, &c. bee not imposed upon them, as not be­ing necessary to Justification and Salvation. This is the plaine and sole intention and drift of that Passage of Scripture. But sure I am 'tis to little or no purpose, for Mr. Lockiers purpose: For howsoever it be true that 'tis clear from this Text, that there was a work of effectuall saving grace amongst these Gentiles spo­ken of, and I do agree with him this far; that it were dangerous, yea most clearly false and contradictory to the words of the Text, to affirm that these expressions might not mean effectuall saving grace; yet I say first, that the Apostle Peter was not here speak­ing of this work of saving grace, as the necessary qualification for constituting persons capable of Visible Church-membership. 2. Albeit, in these expressions spoken of the Gentiles, there be not definitely a restriction to some only (as M [...]. Lockier would seem to insinuate that we say) yet the expressions are such as may be veri­fied being understood of some only, and not of all and every one: because they are indefinitè. Any Boy that hes learned the Rudi­ments of Logick knowes that there are enunciations particular, which speaks of some of a kind, definitely: and enunciations uni­versall, which speaks of all and every one of a kind, definitely: and enunciations indefinitè which in their form, speaks neither of some only, nor of all and every one of a kind definitely, but inde­finitely of the kind: and that such indefinite enunciations, may be truely exponed, either particularly of some only, or universal­ly, of all and every one, proratione materiae contingentis vel ne­cessariae, [Page 15] according as the nature of the things, contingent or ne­cessary, leadeth us. But now, will the Author, upon serious deli­beration, say that which he hes uttered here, viz. that what the A­postle speaketh in the Text of the Gentiles, indefinitly, viz. that God had purified their hearts by believing, must be understood universal­ly of all and every one of them that were turned to Christianitie? Nay, I know he'll salve the matter with his qualification, according to what Christian can discern of Christian, and so far as men, &c. But 1. This is an addition to the Text, whereof there is not the least insinuation in the Text. 2. Yea, the Text speaks clearly of such a purifying of hearts, as is in veritate rei, seu objecti, i. e. indeed: because it speaks of it in relation to the knowledge and Judgement of GOD the searcher of hearts, whose Judgement is alwayes according to Truth. But men esteemed to have hearts pu­rified, in the charitative judgement of men, let them be the most dis­cerning men, may notwithstanding not have purifyed hearts indeed.

section 14 The Author, having done with what we have hitherto been con­sidering, concludes and draws towards the Proposal of his Doctrine, thus; Having thus painfully and plainly laid the foundation by the Word, and by a simple and sincere judgment thereupon, with­out the least respect to any party, or self-interest in the world, as he knoweth to whom in this, as in all my wayes, I desire humbly to refer my self, I build thereupon this doctrine, &c. pag. 7. To which. It may be humbly conceived that the Author might have spared to speak of his painfulnesse and plainnesse, &c. and suffered the deed to speak alone for it self, and other men to judge there­upon, remembring that, Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth. But to passe this, grant that there has been some painfulnesse in the preceeding Discourse: yet if therein there has been plainly, or at all by the Word of God, a foundation laid for the ensuing Doctrine, I submit to be judged by any impartiall dis­cerning man, upon consideration of what hath been answered.

Thus I have done with the first Section, wherein if I have been somewhat large, yet I desire and hope the Reader will pardon it, considering that the Discourse I have been examining is laid down as the foundation of the Doctrine following: and that, besides the Text, sundry other Scriptures brought in to make the Text speak for it, were to be considered.

SECTION II. Mr. Lockyers Doctrine pondered, and the State of the Con­troversie between Us and the INDEPENDENT BRE­THREN, touching the necessary Qualification of Members of the VISIBLE CHURCH, cleared.

section 1 MR. Lockiers determination, touching the matter of a Visible Church, is pag. 7. fine and pag. 8. propounded in these words: The proper and allowed matter of a Visible Church, now in the dayes of the Gospel, is persons truly converted, such as God, who knoweth the hearts of all men, can bear witnesse of, as indeed sealed for his, by his Holy Spirit. (thus far he hath in a different Character, and then addeth, it would seem, by way of some ex­plication) I say, this is the matter we ought now to take, to raise again the Tabernacle of David, and none other, not one other, no not in a whole Church, so far as men truly converted, and very spirituall, are able to discern and judge.

section 2 First, I desire humbly to know of the Author, why he restri­cteth this Doctrine, touching this point, to the Visible Church, now in the dayes of the Gospel? For 1 I had ever thought it the received Doctrine of all Orthodox Reformed Divines, that the Churches of the Old and of the New Test are of one and the same nature, as to essentials; and that the difference between them standeth in accidentals only. 2. Why do many of his way-bring Arguments for this his Tenet, touching the allowed matter of a Visible Church, from Passages of the Old Test. spoken in relation to the then Church? 3. If the Visible Church in the dayes of the Old Test. might have consisted of others, as allowed matter, then are described here (which his restriction insinua­teth) i. e. of persons not truly converted, &c. then, to borrow his Arguments brought afterward. 1. Either Christ was not the Rock and foundation of that Church, and that Church not a buil­ding being and bearing upon him, as a superstruction: or else then there might have been no Symmetrie, but Antilogie and Antistasie; no agreement, but a fighting of the materials of the building with [Page 17] the foundation, and one with another: and yet the building might stand well enough, such incongruous superstructions, and unsuite­able to the foundation, were good enough then. 2. Either that Church was not the Church of the living God, such as in which God lives, dwels and walks: or then God did live and dwell in dead persons, who only make a Profession of Religion: and then, either the Church was not a pillar and ground to bear up truth unto the world: or dead persons, who only made a Profession of Religion, might have done that office well enough. 3. Then either in the Church of God there was none, at least there might have been a true Church offering, and yet no pure offering, no offering spiritual­or then a pure offering, i. e. service spirituall, holy and acceptable unto God, might have been offered by persons who only did pro­fesse Religion, were dead stones, having nothing of spirituality in them, but meer formality: and so hypocriticall, and amongst the number of them that are most abominable. Let the Author, if he hold that difference, intimated in his restriction, between the Churches of the Old and New Testam. extricate himself of these things: which, I am much deceived, if he shall be able to do, un­lesse either he retract his restriction, or otherwise shoar upon some Socinian and Anabaptistick Fancy concerning the ancient Church.

section 3 Secondly, Let it be marked here, that M^r. Lockier clearly asser­teth that the necessary and essentiall qualification, absolutely re­quisite to constitute persons, matter, or in a capacity to be Members of a Visible Church, is true saving Grace known to God the searcher of hearts: and that is such grace in the verity of the thing, and not on­ly in the judgment of charity. Others in the Independent way, have spoken more warily in this matter; though indeed I confesse I do not see how, considering their prosecution of the point and the Ar­guments they use in it, they do not run into this same in the issue. However, it may hence appear, it was not for nought that the Author said in his Epistle to the Reader, That he has spoken with more plain dealing then some other of his Brethren who have wrote of this Subject.

section 4 But haply it may be said that he explaineth himself in the next words, viz. so far as men converted are able to discern and judge. Which seemeth to import a resolving of the matter into the judge­ment [Page 18] of charity. Ans. This seemeth not sufficiently to salve the mater, for this additament seemeth to be brought in rather to ex­presse the mean whereby persons so qualified as is said before (viz. truly converted, &c.) are to be found out; then to expresse any thing in the objective qualification of the mater of a visible Church. And certainly the Arguments brought afterward by the Author to confirm his Thesis, speak all for men godly in the truth of the thing, as will appear when we come at them.

section 5 The third thing I would have marked in the Authors proposall of his Doctrine, is this, that the judges by whose estimation men are to passe as the qualified mater of a Visible Church, are by him determined to be men truely converted and very spirituall. All Writers of the Independent way, have not, I confesse, come to my hand: but of these I have seen, I remember of none that saith this much: so that it seemeth to be a new conception of his own, touching which I humbly desire satisfaction in these particulars. 1. By this, when a person desireth to be admitted a member of a Church, it followeth that his qualification is to be judged, not by the estimation of the whole Church, but of some speciall members thereof: which is point-blank contrary to the Independent way of Government. The consequence I prove. 1. thus: Either it must be said that all and every one of the Church are truely converted de facto: or if that be not said, this which we have said doth una­voidably follow: but the former will not be undertaken by the Author; because it is point-blank contrary to plain Scripture, tel­ling us that many are called but few chosen: and this is confessed by such as are most peremptory for his way of Church constituti­onBarrow discov. false Church, p. [...]0. Ains­worth.. Objection. Ay, but all are true Converts in the judgment of charity. Answ. Such explanation is not mentioned or hinted by the Author when he speaketh to this point of the Judges, by whose estimation Church-mater is to passe. 2. I prove the con­sequence thus: M^r. Lockier speaketh of such men to be Judges, as are not only truely converted, but also very spirituall. Now ve­ry spirituall importeth, I conceive, in plain English, if not a super­lative degree, yet certainly somewhat above the meer positive; to be very spirituall, is more, yea much more then simply to be really and truely spirituall: So that either he must of necessity say [Page 19] that a Visible Church must consist of such only, who are not only, simply true converts; but also much more, far advanced Christi­ans; and so new born Babes, bruised reeds, and smoaking flax, must be held out, crushed, and quenched; or that which we said must follow. Now I suppose yet further that most part of the Congregation be spirituall, but in the positive degree, and onely two or three, or a few number in comparison, be very spiritual (cer­tainly this may be by our Brethrens way of constituting a Church: for they grant such as have any thing, the least thing in truth of Christ appearing in them, are not to be excluded) then the resolu­tion and judging of the whole businesse, must be devolved upon these few. Nay I must presse it yet further: Albeit it may be granted that when a Church is now compleatly constitute in its in­tegrality, and organized with all its members, it cannot be well sup­posed, but there will be therein some such men, very spirituall; at least Rulers; whom if so be they had not of themselves, while they were yet a gathering, yet it may well be supposed, that while they are yet but a gathering, all of them are but spirituall in the positive degree. For what hinders, but such a company of persons may come together to gather into a Church? Now, I pray, what shall be done in this case, if Church-mater in point of fitnesse must passe by the estimation of men, more then positive in spiritualitie? Must it be said in such a case that though they be all satisfied in con­science concerning the truth of one anothers conversion, Yet they are not fit mater to make themselves a Church? I would see sem­blance or shadow of reason for this. Yea it appeareth contrary to sound reason, because in homogeneall bodies (such as a Church is, by the Doctrine of our Brethren, in the instance and period we are now speaking to) what is sufficient to constitute a part, is suf­ficient also to constitute the whole. Therefore if Conversion and spiritualnesse in the positive degree, be sufficient for one member of the Visible Church, its sufficient also for the whole, I mean, con­sidered yet as totum homogeneum. The Author would do well to assay a clearing and extricating of these things upon his Principles.

section 6 The fourth thing to be considered is, that the Author hath cho­sen an ambiguous term to be the subject of his thesis, not distin­guishing nor shewing in what sense he takes it (which is not a little [Page 20] fault in determining contraverted points) while as he speaks thus, allowed mater of the Visible Church: For mater of a Visible Church may be said to be allowed in a double sense or relation, viz. either in regard of what is incumbent to a man himself by way of duty before God: or in regard of what is requisite in him by way of qualification in the outward Ecclesiastick Court, whereupon the Church may and ought to proceed in admitting him to the exter­nall communion of the Church. I confesse that none are mater of a Visible Church allowed in the former sense or relation, but such as are (not only so far as men most spirituall can discern or judge, but also) in very deed true converts and beleevers. Its a mans duty in professing Christianity and adjoyning himself to the Church of Christ, to beleeve with his heart as he professeth with his mouth; otherwise he is matter not approven, not allowed of God. But I beleeve its another thing to enquire what is mater of the Visible Church allowed in the latter sense: and thinks that advised men among our Brethren of the Independent way will say the same in the generall. Yet I trow it shall be found afterward that the strength and stream of our Authors Arguments, runs in the former; and so are little to the purpose of the Controversie between us and our Brethren, touching the mater of the Visible Church.

section 7 To make way for a more clear discovery of this, and to the ef­fect we may in the whole ensueing disput know what we are do­ing, and not fight in the dark Andabatarum more, it is necessary before we proceed further to open up and bound the state of the controversie, which M^r. Lockier hes not done, I cannot tell upon what intention; or if upon any design at all, and not rather out of pure neglect, or some other such thing. If he say he was Preach­ing to people, and not Disputing in the Schoole; and that there­fore it was not needfull, nor becoming, Scholastically to state a controversie. I Answ. Whether in Pulpit or Schoole, his purpose was to draw his hearers of this Nation from a Doctrine which they had learned and professed before the world, to a new way. Sure, ingenuous dealing would have required that the Doctrine of this Church, which he intended to refute, and to take them off, should been, once at least, plainly and simply propounded and presented [Page 21] before them. This he doth not all along, but in effect speaks so indirectly, as if we allowed all meer professours whatsoever, to be members of the Visible Church. Well, what he hes not done, we shall endeavour according to our weaknesse to do: and shall deal more liberally with his side, then he hes done with ours. Now then let these considerations be premised.

section 8 1. Let it be considered that this controversie is not about the Members of the Mysticall, Invisible Church, or of the Church ac­cording to its inward state: but of the Members of the Visible Church, as such; or of the Church according to its external state. The Church Mysticall, Invisible, or according to its inward state is the societie of men effectually called unto saving communion with Christ, to which doth belong, in the intention and purpose of God, all the promises of spirituall blessings pertaining to life and salvation. The Church Visible and considered according to its ex­ternall state, is the societie of men professing true Christian faith and Religion, for communion in the outward exercises of the Wor­ship and Ordinances of God: Admission of members into the Church Invisible is the work of God by the operation of the Spirit in Effectuall Calling and ingraffing men into Christ. Admission of members into the Church Visible, and according to its externall state is committed to the Pastors and Rulers of the Church, who being men, and so not seeing the inward constitution and condition of hearts, must look at things obvious to the senses, in their ad­ministration of this work. Whence, one may be orderly and lawfully admitted a member of the Church Visible, who is not a member of the Church Invisible. And about this our adversaries, I conceive, at least such as are most sound and intelligent amongst them, will make no controversie. Further, it is to be observed that the question and controversie between us and the Independent Brethren, much differs from that which is debated between the Papists and the orthodox concerning Church-members. The state of th [...] controversie with Papists, which they, and namely Bellar­mine, involve with many Sophismes, is truely and really this (as the judicious Ames. hes well observed, Bellar. Enerv. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 1. thesi. 10, others have not so well considered) whether the whole multitude of professours, comprehending as [Page 22] well unregenerate hypocrites and reprobats, as true elect believers, be that Church of Christ to which properly doth belong all these excellent things, spoken of the Church in Scripture, viz. that it is redeemed by Christ, the Body of Christ, the Spouse of Christ, quickened, acted and led by t [...]e Holy Spirit, partakers of all the spirituall blessings, so that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. Albeit Papists dare not state the question in these terms; yet the affirmative thereof is the thing they intend, that they might obtain a Catholick Visible Church at all times illu­striously visible, infallible, and unfailable; and that there Romane is it. But it is a far other matter that is debated between us and our present adversaries, viz. what persons are to be admitted and accounted to belong to the Church Visible, according to its out­ward state. So that these, who shall make use of Arguments used by Orthodox Writers, in shewing that not wicked, hypocrites and reprobates, but only the elect true beleevers are members of Christs Church, against us for affirming that all who outwardly do seri­ously professe the Christian faith are to be admitted, and account­ed members of the Visible Church: they are clearly in a great mis­take and impertinency.

section 9 2. Consider, we are to distinguish Visible Church-membership in actu primo, and in actu secundo. I must crave leave to use these terms, and shall explain what I mean by them. By the actus pri­mus of Church-membership, I mean such a state and condition of a person as makes that now he is not to be reckoned and looked upon by the Church, Pastors or Professours as [...] i. e. without, but [...], not as a stranger and alien, but as a Brother, 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12. And consequently may and ought to be overseen, cared for, and fed by the Pastours and Rulers of the Church, as a part of the flock, and by private professours dealt with in duties of Christian fellowship according to their and his capacitie. The actus secun­dus of Visible Church-membership, is [...] & fruitio, i. e. the fruition and actuall use of Church priviledges, ordinanc [...] ▪ and acts of outward Christian fellowship: This distinction is of neces­sary consideration in this controversie. For it is certain, one may be actually a member of the Visible Church in actu primo, and yet not actually injoy the use and exercise of all and every Church pri­viledge [Page 23] and ordinance, whereunto Church-membership gives him a right in habitu: Because unto the fruition of the actuall exercise of some priviledge and ordinance there may be required an especiall condition, which may be a man wanteth through some physicall incapacitie, or some morall defect. As under the Old Testament, per­sons that were undoubted members of the visible Church of Israel; yet might for some legall pollution, as an issue of blood, touching of a dead body, &c. been debarred from the publick Assemblies of the Church and Sacrifices for a time, untill they were cleansed from the pollution according to order instituted by God: So also one who is an acknowledged member of the Visible Church, being o­vertaken with a scandalous fault, and not carrying himself obstinat­ly, but submitting himself, may be kept from the actuall exercise and use of some Ordinances, untill the scandall be sufficiently re­moved, yet still, as is acknowledged on all hands, continue a Church-member in actu primo; and it hath been constantly held by Or­thodox Divines, untill Anabaptists arose, that Children under the Old Test▪ being born in the Church, were then, and now being born in the Christian Church are, even while under the years of discretion, members of the Visible Church. Although neither then they were, nor now are capable of actuall use and exercise of all Church-priviledges and Ordinances. Therefore it is one thing to enquire what is requisite to constitute one capable of Church-membership simpliciter and in actu primo; and another to enquire what is requisite to make one immediatly capable of actuall use and exercise of all and every Church-priviledge and Ordinance where­unto Church-membership doth entitle him.

section 10 3. Consider: we must difference between that which is required of a man, by way of duty in foro Dei, that he may adjoyn himself unto Church-communion, and participate Ordinances in such a manner as is necessary for his own salvation, and approving himself to God: and that which is required of him by way of qualificati­on in foro Ecclesiastico, that the Church may lawfully and orderly admit him to their externall communion, and thereafter respect, account, and deal with him as [...] i. e. amongst these that are within. The reason of this distinction is clear, because the duty of a man that will so adjoyn himself into the communion of the [Page 24] Church as is requisite for salvation, and for approving himself there­in to God, doth, no doubt, reach formally and directly the in­ward man, the frame and acting thereof: But the qualification re­quisite in the Ecclesiastick Court whereupon the Church is to pro­ceed in admitting or acknowledging men Church-members, doth consist (formally and directly, at least) only in somewhat outward and apparent to men: For it is a sure rule, de occultis non iudicat Ecclesia, as is confessed by Hooker, Survey, Part. 1. c. 2. pag. 15. speaking of the same purpose, and by M^r. Lockier himself, pag. 55.

section 11 4. Consider: There is an holinesse relative or adherent, and an holinesse absolute and inherent. The holinesse relative and ad­herent consisteth in the separation of a thing from a common use, and dedication of it unto some holy use or end. Holinesse absolute or inherent consisteth in qualities or actions of a person agreeable to the Law of GOD. In the former way, the stones of which the Temple was built are called stones of holinesse, Lam. 4. 1. So the Temple it self, the Vessels consecrated to the Worship of God, the City of Jerusalem, are called holy. In like manner persons in a speciall way set apart for the Worship of God, as the Priests and Levites, and especially the High Priest, are called holy. In like manner the whole People of Israel are said to be holy, Deut. 33. and to be sanctified by God, Exod. 31. 13. Lev. 8. 8. and 21. 8. and 22. 32. Because, to wit, God by entering in Covenant with them, had separated them from other people, and Adopted them to be a peculiar People for himself: in the same sense, 1 Cor. 7. 14. The Children born of one Parent at least a beleever, i. e. a Pro­fessour of Christian Religion are called holy, because they are com­prehended in the Covenant made with, and imbraced by the Pa­rents for themselves and theirs: and so are to be esteemed as among Christians separated from prophane people, and dedicated to God.

Again, holinesse is either inward and true, which consisteth in the inward renovation of the soul, faith, hope, love and other supernaturall habites and their elicite acts: Or externall, which consisteth in the Profession of the true and Orthodox Religion, and a conversation, so far as comes under mens knowledge, ordered ac­cording to the rule of Gods Commands, as is competent to humane [Page 25] weaknesse, i. e. without scandall, at least, contumacy and obsti­nacy in some given scandall, and comprehendeth also in it that ho­linesse relative and of dedication. Further it is worthy diligent observation here, that when it is said the Church is a societie of visible saints, this may be understood in a double sense; for the Epithete [visible] may either be taken as a note signifying not the nature of the form which gives the denomination of Saints or holy: but an adjunct thereof, viz. the notoreitie and manifestati­on of it before men. In which sense if it be taken in that descripti­on, visible Saints are such as by outward, manifest and evident signes and tokens are perceived and acknowledged to be endued with true inward holinesse, and grace of regeneration. Or it may be taken as a note signifying the very nature and kind of the form, i. e. ho­linesse which giveth that denomination. In which sense if it may be taken, then men are said to be visible Saints, in so far as they are adorned with externall holinesse, although abstract from that internall and true grace of regeneration.

section 12 The state of the Controversie then lyeth in this, to expresse it as plainly as I may, what is requisite in a person as the necessary qua­lification in the Ecclesiastick Court, whereupon he is to be received or acknowledged as a member of the Visible Church, and is to be accounted as not [...], i. e. among these that are without, but [...], i. e. among those that are within, and so over whom the Pastors and Rulers of the Church should watch, and care to feed him by the Ordinances of Christ, according to his capacity, and to whom private Christians ought to perform duties of Christian com­munion according to their stations? viz. whether reall, internall grace of regeneration, repentance toward God, and faith in Jesus Christ: at least such evident signs thereof, manifested and appro­ven upon acurate examination and triall, as is a sufficient ground whereupon the Church may and ought to esteem and judge the person truly gracious, regenerate and endued with true saving faith and repentance; in a word, a true inward Saint, or if some­what else.

section 13 As for the Tenet of the Independent Brethren, all of them speak not the same way. Mr. Hooker, Survey part. 1. c. 2. pag. 20, 21. confesseth that the expressions of some of his Brethren, as well as [Page 26] those of the Separation, are somewhat narrow at the first sight, and seem to require exactnesse of the highest strain, and so speaks for a candide interpretation of them, to wit, that when such Phrases of theirs occurre upon this Subject, as these: Onely the Saints, faithfull, called and sanctified, are to be members of the Congregation: such a construction as this be put upon these words: persons visibly, externally such to the judgement of charity, not alwayes really and internally such, by the powerfull impression of Gods free grace. Certainly some of them have so roundly affirmed that none should be acknowledged members of the visible Church, but such as are true internall Saints, that hardly can such a constru­ction be put upon their words. See D. Holmes and Mr. Barclets expressions set down by Daniel Cawdry in his Schem of contradi­ctions in the Independent way, n. 17. And M^r. Lockiers expressi­ons of this purpose along his Lecture can as hardly suffer such a con­struction. Others of them indeed have spoken more warily and in a lower strain, as Mr. Hooker himself, stating the Question, p. 1. pag. 15. tells us persons who, may be, are hypocrites inwardly; yet if their conversations and expressions be such, that we cannot but conclude in charity, there may be and is some spirituall good in them, we say and hope, and are bound to conceive they are Saints; these are fit mater of a Visible Church. Only it is to be observed that it cannot be well discerned by his words, whether he meaneth a By a posi­tive judge­ment, wee meane the elicting of an act of the under­standing, whereby we affirme the man to be such: and by a nega­tive judge­ment, the abstaining from affir­mation of the contra­rie. negative judgment of charity, or a positive: his words, as to this, are so wavering and fluctuating, and that very remarkably, pag. 14. end, and 15. begin. he speaketh of the mater thus: So far as rationall charity directed by rule from the Word, a man can not but conclude that there may be some seeds of some spiritual work of grace in the heart. Here if we look at these words, A man can not but conclude, one would think that a positive judgement were intended: for that expression doth import a necessity of elicting positively an act of judgement affirming of the subject, that form touching which the Question is. But the next word which is but a may be (nothing being more said there, before he concludeth the description of Visible Saints) seemeth to cast down that and to import lesse. Then a little after he expresseth clearly a positive judgement: we say and hope, and are bound to conceive they are [Page 27] Saints. Again in propounding the state of the Question, the ma­ter is involved in a cloud: We cannot conclude but in charity there may be and is some spirituall good in them, &c. If we look at that, we cannot conclude but, &c. one would think only a negative judgment were intended: for these words import no more but a necessity of abstaining from an act of judgment, whereby the form in Question is denyed of the subject, or the contrair thereunto af­firmed. But when it is added, there may be and is, &c, this seems to speak for a positive. Before it was, we cannot but conclude; and therewith, there may be, only. Now it is, we cannot conclude but: and herewith there may be and is. I verily think the godly man has been at a puzzle in his conceptions about the mater. Of all the Brethren of the Independent way, whose Writings I have had oc­casion to see, Mr. Nortoun in his Answer to Gulliel. Apoll. his Questions are most m [...]derate, and come nearest to the truth. In many particulars he cometh below that which is required by most part of all others of that way, particularly in that expresly he as­serteth that it is not a positive judgement, but only negative, that we are to have of the grace of Church-members, c. 1. that we are not positively to judge ill of them.

section 14 But not to insist on these differences: this in generall is their common Tenet, that only such can be taken to be members of the Visible Church, whether as foundationalls at the first gathering of the Church, or as additionalls by admission into fellowship of the Church; as may and ought to be accompted in the judgement of charity true heart-beleevers, having reall communion with Christ, and that upon sufficient evidences given thereof. 1. By knowledge in the Fundamentall points of Religion, and such other as are re­quisite and necessary to be known for leading a life without scandal. 2. An experimentall work of Grace upon their hearts, of Repen­tance towards God, and Faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST. 3. A conversation, not only without scandall and offence before men (indeed Norton goeth no further) but also without neglect of any known duty, and commission of any known ill, concerning which they must be a good space tryed first in a way privat: if the Church be a gathering, by one another mutually, untill they be mutually satisfied in the judgement of charity touching the truth [Page 28] of the grace of each other. If it be in the admission of additionall members, the triall is first by the Ruling Elder or Elders, both by way of diligent enquiry, for information, from others, and by way of conference with, and examination of the parties themselves. Then all things being clear and satisfactory to the Elder, the per­son being propounded to the Church, the people also must (as opportunity may serve them) try their spirituall condition, and that both wayes too. If these find no realitie of satisfaction, they present their dissatisfaction to the Elder or Elders, which stayes the proceeding for the present. But if satisfaction hath been gotten by Elders and People in this privat way, then the persons to be ad­mitted must further (every one after another, if it be at the first gathering of the Church) make, first a publick confession of their knowledge and faith in the grounds of Religion: then a declarati­on of the experimentall work of their effectuall vocation. 1. In Repentance from dead works. 2. In their unfeigned faith towards the Lord Jesus: and then must produce, if required, a testimony of their blamelesse conversation. For a testimony to my faithful­nesse in this representation of their Doctrine, I refer the Reader to these on the MargentHookers Survey, p. 1. c. 2. pag. 14, 15, 24, 25. p. 3. cap. 3. pag. 4, [...]. Brief Nar­rat. of the pract. of the Churches of N. E. pa. 1, 2, 8, 9. Mr. Cottons way, cap. 3. sect. 2. pag. 54, 55. sect. 3. pag. 56, 57, 58.. So in a word their Doctrine in this point is, that none are to be received members into externall fellowship of the Visible Church, but such as are already true heart-converts indued with saving grace, and having reall internall fellowship with Christ, in the judgement of charity grounded upon such tri­all and evidences, as we have heard.

section 15 As for our judgement in the controversie (I mean of the Church of Scotland at which the adversaries, especially this with whom we have to do, mainly hath an eye. Albeit we know no Protestant Church in the world, differing from us in this, but the Indepen­dents) scarcely shall you find any of our adversaries directly make a proposall of it what it is: but for the most part, as they give inti­mations thereof here and there, would bear men in hand that we do allow any whosoever professe the Christian faith, although their lives and conversations were never so wicked and prophane, to be fit matter and members of the Visible Church. Which is, I must say, much want of ingenuitie in them, and great injurie done to us, as will appear shortly. So Mr. Lockier along this Peece in­timating [Page 29] our Doctrine speaks alwayes of persons meerly professing the things of God. But I wonder much how that did fall from the Pen of Reverend Mr. Hooker, speaking of our judgement, Surv. p. 1. c. 2. pag. 20. The pinch of the difference lyeth in this, whether such as walk in a way of prophanenesse, or remain pertinaciously obstinate in some wickednesse, though otherwayes professing and practising the things of the Gospel, have any allowance from Christ, or may be accounted fit mater to constitute a Church: this is that which is controverted and should have been evicted by Ar­gument, he is speaking to Mr. Rutherfurd. Good Mr. Hooker, where did you ever read such an assertion as this in Mr. Rutherfurd, or any of ours? I need not stay upon vindicating Mr. Rutherfurd in this: he will do it ere long himself. I shall only plainly pro­pound our Judgment upon the Question, in these two Conclusions.

section 16 1. Conclus. True, heart conversion, regeneration, sanctifica­ti [...] inward saving grace in reality of existence, or conceived at [...] to be in the judgement of charitie, is not requisite as the qualification necessary, in the Ecclesiastick Court, in order to ad­mitting persons to be members of the Visible Church. Or thus, to the same purpose, it is not necessary nor requisite, to the effect that persons be accounted fit mater of the Visible Church, that they be such as upon tryall and approven evidences, may and ought to be conceived, in the judgement of charity, by the Church, al­ready inwardly regenerate, sanctified, taken into reall fellowship with Christ. And therefore we judge it altogether unwarrantable to put such as are desirous of the externall fellowship of the Visible Church, to such tryalls touching the work of saving grace in their hearts, in order to admitting into Church-fellowship, and as ante­cedently necessary thereunto, as is tanght and practised by Inde­pendents, and set down summarly here a little before.

section 17 2. Conclus. A serious, sober outward profession of the faith and true Christian Religion, together with a serious profession of forsaking former sinfull courses, (if the person be one coming out of heathenisme or some false Religion) or an outward conversation free of scandall, at least, accompanied with obstinacy (if he hath been a Christian in Profession before) and a serious Profession of subjection unto the Ordinances of Christ: A serious profession of [Page 30] these things, I say, as such, considered abstractly (abstractione simplici) from the work of inward saving grace and heart-conver­sion by true Repentance and Faith, is sufficient qualification in the Ecclesiastick Court to constitute a person fit mater to be received as a member of the Visible Church, and accounted [...] i. e. a­mongst these that are within. If it be asked what I mean by a se­rious profession? I Ans. Such a profession as hath in it at least a morall sincerity (as practick Divines are wont to distinguish) tho haply not alwayes a supernaturall sinceritie, i. e. (that I may speak more plainly) which is not openly and discernably simulate, histrionick, scenicall, and hypocriticall in that hypocrisie which is grosse: but all circumstances being considered, by which ingenuity is estimate amongst men, giving credit one to another, there ap­pears no reason why the man may not and ought not to be esteem­ed, as to the mater, to think and purpose as he speaketh from whatsoever habituall principle it proceedeth, whether, viz. of saving grace and faith, or of faith historicall, and conviction wro [...] by some common operation of the Spirit. A man that hath such a profession as this and desireth Church-communion, I say, the Church ought to receive him as a member. And albeit I deny not but where there is just or probable ground of suspition that the profession hath simulation and fraudulent dealing under it, as in one new come from a hereticall Re [...]igion, or who has been before a persecutor of the faith and professours thereof; there may be a delay in prudencie and time taken to try and prove if he dealeth seriously and ingenuously: but that tryall must not be to cognosce upon the truth of the work of saving grace in the heart. Pastours indeed ought wisely and diligently try and acquaint themselves, as far as they can, with the spirituall state of all the members of their flock, that they may the better know to divide the Word of God aright, giving to every one their suitable portion, that beginners may be promoved in the grace of Christ, and such as are yet in a naturall state may be awakened to slee from the wrath to come. But I utterly deny that such a tryall of persons touching the truth of the work of grace in their hearts is antecedently and in order to their admission necessary, and in duty incumbent to the Church that is to admit them.

section 18 Having thus stated the Question, and bounded the differences about it; it would follow that we should in the next place bring Arguments to confirm what we hold for truth, and to refute the contrary. Which method we would have followed were we not upon the examination of a particular Peece of an adversary, whose method we resolve to trace step for step. Therefore proceeds now to consider his Arguments what force they have to confirm his, or infringe our Doctrine. Afterward having considered what Obje­ctions he brings against himself as ours, and his answers to the same, we shall adde some such other Arguments as may be satisfactory to Readers, and the Author may, if he think fit, take to his con­sideration.

SECTION III. M^r. Lockyers first Classe of Arguments, viz. Texts of SCRIPTURE, Act. 9. 26. Act. 2. 47. Heb. 3. 5, 6. brought as directly holding forth his Doctrine, answered.

section 1 HIs Arguments are of four Classes. 1. Some Texts of Scripture as directly holding forth his Doctrine. 2. Some others hol­ding forth hints and shadows of it: 3. An induction of instances of particular Churches, mentioned in Scripture, as so constitute. 4. Some reasons. We shall take them into consideration in so ma­ny Sections according to their order in the Author.

section 2 To his Texts of Scripture he is pleased to preface with this confi­dent expression. That ye may know how richly the Scripture con­sents to this: To which we say no more but that, it is most suteable to sound a triumph after the victory: And so comes to his first Text, Acts 9. 26. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem he assayes to joyn himself to the Disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and beleeved not that he was a Disciple. On which place, he, for effecting his purpose from it, commenteth thus: First in a paren­thesis, he supposeth that the Disciples carriage here towards Paul proceeded from light and conscience, and tendernesse in this ma­ter, viz. of admitting members into their Visible Church-commu­nion: [Page 32] and makes a note upon that particle all, that they were a homogeneall body under the same light, &c. in the mater. Then addeth, What did they fear? That he did not make profession of Christianity? Why, now he tendered himself to do it: wHY should they have denyed him now if bare profession had been enough? It is evident they feared that he did but meerly professe, and that they should take in an heterogenerall peece; one that had but the outside of that qualification which this new building should have; and therefore Barnabas took him to the Apostles, and declared to them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and used all means to satisfie them of the reality of Gods work upon his heart. And upon this he was received as fit mater for this new house, and as suteable mater to that which was already in the building.

section 3 Answ. 'Tis a wonder to me, and I professe I cannot wonder enough that any judicious and learned of the Independent Bre­thren should ever alledged this place for their Tenet in this Que­stion: yet not only our Author here, but others also before him, have brought it to that purpose. But I have observed it a thing incident even to good men, and in other things discerning, that when they have once taken up an opinion in mater of Religion, and it has gotten rooting in them, they become so fond in love with their own conception, that either readily they will even bend their wits to straine and force Scripture to speak for it; or else their judgement being somewhat vitiate, as to that particular, with af­fection, trowes any word almost speakes clear for it. How others of them have improven this place, I stay not to consider: but to what Mr. Lockier hes on it. 1. He supposeth that the matter be­tween Paul and the Disciples at Jerusalem, was about admission of him to be stated a member of that Visible Church. Now where appeareth that in the Text? You'l say there he essayed to joyn him­self to the Disciples: good enough, forsooth, to please credulous and unstable minds. The simple meaning of the words is no other thing but that he assayed to be familiarly with them. So the word [...] is used afterward, c. 10. v. 28. Ye know that it is unlaw­full for a man that is a Jew [...] i. e. to keep company or fami­liarly converse with, or come unto one of another nation. 'Tis of the same sense with [...] Joh. 4. 9. But besides this, I think [Page 33] upon this supposition made by M^r. Lockier, and other Principles of his was concerning the Visible Church, he may be put to a puzling question. For when as it is held by our Brethren, that th [...] is no Visible Church existing, but a particular Congregation; I would ask whether Paul had been a Visible Church-member before this time any other where? And if so, whether he did now cease to be a Visible member of that former Church, and so of all Churches, by suiting to be a member of the Church at Jerusalem, untill he was received in there? Then when he removed again from Jeru­salem, whether he laid down his membership in that Church? Or if he continued standing in it, when he was travelling through the world? Then if he laid it down, whether he behoved to be stated a member in another Visible Church, and then in another, accor­ding as he removed from one place to another? 2. Whereas the Author sayes that the Disciples at Jerusalem their carriage toward Paul was from light, and conscience, and tendernesse in the mater of the constitution of the Visible Church, and that they did fear they should take in a heterogeneal peece, is evidently a bold fiction beside the Text: And he must give me leave to doubt if he spoke that in good sad-earnest, can any man conceive any other thing to be meant by these words they all feared him, but this: that when as he had before been a violent persecutor of Christians, they ap­prehended he was still such an one, and might be now only seeking to insinuate himself amongst them as a Wolfe to destroy them▪ That they feared him the same way that Ananias did, v. 13, 14▪ of this same Chap. Will any man, I say, that reads the Story, when he comes to this Passage, conceive otherwayes of the meaning thereof? Nay, I appeal to the Authors own conscience, if upon serious looking again upon the words and the series of the Story, himself can conceive otherwise of it. Now such a fear as this, and that light, conscience, and tendernesse in the mater of Church constitution are very different things. As for his Argumentative questioning, What did they fear? That he did not make a Pro­fession of Christianity? Why, now he tendered himself to do it,—but it is evident that they feared he did but meerly professe, &c. I Ans. 'Tis very poor and unbeseeming a man of understanding [Page 34] pretending to speak seriously: I say, that was not it they feared, that he did not make Profession of Christianity: nor yet that, that he did but meerly professe, taking meer Profession only in opposi­tion to Profession from a Principle of saving grace: but the thing they feared was his cruelty, which they had seen before, not know­ing but he was still on that same way: and they feared his profes­sing himself a Disciple, and essaying to converse familiarly with them, was but fraudulent counterfeiting to get advantage to exe­cute his cruelty. And Barnabas his bringing him to the Apostles, and his discourse touching the Lords dealing with him (wherein I confesse there is so much, as might sway their judgements to ac­count him not only one seriously and sine dolo malo Professing Christianity: but also a truely gracious convert, yea, and an A­postle of Jesus Christ too) was to take this fear out of their hearts, that they might without apprehension of danger converse with him. And accordingly when the effect of Barnabas discourse and information is set down, v. 28. we find not a word nor a hint of an Ecclesiastick admission, or stating him into Church-membership: But this is said, he was with them coming in and going out at Jeru­salem, i. e. he was daily conversing familiarly with them. I need say no more to this Passage, but shall only adde this: Godly men would be more tender of Scripture then to use or rather to abuse it thus; by shaping conceptions of their own, and then driving them into it by force. Come we to the next Text.

section 4 It is Act. 2. 47. And the Lord added to the Church dayly [...] the saved, eos qui salvi fiebant (so he translateth it) but what hence to his purpose? He added to the Church the saved, those which were out of harms-way, as we say, in a safe and sure state, and so are no persons, but such who have received the sure mercies of David. A sinner is not safe nor out of Gun-shot till in­deed in Christ. And this is the mater accepted and taken in to build withall, and none else so far as they could make judgement between things that differed. After this he concluds by a dilemma thus: Either they were thus strict upon their own will and so not to be followed: Or else by divine and infallible warrand; and so as a precedent which hath the force of a precept. And then takes [Page 35] occasion to anticipate an Objection thus: And this is over and a­bove a plain demonstration of the possibilitie of the precept to be o­beyed, which taketh off that Objection, 'twere well, Sir, if [...] so: But how can it be? How shall we do it? Why, it hath been [...], therefore may be; therefore should be, and no otherwise.

section 5 Answ. Here are involved a number of things, some gratis affir­med, some evidently false. 1. He supposeth all these [...], were already and antecedently to their addition to the Church, in­wardly delivered and translated from the state of nature and sin in­to the state of grace, and begun reall union by faith in Christ, and this he grounds upon the Greek participle, which he will have translated the saved, as noting a thing then already done. But this is a very weak ground to bear up that supposition. Why, who knoweth not that oftentimes in the Greek Language, passive participles of the present tense are used in the signification of gerundive names: So that [ [...]] may be well rendered servandi, such as were to be saved. And so hath Beza and the old Latine Interpreters rendered it, qui salvi sierent, and the English Translation, such as should be saved; and so the word doth not necessarily import, as the Author would have it, that these added were, antecedently to their addition, saved by the begun work of grace in them (tho we are not denying but it might been so with them) and that un­der that consideration, and upon that account they were added. But this it doth import, that they were such as God by the decree of Election had appointed to be saved, and that he added them to the Church as the means whereby they were to be actually made partakers of Salvation, as Calvine well taketh it up. 'Tis true, the Syriack Interpreter, as expounded by Tremel. hath it, qui salvi fiebant, but withall he hath the whole place thus, addebat quotidie eos qui salvi fiebant in Ecclesia, i. e. such as were saved in the Church. 2. He supposeth that this Text speaketh of Eccle­siastick addition of members, in foro exteriori, in the outward Court; by the Church Rulers, or them, and the Congregation together (to which of these belongeth this Act, we discusse not now) upon outward tryall and discerning. This again is besides the Text, which speaketh not one word of this, I mean, the [Page 36] Churches adding or admitting; but of Gods adding, which Inter­preter [...] expound of the work of saving grace upon their hearts, co [...]ng and drawing them effectually to Christ: and distinguish­eth [...]om the acts of the outward Ministry upon them. See Cal­vin. in locum: most plainare the words of Eras Sarcerius in Mar­lorat. dicit Dominum eos addidisse Ecclesiae qui salvi fierent; perinde enim est ac si diceret Lucas, quos non addebat Deus, etiamsi se ipsi adderent Ecclesiae, non tamen fiebant salvi. So M^r. Lockiers dilemma falls to the ground, having no ground in the Text to sub­sist on. It supposeth the Text to be speaking of an Ecclesiastick procedure with persons, upon outward triall and discerning; when as the Text is speaking of no such thing, but of a divine efficiency upon persons. 3. He supposeth that all and every one that were then visibly added to the Church, and none else were added but such as were translated to the state of grace, partakers of the sure mercies of David, really in Christ, at least so far as they could make judgement between things that differed: But first, I ask where doth he find, or how will he make out of the Text that interpreta­tion, so far as they could make judgement, &c. and that the word [...], must not be understood without any such qualification, to import such as were really saved. I think this, in divine destina­tion, is that indeed is meant, and he shall never instruct from the Text that which he saith. 2. How will he make out from the Text, that all and every one that were by Ecclesiastick admission added to the Church, and none else? The Text indeed saith, the Lord ad­ded such as were to be saved, [...]. Doeth it hence follow, none else were by Ecclesiastick admission added to the Church? The Author must give us leave not to believe every thing upon his bare Assertion, and must finde out new Logick ere he prove that consequence; so then we see not how this Scripture consenteth to this point of Doctrine: the simple meaning of the wods being thus much, that daily the Lord was by his effectuall assisting the Mi­nistry of the Gospel, and working upon the hearts of men, bringing such as he had a purpose to save unto the fellowship of the Church: that therein, as the ordinary way instituted by himself, they might be led on to the participation of eternall salvation. But this no [Page 37] wayes importeth, but many others not so destinate to salvation, might adjoin themselves, and be by Ecclesiastick admission received into the outward fellowship of the Church.

section 6 The 3^d. Text is Heb, 3. 5, 6. And Moses verily was faithfull in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of th [...]se things that were to be spoken after: but Christ as a Sonne over his own house whose house are we, if we hold fast our confidence, and rejoicing of hope firm unto the end. Hereupon the Author commenteth thus: To a Church of the Jews this is spoken, who did apostatize much, and so forsook their assemblings, and so their exhorting one another with all these means of grace and life, which God hath instituted in this new house: and so indeed grew worse and worse, till at last they came as the rest of the Jewish Churches, to nothing. As long, saith the Apostle, as ye hold fast the practice and power of what you profess, so long you are a Church: but when you let go this, you unchurch your selves, and should it be persued upon you, you should be thrown out as unhallowed mater: but if others, which should do it, will not do it, the Master himself, who is faithfull, will do it, He wil cast such a Church wholly off, which thus suffer his institution to be corrupted: and so indeed he did write Loammi upon the first Churches, quickly after the Apostles time, for this thing.

section 7 Ans. If this be not to force Scripture and make it speak what men please, I know not what else is. Let's first mark some ground­lesse Assertions, and then we shall come to the main point of our Answer. 1. I wonder at that rash assertion in the close of this, and so indeed did he write Loammi upon the first Churches, quickly af­ter the Apostles time, for this thing. What? and were the first Churches so soon casten off by Go [...], as no Churches? What di­vine warrant is brought for this Assertion? Sir, produce the Bill of Divorcement given to them from the Lord. And was there never a Church since, untill they were erected of the new Independent frame and model? Were all the Christian Churches in Asia, Africk and Europe, in the times of the four famous Generall Counsels (the first whereof was about three hundred years after the Apostles time) now no Churches at all? Here indeed look out the Dona­tists, ubi cubas in meridie, especially if we'll consider upon what [Page 38] account the Author unchurches them, because forsooth they ad­mitted members into their fellowship which were not true Con­verts, partakers of the sure mercies of David, &c. this is very Do­natism in grain. 2. The Author supposeth that the Apostle here is speaking to a Church of the Jews, i. e. to one particular Congre­gation, distinct from all the rest of the Jewish Churches. This is but a bare Assertion without any proof or semblance of proof join­ed with it. We know that some of the Learned Interpreters take this Epistle to have been written not to any particular Church or Congregation, but to the whole multitude of the Jews professing Christian Religion, scattered abroad through the world, as were the Epistles of James and Peter; and have for them an argument not improbable from that 2. Epist. of Peter, c. 3. v. 15. 'Tis true that others think otherwayes upon consideration of what we read, Heb. 13. 19. where the divine Author desires them he writes to, to pray for him, that he might be restored the sooner to them, which seemeth to import a more limited compasse then the whole disper­sion. But granting this that it was not written to all the Jews, why might it not be written to all the Christian Jews that were in Pa­lestina and Judaea. Most part Interpreters take it so, but that it was written to one single Congregation of the Jews, as Mr. Lockier would have it, who will believe upon his bare word? 3. He seems to suppose a clear untruth of these to whom the Apostle speaketh, viz. that they did apostatize much, forsook their Assemblies, their mutuall exhorting with all the means of grace and life: Indeed the Apostle warneth them to take heed of these things, and speaks of some that did so; but as for them he writeth unto, he layeth no such thing to their charge as done by them, but giveth te­stimony to the contrair, c. 6. v. 9, 10. cap. 10. v. 32, 33, 34, 39. 4. The maine mistake & groundlesse supposition here is this, that when the Apostle saith, whose house ye are if ye hold fast, &c. he mean­eth this of an outward Visible Church-state. So long saith he, as ye hold fast, &c. so long ye are a Church (he meaneth a stated Visible Church) but when you let go, &c. you un-Church your selves, &c. And so, as we see, will have the words to involve a threatning of losing that visible Church-state, upon failing of perfor­mance of that which is urged, viz. holding fast the confidence, &c. [Page 39] contrary to the current of all Orthodox InterpretersSee Pare­us, Hyper. & others in Morlor [...]t. Excellent is Mr. Dav. Dickson (a man of ex­ercised sen­ses in the Word of God) his opening of these words N. 3. He (the Apo­stle) addeth a condition if we hold fast. &c. i. e. If we con­tinue sted­fast, inward ly gripping the promi­sed glory by hop [...]; & outwardly avowing, by confession, CHRISTS Truth. Whereby he neither importeth the pos­sibilitie of finall apostacy of the Saints, nor mindeth to weaken the confidence of Believers, more then he doubteth of his own perseverance, or mindeth to weaken his own faith,—but writing to the number of the visible Church, he putteth a difference between true be­lievers who do indeed persevere: and time-servers, who do not persev [...]re, to whom he doth not grant for the present, the priviledge of being the house of God. And then he hath this 2^d. Doct. such as shall make defection finall are not a part of Gods house for the present; howsoever they be esteemed. I believe any judicious Reader will see this Inter­pretation somewhat more genuine then that of M^r. Lockiers., who expone that whose house ye are, of the state of grace and spirituall communion with Christ, proper to the Mysticall Invisible Church, in regard of which Christ dwells in the heart by faith: and conse­quently conceive not the context of the verse to import a turning of them out of one state which now they were in, into another e­state, upon non-performance of that duty which is required: But to intimate that the non-performance thereof would discover that they were not in that state which they professed themselves, and seemed to others to be in. And I prove that it is to be Interpreted thus, and not as M^r. Lockier will have it. The Apostle meaneth the same here, whose house ye are, &c. which he saith v. 14. We are partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our confi­dence, &c. So Interpreters agree that one and the same thing is said in both verses, and the very purpose it self evidenceth so much. But now is partaking of Christ nothing else but to be in a Visible Church state? Yea for confirmation let it be observed that the A­postle saith not whose house ye are, but we are, so that he speaks of some what under the metaphor of house which he supposeth common to him and them together. What was this? Visible Church-member-ship of a certain (we are not told where residing) particular congregation of Jewes? Mr. Lockier hes not heeded this, or has purposely passed it over. 5. There seemeth to me in Mr. Lockiers words here somewhat very like the Arminian apo­stacy of Saints, while you hold fast (saith he) the practice and power of what you professe, and when you let it go, &c. is he in­deed of this judgement, that men may have the practice and power of godlinesse, and afterward let it go? If he say, he meaneth of such as have had it, so far as men could judge, &c. well, this qua­lification, if in any place, should have been mentioned here, where [Page 40] without it, there might be so readily an apprehension of apostacy from true grace. But tell me, doth the Apostle when he saith, if ye hold fast the confidence, and the rejoicing of hope firm unto the end, mean thus; if ye have and hold fast these things so far as men can judge? What vestigium of this appeareth in the Text? Nay is not the Apostle in that whole Chapter speaking of grace to be performed and held fast in veritati rei Which if he wil have to be the re­quisite qualificati­on of the matter of of the visi­ble Church, in the Ec­clesiastick Court, he may as soon get a Visible Church, as a new World in the Moon, or M^r Mores Ʋtopia., in very deed? Was there ever any Interpreter that expoundeth him otherwise.

SECTION IV. The Authors Texts which he calls hints and shadows of his Doctrine.

section 1 THe first is, Mat. 16. on which place the Author, thus: note these things. 1. That Christ doth not speak here of the In­visible Church: For he speaks of the power of the keyes, binding and loosing on earth; the Invisible Church is the greatest part in heaven; and they which are in earth, considered as one with them, as one intire universall Body whereof Christ is the Head, are not capable of Visible, and limited Discipline; therefore I judge we are to gather from Christs Words, that he speaks, by way of antici­pation, of that visible order which he did purpose to institute, after his departure, by his Apostles, whereof Peter was one. 2. Ob­serve of what mater he saith this building should be, viz. of such as have a faith which flesh and bloud cannot reveal, and to a body thus constitute is the power of the keyes, and both these represented and personated to us in Peter. I do not find the learned and Ortho­dox of latter times apply this place to the Invisible Church, and I think I am not then a forcer of the Scripture in the sense I gave of it.

section 2 Answer. I wonder much how this has fallen from the Au­thors mouth, and Pen, that he saith he doth not find the learned and Orthodox of latter times to apply this place to the Invisible Church. Do not all the learned and Orthodox Writing against the Papists on the Controversie of the Church, refute the Papists [Page 41] expounding it of the Visible Church, and prove it to be understood of the Invisible Church and every member thereof, and do not the learned Orthodox commonly Writing against the Arminians upon the controversie of perseverance, apply it to the Invisible Church, and use it as one of the prime Arguments for proving the certain finall perseverance of true Beleevers. See these noted on the Margin.Whittaker de Ecclesia, centies, no­tentur prae­sertim illa loca, q 1. c 1. Ecclesia ali­quando to­tum corpus electorum fi­delium & sanctorum si­gnificat ut cùm in Sym­bolo dicitur, Credo Ec­clesiam Ca­tholicam; sic in hoc loco Math. 16. 18. & c. 13. par. 1. per tot. & q. 2. c. 1. he propoundeth the Question with the Papists thus: De Ecclesiâ in Petra aedificatâ quaeritur inter adversarios & nos, sitne visibilis an invisibilis? And part. 3. he determines according to the Protestant Doctrine that it is invisibilis. &c. 2. Bellarminus dicit Calvinum non potuisse unum Scriptu­rae locum proferre ubi nomen Ecclesiae invisibili Congregationi tribueretur. Resp. (inquit) falsum hoc esse—nam Ecclesia aliquan [...]o invisibilem Congregationem significat,—ut in hoc ipso loco quem tractamus, Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. & q. 3. c. 2. §. 2. 2^•. Advers­argumentum sumitur ex iis locis in quibus nomen Ecclesiae expersse ponitur, ut Math. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15. in utroque loco (inquit Adversarius) agitari de Ecclesia visibili, & tamen ipsam verita­tem audivimus asserentem portas inferorum non praevalituras.—Resp. (inquit Whitt.) illam quidem Ecclesiam de qua loquitur Christus—nunquam posse deficere,—sed quod assu­mit illam Ecclesiam, de qua loquitur Christus, esse visibilem, illud affirmo esse falsissimum. Here is a plain and round contradiction to M^•. Lockiers note upon this place. Joan. Alsted. suppl. Chamier. de Eccles. nat. l. 1. c. 17. par. 2. Resp. 2. Duo ista loca (N. Math. 16. 18. 1 Tim. 3. 15.) agunt de Ecclesia Catholica & invisibili seu interna quae constat ex solis bonis, neque enim Ec­clesia visibilis quae constat ex bonis & malis est fundata super Petram Anton. Wall. Loc. Com. de Ecclesia militant on the question, An Ecclesia possit errare, in Ans. to the 2^d. Obj. of Papists upon this place, Math 16. 18. Negamus (inquit) hunc locum esse intelligendum de Ecclesia visibili sed universali & invisibili cui proprie competit haec firmitas insuperabilis. The Orthodox in Colloq. Hagien. and Amesius in his Coron. presse it as a prime place for the perseverance of Saints. We might instance very many moe, but we need not; the thing is known to all acquainted in Orthodox Writers. Nay some eminent Papists themselves have acknow­ledged that is spoken not of the Visible Church, but of the Invisible. Ferus. non loquitur de Ecclesiâ ut communiter sumitur pro his qui Christiani dicuntur, sive boni sint sive mali, sed de Ecclesiâ secundum Spiritum quae solos electos complectitur. So Cajetan on the same place, Adversus Ecclesiam quae constat ex Congregatione fidelium unâ side, spe & charitate, &c.

Mr. Lockiers reason brought to prove that it is not spoken of the Church Invisible, is but weak: which will appear the better if it be put into form (for it is somewhat confusedly propounded by himself) as I conceive it may be thus: That Church is understood [Page 42] here which is capable of visible & limited Disciplin; but the Church Invisible is not capable of this: Therefore, &c. Ans. 1. How is the Major or first Proposition proven? By insinuation thus: He speaks of the power of the keyes, binding and loosing on earth. What thence? Ergo, he speaks before of such a Church as is capable of visible limited Discipline. If I deny the Consequence; how will he prove it? I do not see it, nor think he shall ever be able to make it out. 2. But to passe the Proposition, let's see the proof of the Assumption. The Invisible Church is the greatest part in Hea­ven, and they which are in earth as one with them, as one entire universall body whereof Christ is the Head, are not capable of, &c. Ans. 1. That part of the universall Church which is in Heaven is impertinently brought on the stage here: Christ is speaking of those that are yet to be built, or are a building; therefore we say He is speaking of such as are on earth. 2. Albeit that part of the Invisible Church that is on earth be not capable of visible and limited Disci­pline, formally considered as such, i. e. as the Invisible Church: nor yet collectively considered, as one intire body: yet the Invi­sible Church materially, i. e. these that are the Invisible Church, being also a part of the Church visible, and considered distributive­ly in parrs, may be capable of visible Discipline. David, Peter, John, and the rest who make up the Church Invisible, as they are also outward Professours with others, are capable of visible Disci­pline. O! then you will say, why? Are they not spoken of here, I will build my Church, as they are a visible Church. Ans. It doth not necessarly follow: for to persons standing under diverse consi­derations, one thing may be attributed, according to one conside­ration, and another according to another.

section 3 As to his 2^d. Observation. 1. It is contrair in it self to Truth, that the visible Church is to consist only of such as have a faith (he means fidem quâ creditur, or taken subjectivè: for we shal grant it of faith quae creditur, or taken objectivè) which flesh and blood cannot reveal, i. e. true saving faith. The Church may consist of such as have not that faith: and the Author addeth not here his qualification of so far as men can judge: neither can it be admitted here. 2. Qualifie it as he will, it is a meer violenting of the Text, sundry Interpretations by diverse have been given on these words: [Page 43] Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church: but I think few or none ever before our Author gave such an interpretation as this: The visible Church shall be constitute only of such as have true saving faith in them, so far as men can judge Certainly whether we take the Church Invisible or the Church Visible to be meant here under the name of the Church, M^r. Lockiers sense cannot have place; For, 1. Understanding by the name of Church, the Church Invi­sible in that sentence, Ʋpon this Rock will I build my Church, Christ is not speaking of gathering and constituting a certain incor­poration or society, in the state and condition of such an incorpo­ration or society, and how persons, of whom it is to be made up, must be antecedently qualified, that they may be capable of admis­sion to be constituent members thereof: but speaking of his own act of efficacious grace (put forth in deed with the Ministry of the Gospel) upon the hearts of some persons (whom he cals his Church, because they are called out from amongst the rest of the world to himself) which doth not suppose them antecedently ha­ving faith, and, taking them as such, state them in a society: But indeed is the very giving to them that faith, and stating them in an impregnable condition of grace and salvation. Whether by, this Rock, we understand that faith which Peter confessed, or Christ the object of that faith; or Peter himself considered in regard of his Mini­stry of the Gospel: or the Gospel Preached by him (as some of the Orthodox do) certainly this is the meaning of building the Church upon the Rock, supposing (that which I do incline most to, with the most part of Reformed Divines) that by the Church is meant the Church Invisible 2. If by the name of the Church here be un­derstood the Church Visible, as some later Orthodox Divines have expounded it, namely judicious and learned Hudson in his acurate and elaborate Vindication of the Essence and Ʋnity of the Catho­lick Visible Church: Yet it will little avail M^r. Lockiers purpose. 1. Because it is a particular Congregation, and the qualification of members, to be admitted thereunto, that he is speaking of all along under the name of a visible Church. But supposing this place to speak of the visible Church, it cannot be understood of a particular visible Church or Congregation, but must of necessity be under­stood of the Catholick visible Church, because it is such a Church [Page 44] as is to stand firm and impregnable that the gates of hell cannot pre­vail against it: but any particular Church may be prevailed against. 2. Taking the name of the Church so, here the meaning of the whole sentence upon this Rock I will build my Church, is nothing else but this (as the learned Author, but now cited, well observeth) that the Profession and Doctrine of this Truth, that the Messiah is already come, & that this Jesus is the Messiah, & this Jesus the Messi­ah is the Son of God, the Doctrine and confession that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, 1 Joh. 4. 2, 3. and the beleeving that I am he (saith Christ) Joh. 8. 24. is the foundation whereon the Church of the New Test. is to be built; out of all which nothing more can follow, as to the qualification of members of the visible Church, of the New Test. then this; that when as the Jews under the Old Test. beleeved in an indefinite Messiah to come: now under the New Test. none can be of the Christian Church, but such as be­leeves and confesses that the Messiah is come, &c. Now I ap­peal to all the Orthodox World, if Mr. Lockier his commenting upon this place be not a forcing of the Text. As for what he ad­deth, that to a body thus constitute (i. e. a Visible Church so con­stitute as he hes been saying) is the power of the keyes given, and both these represented, and personated to us in Peter. To passe, I cannot well understand how it can be said that the power of the keyes could be represented and personated in Peter (possibly the Church might be represented and personated in him) This belong­eth not to our present Question, and therefore we passe it now, trusting with the Lords assistance afterward to evidence that both assertions, viz. that the power of the keyes were given to a Church Visible, I mean the collective Church, and so to it is as the sub­ject, and that Peter in receiving them here did represent and per­sonat the Church; are groundlesse.

section 4 The next shadow or hint is, Rev. 11. 1, 2. And there was given me a Reed, &c. Hereupon the Author maketh much adoe. 1. He layeth down grounds by Interpreting particulars in the words. 1. Saith he, by the Temple is meant the Visible Church, the state and welfare of which, though most infested of any publick condi­tion, shall not be left and ruined, but be carefully looked to and raised from its corruptions, intrusions, and ruines made by unsound men. This is confirmed by a Testimony of Marlorat, hunc in modum [Page 45] jubet ut Ecclesiam, &c. 2. By altar is meant, per synecdochen, the whole Worship of God, this is confirmed by the Testimony of the same Author. 3. What is meant by worshippers is plain of it self. 4. The state of worship and worshippers now under the Gospel is to be measured, kept regulated to an exact rule. What is that (viz. rule) by the Word of God? To confirme this is brought the testimony of the same Author. 5. By the Court which is without the Temple is meant men which have only out­side Religion and devotion, but are destitute of the power thereof. 6. What is meant by the not measuring of these? That same Au­thor (saith he) telleth us ne complectaris eos in spirituali aedi­ficio Domini, do not imbrace them to be matter of the spirituall house, they are without, and let them be cast out. Why? must not such be received nor abide in the Church seing they have a pro­fession? Because, first, saith that Author (Marlorat) the house is spirituall, holy, they are not congruous matter. Second­ly, saith John, these are given to the Gentiles, i. e. (saith Mar­lorat) ipsi sunt facti conformes gentibus incredulis, immo dete­riores sunt illis quantâlibet sanctitatis specie polleant, nam tra­diti sunt in reprohum sensum, &c. And saith Mr. Lockier him­self such kind of Professours and outside Christians will soon in times of temptations conform themselves to the worst of men, yea and be worse then they, and will strike in with the vilest to tread down the holy citie, i. e. the true worshippers in Gods Visible Church, that have name and thing, form and power of Godlines. Then he tells that he cites Marlorat not as finding him fully of his judgement, but to see how he and other good men of the re­formed Churches, speak unawars his judgement, and cannot tell how else to give any life to places of Scripture. Neither can a man tell how to make themselves agree with themselves in their com­mentaries without taking them with a grain of salt in this maner. After all these grounds laid down, he inferreth upon the whole this conclusion, that persons professing meerly the things of God are not approved and allowed mater by the Lord in a Visible Church, they are such as he doth not measure, embrace for his building; they are such as are fit to destroy, not to build the holy City. And these Christ not allowing of them, nor measuring of [Page 46] them: but casting them by, and will do if we do not; how then we can, but at our perill, both in order to God, and order to such men, imbrace them I know not. Thus he upon this place.

section 5 Ans. 1. Here a word or two in the generall. First, I say, Mr. Lockier doth confidently enough (to say no more) but very poorly, with bare assertions without the least proof triumph over these good men (as he calls them, hinting as it seemeth, that tho good, yet they were not very deep nor discerning, at least in this matter) of the reformed Churches, as speaking his opinion una­wars, and not able to expound Scriptures else, and as contradicting and clashing against themselves, unlesse a grain of his Interpreta­tion be allowed them; Parcius ista viris. Who are these good men in the Reformed Churches that have spoken unawars his opi­nion concerning the constitution of the Visible Church? I wish he had named the men and designed the place where they say it; Nay were it not we are unwilling this peece should grow too big, we could produce of these good men, who have directly and solidely refuted Mr. Lockiers Tenet, as he hath it, in ancient Anab [...]ptists. He would have done well also to have pointed us to some of these places of Scripture which they could not tell how to give life to, without complyance with his Tenet, and some of those seeming contradictions in their commentaries, which cannot be agreed with­out that graine he speaketh of; untill he do this, we must account what is spoken by him here, but groundlesse and empty boasting.

2. That in the whole discourse upon this place Mr. Lockier speaks so, as that he cannot be Interpret, but to hold none to be members of the Visible Church, but such as are endued with true saving grace and the power of Godlinesse in veritate rei: He ne­ver once in it mentioneth that qualification, so far as men can judge: Yea, his expressions are such as cannot possiblie admit it, as will appear in following the particulars; To which now we come.

section 6 We begin with some notes upon the conclusion. 1. I aske here what he understands by meer professing the things of God? Whe­ther such professing, as is opposite to, and destitute of, even mo­rall and ordinary seriousnesse, which may sometimes be without an inward saving worke of grace; yea or outward convincing positive evidences of it: Or as it is opposite unto an inward saving work? [Page 47] If he meant the former, he shall not have us to contradict his con­clusion; we shall grant him that such as have not so much as an or­dinary morally serious profession, such as evidently professe the things of God histrionically, mockingly, manifestly purposing to deceive, are neither allowed of Christ, nor to be admitted by men as mater of the Visible Church. If he say the other, and so that none are to be admitted into the Visible Church, but such as beside profession, have also really true, inward, saving grace, he putteth the Church upon an impossibility; and in this will be dis­claimed by all the judicious of his way. If it shall be said, it may be he meaneth neither, but such a profession as is opposite to po­sitive convincing evidences of grace to the judgement of discerning men, and so far as they can judge. I say, 1. This is not said by himself there, nay, he cannot say it and hold to all what he saith here. Why? because some may be such, as far as men can judge, and yet such as Christ will cast out, yea, and hath casten out: and men may be such and yet fit to destroy the holy City. 2. Persons may be such as are not approved and allowed mater by the Lord in the Visible Church, and yet the Church may admit them into the Church, without any perill in order to God, i. e. without sinning by admitting them: as for instance, Simon Magus. If he say he meanes not here the Lords not approving & not allowing persons simpliciter and in point of their duty, but in relation to Ec­clesiastick proceeding with them, in foro exteriore; he shall not have us dissentient from him about this in the generall. But him­self hath never this distinction of the Lords approving or not ap­proving, when from it at any time he reasoneth to the admitting or not admitting of such persons. Yea for ought that can be perceived along this Peece, he seemeth alwayes to speak of Gods approbati­on or not-approbation of persons in point of their own dutie & sim­pliciter. But now to put the most candid construction and Inter­pretation upon his conclusion, let it be so, that by mater not approven and not-allowed of the Lord in the Visible Church is meant not-approved and not-allowed (no simpliciter) but in relation to Ec­clesiastick proceeding, in foro exteriore: and by persons meerly professing, be meant persons not truely gracious (not of necessity in truth of existence, but) at least so far as men can discern and [Page 48] judge. Come we now to see what shadow of this point is in the Scripture alledged here: I shall go through the grounds laid down from it in order.

section 7 To the first, [...]t hath some shew of contradiction. that he saith, 1. That the Visible Church shall not be left and ruined; and then again that it shall be raised from its ruines made by unsound men. If he say that in the former he means utter and lasting ruine, and in the latter, ruine in part and for a time: Well, that would have been expressed, so it appears not well how this said here, the state and welfare of the Visible Church shall not be left and ruined, can consist with that said, pag. 11. that the institution of Christ was so corrupted in the first Churches, that Christ did write Loammi upon them, and that quickly after the Apostles dayes. But I would ask here the Author, what he means by the Visible Church, that shall not be left and ruined? Whether any one particular Congre­gation or the Catholick Visible Church? If the Catholick Visible Church, I shall grant that the state and welfare thereof though never so much infested shall not be left and ruined utterly: But I doubt much if Mr. Lockier will acknowledge such a Visible Church: sure I am, these of his way, are very averse from acknowledging it, (though it be a thing most certain and clear in the Word of God) because indeed the granting of it undermines all the frame of their Independent way: Yea and he himself all along his Peece, treating of the mater of the Visible Church, speaks of a Visible Church, which is nothing else but a particular Congregation. If he mean any one particular Congregation (which is most suteable to his way) I see not how it can be truely said that it shall not be left and ruined; sure, we find no promise in the Word for this, and the experience of many particular Churches that have been ruined utterly and never raised again, proves the contrary. 2. He saith, that by the Temple in that place Rev. 11. is meant the Vi­sible Church, and doth no more but say it▪ that which is alledged from Marlorat Note the passages cited out of Marlo. here, by Mr. Loc­kier, and to be cited by us, are not all Marlo­rats own words: yet because they are by him gathe­red from others, they may be ac­compted his by ap­probatiō & so be con­veniently cited under his name. maketh nothing for this. This Author only saith, hunc in modum jubet ut Ecclesiam Joannes metiatur, &c. but saith not, Ecclesiam Visibilem. Nay, it may appear evident­ly to any attentive Reader, that this Author all along his comen­tary upon the place in hand, understands by the name of the Church, [Page 49] the Church Invisible, the society of the Elect true Beleevers, who are Christs Mysticall body. See especially these passages [...]. On these words & datus est mihi] he calls them pios Dei cul­tores, item electos. 2. On these atrium quod, &c.] calls them Ecclesiam de qua non sunt haeretici & hypocritae, quanquam in ea versari vidcantur, and cites for clearing thereof, 1 Joh. 2. 19. which all Orthodox against Arminians, on the point of perseverance, expounds of the elect and truly gracious, i. e. the Church in­visible. 3. On these & ne metiaris illud] calls it spirituale aedificium quod nunquam cor­ruere poterit, and distinguisheth such from these that are casten out, as elect from reprobates. noted in the Margin. But let it be so, that by the Temple is meant the Vi­sible Church, we conceive this may well be meant, and the diffe­rencing and distinguishing thereof from the Antichristian Syna­gogue falsly arrogating to themselves the title and priviledges of the Church. Go we on then to see what the Author out of this, and what followes, will make out for his point.

section 8 For the 2d. ground: Albeit by the Altar some learned and God­ly commentators, as namely Paraeus, understand Christ: Yet let it be, as the Author saith, that thereby is meant by a Synecdoche the whole Worship of God, and passing the third. As to the fourth, I would first inquire why the Author saith by way of restriction that the worship and worshippers now under the Gospel are to be measured, and kept regulated to an exact rule, viz. the Word of God? What, were not the worship and worshippers under the Old Test. also to be measured, and kept regulated to the Word of God? Were these things then left loose to be disposed on and ordered at mens pleasure? I wot not well what this restriction means; but sure I am it looks ill-favouredly: The Author will do well to clear himself in it. 2. But how will he prove, that which he only takes here for granted, that the intention of the Spirit of God in this Scripture is to hold forth a generall rule concerning the outward constitution of the Visible Church, as to the mater there­of, and how members ought to be qualified for admission to it, and not rather in a Propheticall vision, to fortell what was to come to passe de facto concerning the Church-worship, and adherers to the true worship; sundry learned Interpreters conceive that this latter is the intention and purpose of this vision, that the true Church, the true worship of God, and the worshippers after that true maner of worship of God instituted by himself, was to be brought to great [Page 50] straits, obscurity, and paucitie, in comparison of the false and An­tichristian Church, worship, and worshippers; and that this is meant by the measuring with the Rod, and not the regulating of the state of the Church, and qualification of members. See both Brightman and Merhiston vpon the place. But 3. Grant the meaning of the place to be, as if the Spirit had said to John, hold forth dogmatically that the Church (as to its constitution) the worship, and such as are to be acknowledged worshippers, are to be regulated by the rule of the Word of God (which we deny not in the generall) then I ask what is that particular rule held forth in the Word by which persons are to be regulated, and discerned in relation to their admission to fellowship of outward worshipping?

section 9 He goeth about to make this manifest in the fifth and sixth grounds we marked laid down by him, to which, and what is said by him in the following forth thereof, we repone these things. 1. The Court which is without (or as some others read, within) and to be casten out; others understand far otherwayes, not of persons, but of the outward and visible face and state of the Church; and by the casting of it out, rejecting, casting off care of it, and giving of it over for a time, viz. of Antichrists power and preva­lency to be possessed by Antichristian and idolatrous people, because of their following and practising heathenish-like wayes and idola­trie: So Merhiston. And certainly it is very likely that the Court here cannot denotate persons, I mean professours to be casten out of the Visible Church; because it is said to be given to the heathen, and these heathen are these very persons, that are said to be casten out. The Interpretation in Marlorat is exceeding harsh, and hath no probability in congruity of speech, to wit, to cast out hy­pocrites and idolaters, i. e. the Court, because it is given to the heathen. 1. Because they are become like the infidel heathens. Where shall we finde the like speech, that persons are said to be given unto such and such persons because they are become like unto them. 2. But grant, by this Court persons are meant, and that by not measuring of them is meant not imbraceing of them, but casting them out. How doth M^r. Lockier prove, that these per­sons are all such as have but an outside of worship, and are destitute of the power of Religion, even albeit their Religion be true and [Page 51] right objectively, and in the nature and kinde of it; and their pro­fession morally serious. This he must not only affirm, but prove, if he would say any thing convincingly to the point he taketh in hand to deduce. What if I shall say, not such persons, but Antichristi­an, idolatrous persons are understood hereby? What can he bring from the Text, or reason to prove what he saith? 3. Let's see his reasons he bringeth to shew that such as have only an outside wor­ship, Religion, and devotion, but are destitute of the power there­of are not to be imbraced as mater of the Visible Church, but held out or cast out. The 1. is brought from Marlorat, because the house, saith he, is spirituall, and holy, they are not congruous mater, ne complectaris eos in spirituali aedificio Domini. Ans. 1. That spirituall house or aedifice Marlorat speaks of, is the true Church Invisible, spirituali aedificio Domini quod nunquam cor­ruere poterit: Mr. Lockier has slipped these words. 2. Marlorat comprehends under these that are the Court, all the reprobate mixed with the Elect, tho they were even as guilded hypocrites, as of whom it may be said (which Mr. Lockier saith) they are true converts as far as men can judge; as is evident all along. 3. Marlorat speaks not of casting them out of visible societie with the spirituall house of the Elect, by Disciplinarie ejection of singular persons distinctly, (but by Doctrinall conviction, and denunciati­on of destruction against them) except in the case of evidently ma­nifested rebellion or obstinacy. So he upon these words, & ado­rantes in eo] quando hypocritarum magna semper fuit copia in mundo, & reprobi electis nunquam non permixti fuerunt, Pasto­ris munus est, quo ad fieri potest, inter utrosque discernere, ut pios Dei cultores, verbi Dei pabulo pascat, exhortetur, consoletur, foveat; reliquos ad Dei tribunal citet, & extremúm illis exiti­um Dei nomine pronunciet (all this is but Doctrinall not terminat ad signata individua, (as they call them) i. e. to definite singular persons) at (que) etiamsi se prorsus rebelles prodiderint impii, publicâ autoritate coerceantur & à [...]aetu reliquorum ejiciantur. All this we grant willingly, yet without any advantage to Mr. Lockier. 2. Reas. Why must these out-court-Christians not be taken in? Why, John saith, those are given to the Gentiles, i. e. saith Mar­lorat, ipsi facti sunt conformes gentibus incredulis, &c. Ans. 1. [Page 52] As we said before it is altogether improbable that by the Court is meant persons, but a thing, and it seemeth to be a most forced sense, and without example, given up to the Gentiles, i. e. they are become like the Gentiles. Next we say it is most evident from the end of this ver. that the Spirit speaks not these words as a rule prescribing what he or others should do in governing the Church; but as a prediction of somewhat that was to come to passe, this I say is evident by the designation of the circumstance of the time or duration of that which is spoken of in the end of the vers. But 2ly. Mr. Lockier supposeth two things which he mainly should have proven, that the outer-court-Christians are all that have not the power of Godlinesse in their heart, though their profession and practice in Religion be objectively right and true, and subjectively serious. 2. That casting them out and not measuring them must be understood of Disciplinarie ejection, upon that very account that they have not the power of Godlinesse. 3. As to that he addeth himself such kind of Professours will soon in times of temptati­ons, &c. 'tis true, they may be ready to do so; but tell me, will not even some such fine, well guilded Professours, who may seem as far as men can judge to have the power of Godlinesse in their heart, be such as will be ready soon to do the same? Yes; be­cause when all is done they may be but outside Professours. Simon Magus, Hymeneus, and Alexander must have been at their reception into the Church, by Mr. Lockiers principles, such as were true converts so far as men could judge; yet we see them ready soon to conform themselves to the worst of men. Thus, I humbly conceive, we have made it clear that Mr. Lockier hath little ground for his doctrine from this Text, most part of the pillars of his dis­course being meer suppositions, taken for granted, but having no light of proof from the words, as also that he had as little cause to boast of Marlorats complying with it unawars.

section 10 The 3^d. and last shadow or hint is, Rev. 4. Which whole Chap­ter is taken up to shew the state of the holy City fore-mentioned; and in the 1. vers. observe. John is taken up to Heaven to have the frame of this new building given him. After this I looked, and behold a door was opened in Heaven, and the first voice which I heard—which said come up hither, and I will shew thee things [Page 53] which must be hereafter. And immediatly I was in the Spirit, and behold a Throne was set in Heaven, &c. Moses had his pa­tern upon the Mount nigh Heaven, not in Heaven. And yet some very learned men think that even that was teaching what that peo­ple should be which walked in that first house, persons really very nigh Heaven, with which compare, Ezek. 44. 7. But John hath his patern given him in Heaven, to shadow that this Temple, Al­tar, worshippers should all indeed be from above, and such as should indeed have an internall consecration, and the Law given into the mind, as the Author to the Hebrews saith, and made Jews inward­ly, a holy Nation, according to inward call and choise, and so a spirituall Priesthood.

section 11 Answ. 1. Here again we are to mark the Conclusion that Mr. Lockier would be at, touching the mater of the Visible Church, such as are all indeed from above, as have indeed an internall con­secration, the Law given into the mind, made Jews inwardly, an holy Nation, according to inward choise and call. Here indeed is an Anabaptisticall model of the Visible Church, all reall saints, and not in the judgement of charity only. M^r, Lockiers so far as spi­rituall men can judge, as it is wholly left out by himself, so it can­not well be admitted to have any place here. 1. Because he saith they are all indeed from above, and have indeed an internall con­secration, that indeed I think to every mans apprehension noteth veritatem rei in se, or judicio veritatis (as they call it) as contra­distinguished a judicio charitatis of spirituall men. 2. Because that place, Heb. 8. 10. cited from Jer. 31. 33. brought in by him for confirmation of his purpose, he is speaking of, (of the impertinency whereof to the purpose in hand, I mean, the constitution of the Visible Church, we shall speak presently) speaketh of truth and reality of grace in the heart, I may say, in the very judgement of God himself under which there is no possibility of mistake; But to the grounds he goeth upon from this Text. 2. He taketh for granted, that this whole Chapter is taken up to shew the state of the Visible Church in its constitution, as such, and that it is the Spi­rits intention in the vision set down in it, to give unto John a pa­tern thereof to be a rule to him and others then, and succeeding ages, for regulating the constitution of it, and particularly in the [Page 54] point of Church-members; but why did he not assay some proofe of this: Must we take every thing upon his bare assertion? 'Tis true, Learned Brightman in his commentary conceiveth that this vision containeth a common Type of the holy Church in all ages. But 1. In all the progresse of his commentarie on that Chapter, I find not any evident passage pointing at any particular in the vision, as a patern, type, or rule, concerning the qualification of such as are to be admitted in the external fellowship of the Visible Church, as the homogeneall parts of the outward visible body. 2. Though I will not stay here to examine the intent of all the particulars in that vision, and though I esteem much of the judgement of that learned and pious man; yet in the generall, I must say, I find no convincing argument, nor much appearance of any argument at all brought by him to prove that the intent of the vision was to give John a patern, a certain portraicture or resemblance of the Church, whereby we might know which is she. Yea albeit I confesse sun­dry particulars in the vision are things of the Church (in the Inter­pretation whereof I would not much disagree from Brightman) yet I think he is mistaken in taking that for the generall intent and purpose of the vision: and conceives that John being now to receive a new Propheticall Revelation concerning these things that were to come to passe in and upon the Church from that time to the end of the World, ver. 1. fin. The intention of the vision of this Chap­ter is to describe and set forth the Glory and Majesty of God the Father, the first Author of the Prophesie, as in the next Chapter is described the Son the Mediatour and subordinate Author there­of, as it is ordinary when the Lord is to communicate to his Pro­phets, and by them to the Church, Propheticall Revelations of great things to come to passe concerning the Church, to present by way of preparation some glorious representation of himself, as we may see, Esay 6. and Ezek. 1. See these words of the learned and judicious Gomarus upon that Chapter, on the MarginSequitur (to wit from v. 2.) descriptio Authoris Coelestis, partim ratione visaeillius Majestatis, partim prae­ceptae hono­rationis ejus­dem. Cujus descriptionis scopus est primum com­mendatio a­pocalypseos ex Authore Caelesti, dein­de Ecclesiae in fide & timore Dei ac patientia confirmatio ex Majestate & honora­tione illius promanante. Quae descri­buntur op­portune, nam revelandum est hoc libro mysterium status Eccle­siae afflictissi­mae &c. so Gomar.. And certainly had it been the purpose of the Spirit, by this vision to hold forth a patern, portraicture, and resemblance of the true Church common to all ages, least because of troubles and distur­bances, we should either think it utterly extinguished, or at least through ignorance of her right form and figure, we should be lesse [Page 55] able to know which is she (as Mr. Brightman saith) it seemeth the wisedom of the Spirit of God would have portraicted the figure and form of the Church in these things that are most substantiall in the constitution of it, so as Christians of ordinary capacitie might been able to discern & take up the true Church by; but Mr. Bright­man himself is even troubled to find what things are meant by eve­ry particular in the vision. And in some he bringeth but meer con­jectures, yea and likely is mistaken, as, could we stay, might be very probably shown; as for example, in his Exposition of the sea of Glasse like Christall before the Throne. 3. But what is the particular in the vision from which Mr. Lockier deduceth his con­clusions? this, viz. that it was in Heaven he saw it, a door was ope­ned in Heaven and the Throne was set in Heaven, this, saith he, was to shadow that the—worshippers should be indeed from a­bove, &c. and to make it the stronger, it is confirmed by a com­parison of what was done with Moses, Moses had his patern upon the Mount nigh Heaven, &c. Answ. 1. Here is a thing begged for a ground, that as Moses was taken up to the Mount to get a patern of these things, which he was to appoint in the ancient Church, so Iohn is here taken up to get a patern of the Visible Church, and the things to be ordered in it under the New Test. This, I say, is groundlesly supposed: For these things that were to be done by Moses were but now a instituting, and to be first set up: and therefore it was necessary that he should have a patern of them represented to him to regulate him; but ere the time of this reve­lation, Christ had fully instituted all particulars belonging to the Church of the New Testament, and many Churches through the World, were already actually setled and ordered according to that institution, and beside sundry of the Books of the New Test. writ­ten, wherein the institution and rule was already plainly written down, and this indeed is one reason which inclineth me to think that the scope and intention of the Spirit in this vision was not to give a patern, and portraicture, or modell of the Visible Church for the time to come. 2. As to that alledged meaning of Moses receiving his patern near Heaven, viz. to shew of what qualifica­tion the people, i. e. the members of the ancient Visible Church should be, (viz. in foro exteriori, so must he understand it, if he [Page 56] speak to the purpose in hand) I will not trouble my self to inquire who may be these very learned men that say so. But the thing it self is but a conjecture: and I desire Mr. Lockier concerning this, and the expounding of Heaven here, to remember the axiome ac­knowledged by Schoole-men themselves, otherwise doting on al­legories, theologia symbolica non est Argumentativa, except where the Spirit of God himself openeth the signification. 3. I desire to know what Mr. Lockier meaneth by persons really living very near Heaven, if truely gracious, then what difference between those, and these afterward brought in with an adversative opposing them to the former, and why did he propound his Doctrine with a restriction to the time of the Gospel? 4. That patern which Mo­ses had shown to him in the Mount, according to which he was commanded to make, did not concern the constitution of the body of the then Visible Church, of what, and how qualified persons it was to be made up. But was a patern of the Tabernacle and the things pertaining to it, Exod. 25. 9. 40. S. The place, Ezek. 44. 7. referred as speaking of the ordinary members of the then Visible Church is not to the purpose, for it speaks of such as were admit­ted to the Priests Office. See Junius and Paraeus in locum. 5. As impertinently, and much more impertinently is the place of Heb. 8. 10. cited from Ier. 31. 33. brought into this discourse concerning the Visible Church, and the mater thereof. I appeal to all judicious Christians in the World, and to Mr. Lockier himself in second serious thoughts, if that Scripture was intended to be a rule of constituting Congregations: Or if it be not a declaration or revelation of Gods purpose and Decree what he is to do himself by his efficacious grace; and if that Covenant and the promises there­of belongeth not in the fulfilling thereof only to the Lords elect.

SECTION V. Examination of Mr. Lockyers proofe of his Doctrine by induction.

section 1 BƲt (saith he) this is not the way which I most mind to make probation by, of this point: I would prove it by induction, [Page 57] it seemeth then, that he hes not had such confidence in that former way of probation, by testimonies alledged to speak the point in thesi: And I humbly leave it to the judicious and impartiall Reader to judge, by what hath been said in answer to these passages, if it be not made clearer that he had little ground of confidence in them for proof of his point, and comes now to that way of probation, wherein it seemeth he conceiveth more strength to ly.

section 2 The Churches of the Romanes, Corinthians, Ephesians, Gala­tians, Collossians, Thessalonians, of the Jews which are mentio­ned by Peter, Iames, and the Author to the Hebrews, and in the Acts, were all thus constitute of truely Godly, so far as a God­ly man can make judgement of one like himself, Ergo. if these be denyed as presidents, then I would aske our Brethren of the Pres­bytery by what rule they walk? But if these be considered as pre­sidents, I have only to shew that these Churches did all thus consti­tute, though I think they did not long keep and maintain this pure constitution, for which they bore their judgement, & yet bear. Ans. Where did Mr. Lockier read, that the judgement comed and yet lying upon these Churches, came upon them for their admitting and permitting to be in their visible society such as were not true con­verts, such as God the searcher of the hearts of all men can bear witnesse of as indeed sealed for his by his Holy Spirit, as far as men truely converted and very spirituall can discern and judge? We find indeed laid to some of their charge that they suffered scanda­lous persons, broatchers of errors, and seducers of others into their errors, (such, I mean, maintainers of errors, I trow he and others of his way are not averse from receiving and suffering into their In­dependent Churches) and I doubt not but for this among other causes, judgement came upon them: But that ever that which he saith was laid to t [...]eir charge, or that the judgement of God came upon them for that cause, we cannot believe his assertion; we re­quire it to be instanced by proofe: but to the purpose; he suppos­eth that beside these particular Churches instanced, and what is said of them in the Epistles written to them, there can be no where in Scripture found any thing holden forth as a rule by which we may walk in the constitution of the visible Church as to the mater or members t [...]ereof. So doth his Question (then I would aske our [Page 58] Brethren by what rule they walk) import: But we trust ere we have done, to find a rule else-where; yet we shall not deny nor re­fuse these Churches as presidents in this businesse, in whatsoever can be made clear to have been their practice in this mater, I mean, the notion and consideration under which persons were admitted unto, and reckoned in their externall Church-fellowship. Come we then to consider the antecedent of this Argument, or what is affirmed in his induction of these Churches. First in the generall, and then his proof thereof particularly. The assertion of them all in generall is, that all of them were constitute of persons truely Godly so far as Godly men could make judgement. Ans. 1. Mr. Lockier if he would have made the attributum of this induction an­swerable to his conclusion intended, he should have said they were constitute of persons all and every one of them truely Godly, and none else. But he speaks only indefinitely, which might be granted: But let us take him to mean so; this assertion as it lyeth, may be granted in some sense which it may carry, and never a whit advan­tage redound thereby to his Doctrine; for it may carry this sense, that these Churches were made up, or did consist of persons all of them truely mat [...]ially Godly de facto, and quoad eventum; or it may carry this sense, that they were constitute of persons all truly godly, formally considered as such, in their taking them into the con­stitution and external society of them. Now in the first sense it might be granted (as I suppose some Congregation or Congregations may be such eventually, that all the members may be truely godly) & yet no advantage come thereby to his Tenet, unlesse he could prove that the enumeration which he makes is a perfect enumeration of all the particular Churches in Scripture (which he cannot, because it is clearly contrary to truth, and therefore his induction is imperfect) Yea and this also, that there is no other Passage of Scripture, that holds forth a rule or warrand of any larger latitude touching ad­mitting of members into the fellowship of the Visible Church then what is said of these Churches. He must prove then the assertion in the latter sense, viz. that these Churches were constitute of persons all truely godly as far, &c. formally considered as such, and under no other consideration, in their in-taking and being rec­koned members in their outward visible societie: If he could prove [Page 59] this of any one of them we should go over to his side of the contro­versie: But now see how he proveth this, nay all that is brought or can be brought by him, is only this, that the Apostle Writing to these Churches, calleth them saints, beleevers, sanctified in Christ Iesus, and the like, which should we grant to mean inward true grace of regeneration, and to be spoken not of the whole body col­lectively and confuse, only giving the denomination of the whole from the better part; but distributively of all and every one of them; yet nothing else could necessarily be concluded from this, but that they were such de facto and quo ad eventum, and not that they were gathered and received into the externall fellowship of these Churches formally upon this and no other account: that they were such reall, internall, truely regenerate saints. The A­postles in the place cited speaks not, nor intimates one word con­cerning the order of proceeding, or account whereupon the pro­ceeding was made in the visible externall constituting and setting up of these Churches, or admitting of members into them, neither doth Mr. Lockier so much as once assay to make a proofe of this point; only after he hes cited some passages concerning the Corinthi­ans, he saith, pag. 22. end, and pag. 23. begin. that these expressions should import that they did constitute & gather together upon any o­ther account, but as there was the true grace of God evident as far as men could judge, I cannot indeed see. Alas! 1. Is this to prove that which being the very main pinch of the Question, to say no more for it, but you cannot see how it was not done so. 2. But I forbear to exaggerat this way of reasoning. We are sure he might see in Scri­pture how persons were gathered and received into the fellowship of the Visible Church upon another account, and trust by the Lords assistance ere we have done to let it be seen by such as will not shut their eyes upon the light of the Word. Thus we have said already, doth sufficiently discover the weaknesse and nullity of the inductive Argument to the point in controversie. And I must say, I wonder that Learned men (such as I do with all respect, acknowledge our Independent Brethren to be) should have put such confidence in it.

section 3 But 2. Let's see if he can prove that all these Churches were de facto and quo ad eventum, constitute and made up of persons all [Page 60] truely Godly so far as Godly and discerning men could make judge­ment, such as upon tryall would give evidence of the true grace of God in them as far as men could judge. First then for the Romans is cited, chap. 1. vers. 6, 7, 8, 9. where they are written to by Paul (who surely was able to discern in spirituall maters, and durst not complement with persons in things of eternall concern­ment) under the styles of the called of Iesus Christ, called Saints, beloved of God, these whose faith is spoken of through all the World, and the Apostle writes to all that are at Rome, and thanks God for them all, and made mention of them all in his prayers, Well, what hence? I cannot think (saith he) that a faith of so high esteem with Paul, and of such renown through the Christian World, and the mater of such servent Prayer should mean only a temporary faith. Why? Some of these were such as laid down their neck for Paul, Rom. 16. 4. the rest surely in danger of their own necks e­very day by their profession, living in the mouth of that Tyranne Nero, as Paul calleth him (it should be Lion) or Dragon, as Iohn calls all Heathen Emperours of that place. Answ. 1. We will not say it is a temporary faith he speaks of, we grant it to be a saving persevering faith, and for confirmation of this he might ad­ded a stronger ground from the Text then these he hath chosen, that they are all called beloved of God, and called Saints, where, as Estius noteth well, intelligitur vocatio non communis & exter­na, &c. i. e. is understood, not common and outward calling, but that whereby men are effectually called to faith, holinesse, and salvation, which is the calling according to purpose and Predestina­tion: But now will Mr. Lockier or any man take upon them to say, that Paul mean'd that all and every one in the Visible Church of Rome, were such as had not a temporary faith only, but a true sa­ving faith, and so were all and every one such as were to be un­doubtedly saved. I doubt he will hazard upon this assertion: or if he will, I doubt much if he shall have any other to bear him com­pany in it. May be, he will say, he intends not that, but this, that they were all and every one such, so far as in his judgement he could discern: and he was a man very able to discern in spirituall matters, as he saith a little before. But, 1. This is an addition to the Text, and how will he prove that it was Pauls mind to speak [Page 61] with such a qualification? 2. He supposeth that Paul had ac­quaintance and experience of every one of them sufficient to discern what they were, so doth that he saith import, read Paul who surely was able to discern in spirituall matters. But this behoved to have been by conversing with them coram; and that he could not have, it seemeth; Aret Rp. 1. 7 Calvin 1 Cor. 1, 2. P. Mart. Rom. 1. 7. Calv. Gal. 1. 2 Er. Sar. cer, Eph. 1. 1 Estius, Rom. 1. 7. 1 Cor. 1, 2. because he had not yet been at Rome to meet with every one of them there, nor is it likely that every one of them had come from Rome and met with him otherwhere, or he behoved to have it by communication by Letters from every one of them: And what ground of conjecture have we for this? I think to say it, would be accounted a Dream. As for report, of every one of them and their severall evidences of grace, by others. 1. We have as little ground of conjecture for that, though we find that there hes been great fame of their faith in common and in generall, ver. 8. 2. Report may be a ground of charitable beliefe (I take beleef here in the generall logicall signification of it, as it is contradistinguished from opinion and science) but it cannot be a ground of a positive discretive judgement, such as Mr. Lockier at­tributeth to Paul touching the Romanes faith, for it implyes a mans own personall experience of things. 2. We say the Apostle in these titles of beloved of God, Saints, Beleevers, meaneth true saving grace, truely existing, and not in the judgement of charity only: But speaketh there not of all the Romanes universaliter & distributivè, as we say all men are sinners, but communiter & col­lectivè, & confusè, i. e. in common, collectively, and confused­ly; because undoubtedly saving grace was amongst them, and he could not take upon him to determine, whether moe or fewer of them were endued with it, and as it seems knew nothing to the contrary of any of them particularly, but they might be such. Thus verily I think the Apostles writing to whole Churches, and calling them generally by the name of Saints, faithfull, &c. may well be understood; and no other thing can be demonstrate of their mea­ning: Take herewith the judgement of the Learned Commenta­tors on the place, all of which do unanimously determine that these titles of Saints, faithfull, and the like, are given by the Apostles to the Churches; partly in respect of the end of their calling, and the duty of every one in the Church, viz. that the end of their [Page 62] calling, and their duty is to be such; and partly by a denomina­tion taken à parte potiori, from the better part, because there were true reall Saints and beleevers amongst them. And I think it is a worthy and solide consideration, which my worthy Collegue in the Ministry and my Reverend Superior in the Colledge I live in, hath in his due right of Presbytery, pag. 259. in answer to M^r. Cot­ton upon this same Question and Argument, the styles given to the Church of Corinth are too high to be given to hypocrites (such as many of Mr. Lockiers truely godly so far as men can judge, may be and often are) but these styles are not given to that Church precisely, as Visible, and as a professing Church, but as an Invi­sible, and true Church of Beleevers: He Writeth to a Visible Church, but he doth not speak of them alwayes as a Visible Church, but as of an Invisible when he calleth them Temples of the Holy Ghost, &c.

section 4 What we have said ro his alledgeance concerning the Church of Rome, is applicable to what is said to the most part of the rest: so that we shall not insist much on them. Only a word or two of some of them. And 1. For the Corinthians, after he hath set down what is spoken to them, chap. 1. vers. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. and chap. 4. 15. he subjoyneth persons having such grace in them, as shall be confirmed to the end, as keepeth them waiting to the com­ing of the Lord Jesus, as are the comfortable seals of a faithfull Ministry, that all this should signifie but an outward Profession, or to say that this Church should constitute, and Congregate to­gether upon any other account, but as there was the true grace of God evident, as far as men could judge, I cannot indeed see. Answ. 1. Let it be marked how in citing the place, chap. 4, 15. he maketh an addition to the Text, for in Christ Jesus I have be­gotten you all, this all is put in as the Apostles word, when as in the Text there is no more but I have begotten you. This is a gross, foule slip, I will not say it hath been done out of designe, may be it hes been done inconsiderately, without present turning over to the place; however, adding to the Word of God is a dangerous practice. 2. As for that to say that this Church did constitute and gather upon another account, &c. we have noted on it suffici­ently before. I adde now this, by what M^r. Lockier saith here, [Page 63] and indeed by the Doctrine of all the Independent Brethren of his way, in this mater of the constitution of the Visible Church, it ap­peareth that their conception about the order of gathering the Visible Church by the Apostles was this, that men being first turned to the Profession of Christian Religion, there was a tryall made of their evidences of true inward saving grace, and such as eviden­ces satisfactory of this were found in, these were gathered in, and the rest casten by, which I dare say is a meer fiction, of which not the least vestige can be shown in Scripture, and never man dreamed of untill these sad times, broodie of many new fancies under the name of new lights. 3. I confesse persons having such grace in them as shall be confirmed to the end, as keeps them waiting for the coming of Christ, as are the comfortable seals of a faithfull Ministry, are not outward Professours only, but are reall Saints and Elect, and thence I conclude, it cannot be understood univer­sally of all and every one of the Visible Church of Corinth. Will he say that all and every one were reall Saints, Elect, to be confirmed unto the end, and so eternally saved; if he say, yes, in Pauls judgement, so far as he could judge upon evidences of true grace. I say, 1. That is an addition to the Text, Paul saith simply he shall confirm you unto the end, &c. not so far as I can judge he shall confirm you. Yea, 2. It enervats the comfort held forth by the Apostle to them he speaks to, for it imports no more upon the mater, but this, possibly ye may be confirmed to the end, and so when all is done ye may be possibly not confirmed to the end: (mans judgement can go no further) and is contrary to the strain of all the Orthodox, writing against the Remonstraints in the Ar­ticle of perseverance, who understand the place of Saints, and the Lords effectuall gracious preserving them in veritate rei, and so make use of the place, and presse it against the Remonstrants. But let Mr. Lockier rid himself here; if he will have Paul to speak thus of all and every one of the Visible Church of Corinth, either he must conceive it spoken only with relation to the state of that Church as its first up-setting: or also in relation to what it was at the present time of the Writing of this Epistle: The former cannot be said, because its most evident all along that Passage, Chap. 1. he is speaking of it as still, at the time of his writing, standing in that con­dition [Page 64] he expresseth in his words, albeit some of the Verbs be used in the preterit perfect tense, no man can deny this who hath any judgement. If he say the latter, the very Epistle it self will con­fute it, wherein, to wit, so grosse wickednesses, and impieties are discovered to have been amongst them, and laid to their charge, schismes, contentious suits of Law, fornications, communion and fellowship at Idolatrous Tables, drunkennesse at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, deniall of the Resurrection. Will any man say, that the Apostle knowing such things to be amongst them, speaks of all and every one of them as reall inward Saints as far as men can judge.

section 5 For the Church of the Galatians is cited, Gal. 4. 9. chap. 6. 1. the latter whereof is so impertinent to the purpose, that I wonder how it came in his minde to alledge it. The point to be proven is, that the Church of the Galat. was constitute of persons all truely godly so far as men could judge: The Apostles meaning in this place is this much, if any amongst you through infirmity or ignorance be surprized and fall into a fault, such among you as are spirituall i. e. more advanced and confirmed in knowledge and piety, and more experimentally skilled in Christianity, being conscious of your own lyablenesse to temptations, apply your selves to recover and restore such an one with meeknesse and gentlenesse; what is this to that conclusion? If Mr. Lockier had assayed to make up a Syllogisme upon it, for inferring that conclusion, he would, I no wayes doubt, have perceived the impertinency of his alledging it. Neither yet doth the former prove the point: for let that knowing of God, and their being known of God, be understood of reality of saving grace: Yet the speech is but indefinite, after ye have known God, or rather are known of God. And every body knows, what an indefinite speech can bear in materiâ contingente.

section 6 For the Church of Ephesus is cited, Eph. 1. 1. 13. and Acts 20. 28. 32. For the first citation, I mean what is said in the Epistle, we need say no more then what is said upon the Romanes and Corin­thians: The places are all alike, and the same answer serveth all. Only I will say, I am astonished that any man should think or say that these high Heavenly blessings, priviledges, and graces spoken of by the Apostle to the Ephesians, as blessed with spirituall bles­sings [Page 65] in Heavenly places, chosen before the foundation of the World, predestinat to the adoption of Children, to the praise of the Glory of His Grace, accepted in the Beloved, having Redem­ption through His Blood, the forgivenesse of sins, obtained the inheritance, sealed with the Spirit of promise, quickned with Christ, raised up together with him to sit in heavenly places &c. are all by the Apostle spoken of and attributed to all and every one in the visible societie of the Church of Ephesus so far as he could judge, wherein he himself clearly intimats there were some (and he speaks according to his own knowledge) that were given to teach other Doctrine, giving heed to fables, 1 Tim. 1. 3, 4. some that had swerved aside to vain jangling, desiring to be. Teachers of the Law, &c. v. 6, 7. that teached otherwise, not consenting to wholesome words,—proud, knowing nothing, doting about Questions and Strifes of words, c. 6. 3, 4. some addicted to the love of Money and Covetousnesse, v. 9, 10. striving about words to no profite, but to the subverting of the hearers, vessels to dishonour, as vessels to honour, Reprobates and Cast-awayes, as well as Elect, the foundation of the Lord having the seal of Gods Eternal Predestination & Fore-knowledge set upon them, 2 Tim. 2. 19. 20. those that oppose themselves and were to be brought with meek­nesse unto Repentance, and recovered out of the snare of Satan who had them captive at his will, v. 25, 26. such as had a forme of Godlinesse but denyed the Power thereof, Misleaders and Mis­lead, cap. 3. 6. 7. compare with v. 5. who will dare to say that the Apostle writing to a Church, and giving them all these high stiles and commendations, mentioned before; did intend them to all and every one severally and distributively in that Church? Nei­ther will it avail to say, that this Church might been so constitute at first, as that all the Members might been such as these stiles might been given to them, as far as men could judge, though af­terward many of them degenerated, and discovered themselves. Unlesse Mr. Lockier make it good, that such was the state of that Church in all the Members of it, at the time of the writing of this Epistle to the Ephesians, he alleadgeth what is said in it to no ef­fect for his purpose. But it is certain that the first Epistle to Timo­thie was written long before it, this being written long ere he came [Page 66] to Rome, as Interpreters agree, and that being written from Rome, and that, as most think, in the time of his second imprisonment there, and so it seemeth but a little before the second to Timothie, which was the last of all.

section 7 For the other citation, Acts 20. 28, 32. 1. The latter vers. 32. any man who sees any thing, may see it clearly impertinent to the purpose in hand. 2. To the other feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood, We Answ. That by the Church bought with the blood of Iesus Christ, true God, is not meant the Visible Church, as such, as if the meaning of the words were, bought with the blood of Christ in the judgement of chari­tie, or so far as men can judge, (which is a meer addition to the Text;) but the Invisible Church of the Elect, really redeemed: So do all Orthodox Divines writing against Remonstrants on the Article of Redemption, expound it of the Church of the Elect on­ly, and presse it as an Argument against the Remonstrants Univer­sall Redemption, and Remonstrants upon the contrare would have it meant of the whole Visible Church. Mr. Lockier hath given no proof that it is spoken of the Visible Church, as such, but thought it enough to point us to the place, and to suppose it be as he would have it. But because Reverend M. Hooker in his Survey, par. 1. c. 3. pag. 39, 40. asserteth the same interpretation of the place with Mr. Lockier, against my Reverend Collegue Mr. Rutherfurd, and assayes to give some reason for it, albeit I doubt not ere long, the Church shall have a sufficient answer from Mr. Rutherfurd himself, to that and other things in the Survey: Yet I must crave humble leave of him to say somewhat to M^r. Hooker in this parti­cular, seeing it cometh so far in my way, and otherwise, Mr. Lockier and his followers might haply say, I had purposely shun'd it.

section 8 The Church here (sayeth he) whether Congregationall or Presbyteriall, must needs be visible: Ans. That is not the question, nor the thing he should have proven; for we shall con­fesse the Church here spoken of, and as spoken of in the context, must be visible; but he should have said and proven the Church here spoken of, and said to be bought with the blood of Christ must be the Church Visible, and as such, considered according to [Page 67] its visible state, and consequently that the attribute of the enunci­ation is enunciat of all and every one in that state; see we then if the argument he formeth maketh out this. That over whom El­ders and Officers are set to attend to feed by Doctrine and Disci­pline, this must needs be a visible Church: for unlesse they did see them and know them, how could they execute censure upon them? but these, viz. over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend and feed, &c. are called the Church Redeemed with the Blood of God, The conclusion is suppressed but according to the terms of the premisses: It can be no other then this, Ergo the Church here spoken of must needs be visible. And this we may and do grant, and yet without any prejudice, or disadvantage, for that may well stand with this assertion, that only the Elect or the Church Invisible are intended by that name Church, when it is said there to be bought by the blood of God. For why? because the Elect or Invisible Church is visible, i. e. persons seen and obvious to the outward senses, Physically visible, and certainly Mr. Hooker speaks of no more in his Major and the proof thereof, unlesse they do see them and know them &c. the thing that he should have concluded was this Ergo, they are called, redeemed by the blood of God as the visible Church, or according to their Visible Church state; but that will not be inferred upon his premisses. If any man will say, his argument may be upon the terms taken in it, mended and urged to the point thus: These over whom Officers and Elders are set, to attend and feed by Doctrine and Discipline; must needs be a Vi­sible Church; and that considered according to its Visible State, and as Visible; but these over whom Elders and Officers are set, &c. are called the Church Redeemed by the Blood of God, Ergo, these called the Church Redeemed, &c. must needs be a Church Visible: and that as such, and considered according to its Visible State; Then I say, yet the conclusion toucheth not us for these that are called the Church Redeemed, may be granted to be a Church Visible, and that considered as visible, viz. in rela­tion to some other adjunct of it distinct from that epithet contained in the subject of the conclusion, viz. the denomination of Re­deemed by the Blood of God; and this argument as thus formed carrieth no more. But yet if one shall infer the conclusion thus, [Page 68] Ergo. these are called the Church Redeemed by the blood of God as a Church Visible, or considered according to their Visible Church state: Then I say this putteth the Syllogisme out of the wits and whole frame of it, takes the medium into the conclusion, for the minus extremum or attribute of the assumption (for the Syllo­gisme is in the third figure) and jumbles the majus extremum and minus extremum the attribute of the Major Proposition, and the attribute of the assumption together in the attribute of the conclu­sion, and so makes the Syllogism in whole, to consist of four terms; in a word, let any man take these premises of Mr. Hookers, mend them, shape, and change them as he will, he shall never be able to infer the conclusion that should be inferred to his purpose, that the Church Visible is called the redeemed by the blood of God, as it is visible, or according to its visible state.

section 9 But, saith he, if any man say, that the Elect are only there intended by that name, I answer, that conceit is contrary to the very strain of the words and scope of the Text, for they must attend [ [...]] to the whole flock: The charge puts no difference between person and person, nor most their care be different; nay upon this ground the Elders should not know, what their care was, nor up­on whom they should bestow it, for they might reply, Lord we cannot search into thy secrets, who are Elect and Invisible Saints, we cannot discern them, and therefore we cannot tell how to feed them; whereas by the current and common sense of the Scriptures, taking redeemed and sanctified as visibly, though not really such, the stream of the Text runneth pleasantly without the least appea­rance of doubt. Answ. 1. Reverend Mr. Hooker affirmeth more then he proves well, in calling that answer a conceit contrary to the stream of the words and scope of the Text. His first Argument comes to this much; All these are of the Church, which is said to be redeemed by the blood of God, whom the Elders and Officers are required to attend; But the Apostle requires them to attend all the flock without putting difference between person and person, ergo. all the flock, i. e. every one of the Visible Church are of that Church which is said to be redeemed &c. Ans. What ever might be said of his Interpretation of the flock to be the Visible Church as Visible, we deny the necessity of the Major Propositi­on. [Page 69] The flock as it is the object of the Ministers externall charge and administration of Ordinances, may be of a larger extent and comprehension, then is the signification of the Church as it stand­eth under that attribute of being redeemed by the blood of God. And that you may see that is not my conceit, see it expresly given by worthy and Learned Whittaker, in answer to Bellarmine prov­ing that the Church is Visible from this very Text, de Eccles. q. 2. c. 2. Resp. ad locum. 5. particulares Ecclesiae (such as was E­phesus, of which the Apostle is speaking) Christi Religionem pro­fitentes, dicuntur Ecclesia Synecdochic [...]s, propter sanctos nimi­rum & electos, qui in iis sunt, sed quia Pastores non possunt ele­ctos à reprobis discernere, itaque totum caetum pascere, regere, curare debent, & judicium Deo relinquere; where it is evident, that this Learned Author understood, that that whole Congre­gation or flock of the Ephesians which the Pastours are required to attend, is called that Church which is redeemed, not properly, but synecdochically, because of a part of it; and that is in effect as much as to say, not the whole flock, but a part of it, is the Church redeemed by the blood of God. The second argument: nay upon this ground the Elders should not know, &c. To say it, with reverence to the memory of the Author, is clear­ly to any body of common judgement, exceedingly weak; For, 1. How followeth that, if the Church redeemed by the blood of God, be the Elect only, then the Elders should not know what their care was, nor upon whom they should bestow it, for it must have this for a reason of it, that Church which is said to be redeem­ed is the only object of the Elders care, which they are required to attend. This we deny, we say they are part of it, with Whit­taker. 2. How weak is that, they might reply, we cannot search into thy secrets to perceive who are Elect—and therefore we can­not tell how to feed them. Then it seems by the Reverend mans rea­soning, when our Lord laid that charge upon Peter, Joh. 20. feed my Sheep, my Lambs, which are no other, but these same he speaks of, Joh. 10. 26, 27. i. e. only elect ones, v. 27, 28, 29. he might have replied, Lord I cannot search thy secrets to know who are these thine elect; and therefore I cannot tell how to feed them. It is not necessary or a Pastour to feed the Elect, that he know distinctly who are [Page 70] the singular persons by the head, but for feeding by publick Do­ctrine, it is sufficient that he know them confusedly, that they are there in the Congregation; and if he have any grounds of a positive judgement concerning particular persons, that indeed gives him further advantage to apply himself to those in a more particularly applicatory way. If indeed it were the Ministers work to feed efficaciter, to give the increase (as the Apostle expresseth the actu­all efficaciousnesse, or efficiency of grace) and they were required to feed the elect that way, I confesse if the Lord did not distinct­ly point out the particular persons to them; then they might make such a reply, Lord I cannot search into thy secrets to perceive who are these, &c. but the efficiency of grace is in Gods own hand alone, and the Minister has upon him but an externall, morall, suasive ad­ministration, which he is to dispense for the good of the elect, but he needeth not for that know them distinctly, it is enough, he knowes they are there, where he dispenseth them, and let God discern and waile them out from the rest. 3. It is a groundlesse supposition, and contrary to the truth, that in the current and common sense of Scripture, that redeemed being spoken of spirituall redemption from sin, and eternall wrath, (as for the name [san­ctified] it is not in this text, and therefore is impertinently brought in here) is taken for redeemed visibly, though not really. I doubt he can bring many passages of Scripture, wherein it can with any appearance be so exponed; yea visibly redeemed, is an expression in my judgement strange to Scripture: Let this suffice us in answer to M^r. Hooker in this particular: We doubt not but Mr. Ruther­furd, will have more full and acurate considerations on it.

section 10 I shall adde a word or two for proofe that by the Church redeem­ed by the blood of Christ cannot be understood all and every one of the Visible Church, but only the Elect, desiring Mr. Lockier to take the same to his consideration; if the Church which Ephes. 5. 25, 26, 27. Christ is said to have loved, and given himself for, that he might sanctifie and cleanse it, be not the Visible Church, as such, and so all members of the Visible Church, then neither is it so to be taken here; the consequence and connexion of this proposition, is necessary and clear, because the attribute enunciate of it in both places is all one upon the matter; for what else is it, that Christ [Page 71] loved the Church and gave himself for it, that, &c. but that he redeemed it by his own blood; But that, Eph. 5. by the Church is meant only the elect, i. e. the Invisible Church, is the constant Doctrine of all Orthodox Divines in their disputes against the Re­monstrants universall Redemption, for the Redemption of the e­lect only, and likewise of all Orthodox Divines writing against Pa­pists, on the Question concerning the members of the true, Invi­sible Church, the Mysticall body of Christ, and also upon the Que­stion of the Visibility of the Church: I instance but a testimonie of one, viz. Learned Whittaker, de Eccles. q. 1. c. 9. tert. arg. where you shall find him not only affirm, but solidely prove this we say, reasoning thus from the place: Christ is not the HeadThis is to be under­stood of such head­ship as has allusion to the head of the natu­rall body, which hath a reall in­fluence in­to the bo­dy; so no doubt Christ is an head, in a politicall sort to the Visible Church, having a morall in­fluence, by command, &c., but of that Church which he shall save, which he shall present to himself on the day of Judgement, glorious, not having spot or wrinkle: But only the predestinate shall be saved, Ergo. only the Elect belong to the Church of Christ, i. e. the Church mentioned there; and to Bellarmin's answer, that Christ is Head to that Church which he shall not save, he saith, falsissimum esse: Read that whole paragraph, and you shall find sundry other solide Ar­guments brought by him from that context, to prove that only the elect are that Church spoken of there. 2. Again I desire him to look forward from v. 28. to ver. 30. of this very 20. chap. of the Acts, and see what the Apostle saith, also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away Disciples after them: Whether we expone of your own selves of the whole body of the Church of Ephesus, or particularly of the Elders and Officers thereof, is all one to our purpose: It will not be denied that the Officers were members of the Church of Ephesus, and as Christians were partakers of the common Priviledges and Titles competent to the Visible Church; now if Paul shall be conceived to speak, that redeemed by the blood of Christ (let it be out of the positive judgement of charity, and so far as he could judge) uni­versally of all the Visible Church of Ephesus; how could this con­sist with what he saith, v. 30. Surgendi verbo, quo utitur, signi­ficat iam lu­pos illos fo­vere clande­stinam per­niciem donec occasione sibi datâ erum­pant, Calv. in loc. that he knew there was some a­mongst them presently fostering secret and clandestine wickednesse, who would afterward openly kyth, apostatize from the truth, and become seducers of others. Could the Apostle have a judgement [Page 72] such as is mentioned, of such that they were Redeemed by, &c. Sure, understand the Word, v. 20. as Mr. Lockier would, and we shall have clearly contradictory judgements of Paul at once: I judge the Church of Ephesus Universally, all and every one of you Redeemed; and yet I know some among you are lurking trai­tours who will kyth afterward: he sayeth not, may be some of you will, but positively some of you will.

section 11 For the Church of the Philippians is cited chap. 1. v. 6. and chap. 4. v. 15, 16. For the latter, I see nothing in it that hath any colour of a ground for his point, nor yet doth the former hold forth a proof of it: The Apostle writeth to all the Saints at Philippi, and v. 6. declares the confidence that he had, that God who had begun the work in them would perfite it to the coming of the Lord Jesus; Will it follow hence that all and every one of the Visible Church of Philippi were reall Saints so far as man could judge, The 6. vers. by the Orthodox writing-a­gainst the Remon­strants up­on the head of perseve­rance, is applyed only to the Elect and true Believers, in the judgement of verity, or truth of the thing it self. See Ames. Co­ron. art. 5. arg. 2. pro­ving this by solide reasons. no Logick will evince this from these words cited: If he had taken in the 7. vers. he might had a fairer shew of an argument, even as it is meet for me to think so of you all, because I have you in my, heart, in as much as both in my bonds and in defence and confirma­tion of the Gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. Here indeed I acknowledge is a judgment of charity passed upon them all at Phi­lippi, as truely gracious, and such as God would perfect his Work in, and thinks not that it can be exponed so as to be understood, only of that whole Church collectively: for as it is well marked by judicious Amesius on the place now cited, the Apostle in this v. putteth in the Universall particle All, which he hath not in the former, wherein he expresseth a certain assured judgement of faith ( [...], being perswaded of this very thing) of perseverance of these he speaks of, and therefore that being spo­ken indefinitely, this must be understood universally of all and eve­ry one of them; it is very evident that in the following vers. where that particle is put in, though the act of judgement be lesse intensive, but a judgement of charity, a hoping and probable esti­mation (and indeed the word is changed, it is here [...]) yet the object is of larger extension and must be understood of them universally. Then will you say, do you not yeeld the point in contraversie, to Mr. Lockier. Answ. No wayes: 1. Remember [Page 73] what we said; [...]e main point which Mr. Lockier should have proven to make out his generall Doctrine or Thesis, was, that these particular Churches did gather, that is, receive in per­sons to their visible society, formally upon this account, and no otherwise, that they were truely Godly so far as men could judge, or as others say in the judgement of charity; But all that I grant here of the Church of Philippi, is that they were all such de facto & quoad eventum, and no more can be proven from the Text. 2. Though this much be granted of this Church, yet his induction is not made out, no, not as to this much: Because neither hath he proven, nor can be proven so much of the rest of the Churches which he named: Yea this is only the Church mentioned in the Epistles that hath so high and generall commendation as this, except it be that there is an hint of the like title given to the Thessalonians, 1 Thess. 5. v. 5. Ye are all the Children of the light. Yet this ex­pression is much different from that spoken of the Philippians, and may well suffer that exposition given of it by the Learned Nether-Dutch Interpreters in their notes, ye are all, namely all who be­leeve in Christ. And indeed it is not likely he should be Interpre­ted to speak so of all and every one of the members of that Church, seeing he not only intimateth in both the Epistles, but in the second positively affirmeth, that he heard there were among [...]hem some that walked disorderly, working not at all, but busie bodies. Obj, But he bids them not keep company with them, that they may be ashamed, i. e. as some expone it, Excommunicate and cast them out of the Church.

Ans. He requires not this to be done to them, but in case of obstinacy: Now I suppose they had not proven obstinate, but left that disorderly walking, in taking themselves to work for their li­ving in some calling, so they would escaped the infliction of that censure; but would that been ground sufficient presently to hold such who had been so walking before, for truely gracious so far as men can judge? I doubt much if any man will assert it.

section 12 Mr. Lockier slips the Colossians in the proof of his induction, but what might been alledged of it, is alike with what was cited for the Ephesians. For the Churches of the Jews, first concerning that at Jerusalem, he referreth back to what he hath said already out [Page 74] of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and we refer the Reader to what we answered thereunto. Next for them altogether he citeth, 1 Pet. 1, 2, 3. 1 Pet. 5. 13. with Gal. 1. 22. And then to the 1 Thess. 2. 13, 14. and then addeth, the Church of the Jews were such Professors, as indured persecution, sharp tryalls for the truth, and were eminently exemplary to the World this way, as indeed Profession did then generally expose unto, though now not; and so voluntary Profession there—signified a great deale more than the forced Profession of the Gospel, which now we make, under such powers as call for, and countenance these things, doth; which should be observed, and allowed by them, which compare Profession then, with Profession now, if they dealt equally in this Controversie. Ans. 1. The Apostle Peter clearly writeth to the Elect, truely regenerated, who have obtained the like precious faith with him­self, are kept by the power of God to salvation, rejoiced in the hope thereof, though they had not seen Christ yet loved him, be­leeving on him, rejoiced with joy unspeakable and full of glory, already (in the first fruits, and undoubted interest) received the end of their faith, the salvation of their souls. What? Are these things that use to be given or attributed to hypocrites (such as Mr. Lockiers Visible Saints may be) and that in such a positive way? Or were there never a hypocrite in these Visible Churches of the Jews? 2. The place of the Thessalonians speaks of the Churches in Iudaea indefinitely and collectively, not universally; saith not that all and every one of them endured such persecution and trialls, again, suppose they did so after they were Church members, this is nothing to the point in hand; the Question is upon what account they were taken in. It seemeth he saw this, and therefore sub­joyneth that Profession did then generally expose unto such trialls. But undertaking of a profession of Religiō exposing to trials, if there be not actuall assaulting, is no sufficient ground or evidence posi­tively to hold a man truely gracious so far as men can judge. 3. Such wonders and signes as the Gospel was accompanied with then, may be as forcible to draw men without change of heart, un­to the profession of it (as we see in Simon Magus) as a Magi­strats call and countenancing of it, when there is no such miracles and signes; and therefore there is not such inequality between pro­fession [Page 75] then and now, nor such inequall dealing in comparing the one profession with the other as Mr. Lockier imagines.

section 13 After this induction neither full in the enumeration (for there be other Churches in the New Test▪ mentioned beside these, as the Churches of Asia, beside Ephesus, Rev. 2. and 3. which I think he did forbear to bring in his induction, because their case would spoken too clear against his undertaking) nor made good in the par­ticulars, as to the thing affirmed of them, he formeth an objection at his own pleasure against himself, and assayes to answer it; Let us consider both,

section 14 If it be objected (sayeth he) that there were wicked persons in these Churches, therefore we may constitute Churches now in the dayes of the Gospel with good and bad, with truely good and seem­ingly good, such as make onely a profession, though we know no­thing of the power of Religion in them. To this I Answ. 1. Will you with Anabaptists have the Church under the New Testament constitute onely with truely good, and not at all with seemingly good? this indeed is your frequently repeated assertion in this le­cture; But first, 'tis contrare to the expresse judgement of some of the most judicious and advised of your own side, how often hath Mr. Hooker this, that these of whom the Church is constitute may be seemingly good, not savingly, not really, gilt not gold, Saints in the judgement of charity though they be not inwardly sanctified. 2. It contradicts himself in his additionall qualification, which sometimes he inserteth as farre at least as men can judge. Well then, a Church Visible now in the dayes of the Gospel may be con­stitute of any who are truely good as far as men can judge, but ma­ny such are but seemingly good, and really bad; for mans judge­ment cannot discern the power of Religion in the heart, neither intuitively, nor yet by discourse from outward effects infallibly, but only probably, cui judicio potest subesse falsum, it may be deceived and the object of it is but [...] which seem­eth but is not alwayes what it is judged to be. 2. We forme not our objection so naked and waterishly as you make it, there were wicked persons in these Churches, therefore, &c. But take it thus and answer it then: In these Churches, at least severalls of them, there were persons, whose wayes were such that they could not [Page 76] positively be accounted so far as men could judge, truely gracious, such as God could bear witnes to as sealed for his by his holy Spirit, and the Churches are not required to un-Church and Excommu­nicate any upon that account, that they were not such, as might be so accounted and judged of, &c. Ergo, &c. But this is not the onely objection we have against this inductive argument, he may find some others before this. Now to his answer.

section 15 1. Sayeth he, à facto ad jus non valet argumentum, because such things are, therefore they ought to be, will not hold. Because bad men were in the Churches, the generall state of which in such a time of the world, John speaks of Rev. 11. 1, 2. therefore they should be there, will not follow; for then why is John bid cast out that which is without, and not measure it, what is allowed to a­bide, is rather the Index, shewing what is the allowed and proper matter, the true constitution of Church-state. Answ. Here are a heap of things to be noted. 1. If that maxime hold good à facto ad jus non valet argumentum, because such things are there­fore they ought to be, will not hold; then Mr. Lockier, your in­ductive argument for any thing alleadged in it falls to the ground without force; for all that you have alledged in it is a mater of fact; and therefore I may retort upon you thus: Because these Churches did consist of persons truely good so far as men could judge (which is the only thing you can alledge from what is said in the Epistles to them, and yet proves not) therefore they should consist of such only, and no other, will not follow. 2. You whol­ly loose your Argument taken from them again if you grant but that de facto there were other persons in them then truely godly as far as men could judge, at that time when the Epistles were writ­ten to them. For unlesse you assert that at that time they were constitute of persons all such, you alledge the Epistles to no purpose, because the Epistles speaks to them with relation to that very time they were written in. 3. It is rashlie and inconsideratlie said by Mr. Lockier, without exception, limitation, or qualification, (e­specially he being now speaking of maters of Religion) à facto ad jus non valet Argumentum, why, then let all Arguments which Orthodox Writers have brought from the practice of the Apostles and Primitive Churches registrate in Scripture to prove they [Page 77] ought de jure so to do, as in the mater of sanctifying the first day of the Week as the Christian Sabbath, and many others in other matters, be casten as null. If Mr. Lockier say this, he shall gratifie much the Papists for their Doctrine of the necessity of un­written traditions; but shall be disclaimed in this by all Protestant Divines, who give us sundry cases in matters of Religion, wherein it is good and solide reasoning from facts and practises registrate in Scripture, to duty; so such persons did, and therefore so ought we to do; especially in matters of Church Government hath this way of reasoning place; the Lord having left many things belong­ing thereunto, only in examples of practises (let the Reader see concerning this purpose the Authors of jus divinum of Church-Go­vernment, part. 1. cap. 4.) from which we are to gather and take our rule: Now amongst other rules belonging to this head, this certainly is one, what was the practice of Primitive Churches, re­gistrate in Scripture, in maters of Religion, of common concern­ment to the Churches in all ages, and is not dissallowed nor dissap­proven in them, especially when many other things are reproved in them, nor is against a generall precept otherwhere in Scripture; such a practice hath the force of a rule; and we may well reason ab hoc facto ad jus. See Perkins, Heb. 11. 6. pag. in fol. 29. col. 1. A, so they did, therefore so may we lawfully. But I assume, these Primitive Churches, admitted and retained mem­bers, all of which were not truely Godly and Saints as far as men could judge, and were not reproved for this, even when they were reproved for other things done by them; Nor can their be a generall precept shewn in the word contrary there­unto, Ergo, &c. 4. What may seem to be alledged by him from Rev. 11. 2. as containing such a generall precept, is suffici­ently discussed before. The intention and scope of that place is not to hold forth a rule concerning the ordering of the constitution of the Church, but to foretell an event that was to come to passe upon the Church in time of Antichrists prevalencie; that which is without signifieth not persons, but the face & outward state of the Visible Church, and casting out is not un-Churching of persons, but judicial giving up the outward state of the Visible Church to Anti­christ and his followers, and by measuring there is not meant re­gulating [Page 78] of the constitution of a Society, but a typicall predicti­on of the straitnesse that Orthodox and Godly Worshippers were to be at that time redacted unto. 5. But what meaneth Mr. Loc­kier, when being about to infringe the objection brought against his induction of these Churches, (viz. that there were wicked persons in them) and saying that because bad men were in the Churches it doth not follow, therefore they should be in them, he casteth in that, the generall estate of which in such a time of the World John speaketh, Rev. 11. 1, 2. what meaneth he, I say, by such a time of the World wherein the generall state of the Churches were such? if he mean that time wherein the Epistles were written to the Churches. 1. That passage of the Revela­tion is impertinently alledged; for, be the meaning of it what it will, it speaks in relation to another time, long afterward to come. 2. It is certain 'tis the alledgeance in his own induction that these Epistles importe that then they were all constitute of true­ly good ones so far as men could judge, If he mean another time then that, he speaks this as impertinently; for the objection speaks of these Churches in relation to the time when the Epistles were written to them.

2ly. Saith he in his answer, Churches may be negligent, and not so strict to their rule to examine and prove the grace of God in such as offer to joyn themselves, as the Church of Jerusalem did, if Churches do not mind diligently their rule, they may have evil persons among them enough, and yet not be able to maintain that it should be so; 'tis like the Asian Churches, and most of the first, quickly after the Apostles time grew faulty in this kind. Ans. 1. Reader, see here pretty Logick: Mr. Lockier in his induction undertook to prove and conclude a rule from the examples of these particular Churches, that because these particular Churches were constitute of persons truely good, therefore all Churches ought to be constitute only of such persons; it is objected, there were many other persons then such, in these Churches; and now he answe­reth, Churches (he must apply it to these Churches, else he is extra [...]oleas) may be negligent and not so strict to their rule; is not this a running in a round? These Churches were constitute of such members, Ergo, so ought all Churches generally to be, if they [Page 79] were constitute of any other, it was because they were not strict to their rule, i. e. in plain Language, because they were not consti­tute as Churches ought to be. 2. But let go this, and the indu­ctive Argument; for it is clearly quite here, and refuge had to the generall rule. I say where is that rule of examining and proving the grace of God in such as offer themselves to joyn, that they were not so strict to as they should? And where have we an instance of the Church of Jerusalems greater strictnesse to that rule then these other Churches? Thus to set down naked assertions, is it not to despise hearers and Readers? 3. To what purpose do ye speak of the Churches of Asia, and other first Churches their p [...]a­ctice after the Apostles time? The objection speaks of these Churches even as they were when the Apostles were living and did write to them these Epistles, out of which you labour to instruct your induction of them.

3ly. Or Churches (saith he) though very diligent and duely strict in this mater, yet are not infallible, and therefore hypocrits may deceive a Church for a time, and so get in where they have no right to be; the Apostle Jude doth confesse so much, v. 4. not only persons may thus creep into the Church, but also into office, and still escape the first judgement made upon them by the Churches of which they are. The Apostle doth intimate this to Timothy, lay hands suddenly on no man, and his charge on this may make a man tremble, 1 Tim. 5. 21, 22. We are, as appears by this compared with other Scriptures, to use all care as much as in us lyeth, to prevent by the first judgement of the Church, all that are not god­ly, from coming to a state to which they are not approved by God, but if men by subtilty creep in where they should not be, they are to be cast out by the after judgement of the Church, which is Ex­communication, when it doth evidently appear that they are hypo­crites, though not drunkards, and such kind of bodily-sinners, which is far lesse simply considered then hypocrisie, which after-judgement is an Ordinance to cleanse the house of God and keep it pure, And doth strongly confirme the point I am on, that the mater of the Visible Church should be reall Saints. Ans. 1. All this is just nothing to the purpose in hand. Mr. Lockier to prove his generall Doctrine, that a Church Visible ought to be constitute, [Page 80] in its matter, of such as are truely Godly, at least so far as men can judge, had undertaken to shew by induction, that these par­ticular Churches were constitute of persons all such. It was object­ed that they had in them some others. Now here he tells us in answer that Churches not being infallible may be deceived (and consequently so might thir be) in taking in such as ought not to be within. Once granting that it was so in these Churches, hes he not quite again his alledgeance concerning them in his inductive Argument; and taken him to the generall rule, which was the thing he undertook to prove, and but begs the thing in Question? But to the mater in this branch of the Answer. Then, 2. When he saith hypocrites have no right to be in the Church, or, as after­ward, should not be there, if the meaning were, that men, though they make a profession of Religion, yet continuing hypocrites and gracelesse in their hearts do sin in adjoyning themselves to the Vi­sible Church and that they have no right in foro interiori this we should not deny; but if his meaning be, that no hypocrits have a jus Ecclesiasticum and in foro exteriori to be in the Visible Church, we deny it, and he shall never be able to prove it. 3. 'Tis true that Jude saith, that such men creept in unawars into the fellowship of the Church, who afterward kythed to be such, as I shall not deny, they ought to have been casten out: But Jude saith not, that these when they made a Profession of Religion, and did not vent such abominations, had no jus Ecclesiasticum to be ad­mitted by the Church into their fellowship. 4. All that Mr. Loc­kier here bringeth in concerning admitting persons into Offices in the Church is idly and impertinently alledged to the point in hand: We acknowledge that none ought to be put in such Offices, but such as give evidences of all manner of godly conversation; We have an expresse and full rule for this, 1 Tim. 3. And hands ought not to be laid upon any man, without a foregoing tryall and proofe of these things. But where will ye shew us in all the Scripture from the one end to the other such a rule requiring such qualifica­tions in persons, and such a tryall of them before, and in relation to their admission into the fellowship of the Visible Church; And to be under Pastorall care and the Ministry of the Word? If he could shew us this, either in precept or approved practice, we [Page 81] should soon yeeld, and be at an end of this controver [...]e; But this he cannot, nor ever will be able to shew; and therefore the reaso­ning from the care and acuracy to be used in trying persons, who are already in the Church, in relation to admitting them to places of office, unto admission of persons into the society of the Visible Church, is unreasonable. 5. When he saith that men are to be cast out by Excommunication, when it doth evidently appear, that they are hypocrites, though not drunkards, &c. I desire, 1. That it may be observed that an hypocrite may be taken in a double sense. First, for such an one as grossely and knowingly counterfeits a Pro­fession of Christianity, and so indeed is nothing else but an histrioni­call stage-professor; Secondly, more largly for any that hath a pro­fession of Christianity, wherein, may be, he is morally serious, but hath not within a Principle of true, supernaturall, saving grace: Such are all unregenerate persons in the Church, such an one was that young Man in the Gospel, whom our Lord is said to have loved, and the Lawyer of whom he said, thou art not far from the Kingdome of Heaven. Now if we speak of hypocrites in the former sense, if men appear to be such, I shall confesse that if they have been within they are to be cast out by Excommunication, yet in the order that Christ hath prescribed, after due admonition and evidence of obstinacy and incorrigiblenesse in the evill, and of this I shall say more then Mr. Lockier, viz. that it is far greater, not only then drunkennesse, and other such bodily sins simplie in gene­re peccati in the nature of sin; But, if it evidently appear, also in genere scandali in the nature of scandall (which is the ground and consideration upon which censure proceedeth,) because it is a very mocking of God in the highest degree: But if we speak of hypocrites in the latter sense; We deny utterly that every man appearing to be such is to be Excommunicated and casten out of the Societie of the Visible Church. If a man professe seriouslie Reli­gion, submitting himself to Ordinances, though there were ap­pearance, yea though it were revealed by God, that yet he were not Regenerate, -and indued with true supernaturall Grace, I say such an one were not to be excommunicate; Let Mr. Lockier, or any for him, shew a warrand of Scripture for Excommunicating a man for non-regeneration. The Doctrine of all Orthodox Di­vines [Page 82] hither till, concerning the object of Excommunication, and that grounded upon the Word of God, is that which is shortly ex­pressed by the Learned and Reverend Professours of Leyden Synop. pur. theol, Objectum circa quod exercetur haec Disciplina Eccle­siastica sunt illi qui fratres nominantur; causa verò est vita pra­va vel Doctrina perversa, nec ideo statim, ubi quis frater nomina­tus in hujusmodi scandala incidit, a corpore Ecclesiae excludi debet, quemadmodum quibusdam Anabaptistis in usu est: Sed post privatas demum, & publicas Ecclesiae admonitiones contemp­tas & rejectas, sicuti Christi verba aperte significant, Mat. 18.] disp. 48. thes. 25, 26. And though drunkennesse and such like bodily-sins be lesse then hypocrisie in this sense, i. e. non-regene­ration, simply, and in genere peccati in the nature of sin, yet it is not lesse in genere scandali, in the kind of scandall and offence unto the Church: Nay this hath not the nature of scandall at all. 6. Yet M^r. Lockier according to the genius of his Doctrine ought to say not only men, when it doth evidently appear that they are hy­pocrits, but even if it doth not evidently appear that they are truly gracious, and we cannot discern in them the power of godlinesse, they are to be Excommunicate: For his Doctrine is that none are fit mater to be admitted or permitted to constitute a Visible Church, but such as are truely Godly so far as men truely Godly can judge and discern. I beleeve most of the Independent way will disclaime him in this. 7. Excommunication is an Ordinance to keep the house of God pure and according to what it ought to be, in point of duety, in foro exteriori, and in order to salvation, this we grant, only in this sense, that it is an Ordinance tending towards this as a means, (for this is an end of Excommunication that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus) but not in this sense that the Church is obliged thereby to effectuate it quoad e­ventum, this belongeth to God alone. Excommunication is an Ordinance to keep the Church pure and according to what it ought to be, in point of qualification in foro exteriori, in order to ex­ternall Visible Church-state, even quoad eventum; But now what this qualification in foro exteriori in order to Church-state is, is the thing in Question. So Mr. Lockier in his reasoning from Ex­communication to his Doctrine, either alledgeth nothing to the [Page 83] purpose, taking his antecedent in the former sense; or begs the Question, taking it in the latter. 8. In the conclusion as propoun­ded here: First note, If only reall Saints be the proper mater of a Visible Church, and saving grace the complexion of it; then all Saints so far as men can judge, are not fit mater; for these are not necessarily reall Saints, simply. 2. When as he saith, not one known to be otherwise, he should have said answerably to the former words, no not one, not known, so far as men can judge, to be such. 3. [Can justifiably enter] may be conceived, either in point of duty incumbent to themselves who enter, and so the meaning is this, men joyning themselves to the Visible Church and making profession of Religion, without true faith and repentance, are not justifiable in this before God; or it may be conceived to be spoken of the Churches active admission of men into externall Church-communion, and the sense is this, it is not justifiable that men not having saving grace should by the Church be admitted to enter into the fellowship of the Visible Church: If in any thing, certainly in propounding Doctrines, stating controversies, forming conclusions, ambiguities should be shun'd. We grant the former sense, but the latter we deny; and it is not yet proven. This much of the inducti [...]: Now come we to the fourth way of probation, by reasons.

SECTION VI. Examination of Mr. Lockyers proofs brought under the name of reason.

section 1 HIs reasons are four, which, because they ly loose out of form and are somewhat prolixely pro pounded, I shall labour to take up the strength of them, as far as I can see, ingenuously, in form, that we may both with the more shortnesse, and clear­nesse, to the greater satisfaction of the Reader, consider and an­swer them.

section 2 The first reason, so far as I can possibly see; may be formed into these processes. 1. The Church Visible is a building, whereof Jesus Christ is the Rock and foundation: Therefore the whole Vi­sible Church and all parts of it, consist of such persons as must be, and bear upon him as a superstruction, [...], superstructi, [Page 84] Eph. 2. 20. And must be among themselves an uniforme, congru­ous building [...], v. 22. so as they may stand. Then supposing that consequent this will be the second processe; But such persons as have not true saving faith, such as Peters, cannot hold and bear upon Christ, nor can they make up an uni­forme, congruous building that will stand; how can the building stand, whose materials have not a symmetry, but antilog [...], and antistasie, not an agreement, but a fighting with the foundation and one another, Ergo, they are not fit materials to constitute the Visible Church. Ans. Truely this reason, let me say it without offence, is a building that cannot stand, let a man but touch it, as it were with his finger, and it will to the ground. 1. If it prove any thing, it proveth not only, that de jure the Visible Church ought to be constitute of materials or members, truely endued with saving grace and faith; but also it is no true Visible Church which doth not de facto consist of materials all such, i. e. truely in veri­tate rei endued with true saving grace and faith, and then likely there was never in the world a true Visible Christian Church, un­lesse it was that of the eleven after that Judas hanged himself, or may be that Acts 1. nor ever shall be in the world. For suppose a Church consisting of members all which may be accounte [...] truely gracious so far as men can judge; yet seeing mens judgements here­in are not infallible; some of them, many of them, yea most of them, are not indeed truely gracious and believers; Then say I, according to Mr. Lockiers reasoning here, how can these bear and hold upon Christ who have no faith? And how can that building stand whose materials have not a symmetrie, &c. Let men judge of them what they will, and how probably soever, that helps not; for they want the bond by which they should bear upon Christ, and they have no symmetrie one with another. 2. 'Tis grounded upon a meer mistake or false supposition that the building built upon Christ as a Rock and foundation, Eph. 2. 20, 21. is the Visible Church as such: Mr. Lockier saith well, that it is confessed on all hands, that Christ is the Rock and foundation stone; but he could not say it is agreed upon by all that the Church Visible is the buil­ding that is said to be built upon that foundation growing up into a holy Temple, &c. Papists indeed say it is the Visible Church, [Page 85] that they may draw all the priviledges of the Church Invisible, which is the Mysticall body of Christ, to the Church visible; and by that means at least to their own stinking whore the Antichristi­an Roman Synagogue: But Orthodox Protestant Divin [...] have e­ver maintained the contrary, that it is the Catholick Invisible Church of the elect that is the building built upon Christ as the Rock and foundation stone (see Whittaker de Eccles. in many places known to any that hath read him) untill of late Separatists and Independents have joyned with Papists in this, and drawn all the priviledges, proper to the Church Invisible, which is the Mysticall body of Christ, unto every Independent visible Congre­gation. Mr. Lockier should have proven, and not meerly taken for granted, that the Visible Church is the building built upon Christ as the foundation-stone, seeing he knew that it was denyed generally by Protestant Divines. The Visible Church, according to its visible state is not the building, but the work house wherein the stones are fitted for to be laid in the building and built up. 3. Mr. Lockier supposeth in this Argument that the Visible Church, i. e. a particular Independent Congregation must be a standing fast, lasting house, quae non deficiat, which is not to fail, and that perpe­tuity is the priviledge and property of it, in this also joyning with Papists, against whom all Protestant Divines maintain that to be­long only to the Church of the elect, or if to the Church Visible, not to any particular, but to the universall. We grant then that any Church Visible is defectible and may indeed fall, and that even upon that ground amongst others that there is not an uniformity and homogeneousnesse amongst all parts of it, some are of the seed of the Woman, really good; some be, at the best, seemingly good, and really bad, and the seed of the Serpent (and Mr. Lockiers way will not make it to be otherwayes) and we confesse that it is by the finger of God, that any Church is any long space kept stan­ding: Yet God will keep Visible Churches standing, for all the asymmetry and heterogeneousnesse of members amongst themselves (as to their inward, spirituall, eternall state) so long as he has a work for gathering and building up his elect amongst them, for whose sake it is that a Visible Church and his Ordinances therein are set up. You will say, but doth not God this by means? Ans: [Page 86] yea verily he useth means which he blesseth and maketh effectuall for that end, to the keeping down of the evills that are in many and would be ready to break out to the undoeing of all, as long as he sees meet; as the Preaching of the Word, exercise of Discipline against scandals; but God never prescribed this as a means for keep­ing up Visible Churches that no persons should be admitted or per­mitted to be in the Visible Church, but such as are symmetricall and homogeneall in true saving grace. This is a means altogether unpracticable by men, unlesse God by an immediat revelation should point out the men.

section 3 Mr. Lockier for the strengthning of this first reason bringeth in 1 Cor. 3. from vers. 10. thus: Christ (sayeth he, it should be Paul) doth argue from this medium, that suitable to the founda­tion should be the building: otherwise such uncongruous superstru­ctions will be fired and they which make them, vers. 10, 11, 12, 13.—in which words the Apostle argues as I do, that if Christ be laid as the Foundation-Stone in a building, 'tis good for men to take heed that they make congruous superstructions, least all the building fall about their ears: and see how he applyeth this vers. 16, 17. incongruous superstructions if it be in point of Do­ctrine, it maketh incongruous matter, it defileth the Temple of God, destroyes it, sayeth the margent; and such will God destroy; for the Temple of God (sayeth he) is holy, which Temple ye are, i. e. such are the Temple which are holy, which have the Spirit of God dwelling in their heart, and none else. Ans. 1. I professe I cannot forbear to say that I find Mr. Lockier abuse much Scripture in the little bounds of this Peece, by most impertinent Citations. What is there in this place to the purpose of the constitution of the Visible Church as to its matter or Members? the Apostle here ver. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. is speaking of Doctrines fundamentall and superstructed, and that these ought to be suitable and agree­able to that, what is this to the mater of the Visible Church? Ay, Yes, by Analogie would he say first, because the Apostle useth the same medium and argues as I do, that if Christ be layed as a foun­dation, &c. Ans. And must that hold Universallie? because one using a medium in one mater reasons truelie and solidlie, there­fore another using that medium in another mater and reasoning [Page 87] that same way for forme, must also reason truelie and solidelie? What if this other erre in the application of the medium, and if some of his premisses and principles, whereof his argument consists, be false upon the matter? so it is here: The Apostle reasoneth well and concludently upon that principle, that the superstructure should be suitable to the foundation that Teachers should take heed what Doctrines they teach in the Church; Because he assum­eth well that Christ or the Doctrine of Christ is the foundation­point of Doctrine in Religion, and all other Doctrines are the su­perstructures; But Mr. Lockier assumeth amisse that the Visible Church as such, is the superstructure built upon Christ as the Foundation. The Scripture sayeth no where so, a Visible Church-state, or to be received unto, or to be in the Visible Church state, is not to be built on Christ as a Foundation, but is to be taken in under, or to be under the means of being built, either first or in a further degree of advancement, on Christ as a Foundation. But further (sayeth he) see how he applyes this, ver. 16, 17. incongru­ous superstructions, if in point of Doctrine, &c. Ans. This is somewhat spoken in the mist, but for ought I can conjecture or conceive, the meaning seemeth to be this; that wrong Doctrines taught in the Church makes persons unholy, and so unfit mater for the Church to consist of; and so destroyes or defiles the Temple of God, which is, as he conceiveth, the Visible Church. And thus he will have the Apostle, v. 16, 17. to apply that which he had been speaking in the preceeding verses. Now if this be not a forceing of the purpose and meaning of these two verses, let any understanding man in the Christian World judge. The plain, ge­nuine intention and purpose of the Apostle in these verses is, to warne and dehort the Corinthians from defiling and laying waste the Church, either by corrupt, idle, or curious Doctrine not suitable to the foundation Christ; or by Schismaticall addicting themselves to this or that man who were teachers among them (which was the purpose whereupon he began this discourse, v. 4.) or both; and that upon these three grounds. 1. The consideration of the dignity they were advanced to, that they were the Temple of God, consecrated by the indwelling Spirit to him. 2. That such things did defile, and lay them waste. 3. That God would [Page 88] severly punish such as any wayes defiled and destroyed them that were a Temple consecrated to him. Ay but, 3. Saith he, it is added, for the Temple of God is holy, which Temple ye are, i. e. such ar [...] [...]he Temple of God which are holy, which hath the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts, and none else. Ans. 1. Mr. Loc­kier then conceiveth that these words are brought in as a reason why he that teacheth wrong or incongruous Doctrines defiles or destroyes the Temple of God: To this sense, the Visible Church consists of such as are holy, and hes the Spirit dwelling in them and none else, therefore men by teaching incongruous Doctrine, ma­king men in the Church incongruous mater, i. e. unholy, destroyes the Temple, i. e. the Visible Church. A meer forgerie con­trary to clear shining evidence of the Apostles context, wherein any man that is not blind may see that these words for the Temple of God is holy, are given as a reason why these that defile the Temple will be severly punished of God; the reason of which consequence clearly intimate in the words is, because God will not indure the defiling or violating of that which is holy and consecrate to himself. 2. True indeed, such are the Temple of God which are holy and none else? So Mr. Lockier supposeth, but without reason or proof. Sure, the Apostle borroweth this deno [...]ation from the typicall Temple of Jerusalem, but that was no type of a Visible Church, but of Christs Mysticall body and every member thereof. And hence I reason thus, the denomination of the Temple of God is such as is competent to, and predicable of these to whom it is attri­buted, not only collectively, i. e. to the whole society of them; but also unto every one severallyMartyr in loc. non so­lum fidelium caetus, qui Ecclesia dicitur, tem­plum Dei di­citur; sed unusquisque credentium in Christum reperitur ita cognomina­tus; nam postea de for­nicatione a­gens Apost [...] ­lus (cap. 6.) corpus cu­jusque cre­dentis vocat templum spi­ritus Sancti.: But if it be taken for the Vi­sible Church it could not be attributed to every member thereof: Every one in it is not a Visible Church. 3. If such only be the Temple of God in Mr. Lockiers sense, i. e. a Visible Church; which are holy and has the Spirit of God dwelling in their hearts and none else; he may seek such a Visible Church in the new world of the Moon.

In the end of this paragraph he prompts us another Argument equivalent to this first, from this that Christ is called the Head, and the Church the Body: In form it must stand thus: If Christ be the Head, there must be an homogenealnesse in the Church to him, [Page 89] he meaneth they must be truely gracious, and endued with true saving faith; But Christ is the Head, and the Visible Church his Body. Therefore, &c. The reason of the connexion of the first Proposition is, because else there can be no mutuall derivation from one to another. Ans. 1. Protestant Divines will with one con­sent deny your assumption as Popish, and tell you that it is the Church of the Elect that is the Body of Christ the Head. See but Whittaker de Eccles. q, 1. c. 13. pag. 449. in fol. Yet. 2. For more clear and particular answer we are to consider, that Christ may be said to be the Head, and the Church his body, either in a poli­ticall sense, as a King is called the Head of the Common-wealth, and the People are called his Body: Or (to speak so) in a physi­call sense according to the similitude of mans body. Now we grant that Christ is a Head to the Visible Church, and the Visible Church hath unto him the relation of a body in the former sense, Christ is a King of the Visible Church, and the Visible Church is his poli­ticall Body: But hence it followeth not that there must be such a homogenealnesse in the Church Visible as Mr. Lockier meaneth, that it be endued with true faith and have the Spirit dwelling in their hearts. And as to the reason of the connexion of the propo­sition, we answer, such a homogenealnesse is not requisite for such a derivation, as is from a head politicall to its politicall body; this derivation being only morall, by commands, prohibitions and the like morall actings. But Christ is not a Head in the latter sense, (as the head in the naturall body is) to the Church Visible as such; nor is the Visible Church a body to him in this sense, but only vo­catione activâ and in externall profession: Neither is that deriva­tion from Christ unto the Church, whereby it groweth up in the Lord, unto the Church as a Visible Church, or considered accor­ding to its visible constitution; But unto the Church Invisible, in­ternall, Mysticall as such.

section 5 His 2d. Reason is thus shortlie. If the Visible Church be the Church of the Living God, the pillar and stay of truth, and conse­quently such as should bear up the truth into the World, and be a stay to truth holding it out firmly and faithfully in the midst of all tryalls; and such as in which God lives, and dwells, and walks. Then none can be mater or members of the Visible Church, but real [Page 90] Saints. For why? Doth God live and dwell in dead persons, who only make a Profession of Religion? Will such persons be a stay to truth and the things of God? Will they be a stay to truth [...] firmamentum, as the firmament to the stars, who fall from Heaven themselves? And so how can God have glory in the Church through­out all ages. But the Visible Church is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of truth, 1 Tim. 3. 5. in which God lives, dwells, walks, Ergo, &c. Ans. Mr. Lockier still in this, as in all his other Arguments, shews that in propounding his Do­ctrine, he added that qualification, truely gracious so far as men can judge, but dicis causa, and in shew, to avoid for a while the odium of the greatest Anabaptists Tenent of the mater or members of the Visible Church. For such as may be gracious and Godly so far as men can judge, mens judgement being not infallible in this (as himself confesseth) may be destitute of the power of Godlines in their hearts, and so such as will not hold out truth firmly in the midst of all trials, may be but dead persons, and so such as in whom God doth not live, walk and dwell. 2. As to that first property and character attributed to a Visible Church from, 1 Tim. 3. 15. by Mr. Lockier: First, I would aske him if in good earnest he meaneth that to be a property of a Visible Church rightly consti­tute in its mater, as it should be, that it will bear up the truth and things of God firmly and faithfully to the world in the midst of all trials? Sure, this is the very thing that Papists alledge from this place for the unerrabilitie and indefectibilitie of the Visible Church against which all Protestant Divines disputes. Yea it is much more, for Papists attribute this only to the Catholick Church Visible, acknowledging that all particular Visible Churches may erre and make defection, and let the truth and things of God fall down; excepting only the Roman Church, because they make it to be the Catholick Church virtually: but Mr. Lockier acknowledges no Church Visible, but an Independent Congregation, and will have this to be the property of any particular Visible Church, and therefore propounds the subject of his conclusion here thus, a Church Visible, i. e. any Visible Church; now let me put him further to it; either there was never a Church Visible rightly con­stitute for mater from the beginning, seeing all the first constitute [Page 91] Churches have made defection and let truth fall down, which if he say, besides that it is absurd in it self, I ask why then did he a little before bring us paterns of right constitute Churches from these first mentioned in Scripture? Or if they were right constitute, how comes it that they made defection and did not bear up and hold out the truth and things of God, but did let them fall? If he answer, that came to passe, because they kept not a right con­stitution for their mater. I repone, that taks not away the force of the Question, For that same if it was so was a not bearing up and holding out firmly and faithfully the things of God, and so the Question returneth upon this. 2. But to answer directly to the place; though Interpreters have some variety amongst themselves about the meaning of it: Yet never one of them acknowledges that Interpretation which Mr. Lockier gives, but opposeth it, and refuteth it in Papists: Some indeed expone the attribute the pillar and ground of truth much as he doth; but these by the Church to which it is attributed, und [...]rstand not the Visible Church, but the Invisible of Elect. So Whittaker de Eccles. q. 3. c. 2. illa quidem Ecclesia quae est columna & firmamentum veritatis nunquam po­test deficere: Sed quod assumit adversarius, illam Ecclesiam esse Visibilem, illud affirmo esse falsissimum: Invisibilem enim esse affirmo & demonstro, &c. and often otherwhere. Others again understand the subject as he doth, by the Church to be meant the Visible Church of Ephesus, but these expone the attribute the pillar and ground of truth, not of what the Church Visible will do alwayes, de facto; but what is its duty and dignity, elogium hoc Ecclesiae dignitatem & officium describit: Non autem quod in ea perpetuâ luce fulgeat. Gomar. specul. ver. Eccles. c. 2. So Wal. loc. com. de Eccles. milit. Resp. 1. Hoc dicitur de Ecclesia E­phesinâ que tamen periit. 2. Ergo, respectu officii sic vocatur. See more concerning this place in learned Gomar. in the place cited; also in his commentar upon the Gallatians, c. 2. in the second Tome of his works, pag. 244, 245. where you have an excellent discourse of the diverse Orthodox Interpretations thereof, both ancient and moderne Divines.We passe here Camer. Interpreta­tion of this place, join­ing these words, pil­lar and ground of truth, not with that which go­eth before, but that which fol­loweth.

section 6 For the 2d. property and character out of the 2 Cor. 6. 16. We Ans. With all Protestant Divines, that it is not the Visible, but [Page 92] the Invisible Church, that is the Temple of the living God in which he liveth, dwelleth, and walketh. See Whitta­ker de Ec­ [...]ces. q. 1 c. 11. pag. 442. To omit many other Argu­ments for proof of this, take but this one from the Text, the Temple of the Living God, in this place, is taken in such a sense, as that it is spoken and praedicated of singular persons, severally, as well as collectively and joyntly: But if it signifie the Visible Church it cannot be predicated of every one of the persons severally; each person is not a Temple in this sense, a Visible Church, Ergo, &c. Obj. But the Apostle is speaking here to the Visible Church of Corinth. Ans. True, but every thing he speaketh of them, is not for that, competent to them as a Visible Church.

section 7 I cannot but wonder much at that wherewith Mr. Lockier clos­eth this reason, and so how can God have glory in the Church throughout all ages? Eph. 3. 21. Ans. And doth continuation of the Glory of God in the Church throughout all ages, depend upon his particular way of constituting particular Visible Congre­gations of all true Saints, and a particular Congregations firmnesse and constancy in holding out the truth? Hes God then not been glorified in the Church throughout the many preceeding generati­ons, wherein there was never heard of Churches so constitute, un­till of yesterday Separatists and Independents erected theirs? And yet waile them as well as they will, they shall never get one such as Mr. Lockier would be at in this Argument. And how many particular Churches have fallen away, and for their part letten truth fall?

section 8 The 3^d. Argument grounded on Malachi 1. 11. must be thus: If the mater of a Visible Church be not persons truly Godly, then there cannot be offered up in Gods house a pure offering, and the Churches of the Gentiles cannot fulfill that Prophesie, Mal. 1. 11. For why? Ʋnto the impure and unbeleeving all things are so; e­very mans offering is as he is, let his offering be what it will, let a man make up his offering of never so much cost and worth, yet it is still in the account of God as the man is; if the man be impure so is his offering; But it is contrary to that Prophesie to say the latter, Ergo. &c. Ans. Mr. Lockier himself will not be able to avoyd the stroak of this Argument; no, not by his own way, as some times he expresseth it, for thereby all such as may be accounted [Page 93] truely godly so far as men can judge are to be acknowledged and admitted as mater of a Visible Church; now many of these may be, and undoubtedly are really impure and unbeleeving, and so of necessity must their offering be impure. If it be said, yet it is not the fault of the admitters that they do so. Ans. That's nothing to the purpose, for whether they be faulty or not, still it standeth good, that by that way it cannot be avoyded but impure and unbe­leeving will be in the Visible Church, such as cannot offer a pure offering. 2. It reproacheth the dispensation and wisdome of the blessed Lord God himself, because he hes not left in his Word a rule and way whereby the Church Visible may be constitute so as that Prophesie and his decree revealed therein concerning his ser­vice among the Gentiles may be fulfilled, for he hes given no rule whereby the Church Visible may be gotten so constitute as that all the mater thereof shall be persons truely Godly; But there may be and cannot but be, in it many impure and unbeleeving who can­not offer a pure offering. But 3. To answer directly, we deny the connexion or consequence of the first proposition; 'tis groun­ded upon a false supposition, that there can be no pure offering in the Church, unlesse all the mater, that is, members of the Visible Church, be truly godly. What? may there not be a pure offe­ring to God in the Church, and so that Prophesie be fulfilled of the Churches of the Gentiles, if some in the Churches Visible be truely Godly, though all be not such? Therefore he takes paines without necessity to prove that impure and unbeleevers cannot of­fer a pure offering; that we grant (I mean not this materially and objectively, for so an impure man may offer a pure offering) he should have proven to make his consequence good, that if all the mater be not such as cannot offer a pure offering there can be no pure offering in the Church at all. If Mr. Lockier say here, that not only the offering of the unbeleeving and impure themselves, but also the offering of all that are in the Visible Church-Commu­nion with them, is impure; This is plain and down right Separa­tism, and is disclaimed of all the pious and learned amongst the In­dependents, at least in dogmate, and is most contrary to the Word of God.

section 9 For further confirmation of this Argument he bringeth 1 Pet. 2. 5. but to no purpose for the point in hand, and what he comments on it, is to no purpose We grant it all, 1. That Christ is a sui­table foundation to the superstructure there mentioned. 2. The Stones must be living to make a Spirituall House. 3. That else they cannot be a Holy Priest-hood, to offer up Spirituall Sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God through Christ. That the offering and Offerer are one; That the offering may be Spirituall, Holy, and acceptable, the Person offering must be such; That, persons that have but only a profession of Religion, are dead stones: But what is all this to the point? can there be no Spirituall offering in the Visible Church, if all be not such as can offer a Spirituall offering? that's the thing should been alledged to strengthen the former Ar­gument, but it is evidently false. If it be said that the place may be alledged by it self, as holding forth an instance of the generall Doctrine that that Church the Apostle is speaking to was constitute of all such. I answer, the Apostle is not speaking to any particular Visible Church, but to all the effectually called Elect Jews scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, &c. cap. 1. 1, 2, 3. If it be said, but he intended his Epistle to the severall particular Churches Visible in these several parts; I Ans. True, but it followeth not therefore that every thing he sayeth to them, is spoken of them as a Visible Church, and so spoken of all and every one of them in that state: What is spoken by way of declaration and imposition of duty, may be, is spoken to all and every one; But what is spoken of by way of assertion, as a priviledge or blessing existing, it is not spoken Uni­versally of all and every on in their visible societie; But indefinitely, which may be verified though it be competent but to some among them; Yea, though it were spoken Universally of them all; Yet it would only prove what they were de facto and quoad eventum, and not what their Visible Church ought to have been by necessi­ty of a command, that it might be a right constitute Visible Church.

section 10 The fourth reason must be formed either of these ways: 1. Thus: if the J [...]ws be to be provoked by the glory and purity of his Worship and Worshippers, then a Visible Church, i. e. every Visible Church ought to be constitute of such matter, i. e. Mem­bers, [Page 95] as are all truely Godly; But the former is true, Ergo, &c. and if thus, then we deny the connexion or consequence of the first Proposition; And my reason, for the denyall thereof is this: Be­cause I may say, if the Churches Visible be de facto such that all or most part of their Members be truely Godly, and shining in the Power of Godlinesse, at the time wherein God hath decreed to bring in the Jews, that will be sufficient for provoking the Jews, although it be not constitute by a Rule or Precept that the Church in admitting Members into externall Church-fellowship, admit none but those that are truely Godly. And why may we not say, that the Lord will at some time, for carrying on a design decreed by himself in the way of the dispensation of his efficacious Grace, make his Visible Church, at least in most part, the Members there­of, better as to the reality and Power of Religion, then he re­quires them to be by way of Rule, relating to Ecclesiastick procee­ding with Persons in admiting them to externall Visible Church-communion. In a word, the futurition of the provocation of the Jews by the Power of Godlinesse in Gentile Professours, proveth only, that God is to make the Gentile Professours such de facto, or at most, what they ought to be in point of their duty, for serving and glorifying God: But proves not that they ought to be such in point of qualification in foro exteriori Ecclesiae and in relation to admission to the externall society of the Visible Church.

section 11 Or, Secondly, It may be formed thus; If the Jews shall be provoked to turn unto the Lord, and imbrace Christian Religion, by the glory and purity of his Worship and Worshippers, then the Visible Church or Churches (use which ye will now) shall be constitute or consist of such as are truely Godly: But the former is true, Ergo, the latter also. And I answer: 1. Suppose the con­sequent be granted in as large an universality as it can be taken in: Yet it speaks nothing to the Question in hand. Why? Because only of what is to be de facto & quoad eventum, by dispensation of effectuall Grace in the Visible Church; And not what ought to be; by rule, of necessity, that the Church Visible may be rightly constitute in its Visible Church-state; and the Question is about this latter, not that former; And dispensations of effectuall Grace are not our rule in this. 2. Nor yet doth it follow of necessity, [Page 96] that even de facto the Church Visible shall be so constitute, as to its matter in every difference of time, but only that it shall be at that time that the Jews are to be brought in and converted to the Christian Faith. Yea, nor doeth it follow that de facto even at that time the Church Visible shall be so constitute in its mater, that all and every Member thereof shall be truely Godly and shining in the manifestations of Purity and the Power of Godlinesse; but that so it shall be for the most part, and commonly in the Visible Church. I acknowledge that a means of awaking up the Jews to come unto, and imbrace the Christian Religion, will be a more glorious & full Reformation of Christians, both in point of Worship and in point of conversation: Now Superstition and Antichristian Idolatry amongst those that are called Christians (which are these they on­ly see for the most part) is a stumbling block to them that ly in their way at this day, and I will not say, but the impurity and unrighteousnesse of Christians is also a stumbling block to them; Albeit I think they do not so much stumble at this as at the former, considering that, which is well known in the places where they live, how much notour and known unrighteousnesse is amongst them generally, being for the most part most covetous, exorbi­tant usurers, cheaters, &c. most evidently, the deadest, formall, slight in performance of their way of Worship (as mine eyes have been witnesses) of any people in the World. Yet I say, I will not deny that this may stumble them, and they, may be, do pretend it also; Therefore Babylon the Mother of fornications must, and will down; And the Princes of the earth that have given up their power to that Whoore, will hate her & burn her flesh with fire; and the Lord will purge and reforme his Worship, and Ordinances, and the Christian World from Superstition and Idolatry: And I believe also that their is a time coming when there shall be also a more general and shining Reformation of the lives of Christians; & that both these shall concur as means to provock the Jews to fall in love with the Christian Religion, and to seek unto Jesus Christ; But that all and every Professour in the Visible Church shall be truely Godly, or shining so gloriously in the Power of Godlinesse (for indeed it is not Godlinesse simply so much, as a more then [Page 97] ordinary shining and eminency of it, that will be the means of this great work, which M^r. Lockier has not heeded well in this Argu­ment) or that if any in the Visible Church be not such convincing­ly, though otherwayes professing the truth and pure Worship, and living without scandall, shall be casten out; neither the ne­cessity of that effect doth require, nor can there be warrant of Scripture produced to say or beleeve that it shall be so.

section 12 As for the passages of Scripture brought for illustration and con­firmation of this fourth reason; though the very sense of them given by him were granted, they bear no more but what we have granted, that God will, by dispensation of providence, punish, de­stroy and purge out among his Elect in the Church, wicked, idola­trous, godlesse, and profane ones (and this we deny not; but that the Lord now, and then, may be, towards the end more, is and will be doing this) But speaks nothing expresly and directly, nor by way of consequence, of a rule concerning Ecclesiastick qualifi­cation of persons in relation to admission into externall Visible Church fellowship, But verily the most part, if not all of them, are but absurdly and violently, contrary to the genuine scope of the Spirit in them, drawn to this purpose in hand; I shall not now in­sist much upon them; But briefly point out the perverting of them.

section 13 For the first, Esay 66. from ver. 16. to the end, let the Reader be at the pains to read but upon the place, Calvin, Junius and the English notes, and especially (if he have any skill in the Language) the notes of the learned judicious Nether-Dutch Interpreters, and I doubt not but he shall find such an Exposition and up-taking of the series and threed of that context, as shall fill and satisfie his minde, much different from that of M^r. Lockiers, which is but a new coyn'd Interpretation by men addicted to the millenarian phan­cy, and forced upon the Text. I shall only give some little evi­dence of this, I mean that his Interpretation is forced and contrary to the Grammer of the Text.

section 14 He, by these spoken of in the beginning of the vers. 19. I will set a signe among them and will send those that escape of them, un­derstandeth Christian Gentiles, and then saith the meaning of the words following, is that these refined Gentiles shall be sent unto [Page 98] the Nations (as he must take it) to the countries where the Jews are scattered, and then by these spoken of, vers. 22. your brethren; he understandeth the Jews scattered through the Nations. And then he tells us that these Gentiles sent abroad unto the Nations, their end and effect here is, that by declaring the glory of God, they shall not only gain the Gentile World, but shall also bring in these Brethren, the Jews; they shall also (saith he) bring all your Brethen, saith the Prophet. Further, ere I discover the ma­nifold violence done here to the Text, I would ask Mr. Lockier what he meaneth by the Glory of God, which these refined Gen­tiles sent abroad, where the Jews are scattered, shall declare? For he doth not explaine himself in this. Certainly if he hold to his scope, i. e. the illustration and confirmation of his former Argu­ment, he must mean, the glorious reformation of Worship and Ordinances in their exercise, and of professours in their conversati­on spoken of there, as the means which, by the light thereof, should provoke the Jews to emulation. Now here, 1. One point of violence done to the Text, (the clear discovery to every body likely he hes shun'd by not explaining what he understood by that glory of God) for by the glory of God here, I think no Christian Interpre­ter will understand any other thing, but the true knowledge of God in Jesus Christ declared by the Preaching of the Gospel, that same which the Apostle meaneth, 2 Cor. 3. ult.—the glory of the Lord beheld with open face as in a glasse, viz. in the Go­spel, and Chap. 4. 6. hath shined in our hearts to give the light of the glory of God in the face of Christ. If he say he meaneth the same, then I say he passes from the purpose of his Argument, for clearing of which he brought in this. 2. Another clear violence done to the Text is, that he maks an addition to the Text, while as he saith upon ver, 20. shall they only gain the Gentiles World? they shall [also] bring in all your Brethren. As if the Text held forth two sorts of people gained by these sent abroad through the nations, one sort and also another called their brethren. The first implyed in ver. 19. and the other, ver. 20. When as there is not such a thing as also in the Text▪ but the simple copulative and, which only coupleth together these Verbs, they shall declare my glory and they shall bring. And so, 2. There is not the least [Page 99] insinuation of the gaining two sorts of persons as the effect of their labour and pains; But in the end of v. 19. is set down their labour and work, they shall declare my glory among the Gentiles, [...]nd v. 20. is set down the effect of that their work, the bringing of one sort of persons called their Brethren. 3. By these Brethren who are said to be brought in, cannot be understood Jews (I mean as the name of Jews is now taken under the New Test. as comprehen­ding all that are remaining of the ancient people professing the Jewish Religion, whether of the Tribe of Judah or of other Tribes) my reason, from the Text, is this, because, vers. 21. its set down as a new and unusuall priviledge and dignity vouchsafed upon these Brethren brought, that God would also take of them Priests and Levits, i. e. Ministers to officiat in his Worship and Ordinances. Now it can be no new & unusuall thing to take of Jews to be such: for it had been alwayes so; therefore we do conceive, with these Learned Interpretets we named and others, by these Brethren, must be meant Gentiles who are called the Jews Brethren because when now brought in by the Gospel, in regard of faith, they are Abrahams children, Rom. 4. and Gods Children, yea and are called Gods Children, even while yet not actually called, viz. in the decree and purpose of God, John 11. 52. I no wise doubt, but the Children of God scattered, distinguished from the Nati­on of the Jews, to be gathered in, spoken of by Christ, Joh. 11. 53. And these Brethren to be brought in out of all Nations are all one and the same. 4. These spoken of, ver. 19. I will set a signe among them, and send these that escape among them, are not of the Gentiles. 1. For that which we said of these Brethren that are brought in by them. If these Brethren be the Gentiles, these sent out to bring them in must be Jews. 2. Clearly, ver. 19, 20. these sent forth are distinguished from the Gentiles, even the whole universality of the Gentiles, which are set down, 1. Generally unto the Nations, then by a particular enumeration or distribution of them according to the severall quarters of the World, East, West, South and North, Iles and Continent. See English notes on the particulars. Therefore these sent forth must be of the Jews; and it is remarkable that where the name [...] and another people or other persons are set down by way of contradistinction, it signi­fieth [Page 100] not simply people, but the rest of the people of the World distinguished from the Jewe. Therefore we conclude with the generality of Christian Interpreters, in these verses is described not the Calling of the Jews, but the Calling of the Gentiles into the fellowship of the Church, and that by these signed and sent forth are meant the Apostles and others of the Jews sent forth to Preach the Gospel among the Gentiles to bring about their Conversion which we see fulfilled and accomplished, Mat. 28. 18. Mark 16. 15. Acts 8. 14. Rom. 10. 15, 18. places also cited by the En­glish notes to clear this purpose.

section 15 For that which he hath upon the last words of this Chapter, ah! let men read & with much dread lay to heart which make light of these things we are upon, its true indeed men especially such as that verse speaketh against, should not, and, had they any spiritual feeling, could not without much dread of heart (transgressours against God) read that: but when as M^•. Lockier in so speaking, supposeth that such as will not acknowledge his way of constitution of a Visible Church, of such only as are already truely gracious and regenerate, in so doing makes light of the things spoken of in that Text, he supposeth it without ground or warrand in this place, or any otherwhere in Scripture. The thing that he is upon, and that this Text is upon, are not one and the same. And therefore the things he is on may be made light of, as being but his own, and yet no hazard of the terrour of this Text for that.

section 16 The place Rev. 3. 10. spoken to the Church of Philadelphia is but abused. For, 1. What warrand is there to expone that hour of temptation spoken of there, of the time immediatly before the Calling of the Jews? And the Church of Philadelphia in a typicall sense of some Churches to be then? 'Tis too much bold­nesse to force such typicall Interpretations upon Scripture, where the Spirit of God in the Word goeth not before us to warrand us. 'Tis true Reverend Brightman h [...]s Interpreted all the Churches and the things written to them, as types of other Churches in these latter dayes. But 1. All solide Divines have shown their discontentment with his conceit as groundlesse. 2. Yet doth not he understand by Philadelphia such Churches immediatly before the incalling of the Jews, as Mr. Lockier fancies, But hes expresly [Page 101] named some present Churches, which he will have to [...] signified thereby, Geneva, France, Low-Countreys, and with the rest even that Church of Scotland, (which Mr. Lockier counts an evill vessell that will be broken in pieces) and that because of the order and Government set up in them. 3. The place speaks not here of cutting off Churches, but of trying the Inhabitants of the World. 4. If these Churches typified by Philadelphia, are not to be cut off, because of their constitution like its, how comes that it self which was the Patern and to whom this word was spoken in the first instance and place, hath been cut off?

section 17 The place of Daniel, is as grossely abused. What ground or appearance can Mr. Lockier give us that the Holy Ghost means one and the same time, Daniel 12. and Rev. 3. in the Epistle of Philadelphia? He sayeth by these words, Daniel 12. 1. It doth plainly appear that this hour of temptation, viz. Rev. 3. 10. will be immediatly before the Calling of the Jews, and he doth no more but say it? Learned men and that upon considerable grounds and reasons, have conceived that time, Daniel 12. 1. not to be a time after Christs first comming, but before it, the time of Antiochus persecution: And must Mr. Lockiers naked assertion, without reason, that it is a time immediatly before the Jews incalling be sufficient to obtain beliefe.

section 18 The New Jerusalem spoken of, Rev. 21. is groundlessely ex­pounded to be the Visible Church of the Jews, as contradistin­guished from the Church of the Gentiles: And I verily think that it cannot be understood of the Church upon earth at all, ver. 22. seemeth to me to speak this much clearly. The place Isa. 11. 7. is also grossely missapplyed to the Visible Church of Gentiles to be joyned with the Visible Church of the Jews after their incalling, it being clearly, a Prophesie concerning the Universall Church of the Gospel, reaching along from the time of Christs first comming unto the end, as all Interpreters expound it, and the context it self holdeth it forth evidently. And so is the place of Zechariah pointed at to be understood. The hint at Jer. 12. 9. where that ancient people are likned to a speckled bird, as if thereby were meant, that because that Church in its visible constitution, was [Page 102] mixed of [...]ypocrites with the Godly, therefore it is called a speck­led bird, and that upon that account they were casten off, might make a man laugh were we not on a serious matter, and its rather a mater of mourning, to see Scripture, and so much of it, so wrested: The simple meaning of the words being this, that as a wilde strange bird, of an uncouth colour, coming in among other birds, all flieth about it and pursueth it: So because the people were become uncouth, estranged from God, wilde, un­tame, the Lord would raise up the Nations round about to destroy them. But what meaneth Mr. Lockier to speak here of the casting off the ancient Visible Church of the Jews under the Old Testa­ment, for not constituting their outward Visible society, of all truely Saints but suffering it to be speckled: Seeing all along this discourse, he hes restricted his Doctrine concerning the mater of the Visible Church, to the dayes of the Gospel? As for his in­ference wherewith he closeth, consequently the allowed mater of a Visible Church, (Remember we are speaking of Mater allowed in relation to the outward Ecclesiastick Court its proceeding in ad­mitting persons to externall Church fellowship) now in the dayes of the Gospel are persons truely holy, we say it followeth not upon any thing you have been alledging in this paragraph: For were all granted, you have been writing out of these places, all comes to this that God sometime after this will bring the Church Visible to such an estate that all in it shall be truely holy, de facto. But dispensations of efficacious grace are not a rule of Ecclesiastick pro­ceeding in admitting persons to the outward communion of the Visible Church.

SECTION VII. A short modest reply to Mr. Lockyers bitter use made of his Doctrine.

section 1 I had heard oftentimes before this time Mr. Lockier commended for a man of an ingenuous, humble, meek, sweet spirit: and when I read the Epistle of his three Brethren prefixed to this Peece, wherein they called him a soft, sweet whisperer, I expected to [Page 103] have found him such here. But sure I am any impartiall man, who readeth his Use and application of his Doctrine, may see great want of ingenuity, and such bitternesse vented against men, desirous to keep the truth and to walk before God in simplicity and godly sin­cerity, as becometh not any man of a Christian spirit; and the like whereof could hardly been expected to come from the very sons of Babel themselves against any Protestants.

section 2 He begins with this, Take heed then of setting against a Church of such a complexion and constitution, Wilt thou oppose a thing be­cause it is as it ought to be? To whom do you speak, Mr. Lockier? To us who oppose your Doctrine concerning the necessary qualifi­cation of Church members in relation to externall Church fellow­ [...]hip? Do we by opposing this, oppose a thing, because it is such as it ought to be? Nay, we do but oppose you who sayes the Church Visible, as such, ought to be, even in the Ecclesiastick Court, that which God never said in his Word, that it ought to be, and makes the door of the Visible Church straiter then ever the Lord made it, and so in effect disclaimes the way allowed by God himself, for or­dering his Church, as not wise enough nor accurate enough. Or do we set our selves against a Church of such complexion and constitu­tion as you descrive, consisting of all truly godly so far as men can judge? God forbid, and far be it from us, were there such a Church in the world of such complexion and constitution, it should be very dear and precious in our estimation, and we should blesse the Lord for the riches and power of his grace bestowed upon them. We wish from our souls, that our Churches and all the Churches in the world were of such a complexion and constitution. And we acknowledge that as it is the duty of every professour in the Visible Church in the sight of God, that they be not only so far as men can judge, but in truth and indeed truly gracious, having true saving Faith, Repentance and Sanctification; So that it is the duety of Ministers, and of every one in the Church, according to their sta­tion and capacity, to endeavour by all means instituted by God, that it may be so. But the thing that we oppose is your rigid opi­nion, that will have no Church Visible at all unlesse you have it of such a complexion, and will have none permitted to enter the soci­ety of the Visible Church, unlesse before they be truly gracious, [Page 104] sealed of God by his Spirit: at least giving such convincing eviden­ces hereof, as they may be accounted such, as far as men truely godly [...]an discern and judge, and will have all who are not such casten out to be as heathens. This we oppose because it hath no warrand in the Word, is contrary to the Word, is obstructive to the salvation of many souls, tendeth to the ruine of the Christian Church and Relig [...]on; But to oppose this, and to oppose a Church of that complexion and constitution you speak of, are much diffe­rent. Here then first we desiderate ingenuous dealing with us.

section 3 But what a flood of bitternesse followeth upon this? What horrid crimes laid to the charge of his Opposers? and what terrible dooms and woes denounced against them? They have a meer spi­rit of contradiction, bordering upon malice and blasphemy, li [...] Jews, who not able to disprove things that were taught, yet would contradict, being filled with envy, Acts 13. 44. A spirit of pure contradiction haunting men, not a spirit of superiour light; a tempter shewing men to be poisoned with Sauls spirit, leaven'd with envy and malice: and out of this do little else, but blasheme the Tabernacle of God and these which dwell in heaven, which is no other but a spirit of Antichrist, Rev. 13. 6. whereupon is denoun­ced Acts 13. 41. Behold ye despisers wonder, perish, &c. and not wondering at nor believing the things that God sayeth and doeth: no other effect produced by the Word and Works of God brought to their door but despising: and thereupon with the repetition of the former, 1. New denunciation of the curse, Ezra 6. 12. and then here spoken to as heathen (such as he doubteth Darius was: but if he was one, then) cursed by one of their own; high and low of them, one as well as another, as alterers and destroyers of Gods worship and People, and will have them take this off his hand, as an article of their Creed. Will ye not believe? And then the Pro­phesie denounced against the Antichrist and his followers, Rev. 19. from v. 11. foreward, is applyed to them. Is this the soft, sweet whispering we were told of? Ah Mr. Lockier! my soul is sorrow­full and heavy to think, a man, professing Christianity, a Minister of the Gospel, standing to speak in the LORDS sight, and in his Name, should have uttered such a horrid accusation and bitter in­vective against many whom Jesus Christ hath interest in, and will [Page 105] owne at the last day. I beseech you, Sir, return into your own thoughts, and consider as in the Lords presence. 1. Against whom you have spoken these things, who were the Opposers of that your Doctrine nearest to you at that time, and so to whom most near­ly you intended your speech then uttered and now Printed? Were they not the honest and faithfull servants of Jesus Christ, the Mi­nisters of Edinburgh and other ancient Christians there? Were any of the people of that place so opposite to you in this mater, as the most ancient and solide Christians, many of whom, were in Christ ere you or I had a being in the World, and then with them doth not the Godly Presbyterians in the three Nations oppose you in this mater, and the Godly Divines over-seas, some of which have positively Printed their judgement in opposition to your way? As n. the Valacrian C [...]asse. And are all these led by a meer spirit of contradiction, &c. 2. Consider, Sir, what is the mater of quarrell: Because they op­pose your way of outward constitution of the Visible Church, which will permit none to enter or abide in the fellowship of the Vi­sible Church under the care of the Ministers of Christ, but such as are already truely regenerate, as far as the most discerning men can judge; though they wish and endeavour by Prayers to God, by pains upon men, that all in their Churches might be such, and would account it their Crown and rejoicing how many they may have such. Is this to blaspheme the Tabernacle of God, to destroy his Worship and People, a spirit of Antichrist? For which they must perish, be cursed, destroyed, and all that written Rev. 19. from vers. 11. come upon them? Suppose they were in an error (as it is not an error, but the way of Christ) might it not have passed amongst the Wood, Hay, or Stubble, built upon the foun­dation, but not destroying the foundation: which may burn, the builders being safe? Ay but, say you, they maintain it out of a meer spirit of contradiction, as did the learned Jews, seeing a great aptnesse in many of their Countrey-men to receive the Doctrine of Christ, and they not being able to disprove the things that were taught, yet would contradict, so they, &c. Ah Mr. Loc­kier! What could the accuser of the Brethren said more boldly, and more bitterly? 'Tis true, some of our Countrey-men have shown themselves too ready to receive your Doctrine, yet, blessed [Page 106] be God, not so many as you by insinuation boast of. These few that hes done, so I judge not their persons, they will stand and an­swer for it before their Judge at the last day. Some are now but fulfilling that which they had once prophesied of themselves. But to you here Mr. Lockier. 1. Suppose they be in an errour that oppose your Doctrine concerning the necessary qualification of per­sons for being mater of a Visible Church: What are ye to judge them, to do it out of a meer spirit of contradiction, that they are poysoned with Sauls spirit, leaven'd with malice and envy, &c. Would not charity have required that you should have judged, possibly they do it out of ignorance, and not out of malice, against knowledge of the truth. Were these Godly modest men, Hooker, Cotton alive, they would, and such as are alive of that way, that are pious and judicious will, I am confident, detest and abhorre this your unchristian cruell judging of us. Blessed be God we stand not nor fall at mans judgement we have one that judgeth us, our Lord Jesus Christ, and to him we referre this challenge you have laid to our charge, and, Sir, if you do not repent of the rashnesse and cruelty of it (which from our souls we wish you may do) we cite you before his Tribunall to answer for it. But, 2. Sir we are content also to stand at the Barre of any impartiall, judicious Divines, in the Christian World, and that they give their judgement, by that same much which I (who pretends not to be one of the Learned Men in this Land) have Answered to your preceeding Discourse, if your Doctrine be such as we are not able to disprove, and if we do not upon some good grounds of reason, and not out of a meer spirit of contradiction, oppose the same: And thus I shall leave your invective without saying any more to it: we have not learned Christ so, as to repay evill with evill, bit­ternesse with bitternesse, you have cursed us, we blesse you, we wish you heartily a blessing, Repentance and forgivennesse of this evill thought of your heart and the uncharitable issue of it.

SECTION VIII. Mr. Lockyers Objections he maketh to himself, and his Answers thereto, considered.

section 1 MR. Lockier having discharged that bitter foregoing invective against the opposers of his way, comes to propound and an­swer some Objections against himself, choised out, and formed at his own pleasure, Five, in number, whereof two only are in causâ. Were there no other Arguments worthy of his consideration, besides these, to be found in Orthodox Writers opposite to his way? If he thinks not; it will seem he hes not read such Writers on this purpose as he might and ought, for clearing of himself and others: If he knew others, why did he not assay to clear them al­so? I think he had not will to present before his hearers all Argu­ments brought against his Doctrine, least he should not ridde his feet well of them, and something thereof might have stuck to such as was judicious. Whatsoever hes moved him so to passe them o­ver, we hope it shall shortly appear, he had some cause rather to passe them in silence; then to hazard grappling with them: it was his prudence so to do: But let's see these he hath, and his an­swers to them.

section 2 Obj. 1. Why? But they gather Churches out of Churches whom you plead for. Why? I thought the Dispute hitherto ye have been on, was not about persons and their practises; but about a dogmatick point. Had we been propounding Objections to you, we should not troubled our selves with these extrinsecall ones, taken from prejudices against persons, abaters of your Doctrine: But should more directly pointed at the throat of the cause it self. Yet we think all Godly Orthodox men in the Christian World, be­sides your selves, will judge that the Godly Ministers of Christ in this Iland have just cause to lay this practice of picking out of Or­thodox Churches (in which Jesus Christ is soundly Taught, Sa­craments administred according to their institution, and are by the most judicious of your own way confessed to be true Churches from which it is not lawfull to make separation) such Professours [Page 108] as by Gods blessing upon his Ordinances in these Churches have gotten most good, to make up of them Churches, to your selves. All Orthodox Christians will judge this justly laid to your charge, as a Schismatick practice having no warrand or president in the Word of God, tending to the begetting of heart-burnings, divi­sions, hatred amongst Christians, yea these of nearest relations, Husband and Wife, Parents and Children, Magistrats and People; to the hindring and no wayes to the promoving of the Work of Reformation. But see what is said to this.

section 3 Nay, it is but Churches out of a Church: Gospel Churches out of a legall Nationall Church, and the one being abolished, there may be, yea, there ought to be a departing from it and a gathering out of it unto the order which God hath instituted, so we finde Churches gathered out of that Church of the Jews, Gal. 1. 22. And whether he meaneth by being in Christ meerly according to profession, see 1 Thes. 2. 14. Ans. 1. The citation of the 1 Thes. 2. 14. for clearing what is meant by being in Christ, mentioned Gal. 1. 22. is a digression from the purpose of the Objection and hath been sufficiently answered before. 2. You gather Churches, say you, out of a Church, not out of Churches. This is strange, are not the Church of Edinburgh, and the Church of Aberdene, Churches. Again if it be a fault to gather Churches out of Churches, shall it be no fault to gather Churches out of a Church majus & minus non variant speciem. Ay, 'tis a legall Nationall Church he meaneth, such as the Jewish, such a Church is abo­lished, therefore 'tis no fault, yea we ought to gather, &c. For Answer. We may consider a Nationall or Provinciall Church of a threefold sort and notion. 1. Wherein all of the Nation are bound to a publick and solemn typicall service and Worship to be performed in one place chosen by God, under the inspection of one Visible Pastor or Priest who in Worship and Sacrifices doth hold forth and represent the whole People of the Nation. 2. Such a Nationall and Provinciall Church, in which many parti­cular Churches are united and subjected unto one Church (as they call it, Mother or Cathedrall Church) and depend upon a Visible Pastor; who is Pastor and Ruler of all other Pastors and particular Churches in the Nation or Province; And wherein the [Page 109] Inferiour Churches enjoy Divine Ordinances and Ecclesiasticall power and jurisdiction, of that Mother and Cathedrall Church or that Provinciall or Nationall Pastor. 3. Such a Nationall Church wherein many particular Churches are joyned and united together under one Visible Church-Government) wherein all are equally and collaterally concerned; and have equall interest for the use and exercise of all these Ordinances, which are necessary to the Visible Ministeriall Government of these Churches, and mutuall Ecclesia­sticall fellowship in it, and edification and preservation by it. Now a Nationall Church in the second notion is not, nor ever was an Ordinance of God, but a meer invention of men and Antichristian tyrannie, overthrowing the power granted by GOD to the Churches, and Pastors. A nationall Church of the first notion and sense was indeed an Ordinance of God. Such were the Jews, but instituted and to continue for a definite time, viz. untill the fulnesse of time should come, and then it was abolished and eva­nished: And a Church Nationall in this sense was legall. But a Nationall Church in the third sense is not a legall or typicall Church and Ordinance: But moralis & perpetui juris. Such was the Jewish under the Old Testament in point of Government and Ecclesiastick Discipline. They were many particular Churches, and Synagogues, [...]hich did in diverse places celebrat the Morall Worship of God, and the exercises of Doctrine, Discipline and Church-Government, Acts 15. 21. Acts 13. 15, 16. Luke 21. 12. John 12. 42. All which were joyned and united under one Na­tionall Visible Ecclesiastick Government. This Visible Church-ship (so to speak) of the Church of the Jews, as it was not le­gall (I mean ceremonially) nor typicall; so neither was it e­ver abolished. Let Mr. Lookier shew me a Text in the whole New Testament importing an abrogation of it; Nay, we trust through the Lords grace, ere we come to an end, to give evidence from the Word of God that there is a Church Visible under the New Testa­ment of a larger extent and bounds (I mean in point of Govern­ment) then a Province or Nation, even a Visible Church Univer­sall. Therefore I conclude that we maintaining a Nationall Church in no other sense then this, which is still warranted and allowed in the New Testament, it is nothing else but grosse Separatisme to [Page 110] gather Churches out of Churches upon this account, because they are united into one Nationall Church in this sense. As to that al­ledged by Mr. Lockier of gathering Churches out of that one Church of the Jews which he would confirm by Gal. 1. 22. I Ans. The alledgeance is grossely impertinent; for why? We are now upon the practice of gathering and constituting Churches in a new Visible Church-state, of persons withdrawn from Churches wherein is the sound Doctrine of the faith of Christ and pure Sa­craments according to their institution (such as the most judicious and Godly amongst the Independent Brethren themselves confesse to be true Churches) upon this account, because they are united into one Nationall Church in point of Government. But now will Mr. Lockier say, that the Christian Churches of the Jews were gathered out of the Jews, upon this account, because they were a Nationall Church in this sense? He cannot upon any warrand in the world. The ground of their gathering out from the rest of the Jews, was because the rest would not beleeve Jesus to be the Messiah, nor imbrace him as their Saviour: But would still adhere to their ceremoniall Worship, Sacrifices and Priest­hood, and would be saved by their own righteousnesse, blasphe­ming Christ and his Doctrine.

section 4 The second objection he propoundet [...] to himself is this. Those men are full of Heresies and dangerous opinions that follow this way, many monsters came out of your Independent Churches, therefore surely 'tis not of God, &c. I must say again Mr. Lockier doth prudently to make choise of such arguments against himself to answer, as are little to the purpose in hand. I think no understan­ding adversary, would have moved this as an objection against his Doctrine, handled in this Lecture concerning the matter of the Visible Church. But I think indeed, being well managed, it may be made use of to good purpose against their Independent Churches in point of their Government, thus, The Government that is apt to open a door to Errors, seemeth, cannot be of God. But such is the Independent way of Church Government; Which makes every particular Congregation Independent, and supreme in Go­vernment, so that if any of them fall into Error, there is no Ec­clesiastick Power on earth, that authoritatively can interpose to [Page 111] redresse▪ wherein they go wrong. And certaine it is by this oc­casion, many Errours have sprung up amongst them that fol­low this way. And for this very cause it is, that so many maintainers of grosse Errours, as Anabaptists, Antinomians, &c. lay hold on this way of Government, as most suitable to their designes, and serviceable for their safetie and indemnitie. And here I shall desire M^r. Lockier to remember, how that Reverend M^r. Bright­man, parallelling the Churches of Geneva, France, Low-coun­tries, and Scotland, put the speciall point of their commenda­tion, on the nature and way of their Government, viz. Pres­byteriall, whereby they have more then any Reformed Churches, preserved themselves, in Unity and Truth, free of Schismes and Heresies. But we will have place afterward to speak of this point of Government. It seemeth to me very likely that M^•. Lockier hath drawn in this objection in this place, namely upon a design against a Person, as we shall see apparent ground even now in his answer.

section 5 Answ. 1. All is not true that is said of Congregationall Churches, and their friends, it hath been an old wyle of the De­vil—Nay, I know all is not true which is Printed of Persons honouring and loving Churches of such a constitution, witnesse Master Edwards Gangren, nay Master Rutherfurds Spirituall Antichrist, pag. 250, 251. The Lord Generall Cromwell is char­ged with publick scandall, and unsoundnesse in the Faith, because of a letter to the Parliament, then having set down a part of that letter out of M^r. Rutherfurd, what Heresie (sayeth he) is in this letter I know not, and then applyes to Master Ruther­furd, his constructing of that letter, Psal. 56. 5. and that of Solo­mon, Pro. surely the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood. Then cites another speach of Master Rutherfurds Spirit. Antich. pag. 251. (viz. to my knowledge theres not this day in England any that is a meer Independent, which maintaineth nothing but In­dependencie, with most of those of New England, and doeth not hold other unsound and corrupt Tenets, &c.) and sayeth this maketh him tremble, when he remembreth from whom it cometh; Surely there be many Independents in England to whom he is a stranger; And how then should he dare to speak of them all as he [Page 112] doeth? Especially this makes him tremble, comparing with what Master Rutherfurd hath in his Epistle, if I lift up my hand or a bloody pen, &c. Answ. 1. 'Tis a poor and sory Vindication, all is not true that is said, yea or Printed of Congregational Churches and of their friends. That is not the thing, you are charged with in the Objection even as formed by your self, that all is true, &c. if a great part or most part of these things [...]e true, the charge abi­deth good. And true it is that more Monsters of dangerous opini­ons in matters of Religion have come from Independent Churches and the friends thereof, and have had their recourse to that way of Government, within those few years by past, then I believe has arisen in all the Reformed Churches in Christendome since the beginning of Reformation. As for your bringing M^•. Rutherfurd upon the stage upon the account of that Letter, you will do well Mr. Lockier to enter into your own heart, and consider from what designe and intention this hath proceeded. 'Tis very apparent, it has come from little purpose or intention to clear that Letter in the things charged upon it; Seeing you have not so much as hinted at the clearing of one animadversion on it; But thought it enough to say you know not what is amisse in it, and to bid the world judge of it. Give me leave to say it of Mr. Lockier, If Generall Cromwels Souldiers defended him not better with the Sword, then you do here with your pen, it were not very safe for him to go to the fields. Well, I will not determine upon your intentions; But if the intention of the work of this businesse, looketh not to­wards stirring up of persecution against the Godly and precious ser­vants of Jesus Christ, I leave it to be judged of any indifferent man, considering the posture of affairs in these Lands: But I beleeve those whom the Authors words tends to irritate, will not be so foreward to put forth their hand, as he is to solicit them. The other challenge made against that precious man, is evidently [...] grosse and palpable wresting of his words (the fault Mr. Lockier had but in that same breath almost charged upon him without gi­ving any evidence of it) and a very wringing of the nose to bring forth blood. I report me to every ingenuous man. If reading Mr. Rutherfurds words as they are alledged by Mr. Lockier him­self, [Page 113] he will conceive that M^r. Rutherfurd meaneth what he say­eth of all and every Independent in England, as M. Lockier con­structeth them: or not rather that he speaketh only of all within his knowledge. And what cause then is there of such out-crying a­gainst Mr. Rutherfurd for these words, as if they were a mater of trembling? Verily I cannot but think it a mater of trembling, to see a man with so much confidence and boldnesse palpably miscon­structing an honest mans words to make him odious.

section 6 He Answ. 3. That there is difference between a cause and occasion. That we walk in a fundamentall truth, in the power of it, many take occasion hence to scoffe, break forth into much wic­kednesse, is it not therefore the truth which we follow? And then he telleth us that as light hath broken forth in every age, Sathan hath laboured to darken it, and gives instances. As 1. That when the first Fathers began to lay again that great principle and fun­damentall of the Trinity, to darken this, he set on foot Arrius he­resie.—2. When some of the modern Divines laid that great fundamentall point of Justification by faith in Christ, to darken this he conjured up the Anabaptists in Germany, which denyed proprietie, Magistracie; all which is good; and then addeth, now when God hath made another accession of light, respecting the roofe and upper part of the house (the Independent way of consti­tution and Government of Churches) what stirres, fogs, mists hath he raised? Is all this therefore darknesse, drosse?—I think things about which the Devil maketh such adoe, may rather be thought to have something in them, rather then to conclude they have nothing of God within them; because the Devil doth not usu­ally set against his own: Doth not divide against the Devil. When this New Heaven, as the Prophet calleth it, this new order was first set up at Jerusalem, what bloody stirres made it there? When first at Antioch what work made it there? No small dissention, Acts 15. 2. and yet the mind of God. Answ. 1. Much mistaking hes been discovered already in this Lecture of Mr. Lockiers, but in no one passage hath he worse acquyted himself then in this we have now in hand. 1. True, it is no good Argument or prejudice either, against a Tenet or point of Doctrine that many take occa­sion thence to scoffe and break forth into much wickedeesse: But [Page 114] this is not to the purpose in hand. Our alledgeance is that the In­dependent way of Church-Government is such in the nature of it as giveth occasion to men to run freely without controlement into errours, and is a kinde of shelter, for such as holds and maintains er­rours, to run to, as experience proveth; and this, sure, if it be not an intrinsick Argument yet it is a strong presumption against a Te­net, that it is not of God, the like cannot be said of the Presbyte­rian way. 2. As to the two instances brought in. They are as impertinent as the former generall; For neither by the Doctrine of the Trinity was occasion given any wayes to the Arian heresie. But the Devill raised up Arius and his heresie, to oppose and dar­ken that fundamentall point of Christianity. Nor was there, by the Doctrine of Justification cleared by these modern fathers, occa­sion given to the stirres of Anabaptists: But these were raised by the Devill in opposition against that and other points of Religion then cleared. I humbly conceive it agrees not well with Historie to say that upon the fathers beginning again to lay that principall fundamentall of the Trinity; the Devill did set on foot the Arian heresie: The History of these times seemeth to say that the set­ting on foot the Arian heresie gave occasion to these ancient fa­thers, to establish and confirm from the Word of God that prin­ciple and fundamentall of the Trinity. 3. While as Mr. Lockier (by way of application of these things noted on before) first sayeth, now in this period of time God hath made another accession of light, respecting the roofe and upper part of the house (meaning his In­dependent way of Church constitution and Government) and then subjoyneth by way of Question, and now what sturres, &c? Why, what now? Is all therefore—he but miserably begs his Question, viz. that his way is a new accession of light. 4. Worst of all doth he plead for his own cause in relation to the former Objection when as he alledgeth that it may rather be thought a way that hath something of God in it, which the Devill opposeth, then to conclude to the contrary because the Devill doth not usually set against his own; Why? The Independent way is that which this day all the emissaries of Satan (I mean not meer [...]ndependents themselves, many of whom I love and reverence) and almost all the Sect masters of the time betakes themselves to and [Page 115] hugges in their arms. And the Presbyterian way is that which all the errours and heresies of the time opposeth, looketh upon as the great eye-sore and hateth cane pejus & angue. 5. 'Tis some­what more then inconsiderat contempt of his hearers and readers, when he will have them beleeve; that it was the setting up of his Independent Church order at Jerusalem and Antioch that was the mater and object of the bloody sturres, and no small dissentions there. Ah Mr. Lockier! it was another mater, upon which these things were raised, then who should be members of the Visible Church, or what form of externall Government, should be fol­lowed, 'twas the Preaching of Justification and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the Law.

section 7 The 3. Object. Mr. Lockier meeteth with, till Independency, no such sharp and bloody stirres and dissentions. Where did you read this brought as an Argument against your Doctrine of Church-members? Will any body say, that these impertinencies were brought on the stage for any other end; but to catch occasi­on to vent splen against persons of men; for what else is it that fol­loweth by way of Answer to this.

section 8 1. Presbyterians began first to draw the sword, and their bit­ternesse and basenesse hath hightned it to that, to which otherwise in likelihood, it would not have come: The two latter Summers Wars, have been the sharpest, I know they will say that they have felt. And truly whether their froward spirit did not prin­cipally raise these storms, I leave themselves to judge. They converted so many Malignants into Presbyterians, & e contra, that if God had not been more gracious, then they ingenuous, they had undone themselves and others too.

Answ. To this impertinent discourse in the generall, if I shall say, that it is nothing else, but an issue of carnall bitternesse, I think no ingenuous indifferent man, will blame me or think I say too much. For, 1. True, suppose Presbyterians began first to draw the sword, (which is false, they were forced to it by others drawing it) but was it not for their just defence in vindication and maintainance of the Truth of Jesus Christ, and of their just liberty against oppression, Prelaticall violence, and arbitrary Government? And must this be charged upon them, as Mr. Lockier doth here, [Page 116] as a crime? Tell me Mr. Lockier, what condition were you in and would been in to this day, in all humane appearance, had not Presbyterians begun to draw the sword in that quarrell? Tell me what was the means under God that procured liberty for the sit­ting down of a free Parliament in England, 1640? Belike you think it was a crime, that you got not leave to crouch under the burden, and Religion, and Liberties were not suffered, for Pres­byterians, to ly still under oppression and usurpation. I believe the wisest and most ingenuous, and those that are most eminent amongst them, that now are in power amongst you and in these Lands, will not approve you in their judgement, for this challenge against us; And unlesse I be misinformed when they were come to this hight of prevalency, they are now in, and we brought to this low condition we are now continuing in, looking back, gave testi­mony of their acknowledgement, that our beginning to draw the sword, did put the sword in their hand, tho it was never our pur­pose to put it in their hand, for the effect, for which at last they have made use of it. 2. Your attributing the hightning of the sword to that, to which in likelyhood it would not have come, to the bitternesse and basenesse of Presbyterians, seeing ye give no proof nor the least evidence of it (and indeed ye could not) we must crave leave to say, it is an injury. Tell me, Sir was it bit­ternesse of spirit, or did it tend to the hightning of the sword, that the Presbyterians in Scotland, having but girded their sword to them, Anno 1639. upon promises of tollerable satisfaction, laid it aside again presently, ere ever they drew it, and having again in the Year 40. being forced to it, by deadly preparations, drawn it, with advantage which they might have prosecuted, yet as soon as they were secured by the treaty at [...]ippon, put it up into its sheath, and retired again Remem­ber, Mr. Lockier, and read that speech of one of your own, Jere­mie Bur­roughs, to the cōmon Counsel of London in Guild Hall, Anno 1642. and blush. I shal here insert but a few of his words for the Rea­ders sake who, may be, he [...] not at hand a Cople of that speech. Was their ever such an example seen since the world began, of a people com­ing out of a poor coun­try into a fat and rich coun­try, and having these opportunities to enrich themselves, to go away so as they did. Their greatest enemies they now admire at them. A people that began to rise for their Liberties when the gene­rality of this people here was ready, &c. I shall transcribe no more, let Mr. Lockier read what followeth and what goeth before these words. into their own land without any fur­ther molestation; and having again drawn the sword for your assist­ance in great straits, and upon your earnest suit, Anno 1643. And having kept it in their hand for sundry years untill all enemies were [Page 117] husht and gone, as soon as they were desired to return home, did it in a peaceable way. I pray you Sir, tell me, who were the men that kept up the sword then? Whether Presbyterians, or some others? 3. Indeed these two latter Summer-wars have been the sharpest, and we cannot but say, that we have felt; And it becometh us well to justifie the Lord our God in all that he hath brought upon us, and to bear his indignation, because we have sinned against him, we and our Kings and our Princes and Rulers and the whole People of the Land: But if, as to the quarrell be-between us and man, frowardnesse of spirit in us raised these storms, tho we can justifie our selves before the world; Yet we shall not take upon our selves to be judges of it: But shall refer it to the Judgement of him, who is the Judge of the World; and though it should be his blessed good pleasure never to plead our cause by a sensible dispensation of providence in this world, yet we will ac­quiesce in the approbation of his revealed will, without quiting of our innocency, be content to ly down in the grave, and wait for his sentence in the mater when he shall come to Judge the quick and the dead. And as for you Mr. Lockier, I verily think he shall never let you go off this world without a challenge from himself, for such unchristian, uncharitable insulting over them whom the Lord hath smitten, and talking to the grief of these whom he hath wounded. 4. As to that which followeth, they converted so ma­ny Malignants into Presbyterians, & e contra, &c. 1. 'Tis upon the mater but an injurious scoffe smelling rank of a mind, not pur­posed to reason but to reproach, a thing unbeseeming a Minister of the Gospel, especially in a Pulpit. I will not pay you home in your coyne, Mr. Lockier, but I may say. Quamvis dignus ego es­sem hac comtumeliâ, indig [...]is tu qui faceres tamen—2. Tis utter­ly impertinent to the preceeding purpose he was upon. Was this the quarrell that did principally raise these storms? Where is ingenuity? I beleeve we might had liberty to turn Malignants e­nough unto Presbyterians or any other thing we pleased, without any quarrell, had we been content but to have done some one thing, which we durst not do because of the Oath of God And now I obt [...]st you Mr. Lockier, say candidly if either then, when these storms were raised, or now since we felt the dint of them, [Page 118] converting Malignants to be what they would, for your designe, be made bones of among you? I'le insist no more upon this inve­ctive; but leave it spread before the Lord, that he may, in his time, plead with the Authors heart, for the unjustice and uncharitable­nesse of it. Come we now to the next Objection he meeteth with.

section 9 4. Object. Simon Magus was a man in the gall of bitternesse and in the bonde of iniquity, yet upon his profession of faith in Christ he was received into Church-fellowship: Therefore meer profession is sufficient to this state, and no more to be looked after, de jure, nisi ex abundanti: Hitherto Mr. Lockier has been pleased to represent his adversaries as impertinent objecting prejudices a­gainst persons, and not reasoning against his opinion, he knoweth himself for what end: Now at last he vouchsafes them the credit, of saying some little thing, a word or two, in causâ. As to the former now set down. 1. He wrongs us in forming the conclusion or consequent: 'Tis not any meer profession whats [...]ever we allow as sufficient to this state, admission unto Church-fellowship, some may professe mockingly, histrionically, or, to discerning, on pur­pose to deceive and subvert the Church, as these, Gal. 2. 4. Such profession we allow not; but a serious sober profession, such as we described before stating the Question. 2. We give him the an­tecedent somewhat more constringent thus. Simon Magus hav­ing been even now a vile sorcerer, bewitching people with his sorceries, and sacrilegiously usurping the honour of God, upon profession of faith in a sober seriousnesse, was by Philip baptized and received into Church-fellowship, without passing any tryall, if that profession of his proceeded, o [...] judgement, that it did pro­ceed, so far as men could discern from true saving grace and faith in the heart. That his profession of faith was serious and sober, and appeared so, is evident in the Text; For he was brought to it by conviction to astonishme [...] and wondering at the miracles that were done: And the Text speaks not of any intended purpose of deceiving in his taking up that profession. But that Philip tryed and examined his profession, if it did proceed from a true saving work of Regeneration in the heart, or that judgement was passed upon him as one truely regenerat, so far as men can discern, the [Page 119] Text sayeth not this, nor any thing to that purpose. Now let's see what Mr. Lockier replyeth.

section 10 Surely (saith he) it was not shews but substance that was lookt at, and conceived indeed to be in this man, so far as man can judg (i.) of a tree by his fruit: for de occultis non judicat Ecclesia. There were surely outward signes of repentance in this man, & such as the Apostle Peter, who received him unto fellowship, was satisfied with. Ans 1. Here is a palpable grosse escape committed by the Au­thor, when he attributeth Simons receiving into Church-fellow­ship to Peter: for clear it is, that Simon was received in Church-fellowship by Philip and continued with him therein, some space ere Peter and John came down to Samaria, Acts 8. 13, 14. whether the Author has committed this escape of inanimadvertencie, or of purpose, I will not peremptorily determine; But the latte [...] seem­eth most probable, that he might have the fairer occasion to bring in Peters words, Acts 2. 28. to confirm his Assertion concerning Simons qualification in relation to his admission into Church-fel­lowship, of which place anone. 2. But whether Peter or Philip received him, that there were such outward signs of repentance in this man, that as far as men can judge of a tree by its fruit, he was conceived, positively to be a regenerate and a true savingly be­liever, and that upon sat [...]faction in this, it was, that he was received into Church-fellowship, how will the Author instruct & prove this?

section 11 First, saith he, what Peter required at the hands of those, Acts 2. 38. Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Je­sus Christ, for the remission of sins, &c. he would, did follow the same rule of Christ which he had received and delivered to others, and therefore required as much at the [...]ands of Simon; If he would not dispense with this rule [...]ith none of those great number (—) there is no reason to think he durst exact lesse of this man, to be sa­tisfied in him, especially [...]earing what a creature he had been. Answ. Besides the continued escape of attributing, Simons recei­ving into the Church, to Peter (whereupon yet much of the weight of this reason dependeth) here is anothe [...] great mistake upon the mater, which is the principall ground: and being discovered, the whole inference evanisheth. Mr. Lockier supposeth that the A­postle Peter in these words (Repent and be baptized every one of [Page 120] you for the remission of sins) is speaking unto these people and pre­scribing a rule to them fot qualification, in relation to stating them in outward visible Church-fellowship: when as it is another mat­ter in relation to which he is speaking and prescribing a direction for, viz. how they might find pardon of their fearfull sin of crucifying the Lord of glory, be reconciled to God, and saved from the wrath to come: This is evident as the noon day to any that will look up­on the context. For this rule and direction of the Apostles, is in order to that which at that time was pressing the souls of these he speaketh to, and to answer the question they propounded out of the anguish of their spirits. Now clear it is, that the mater that pressed them was their conviction of their horrid sin of rejecting and crucifying Christ: and their danger of the dreadfull wrath of God, and the question they propounded, What shall we do? was not about stating in visible Church-membership: but how they might be freed of that guiltinesse, and saved from the wrath of God: This is it that the Apostles rule and direction relateth to: and therefore 'tis more then evidences of true repentance and faith, so far as men can judge, even true repentance and faith in veritate rei seu existentiae, that he requireth of them. This rule in relation to this end, he had indeed received from Christ: and neither could he, nor can any other dispense with it, or exact lesse from any in relation to that end: But all is nothing to Mr. Lockiers purpose, that Peter received from the Lord, or followed in the point of admitting into the outward fellowship of the visible Church, such a rule as requireth either true repentance and faith in reality of inexist [...]ce, or convincing evidences thereof, so far as men can judg, as the necessary qualification in foro exteriori Ecclesiae, and as the ground whereupon only the Church may admit persons into exter­nall Church communion: this the Text saith not, nor any other that he can produce from Scripture.

section 12 Next the Author goeth about to prove that Simon Magus did give such outward appearance, of reall inward grace, that the A­postle thought him really gracious, a true and reall Saint. 1. By what is said of him in the Text. 2. By the consent of the Learned Interpreters. For the former, 'Tis said (saith he) that when he was baptized he continued with Philip [...], and here is [Page 121] is much insisting upon the signification of the Originall word, that it signifieth, to be alwayes present, to endure, to be assiduous; that it is attributed to hunting dogs, that will not cease following the game till they have got it; that it signifieth to persevere with strength, Acts 6. 4. Rom. 13. 6. and then upon all this concludes. Thus, no doubt, was Simon very diligent and full of care and cir­cumspection, to carry it so in all things that he might carry it with all beholders equally to the Apostles themselves, that he might be still as high in every ones opinion, even in the opinion of the Apo­stles themselves, as he was in the opinion of the blinded and delu­ded people. Ans. 1. Mr. Lockier supposeth that Simons continuing with Philip, which is spoken of in the Text, was antecedent to his re­ceiving unto the fellowship of the Church, and the ground upon consideration of which he was received: But let him shew me in the Text volam au [...] vestigium, of Peters admitting him unto the fellowship of the Church, after, and upon consideration of this. Nay, it is not unworthy the observation, that Mr. Lockier in all this discourse upon Simon Magus, doth not so much as once point his Reader to the Chapter where the story lyeth, by his custome in making use of other Passages, which makes me apprehend, he saw that the Reader turni [...]g over to it, would easily seen the weak­nesse of his discourse by the conte [...] of the words. Saith not the Text it self, that when he was baptized [...] i. e. after he was baptized and so after he was received into the Church, he continu­ed with Philip? And so what ever may be imported by this con­tinuing, let it be never so much evidence of inward grace, it is nihil ad rhombum, nothing to the purpose in hand: For we are speaking now of what was found in him before, and in relation to his recei­ving. If Mr. Lockier shall say, that he was not received into the Church fellowship, when baptized, or by baptisme: I repone, first, Then he must grant that [...] was required in adultis, for bap­tizing them, then for admitting them to Visible Church fellow­ship. 2. Then it must follow that persons then were first baptized, and then tryed a while further ere they were admitted Visible Church members; let me see either precept or practice for this in all the Word o [...] God, let Mr. Lockier or any for him shew me in Scripture one baptized and not hoc ipso, made a member of the [Page 122] Visible Church. 2. That his continuing with Philip (whether antecedent or consequent to his admission) is but a poor ground to prove what M^r. Lockier alledgeth it for, viz. that Simon had such outward appearance of real inward grace, that so far as man could judge he seemed a true and reall Saint. I pray what is said? [...] i. e. he constantly followed and waited on Philip, (this is all that the word i [...]ports when joyned to a name of a per­son [...] est ab alicu­jus latere non discede­re, sed assi­duum comi­tem praesta re. Con­stantin. in lex Graec. Lat., Mr. Lockiers further criticisme upon the word is to little purpose) and that he was astonished at the miracles and signes that were done. That which Mr. Lockier alledgeth that no doubt Si­mon Magus was very diligent and full of care and circumspection to carry it so in all things, &c. is no doubt a confident assertion without bottom in the Text; and yet is this evidence enough that a man is a true and reall Saint as far as men can judge? I wonder how a judicious man, before judicious men, can assert such a thing. I confesse this cariage of Simons was ground to repute him not a grosse hypocrite, a dissembler▪ and a mock-professor: But it can be a ground of no further. I find indeed sundry of the Interpre­ters saying that Simon would have been equall in reputation to the Apostles themselves. But they speak not of this, as his de­signe in his continuing with Philip, as the Author mistakes (for that was not a sufficiently [...]pparent mean to obtain that reputati­on) but as his designe in seeking to have the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost for his money, which was the very discovery of his rottennesse; so far was it from being any part of dili­gence, carefulnesse and circumspection, to carry it so in all things▪ &c.

section 13 For consent of the Learned Interpreters, he citeth some words, of Pisc. English annot. Junius & Premellius, Pellicannus, Be­za. And then tells, that he addeth all these testimonies for the Learneds sake that they may see and know that Simon he caried the mater that he seemed another man then a meer professor, otherwise the Apostles had not received him: And when thus his hypocrisie did appear, the Apostles rejected him as one not in Christ, and as one wh [...] had no share in reall grace, and upon that ground rejected communion with such an hypocri [...] that all else might know what they had to do, namely, to follow that rule of the [Page 123] Apostle, 2 Tim. 3. 9. Having a forme of godlinesse, but deny­ing the power thereof, from such turn away. Which place (saith he) shewes plainly, that it was the power, and not the Prosession, and not the forme that was looked, and is to be looked at, in the admission of members of the Visible Church. Answ. I wonder how the Author could so contemn the Learned who might read him, as to say that for their sakes he had added these testimonies cited by him, that they may see and know that Simon carried the mater so, that he seemed another man then a meer Professour, i. e. as he meaneth a true and reall Saint; had he been pleased but to English these testimonies cited by him (as it was his prudence to let them ly under the Latine vail) the very unlearned, who had common sense, would evidently have seen and known them to im­port no such thing. For this I appeal to the judgement of all that understand Latine, and will be pleased to read them: For I think it not worth the while to translate and insert them here; the most that any of them amounteth to, is that which the word ested from the English annot. hath, that he made outward profession of faith and conversion. Might he not done this much, and yet not carried it so in all things, as to give ground positively to repute him, as far as men could judge to be a true and real Saint? Will Mr. Lockier acknowledge that a man hath said enough of another, for that end, when he saith no more of him but this, he was so con­vinced by miracles, as to professe faith and conversion? Nay, he'll say, its the power of Godlinesse, not profession, that's to be looked at. 2. That when Simons hypocrisie did thus appear, the Apostle did abominat the impiety of his deed, discover and bear in upon him the perversenesse of his heart, and his miserable e­state, and denunce the tem [...]le deserved Judgement of God against him, is clear in the Text: But that he did reject him from out­ward communion of the Vi [...]ble Church, I see it not. Nay, what ever became of him afterward (about it Writers are of different judgement, see Calv. in loc.) there appears to be some grounds in the Text to think the contrary, viz. these. 1. That Peter with his severe objurgation and denunciation, joynes a serious ex­hortation to Repentance and Prayer, with an insinuation of some hope of mercie, v. 2 [...] ▪ 2. That the Historian has registrate that [Page 124] Simon did not shew himself obstinate, but accepting of the words of Peter, and touched with the terrour of the threatned Judge­ment, sought the help of the Apostles Prayers to escape it. 3. But supposing that Peter did at this time Excommunicate him; yet that it was done upon this account simply, that he was not in Christ, that he had no share in reall grace, has no footing in the Text; we will find a further mater [...]d to his charge, an atrocious crime of seeking to buy the gift of the Holy Ghost with money. Nay, that for non▪regeneration simply a man should be Excommunicat, is a wild assertion unheard of in the Word of God, which enjoyn­eth this censure only in the case of obstinacy and contumacious con­tempt of the Discipline of the Church, or at farthest in case of an atrocious scandall, which case yet is doubtfull, as may appear in the debates of Learned Men about the Excommunication of the incestuous Corinthian. 4. The place, 2 Tim. 3. 5. is most con­trary to the scope and purpose of the context, alledged as a rule, holding forth, that all professours not having true grace of Regene­ration or not giving evidences thereof, so far as men can discern and judge, are for that to be casten out of the communion of the Visible Church. It is clear as noo [...]-day, that the Apostle by the men, of whom he saith, they have a form of godlinesse, means not every professour unregenerate, or not giving evidences convin­cing so far as men can judge of Regeneration; but persons, openly and grossely in their conversation scandalous, flagitious, blasphe­mous, &c. As is evident both by the words going before and following.

section 14 Th [...] [...]ast Object. he laboureth to answer, the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2. 20. But in a great house there are not only vessels of Gold and of Silver, but also of Wood and of Earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour, by house he meaneth Visible Church; therefore the Visible Church may consist of good [...]d bad. Mr. Lockier pro­pounds Arguments against his Tenent as himself pleaseth, in the most [...]oft way for his own advantage. We hope in the next Secti­on to give an Argume [...] from this and other like descriptions of the Visible Church formed somewhat more pungent now we shall only consider what he answ [...]eth unto it as laid down by himself. His Answers are two.

section 15 First, That there may be bad men in a Church hath not been denyed; because Hypocrites may delude the judgement of the best men; but he (the Apostle) saith not that these vessels of earth are there allowedly; but they are there to dishonour: That is, being creept in where they should not be, they are to be cast out of the Church as dishonourable, as indeed was Hymeneus and Philetus, of whom and of one Alexander see what the Apostle sayeth, 1 Tim. 1. 20. which shews, that when men put away that which they seem to have, faith coupled with a good conscience; they are to be put away to their master as vessels of dishonour appointed for wrath. Answ, 1. Passing now that expression that bad men are not in the Church allowedlie, having pondered before in what sense it may be granted, and in what not: passing this; what a wilde and forced Interpretation is that vessels to dishonour, i. e. that are to be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastick censure, Excommunication? Who ever dreamed of the like before? Clear it is, that the Apo­stle in the back or outside of the comparison by being to honour, means appointed and imployed to more honest and honourable uses in an house. And by to dishonour, meaneth not casting out of the house (to Interprete him so were ridiculous) but to be ap­pointed and imployed to more base and fordid uses: And in the kirnell or application of the simili [...]ude, under the name of vessels to honour is meaned the elect of God, sanctified and prepared to every good work, and ordained [...]o glory, as is clear by the verse going before, and the verse following. And so by vessels to dis­honour, are meant cast-awayes, whom, being in the Visible Church, God makes use of for such ends as he pleaseth, and in end will se­parate them to that wrath and confusion they are fitted for, whe­ther ever here-away they break out into such scandals as shall make them to be casten out of the Visible Church, or they continue in the heap or in the house to their ending day. That this is the ge­nuine meaning of the words I think no intelligent man will deny. 2. It is a false supposition which M^r. Lockier insinuateth, that bad men in the Church, i. e. men void of true grace and unregenerat, as and becaus [...] such, are to be cast out of the commu [...]on of the Visible Church, the Scripture allow [...]h no casting out of men but because they are sc [...]dalous and contum [...]ous, or at least atroci­ously [Page 126] scandalous (which latter yet as we said before is question­able) and it alloweth men that are such to be casten out though they be haply in state, truely regenerat and justified. And there­fore, 3. It is a most inconsiderat word of the Authors, where ex­pressing the nature of Excommunication, he [...]ayeth they are to be put away to their master as vessels of dishonour, and appointed un­to wrath, i. e. in plain words, as reprobates ordained to eternall damnation. This is very different from Pauls theologie, 1 Cor. 5. 5. to deliver unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Far be it from me and from the Churches of Christ to use Excommunication upon such a consideration of a person and for such an end as Mr. Lockier, determines here, which in effect makes the Church in the sentence of Excommunication, to determine, concerning mens re­probation, a secret which God hath keped up to himself, and is altogether hid unto, and undiscernable by men except in the case of sinning against the Holy Ghost, which yet is hard for any to de­termine upon. 4. The Excommunication and casting out of Hy­meneus, Philetus and Alexander, is impertinently alledged to the purpose, viz. that all men that are not true Saints, or have not true grace (so must M^r. Lockier's bad men be under­stood) are upon this account to be cast out of the Church; these were not such men simply, but taught abominable heresies, deny­all of the Resurrection, perverse seducers of people from the faith, blasphemers, and for these they were cast out.2 Tim. 2. 18 2 Tim. 1. ult.

section 16 His next Answer is this: Moreover by this great house, he (Paul) First, means the Church of the Ephesians, for whose sake Paul wrot to Timothy, and what they were according to the judgement of the Apostle who wrot to them ye have heard. Answ. We take what the Author saith, that this great house is the Church of the Ephesians, and it may well be so taken, as applicable to the Church of Ephesus, or any other Church; then I say he hath fur­nished a weapon against himself, for if this house be the Church of the Ephesians to which [...]he Apostle wrot, then when as writing to them he [...]lled them Saints, he meaneth not that [...]f all and eve­ry one of them, but spake it [...] the body indefinitely and confused­ly, why? Should that b [...] understood universally, it should be a [Page 127] flat contradiction to what he saith here, that the Church of the Ephesians is a great house, in which there are some vessels to dis­honour, non-saints, yea very reprobates, appointed to wrath. It will not salve the mater to say, as M^r. Lockier insinuateth, that the Apostle in writing to the Ephesians, speaketh of what they were, in his judgement: For Paul is speaking his judgement here too: Now how can these two judgements consist in one man. To my judgement, all and every one of the Church of Ephesus are reall Saints, sealed as his, and yet I pronounce there are in the Church of Ephesus some reall un-saints, very reprobates. Indeed if the Apostle here had not determined positively and purè. But by way of suspence and modaliter, in this house, the Church of Ephesus, may be, or possibly there are some vessels of dishonour, there would not be such repugnancie or incompatibilitie of this with the former. But he speaks absolutely and positively, there are some vessels to dishonour.

SECTION IX. Some further Arguments confirming our Doctrine and everting the adverse opinion about the necessarie qua­lification of Members of the Visible Church.

section 1 MR. Lockier hath chosen out some Objections against his Do­ctrine as made by his adve [...]sarie, but indeed framed at his own pleasure, only two of them are in causâ, the other are but extrinsecall to the cause, Reflections and prejudices against persons; this I confesse has been wittily done, for gaining advantage in the minds of Hearers and Readers unacquainted with the controversie for his own, and against his adversaries cause: But it is not very ingenuous dealing. What? has there never a reason more been brought, against that Tenet of his, by learned men, but these two? I cannot think, but he has seen and read Gul. Apolon. con­sideration of certain controversies &c. s [...]nt to the Assembly at Westminster, 1644. Spanhems Epistle to M [...]. Buchana [...] ▪ Mr. Ru­therfurd his fi [...]st and second book a [...]ainst the Independent way; however he might have read them, and found therein, besides [Page 128] other writings of Orthodox Divines, some other arguments to an­swer; Well, because he has thought it fit to content himself with these two (which yet, how he has satisfied, we leave it to the in­telligent Reader to judge) we shall adde some few more, not troubling our selves nor the Reader with repetition of all that hath been said by others.

section 2 Arg. 1. If Moses did admit as Members into the external com­munion of the Visible Church under the Old Test. men professing the true God of Israel, the Covenant with him, and his true Wor­ship, without enquirie for the Work of true Grace in their hearts, or positive evidences, that they were truely converted, regene­rate, and gracious, so far as men could discern and judge; Yea, knowing assuredly that many of them were as yet, unconverted and hard hearted: Item, if Iohn the Baptist, the Apostles, and the Master Builder and Lord of the Church Jesus Christ himself, did admit into the externall communion of the Visible Church of the New Test. such as did professe the Christian Faith, as soon as they did professe, without delay for trying and searching evidences of the Work of Grace in their hearts; Then in all Churches persons ought to be admitted upon the same termes; And it is not a neces­sary qualification, in foro Ecclesiastico, for constituting one ca­pable of Visible-Church-Membership, that he be truely converted, such as God who knoweth the hearts of all men can bear witnesse to, as indeed sealed for his, by his Spirit, so far as men truely con­verted and very spirituall are [...] to discerne and judge, but the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof: Ergo, &c.

section 3 As to the consequence or connexion of the proposition, it is likely Mr. Lockier will not acknowledge it upon the first part of the antecedent, viz. the manner and ground of admitting Members into the Visible Church of the Old Testament, because his judge­ment, as seemeth, is that the constitution of the Visible Church of the New Test. in this point is essentially different from that of the Old, for he restricteth his Thesis concerning the matter of the Vi­sible Church to the day [...] of the Gospel, not once, which to me smelleth [...]nk of Anabaptists, who, as we know, denying Infant Baptisme upon this ground because they cannot give evidences of Faith; Being pressed with the Argument taken from Infants [Page 129] Church-Membership, and sealing with the initiating Sacrament under the Old Testament to eschew, if they could; the dint of that argument, do run upon the assertion of an essentiall difference between the constitution of the one Church and of the other, and so deayes the consequence from practise in the one to the other, as we see Mr. Tombs doeth in his dispute with Mr. Baxter. I will not think that Mr Lockier doth run the Anabaptists length in making use of that difference: Bu [...] certai [...] if he assert, as he seemeth to do, an essentiall difference [...] one and the other, he, for his part, gives them a fair ground [...] that argument used by all Orthodox Divines for Infant Bap [...]e▪ but the Orthodox have so­lidely asserted and maintained, that the constitution of the Church under the Old Test. and New, differ not in essentialls but in acci­dentals only. If our Author be otherwise minded, I desi [...] him to ponder and answer what the learned and acute Divine Mr. Bax­ter hath on that purpose in his dispute against Tombs, pag. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. and I will in the mean time suppose, with the consent of all Orthodox Divines, the consequence of the Proposition, even upon that first part of the Antecedent, to be valide.

section 4 As to the consequence [...] the other part of the An [...]cedent viz. the practice of John the Baptist, the Apostles, and of our LORD JESUS CHRIST himself under the New Test. admitting persons to the fellowship of the Visible Church, upon their first professing faith and subjection to the Ordi [...]nces, without any de­lay of time for trying the sincerity [...]d [...]rut [...] of the work of grace in the heart: I know what uses to be excepted, against the pra­ctice of the Apostles and the consequences there deduced from it, viz. that the Apostles were men indu [...] with an eminent gift of discerning; and therefore although th [...] [...] admit men as soon as they made profession without further deny or tryall▪ yet that they did this as, by reason [...] their gift of discerning, perceiving in the persons true inward saving grace.

section 5 But to this, supposing that (which we shall make good in the proofe of the assumption) they did admit them upon their first making profess [...] without delay or further enquirie. I rejoyn thus. If the Apostle [...]d admit them [...] discerning, and judging positively reall grace in them; then that discerning and judging of [Page 130] theirs eithe [...] [...] proceed from; and was the act of an [...] ordinary gift of an [...] and Propheticall Spirit; or from [...] ordina­ry gift of d [...]cretion common to beleevers. 1. It cannot b [...] said that it was from the former. For, 1. I require a proof thereof from the History of Scripture, because this Question bei [...] about [...] of fact, the probation is incumbent to my adver [...] [...] the affir­ming party. But he shall [...] be able to [...] of this from the History of [...] such [...] [...]dinary Propheticall gift of discer [...] [...] of that [...] E. G, the gift of Diting and [...] [...]nicall Scripture, was not in­herent in the mind of the [...] way of [...] permanent [...]abite whereof they might make [...] [...] [...]eir own will in ordinary: But was present to them by [...] [...]ansient motion or [...]scation of [...] Spirit. Now albeit it be true that the Apostles [...]me [...]mes, de f [...]cto, had such an extraordinary and Propheticall inspiration, whereby they discovered secrets of mens spirits, as [...] had in the mater of Ananias and Saphira, Acts, Yet what warrand have w [...] to beleeve that they were to [...] an extraordinary gift of discerning the spirituall esta [...] [...] [...]narily and when they were to go about the rece [...] [...] into the fellowship of the [...]ble Church? We know [...] had a promise of infallible illumination and inspiration of the Spirit fo [...] leading them into all truth, [...]n delivering unto the [...]urch the maters of faith, and juris divin [...] by word or writ [...]: But that they had a promise of such ex­traordinary illuminat [...] [...] [...]tation of the Spirit for discerning such maters of fact, [...] conversion and [...]aith of [...] to be ass [...]ent to them in passing judgement, when they [...] have occasion, we no where [...] in the Word of God. 3. [...] that discerning and judgem [...] [...] by su [...] [...]n extraordinary gift as this, it had been certa [...] [...] [...]fallible [...]: But we finde many to have been admitted by the Apostles, who [...]ward positively, discove­red themselves to be but gracelesse m [...].

section 6 2. But if it shall be said that their [...]dgement in this, mat [...] [...] the act of the ordin [...] gift of discerning, [...] [...]s this pro­ceedeth discursively [...] the outward [...] to conclude of the inward state and con [...]ution of [...] [...]ose and fountain; then I say, the [...]w [...]rd [...] they pro­ceeded, as the medin [...] or Argu [...], to c [...]nclude the persons [Page 131] whom they admitted to be truely converted (and as Mr. Lockier hath it) such as God the searcher of hearts did [...] sealed by the Spirit for his, so far as men truely converted and very spirituall can discern; Was either their present profession of the faith and subjectiō to Ordinances, simply considered by it self & as such; or that profession take [...] [...]ther with some other outward eminent ef­fect, accompanying or as connotating some circumstance of profes­sion in that [...] rendering it signif [...] of more, as to true inward grace in the heart, then [...] materially, is ordinarily and in other times. This enu [...] [...]nceive is sufficiently full, supposing [...] now w [...], that [...]ted them, upon their first professing, without delay of time; [...] [...]her tryall and discoveries.

section 7 Now to resume these: if the [...] said we might be soon at a point and agreement, upon the mater, in this Question to [...]hing the qualification of Church-members necessary in foro Ecclesiasti­co: For this is the very thing, upon the mater, that we assert and stand for, viz. that serious profession of faith and subjection to the Ordinances of God, is sufficient: And that having this, fur­ther tryall and [...] of the soundnesse of the work in the heart, is not [...] foro Ecclesiastico, for the [...] ­mission of persons into the [...]ship of the Visible Church. If it shall be said that it was not that profession alone by it self, but together with some other outward [...]ble effect accompanying it, (such as was that mournfull hum [...] expression of these, Acts 2. 3. 7. Men and Brethren what [...] which was sufficient to supply the place of a continued [...] of their conversation for [...] and [...]ing into their experimentall work [...] their heart. 'Tis true that in some at their [...] imbracing the Christian faith and Religion, we finde some [...] of that kind accom­panying it, reported in the [...]ory: But [...] will say, that it was so with all and every one of the many thousands whom the Apo­stles received and baptized, when as the sacred Story in speaking of these who imbraced the Christian Faith and were baptized, sel­dome mentio [...] or insinuateth any such thing. If the 3. be said, that it was th [...] [...]fession considered not [...] such, but as con­notating so [...] [...] of the [...], viz. the dang [...] of per­secution that profe [...] [...] Christian [...] brought men under then (which is the thing Mr. Lockier layeth the great weight on as we [Page 132] did see before pag. 24, 25.) and that Profession of Christian Re­ligion so cir [...]stantiate, was more pregnant to signifie a great deal more touching inward grace, then the same profession, for mater, doth now or ordinarily out of that case. I repone; 'tis true per­severance and constant holding out in the profession of Religion under the crosse and actuall pressure of pers [...]tion is a good evi­dence to ground a positive charitable judgement of an honest heart, and principle of grace within [...] and undertaking the professi­on when it may probably [...], is no [...] nothing to this purpose. But I desire it ma [...] [...] [...]mbred [...]ere, that a [...] the Chri­stian Profession then was [...] dang [...] of persecution (th [...] it was not alwayes actually [...]cuted: Some time the Church had rest round about) so [...] Gospel then was accompanied with grea [...] [...]nd many wonders and miracles which are mightily operative upon the minds of men, to draw them to the following a Doctrine or way of Religion, even without any spirituall heart-change. And therefore I think that no man can in reason say that Profession of the Gospel, lyable unto danger of persecution yet together ac­companied with so great miracles and [...] in as to [...]ignifying and discovery of inward grace, so [...] profession, the same upon the mater, when there is not [...] danger, and withall neither are there such wonders and miracles accompanying it. Further, let it be considered that besides that the [...]acred historiogra­pher more frequently mentioneth the circumstance of miracles and wonders, then that of the dan [...] of persecution, in reporting mens bringing to the profe [...] of [...]ristian faith; besides this, I say, we never read marked in the story that, that circumstance of the danger of persecution, was taken into account by the Apostles for passing judgement upon the in [...] [...]cerity of Conversion, when they ad­mitted to baptisme perso [...] professing the Christian faith. These things being considered, the conseque [...] of the proposition may ap­pear to stand valid, upon this part of the antecedent. If the Apo­stles admitted persons upon their first professing, without delay of time for further tryall and discovery of the sincerity of the work of grace in their hear [...] then, &c.

section 8 Now [...] w [...] to the pro [...] of the assum [...]on [...]

For the first part to wit M [...]ses [...]racti [...] [...] it was such as we said, great plenty of [...]monies of Scripture might be brought [Page 133] forth; But take one for all, Deut. 29. here it [...] evident ver. 10, 11, 12, 13. that the whole body of the people of Israel are ac­knowledged to be in the Visible Church of God. You stand all of you before the Lord your God, your Captains of your Tribes, your Elders and your Officers, with all the men of Israel.—Yea some of the Independent way will have, the Covenanting there re [...]earsed to be understood of a Church Covenant (as they call it) and that thereby that [...] were, de novo, restored to the state of a Visible Church from [...] they had fallen, as they al­ledge. And this (tho it be [...] because it was only a re­newing of the Generall Covenan [...] [...]twixt God and that people whereby was confirmed their Ad [...]tion to be his Church) maketh the place to militate the more [...] against them. Now see what Moses sayeth of them, vers. 2, 3, 4. Ye (meaning [...] great part of that people) have seen all the Lord did before your [...]yes in Egypt,—The great temptations which thine eyes have seen, the signes and these great miracles: Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. Doth not Moses hereby clearly declare, that they were void of true grace, and [...]renewed men? Some of the In­dependent way have denyed this, alledging, that this exprobrati­on doth not import that they were yet in a naturall unrenued state: But only that they were dull and [...]low in hearkning to dis­cern and understand sundry particular dispensations of Divine favour and power: And that the like sinfull [...] are objected to the Lords Apostles, Mark 8. 17. But the corrupt and perverse In­terpretation upon this place (contrary to the stream of Orthodox Writers, especially such as oppose the Remonstrants, who expounds the place almost the same way, being p [...]ssed therewith in the con­troversie touching the efficacy of grace in Conversion, see [...]mely Junius his Analys. Deut. 29. Calv. Comment. ibi. Am [...]s [...]ron. Artic. 3. Argument 2. P [...]scat. A [...]ica duplicat. ad Conr. Vorst) and parallelling it with that spoken of the Apostles, Mark 8. is abundantly refuted by Reverend Mr. Ruth [...]f [...]rd Due right of Pres­byt. pag. 104, 105, 106. that I need [...] more to what he has said. Only let the Reader cons [...]der what is said of that people, Deut. 31. 21, 27. and judge i [...] nothing else be meant, but some par­ticular [Page 134] sinfu [...] [...] [...]fections and [...]cts incide [...] to [...] Mr. Hookers [...] Surv. p. 1 [...], 2 pag. 20. 30. will not [...]lve the wound given to his opinion by this part of the Argument. He thinks to relieve the mater without the least trouble, by telling us that such persons were in that Church having degen [...] [...] what they were, and were to be only tolera [...] [...] the censures were tryed up [...] them: But if then they [...] in­corrigible, they were to [...] that the Question [...] is not, whether member [...] (he meaneth true gracious [...] out of man) may dege [...]erat: But whe [...] [...] of the Church, according to the way and [...] receiv­ed Many things might he [...] But for to show the nullit [...] [...]f this Answer, it [...] to consider, that a [...] this time, Deut. 29. Moses, at the Lords direction was, by [...]en [...]ing of the Covenant; either stating them de [...] nove [...] Visible Church (as some of the Independent way do [...] [...]er) or [...] is the truth) confirming, or ren [...] [...] of that A [...]o­pti [...] whereby long agoe, the Lord [...] them to be his [...] people: And [...] restoring, [...] (there are no odds, [...] on, which of them be said) Covenanting all the people our and other of them knowing, the mean while, a [...]edly many of them to be but grace­lesse, unconverted men. And was this not to acknowledge them as Visible members, [...] them? Verily such a fiction cannot stand [...] of so clear and evident li [...] of Scriptu [...].

section 9 As to the other part of the a [...]eedent pe [...]ning to the [...]me of the New Test. 1. W [...] [...] Baptist▪ Baptized huge multi­tude [...] [...]ithout any [...]lay [...], 'tis said that all Jerusalem and J [...] [...]nd the R [...]on round about [...] went out to him and were Baptized without de [...] Mat. 3. 5, [...]. Two things princi­pally are replyed to the [...] said in the Text, [...] 6. 2: [...] in their [...] of them t [...] bring [...] For that [...] the consideration [Page 135] which [...] Godly and [...] hath upon the pla [...] [...] in Answer to the R [...]emists affirm [...] that they did not [...] themselves sinners in the generall only; but that ever [...] [...]tter his sins particularly. That Learned Author [...], that this confession was made by every one apar [...] or of [...] particular fault they had committed; and he sayeth [...] was only generall, not only in regard of the object, [...] not of their [...] but of their sins generally) [...] every one of them [...] confession personal­ly, but [...] common they professed themself [...]) and [...] [...]siderable and weighty rea­sons of [...] they had made confession every one [...] prescription to every one apart, to every singular person but that he doth not: but according [...] profession of life wherein they lived, to the Publica [...], that [...] to that state of life, to the [...] that which [...] their calling. Secondly, [...] was impossible [...] have [...]eard all these con [...]e [...] particularly. [...] every one of them [...] confesse some [...] this is nothing to take of the strength of our Argument [...] we find it [...], that Iohn did de­lay, or make inquiry of the soundnesse of the work in their hear [...], but presently without more, and with [...] delay Baptized them. Secondly, True 'tis, Iohn [...] bring forth [...] meet fo [...] Repe [...]. But did Iohn Bap [...] [...] their baptism un­till he should see [...] fruits good works in a course of life, [...]ought forth, and thereby [...] them [...] to be true Saints, and so duely qualified that way? Doth [...] any [...] as this? Or is not Iohns [...] and clearly, that [...] in his Harmon. pag. 9 [...], E [...]. [...] Bat [...]. subjungit [...] fidem & [...]

section 10 I know [...] in May, alledges, that Iohn Baptist, no [...] content with the [Page 136] externall prof [...]on of such as came to his baptisme, did require of them bringing [...]th of fruits worthy of Repentance before he ad­mitted them: That he did not baptize the Pharisees, but rejected them, upon this very account, because he did not see in them such fruits. But what is brought by them for confirming this alledge­ance, and what else they bring for their new taken up way in this point shall be examined afterward in an Appendix. For the pre­sent, what we have said is suffici [...]n [...] to shew that Iohn baptized such as came to him upon th [...] [...] prof [...]ssion, without any delay of time, or waiting for tryall of the sincerity of their saving Con­version.

section 11 In like maner find we that the Apostles admitted to Baptism per­sons as soon as they made prof [...]ssion of the Christian Faith without delay [...]or triall of the truth of grace in their hearts: as Acts 2. 38. 41. We read they baptized and so added to the Church three thou­sand, that same day that they first professed, without delay of the mater for so much as one day, when as so great a number might excused the delay, if they would have taken longer time to the bu [...]nesse. And certainly it being [...] the conversion of these men was so suddain, one would think [...] Apostle [...] would have waited for a triall and proof of their sincerity, if so be such a triall and proof had been by Christs institution necessary to go before the admission of men into the Visible Church. But the Spirit of God which acted and directed the Apostles, did dictate them no such thing. In like maner the Samarit [...], men and women were baptized without any delay, Acts 8. 1 [...]. So Simon at that same tim [...] albeit to that very day, he had been a Sorcerer, dement [...]d that people with his devillish enchauntments, and with sacrilegious impiety, given him­self out as the great pow [...] of God: yet as soon as being convinced by th [...] sight of miracles, he professed the Christian Faith, was ba­ptized by Philip. Finally, whosoever were baptized by the A­postles that we read of, were baptized after this same maner: nor can there be given from Scripture so much as one instance, of any one man, who profess [...]g the Faith, and desiring the communion of th [...] Church, was r [...]f [...]sed Baptism for a time, untill he should give a trial and evidence of the si [...]erity of the work of grace in his heart.

section 12 To the practice of John Baptist and the Apostl [...] adde the pra­ctice of Jesus Christ himself. 'Tis worthy of observation (saith Mr. Baxter well against Tombs, pag. 127.) that it is said, John 3. 26. he baptized, (viz. by the Ministry of his Disciples) and all men came unto him. Whereby it is evident that he baptized men presently and without delay, as soon as they came and professed themselves his Disciples. Shall we then, miserable men, not con­tent with our Lords example, take upon us to be more severe and exact in his maters then himself? Verily I cannot look upon this too great diligence, but as a counsell of mans pride, shuffling it self in under a maske of purity [...]d accuracy in the matters of God.

section 13 What further may be excepted against this Argument, built upon that ground, whereon, as a sufficient qualification, Christ, his Apo­stles, and John Baptist admitted persons to baptism, I know not, unlesse some haply will say, that baptism doth not constitute one a member of the Visible Church (as Reverend Hooker contends in a large dispute, Surv. p. 1. c. 4. pag. 55. & seq.) and that to be ad­mitted to baptism, and to be admitted a member of the Visible Church are not one and the same thing, and that more may be re­quired as a necessary antecedent qualification to this, then is to that. But as to this exception. 1. I yeeld that baptism in it self gives not the being of a member of the Visible Church: But that one must be first a member thereof de jure (which we say is given by such externall profession as we have described before, to men of years, and to Infants by federall holinesse derived from their Pa­rents) otherwise baptism could not constitute one a member; Ne­verthelesse we hold this for certain, that baptism is the ordinary Ordinance whereby solemne admission, and initiation into actuall communion of the Visible Church, is performed: Neither since the time that baptism was instituted can their be shown in Scripture, either precept, or example of any externall way or means of ad­mitting members of a Visible Church, beside baptism; further let me aske of the adversaries, that they would produce from the ho­ly Scriptures an instance of any one man who being admitted to baptism, was not presently and ipso facto esteemed a member of the Visible Church. They cannot, it is a thing unheard of in the Word [Page 138] of God. Therefore it is clearly evident, that upon what condi­tion men were [...]dmitted to the Laver of baptism, that same was ac­counted qualification sufficient in foro Ecclesiastico to constitute a member of the Visible Church, and how grosse an absurdity in theologie were it to say that a man, tho orderly baptized, and no new, impediment interveening, yet were not a member of the Vi­sible Church: For hence it should follow that a baptized Christian, even after he is such, were yet [...] i. e. amongst these that are without, Pagans, and infidels▪ 1 Cor. 5. 12. for there the Apo­stle divides the whole satitude of mankinde into these two Classes, of those that are within, and [...] that are without, and as by these that are within he understands such as are of the Visible Church, whom also he calls Brethren▪ v. 11. so by those who are without, he understands infidels, whom he calls the men of the world, v. 10. This much for our first Argument.

section 14 Arg. 2. If our Lord Jesus Christ has not given, to any man or society of men upon earth, judiciary power, authoritatively, judi­cially and positively to pronounce sentence touching the inward spirituall condition of all men professing true Christian Religion [...], and submitting themselves to the Ordinances▪ of Christ, whether they be regenerat or not: Then it cannot be, by Christs institution, a necessary qualification requisite to the admitting of persons into the outward fellowship of the Visible Church, that they be in fo­ro Ecclesiastico judged truely converted and regenerated. But the former is true; therefore so is the latter. The connexion of the proposition is evident of it self. As to the assumption, let it be noted. 1. That I deny not but a Minister has power from God with Ministeriall Authority, to determine, Doctrinally and in thesi, men regenerated and in the state of grace and reconciliation, or unregenerate and as yet in the state of nature, according as they want or have the characters of true regeneration and faith. They have a warrand from the word of God to pronounce all men that have never been humbled before God for their sins, that esteem not Christ more precious then all things beside in the World, that walk not after the Spirit but after the flesh, &c. to be unrege­nerat men and strangers from the life of God, & contra. [...]. I grant that Ministers have power and authority to apply the gene­rall [Page 139] Doctrinall sentence to particular persons in [...]pothesi but con­ditionally: whom also they may and ought earnestly to presse to make positive application in their own consciences, and as they per­ceive more probable appearances of the one or the other sort of characters, accordingly to presse upon persons the one more then the other. 3. Nor deny I but it belongs to the duty of a Mini­ster seriously and attentively to observe with wisdome, so far as he can, the way of such as are under his charge, to discern and un­derstand, so far as may be, their spirituall condition and estate, and that he may have a probable judgement of discretion concer­ning the same, this is necessary [...] behovefull for him, that he may rhe better know, how to perform that duty of dividing the Word of God aright. In effect it is no small part of a Ministers study to study the condition of his flock, yea, this in some way is incumbent to every particular Christian in relation to others with whom they converse, that they may be able the more accommo­datly and ptofitably to exhort and provoke one another to good works. But this I deny, that God has given to any man, or so­ciety of men, power and authority judicially to cognosce upon the spirituall estate of every professour of the Gospel, and positively to pronounce every professour of the Gospel, upon such cogniti­on, to be held a regenerat man and in the estate of grace, or to be held unregenerat and yet in the state of nature: Which yet Mr. Lockier must needs force say by consequence of his Docttine touching the qualification of Church mater or members. But now let him or any man shew me from the Word of God, any au­thentick Divine patent or commission of this power, given to any man or society of men in the world. The Lord has indeed given to the Church or rather to the Officers in the Church, a power au­thoritatively to cognosce upon all professours outward actions and to determine judicially whether sinfull and scandalous, or not; but to cognosce, determine and judge judicially and positively upon their inward Spirituall estate, we read not any where that he hath given power to men▪ this he hath reserved as a prerogative to him­self to be exercised openly at last, in the day of Judgement, before all Men and Angells, and in this life secretly, by his Word and Spirit in the court of mens consciences when it seems good to him­self. [Page 140] And this is the very ground the Apostle Rom. 14. goeth upon, in disswading men to judge one another; Which certainly must be understood of their Spirituall estates, and not their actions; Be­cause these without question may be lawfully and warrantably be judged, see v. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13. of that chap.

section 15 Arg. 3 Which will also serve to confirme the preceeding. If it had been our Lords will and institution that true heart godlinesse, conversion and faith, so far as men can discerne, should be the ne­cessary qualification to constitute persons capable of Visible-Church-Membership, and consequently had instituted a power and autho­rity, to cognosce and passe judgement positively upon them con­cerning the inward work of Grace in their heart, whither they be truely regenerate or not, that upon such judgement, they might be admitted unto, or debarred from the fellowship of the Visible Church: Then, sure, he would given in his word a rule of [...] tryall for regulating the Churches cognition, judgement and determina­tion in this mater, expressing the particular characters and evi­dences which being found in persons they might be positively judg­ed, regenerate and converted: Yea, and the minimum quod sic, that is, the lowest degree and measure of such characters, lesse then which, if Professours should be found to have, they are to be ac­counted non-regenerate, or at least, not to be counted Regenerate. But there is no such rule in the Word of God, therefore &c. The connexion of the proposition is certain and evident, and as I con­ceive cannot be denyed by any man. For first, it cannot be con­ceived how it can consist with the Wisdome of God, that he would have ordained that only persons so and so qualified should be admit­ted to the fellowship of the Church, and all others debarred: And that the Church should have power to cognosce; And positively to judge every professour, that they are so qualified or not, in rela­tion to admitting or excluding them; And yet not have prescribed a definite rule for regulating the Churches cognition and judgement of rhis: But left it without rule to men in their consciences, as both judge and rule, to determine who is to be held regenerate or not, certainly this cannot consist with humane, let be divine, wisedome: Alas! even gracious men being of very different and unequall syzes of light and discerning, could not but vary much one from ano­ther, [Page 141] so that oftentimes their would be tot sententiae quot capita. Then any man will readily vary from himself at diverse times: Yea, the best of men are subject to sinfull affections which may and would no doubt oftentimes by-asse the judgements, as having no small influence thereupon: And so what confusions, dis­orders, yea and oftentimes grievous injuries to persons in the mater of admission into or exclusion from the fellowship of the Church, might not this open a door to, if the mater were committed whol­ly to mans judgement without law or rule: Therefore it must be confessed, that there must be a rule for regulating the Churches cognition and judgement in this mater which the opposites will not deny. 2. This rule must be such as holdeth forth not only the par­ticular characters, upon the having or wanting of which the Church must cognosce, and accordingly as is found to judge men Regene­rate or not: But also the very minimum quod sic, the lowest de­gree and measure whereupon the judgement of the Church is to proceed. My meaning, to speak as plainly as I can to the weaker sort is this: the rule must declare, how much is sufficient and neces­sary at least, to ground a positive judgement that a man is Regene­rate, of which if a man come short, or have any wayes lesse, he is to be reputed non-Regenerate, at least not to be reputed Re­generate, which according to Mr. Lockiers Doctrine debars him from being received as a Member of the Church. The reason of this is clear: because otherwise the mater should be left in a meer uncertaintie, and in effect devolved, upon the meer arbitrement of the Churches judgement: if, to wit, the rule should say no more but indefinitely: a man, that he may be positively judged a true Regenerate Convert, must have some knowledge of the Ar­ticles of Religion, experience of effectuall calling unto Faith and Repentance, and conformity of conversation to the Gospel: Not determining definitely this or thus much at least, he must have; which if he have, he is to be judged and reputed truely Regene­rated, and if he come short of this much, not.

section 16 Now for the assumption, let it be noted first, we deny not but God hath set down in his Word a Rule, definite and certain Cha­racters and Signes, whereby every Christian, having knowledge thereof, and making conscience to try and search his heart and [Page 142] wayes, and to compare the same with the rule, may passe a posi­tive, yea a certain and infallible sentence and jugement upon him­self, whether he be Regenerate and in the state of Grace, or not: This we assert against Papists maintaining that Believers nor have, nor, by ordinary means, can have assurance of their being in the state of grace: and against the wilde Antinomians of this time main­taining that this cannot be had by inherent works and signes of Grace. 2. We deny not but there are some more eminent out­ward works and actings of Religion and Piety, upon which men in whom they are seen, may be warrantably by others, so far as is competent to men, positively judged truely gracious: and that there are some outward works and actings of the flesh designed by the Word of God so grosse and corrupt (such as are constant known neglect of the Worship of God, open contempt of Divine Ordi­nances, customarie mocking of Piety and Religion, and such others, see 2 Tim. 3. 2, 3, 4.) which appearing in men, others may esteem them void of Grace, carnall, without the Spirit and fear of God.

These things then being put out of controversie, this is the thing we cannot see in the Word of God: a generall and universall rule for trying and giving judgement upon all and every Professour in point of Regeneration and non-Regeneration, by others then themselves: and holding forth such definite limited and bounded Characters of Regeneration, whereupon others may passe a positive sentence or judgement, viz. this man is to be held truely Regene­rate, because he hath so much, or so much Profession and practise: and this man is to be held not Regenerate, at least, not to be held Regenerate, because he hath not so much. I say we cannot see any rule of this kind, held forth in the Word of God: let Mr. Lockier if he hath seen it, point us at it. Verily if he had had a mind to satisfie his readers and hearers, or done that which was requisite to have been done by him in reason to satisfie and convince them of the doctrine he delivered touching the mater or Members of the Visible Church, viz. that all and every one of them must be truely converted and sealed of God for his, so far as men very spirituall can judge: he should have told them and that from the Word of God, the particular definite bounded Characters whereby all and every Professour may and are to be by others then themselves [Page 143] discerned and judged to be such or otherwise, but having never so much as once in his lecture assayed to determine this we must crave leave to say he has left them & his Doctrine both in the mist. How­ever let him do it yet, and we shall passe that escape. Others of his way or towards it, have assayed it: but when that which they have said to this purpose is duly examined and pondered, I believe, it shall be found by judicious and impartiall men much unsatisfa­ctory, and still leaving the mater in the dark: let's take into con­sideration what some of the more judicious of them have deter­mined in this mater.

section 17 Mr. Hooker Surv. p. 1. c. 2. pag. 24. layeth down the rule or ground in these words, he that professing the faith, lives not in the neglect of any known duty, nor in the commission of any known evill, and hath such a measure of knowledge, as may in rea­son, let in Christ into the soul, and carry the soul to him. These be grounds, by which charity passed according to rule, may and ought to conceive; There be some beginnings of spirituall good: Here are two things laid down to make up the ground to proceed upon. 1. Living without omission of any known duety, or in commission of any known evill. 2. So much knowledge as may let in Christ to the soul, and lead the soul to him. But commonly amongst them there is yet a further thing required to ground this judgement, viz. a declaration of the experimentall work of faith and Conversion in the heart. Mr. Norton, pag. 13. and Mr. Hooker himself, p. 3. c. 1. pag. 4. he (the person to be admitted) must be tryed, not only what his knowledge, but what his acquaintance is with the things of Christ and his Kingdome. Experience and acquaintance with Christ importeth more then knowledge that may let Christ into the soul, and carry the soul to Christ: Even knowledge that he is in, de facto. Now let us examine these things so far as concerneth our present purpose.

section 18 Remember then what we are upon, whither the Lord in his Word has set down a generall and universall rule for judiciall tryall of professours upon the point of their regeneration or non-regene­ration, holding forth such determinat grounds, as the Church must take cognition of, and upon the having thereof, and no lesse, positively judge persons to be truely regenerat and converted ones, [Page 144] this premised, 1. 'Tis to be observed that, as to that part of the ground, knowledge; M^r. Hooker gives us nothing but an indefinit generall, so much knowledge as may let in Christ into the soul: But tells not, defines not, the bounds of knowledge, that wee might know how much knowledge, will serve for that purpose, and lesse then which, will not do it. So the rule as to this part set down by M^r. Hooker is but a blind. And verily I think it shal be hard for any man to define particularly, how much knowledge is requisite to let in Christ and lesse then which will not do it. Mr. Norton speaking of this part of the [...], upon which the judgement of the Church must proceed, pag. 12. in sin. and 13. princip. he defines the knowledge required, to be the fundamen­talls, and other heads of Religion, the knowledge whereof is neces­sary for leading a life without scandall. But beside, that it hath never been clearly yet shown by any what are the precise funda­mentals of Religion (and I suppose hardly can be) it were a hard assertion to affirm that the knowledge of all these heads of Religi­on that are necessary to lead a life without scandall, is necessary to a mans Regeneration, and so the declaration thereof necessary to ground the Churches judging of him to be such, for admitting him to Church fellowship. I think a man may be ignorant all the dayes of his life of the strict morality of the Lords day (the know­ledge whereof yet, it being supposed to be of divine institution (as it is) is necessary to lead a life without scandall) and yet be truely regenerat, and such as the Church may judge in charity tru­ly gracious.

section 19 2. When it is said they must be such as lives not (which he ex­presseth, to be not, having sin, but to tread in it) in the neglect of any duty, or in the commission of any known evill. 1. The Church hereby is put upon a ground of proceeding and judging, which is meerly impossible, for them to have any certain cogniti­on of by ordinary discerning; because a man may live in a known sin of omission or commission, such to wit whereof (as Mr. Hoo­ker himself speaketh) he is informed and convinced by the power of the word and evidence of reason, which is secret, and falls not under the cognition of any outward Judicatory. Mr. Norton saith somewhat more purposely that it must be a conversation without [Page 145] scandall, that is, offence before men. And Mr. Hooker himself a little after he hath laid down the rule, wavering from himself (as in­deed in handling this Question, about the necessary qualification of Church members, he is exceeding uncertain in expressing his mind) he speaks not of living in any known sin, but of committing some grosse evill. But then, 2. Is freedome from living in grosse evills, or outward scandalls, ground sufficient, with a profession of the truth, for the Church to passe a positive sentence or judge­ment that a man is regenerat and really in Christ? I think indeed it may be a ground, to keep us from positive judging the contrary of them, which in effect is nothing else, but to abstract from posi­tive judging of their inward spirituall condition at all. 3. If not living in the neglect of any known duty, i. e. living in the perfor­mance of all known duty (or if he will, all known duties obvious to the notice of men) and not living in the commission of any known evill, i. e. living in abstinence from any known evill (or if he will, obvious to the notice of men) must be the ground where­upon to proceed upon this judgement to be passed upon a mans re­generation in relation to his admission to the Visible Church, and this living importeth a trade (as Mr. Hooker exponeth) that is, a continued course: Then I would enquire how long time living so is sufficient to ground the Ecclesiastick judgement, and lesse then which will not serve the turn? This was necessary to have been determined that the rule might be certain, i. e. definite and con­stant, that the mater might not be devolved upon the arbitrement of mans judgement, or rather pleasure. Here is altum silentium, and so again the mater left in the mist. To presse this the more and the more clearly, I put the case the person desiring to be admitted to the fellowship of the Church, and so to be judged of the Church, whether Regenerat or not, is one who has been an heathen, living before and till that very time in some known sins (as many sins are to heathen known sins) of omission and commission. Now I in­quire how long time must be taken to evidence him, not to be a liver in these known sins, to the effect that a positive judgement may passe upon him that he is Regenerat? Let a positive Answer be given to this. If any shall say, a definite time is not necessary for trying such an one, if he have Repentance for these sins, and [Page 146] as soon as he hath it, it is enough according to what Mr. Norton speaketh (conversatio absque scandalo, paenitentiâ non sanato.) then I say, Repentance here must be understood either as compre­hending the inward grace in the heart; but this falls not directly and immediatly under the cognition of the outward Court, to be a ground or medium of their procedour into judgement, yea it is the very thing, or a part of the thing, which is to be concluded in the judgement: Or it must be taken as only comprehending the outward part of it, i. e. Reformation which is nothing else but per­forming of the duties formerly neglected, and abstaining from the evills formerly committed, and if so, then we are just where we were, in the mist yet.

section 20 3. As for the third ground or part of the rule, a declaration of the experimentall work of Conversion or acquaintance with Christ, as M [...]. Hooker expresseth it, or (as distinctly the Author of the narration of the practices of the Churches of New-England, pag. 9.) of their effectuall vocation, in their sound Repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is most un­warrantable and rigid. What? must this be a generall rule for all professours, that they must make a declaration of this experimen­tall work upon their heart, that they may be judged Regenerat and Converts, and so capable of admission to the Visible Church? What warrant for this in the Word? The places pointed at by that last Author, Mat. 3. 8. Luke 3. 8. Acts 8. 37. does not war­rand any such thing. In the former two John Baptist indeed char­ged these people to perform really the work of Reformation and Repentance, that they might not delude themselves with vain i­maginations of interest in God upon common priviledges: But re­quireth not of them a declaration of the experimentall work there­of upon their hearts, that thereupon a positive judgement might be passed concerning the truth of the work in their heart. So in the place, Acts 8 37. Philip tells the Eunuch, what is his duety in relation to the susception of Baptism, that he beleeve with all his heart. And together, I confesse, insinuateth the requiring of a pro­fession of so much, that he might Administrat baptisme to him. But neither does Philip require, nor the Eunuch make a declarati­on of the experimentall work in his heart, in relation to passing a [Page 147] positive judgement concerning the inexistence of the work in his heart. Verily, were this made an universall rule or ground where­by to judge of professours Conversion, and consequently of their admission unto Church fellowship; many an honest, gracious soul should never obtain such a judgement upon them while they live; there being many such, who, put them to declarations of this kind, could say little or nothing. He that were best read in practicall tractats of the nature of Repentance and Faith, and the way of the Spirits working of these, and had a gift of utterance, should carry the fairest sentence, what ever were the reall work in his heart; if he could but carry fair outwardly in his conversation, as an hy­pocrite may, without scandall. Nay, it were in effect to erect a stage for hypocrites to out themselves upon, and to cast a stumbling block in the way of honest hearts, not indued with the gift of ex­pressing themselves. I deny not but good use may be made of drawing out of Christians, what experience they find of the work of the spirit upon their hearts, and conferences between Ministers and People, and between Christians among themselves, may and ought prudently to be exercised for that end; But I speak against the making of declarations of this sort, a generall rule and ground for judiciall tryall and passing judgement concerning the Regenera­tion and Conversion of Professours.

section 21 To conclude this Argument, when these particulars held forth by the Word of God are considered and laid together. 1. That Regeneration and Conversion being an inward work in the heart, no judgement can be made thereupon by man, but by outward actings. 2. That it is not the outward actings according to their mater, or the deed done, but as they are done from such principles, faith, and love, and for such an end, the glorifying and pleasing of God, that argues the heart to be Regenerat, and the doer to be in Christ and in the state of grace, and consequently, that a man cannot positively judge of anothers Regeneration by them, but as they appear, someway, to be done out of such Principles, and for such an end. 3. That actings good upon the mater, may in some probabilitie, at least, appear to others, to be done from such prin­ciples and to such an end, 'tis not enough to have the mans own word and assertion for it: but there must be, a good time of them, [Page 148] and that under some varietie of cases and conditions, and some ten­tations. For to act right for a start, or to act right even for a good time, a man coming under no alteration of condition or be­ing under small or no tentations, does not give much appearance to men without, that these actings are right in their principles and ends. 'Tis evennesse and constancy in alterations of cases, and un­der tentations assaulting to turn off the way, that carrieth appea­rance of discovery of this. 4. That the greatest part even of true Converts are not eminent Saints, but weaklings and but as Chil­dren, and that unregenerat civilians and hypocrites may in outwards go far beyond many sound gracious Christians. 5. Yea that ma­ny true Converts may be under the prevalency of some sinfull infir­mities and affections, so far, as not only to have, but for a long time, may be even to their last dayes, as to live (though not with inward liking and allowing (which is not seen by others) yet to the outward committing) in known sinfull actings. As for ex­ample, may not gracious Christians be thus subject to an outward course of known cankerdnesse or some other the like dis­temper? Let these things be considered and laid together, and tell­me if there can be a generall rule whereby there may and should be a judiciall tryall and positive judgement passed upon all and e­very Professour desiring the fellowship of the Church, concerning their Regeneration or non-regeneration? Wherefore I cannot but commend both the judicious and moderate determination of Mr. Norton, who when he has laid down the rule or grounds of the [...], whereby judgement it to be passed upon persons about their spirituall estate, in relation to admitting them to Church-fellowship (wherein yet I cannot joyn with him as being too strait and rigid) and coming to define what sort of judgement it is, that is to be passed upon them, he saith we must not judge positively, but negatively and practically, i. e. (saith he) not judge evill of them. 2. To carry our selves towards them in common duties as if they were good, where 'tis clear, that as to the act of judgment, he requireth no more, but that we judge not men unregenerat, and this is nothing else upon the mater but that same which we de­termined instating the Question, viz. that in admitting of persons into the fellowship of the Visible Church, we are to look at, and [Page 149] take for sufficient qualifications such or such outward professions, prescinding or abstracting (simplici abstractione) from the inward spirituall estate of the man; for when I do not positively judge a man Regenerat or really gracious, but only judges not him unrege­nerat and gracelesse, certainly I abstract from both.

section 22 I will not here slip by what I apprehend my self, and while I am Writing this, I finde M^r. Baxter in his Book against Tombs hath distinctly (for untill this time I had much longed for it, yet I had not the occasion to see that Peece) which may be replied, to that I have been saying in the prosecution of this Argument, tho it co­meth not up to that M [...]. Lockier and others of his way would be at. This Reverend Author, I find, sayeth these things. 1. That none is to be admitted into the fellowship of the Visible Church, but such as may and are judged, to be members of the Invisible Church and true beleevers. P. 1. c. 27. pag. 73. I take it for granted (saith he) that to be a visible member of the Church, and to be a member of the Visible Church is all one. And a little after, Because men seem to be of the Invisible Church, therefore they tru­ly are of the visible, and then, if we were fully assured by his own externall discoveries, that any man were not of the Invisible Church, that man should not be taken to be of the Visible. And a little after, therefore if a converted Jew were to be taken in to the Church upon his profession, we ought not to admit him, except his profession seem to be serious, and so sincere. 2. That the judgement to be passed upon a man that he may be received into the Visible Church, is not purum that he is a true beleever, but modale that 'tis probable that he is a true beleever, pag. 93. 3. That the rule of this judgement he saith is this, a serious professor of the faith, is to be taken by us for a true beleever, he meaneth as before, probably. I do much reverence and honour in my esti­mation, this Judicious acute and Godly man, and accounts the Church of God much obliged to him under God, especially for his learned and profitable pains in vindicating the right of Infant Baptism. Yet I do confesse, in sundry things I cannot be of his judgement, which I know by his frequent and serious expressions to this purpose, he will not take ill; had it not been for distractions otherwise and particularly, by this unseasonable peece, and I may [Page 150] say, both uncharitable to this Church and unsatisfactory to any ju­dicious man; I would made bold ere now modestly to have repre­sented to himself considerations upon some things I have found in his other Peeces; and may be if God grant us both continuance of life, and me some leasure I shall do that yet, and adde some things also out of this Peece last come to my hands.

section 23 But now to the present purpose. 1. The learned Author and I are fully agreed upon the mater concerning the outward ground upon which persons are to be admitted and acknowledged members of the Visible Church, viz. a serious profession of the faith, in­cluding a profession of subjection to the commands and ordinances of Christ, is sufficient for this, and that persons making this pro­fession, are without delay or searching for triall and discoveries of the work of their heart-conversion, to be admitted. The Passages he citeth for this purpose, P. 2. c. 8 pag. 126, 127. are clear for it. I do heartily approve his weighty exhortation subjoined thereunto, to these of the Independent way, and presents the same to Mr. Lockier to be laid to heart by him, as in the Lords sight. See the MargineOh that our Bre­thren that are so in­clineable to separation because of the un­soundnesse of our Church members and un-Church whole Pa­roches (Mr. Loc­kier doth whole Na­tions) and gather Churches out of them, as if they were no Church­es, and that must have such triall and discoveries of the work of mens conversion before they admit them, would but lay to heart al the Scripture examples, and make mo [...]e conscience of observing their rule and not presume to be wiser and holier then God. He that goeth beyond Jesus Christ shall go without me, So he, and so say I with him.. But 2. I cannot yet agree with him in this, that men are not to be received into the Visible Church but under the noti­on of true believers, and positively judged to be such, though but probably. 1. I can see no warrand in the Word for this. 2. The grounds that the learned Author hints at for it, pag. 73. do not seem convincing. 1. Whereas he saith that it is all one to be a vi­sible member of the Church and a member of the Visible Church. And he that denyeth this will but shew his vanity. I say if the name Church be taken in one and the same notion in both Propositions, I confesse 'tis true he saith: and he would show his vanitie that would deny it: But if in the former thereof Church be taken for that society which is Christs mysticall redeemed body, the Epithete Visible noting so, not the nature of membership, but an adjunct of it: I deny the identity of these two Propositions: and cannot see but it is solide enough to deny it. Again when he saith that the [Page 151] Invisible is properly and primarly called the Church, and the Church Visible containing all the unsound part, is called the Church se­cundarly and for the sake of the Invisible;ble; I acknowledge this is or­dinarly said, but can see no reason for it. I find three speciall Ec­clesiastick significations of this name [...] in Scripture, viz. 1. The society or company of redeemed ones, effectually called from the estate of nature. 2. A society outwardly called into and ma­king profession of the faith, worship and service of God in Christ. 3. An Assembly of Officers imployed in government of Professors. However I confesse the strict signification is principall and most ex­cellent as to the thing: yet I think all of them are alike proper and none of these things has the name by way of reference to another of them. 3. When as he saith. That if we were fully certain by his own externall discoveries, that a man were not of the Invisible Church, that man should not be taken to be of the Visible; and if any Jew or Pagan were to be taken into the Church upon his pro­fession, we ought not to admit him, except his Profession seem to be serious and sincere. For this I represent these considerations. 1. If we were fully certain by his own externall discoveries, that a man were not of the Invisible Church, neither actually, nor poten­tially, or in the purpose of God, i. e. if we were fully certain by his own externall discoveries, that he were a reprobat (as these that sin against the Holy Ghost, and these only, discovers them­selves to be such) true he were not to be received into the Visible Church, even because he were known to be, this way not of the Invisible Church. 2. I confesse also that [...] a mans outward carri­age and way such, as did discover him positively not to be of the Invisible Church actually, i. e. as did discover him positively, to be an unregenerat man (though I did not discover him to be as a reprobat, i. e. not so much as potentially of the Invisible Church) he were not to be received into the fellowship of the Visible. But withall I say he were to be debarred or not received, not upon the account of non-regeneration, or upon that cariage considered under this formality and reduplication, as a signe and discovery of non-regeneration; but materially, as being contrary to the very outward profession of the faith, for such a cariageonly I conceive it would be this; my reason why I deny that non-regeneration or [Page 152] any thing considered formally under the notion or reduplication, as a signe of non-regeneration (which is all one) should be the cause for excluding a man from admission into the Visible Church, is be­cause I conceive it is Gods revealed will in his word that men be received into the Visible Church that they may be Regenerat and converted and that the Ministeriall dispensation of the Ordinances, are by Gods revealed will set up in the Church to be means of Re­generation and Conversion, as well as edification of such as are Re­generat. 3. I conceive between such as are in a course and cariage, which indeed discovers evidently and certainly non-regeneration (e. g. as to be without the profession of Christianity, to live in some heresie directly contrary to the foundation, as is Socinianism, to live in a constant course of known prophanity) and such as are seemingly Regenerat and so to be positively judged such in proba­bility; there may be, yea and are many of a midde sort who are in such an estate and condition outward, and as relating to mans judgement of them that as they do not, unto full certainty of judgement, discover themselves non-regenerat, so there is not suf­ficient ground positively to judge them probably Regenerat, and so to use them, that is to dispence Ordinances to them as such and in a way suteable to men supposed to be Regenerat: But the most we can in our judgement of their state is to prescind from passing a positive judgement either way; as for example, a man when he comes first to make a serious, sober profession of the faith, before we have further experience of his way, or of whom we know no more as yet, but that he seriously professeth the truth, and offe­reth subjection to Ordinances, I confesse this is a ground sufficient, probably to judge the man is elect, God has a purpose to save him, and could we not judge this much probable of him, I will not say we should receive him in that case. But it is not sufficient this a­lone and by it self, to ground a positive judgement that he is Rege­nerat or actually in the state of grace, though you call it a judge­ment of probability; my reason is this, because to ground a po­sitive act of judgement, that a man is Regenerat in foro exteriori, there is requisite some seemingnesse (to speak so) of spirituall sin­cerity in a mans profession, i. e. that he doth it from a spirituall principle, upon spirituall motives, and for a spirituall end: But a [Page 153] meer sober, not mocking, serious profession without more is not a po­sitive appearāce of spirituall supernaturall sincerity; at least, therefore I humbly conceive it is a mistake to confound seriousnesse and sin­cerity, if he understand spiritual or supernatural sincerity (as he must understand it here) for that is larger then this: many are serious in their profession, who are not sincere in this sense: yea may evi­dence seriousnesse when they do not as yet give any positive evi­dence of this. And therefore I conceive, he doth not upon good enough ground quarrell with Tombs, pag. 129. for that M^r. Tombs requiring a profession sober, serious and understanding; he doth disclaime an enquirie after the sincerity of their profession, if Mr. Tombs meant supernaturall sincerity, as I conceive he did; the distinction of morall sincerity, and spirituall or supernaturall since­rity is common amongst practick Divines, and rationall; and there may be positive probable evidences of the former, when there is not yet so much of the latter. I humbly conceive, there cannot be had positive, probable evidences of this, ordinarly, without ob­servation of a mans way after profession for a time, wherein notice may be taken of his walking equally in the latitude of duties, and constantly in variety of cases and conditions. But the other may sooner and more easily appear and positively be judged of, as we judge of a mans seriousnesse in any other action. And 'tis Mr. Baxters own judgement, that as soon as a man maketh profession of the faith, without delay or tryall for discovery of his heart-Conversion, he is to be admitted into the Visible Church. To conclude, Mr. Baxter and I are at agreement upon the mater con­cerning the qualification that is sufficient for admitting persons into the Visible Church, viz. sober serious profession, without delay to enquire for more, and so we are agreed in the maine about the mater of the Visible Church: We differ in this that he thinks per­sons are not to be admitted, but under the consideration of persons judged, at least probably, Converted and Regenerated. My mind is that they are to be admitted under the name of serious, sober, outward professours, abstracting from Conversion or non-con­version. Which upon the mater, and as to the main businesse of the mater of the Visible Church, will only make some dif­ferences between us in some Arguments to prove the maine [Page 154] conclusion. Some Arguments that I use will not sute his way: But that is not much to th [...] point. Now I come to a fourth Ar­gument.

section 24 If the Ministry and Ministeriall dispensation of the Ordinances, especially the Preaching of the Gospel in the Church, be instituted and appointed by Jesus Christ to be a means, not only for advan­cing and perfecting the work of saving grace, where it is already begun; But also for converting and bringing to Christ, and into the estate of grace, such as are not yet savingly Converted, nor re­generat, nor in Christ; then it is not a qualification necessarily re­quisite in persons in foro Ecclesiastico, i. e. in the outward Court of the Church, for admitting them into the externall communion and Society of the Visible Church, that they be before truely Re­generat, Converted, sealed of God by his Spirit for his, or give such manifest evidences of this, as that they may and ought to be judged by the Church, truely Regenerat and Converted. But the former part or antecedent is true: Therefore also the con­sequent.

section 25 The connexion of the proposition I conceive is clear to any dis­cerning man. For ex suppositione consequentis sequitur oppositum antecedentis, i. e. if all that are in the Visible Church be supposed to be already and antecedently to their reception into the Visible Church, truly Converted and Regenerated; What is the Mini­ster as a Minister, or the Ministeriall dispensation of the Gospel adoe with Converting of souls? All with whom he has to doe as a Mini­ster are supposed to be Converted to his hand; and so in his Mini­stry he has only to do with their advancing in grace. This is the more constringent towards our Brethren of the Independent way, that they make the Ministry relative to a constitute Visible Church only, and that a Minister cannot act, as a Minister, but in relation to a particular Visible Church and these that are within it: And therefore if a Minister by Preaching the Gospel should be an in­strument of the Conversion and Regeneration of an infidell, yet that is but by accident, and that is not done by him as a Minister. If any shall say that many of these who are received into the Visible Church, albeit they be supposed and judged to be true Converts and Regenerat ones, yet they may really be unconverted and un­regenerated, [Page 155] and so may, being in the Church and under the Mi­nistry, be converted by the Ministeriall Preaching of the Gospel. That is nothing to the purpose: 'Tis but by accident that this co­meth to passe, and were it known that a man were unregenerat and unconverted, he were not to be received under the Ministry; Yea were he before a member, he should be by M^r. Lockiers Te­net, un-Churched again, untill he were a true Convert. And that which cometh to passe by the Ministry of the Word, but by ac­cident, cannot be said to be an end for which it is institute and set up in the Church. Yea further I say, if the Visible Church con­sist of all and only such as are supposed and judged, so far as men can discern, to be antecedently to their admission into the Church, truely Converted and Regenerat; It followeth necessarly, that the ordinary Minister of the Gospell has nothing adoe to Preach points of Doctrine tending to preparatory humiliation, awaking of naturall consciences, and Converting souls to Christ, but all his Preaching ought to be upon points that concerne comfor­ting, directing, strengthning, confirming, souls already Conver­ted; he shall have nothing adoe to intreat souls to be reconciled to God, but he is only to help them to injoy the sweetnesse and com­fort of Reconciliation, they are already stated in; Farewell all Preaching of mens miserable estate by nature, of the terrours of the Law, except only it be to let souls know the better what they are delivered from.

section 26 For the assumption of the Argument, viz. that the Ministry and Ministeriall dispensation and Preaching of the Gospel, is in­stituted to be an ordinary means of Converting souls, as well as of advancing grace in them that are Converted, may be proven by in­numerable Scriptures. I shall point at some, 1. Prov. 9. 3, 4. Wisedom hath sent forth her maidens, she cryeth upon the high places of the Citie, who so is simple let him turn in hither; as for him that wanteth understanding, she sayeth to him, come eat of my bread and drink of the wine which I have mingled. By these maidens of wisedom are meant (as Interpreters agree) the Ministers of the Word sent forth by Jesus Christ: Now what is the end and erand for which they are sent? To call and invite such as are simple and have no understanding i. e. (as Cartwright well expoundeth) [Page 156] such as yet are void of Religion and wisdome, (i. e. of true saving grace, tho not malicious opposers of the truth, and the professours thereof, that is in effect such as we described in stating the Con­troversie, serious, sober, outward professours, but yet unregene­rat) to invite and so to be means of bringing in such to communion with Christ and participation of his saving grace set forth under the Parable of a Feast. Hence then 'tis evident, that the Ministry, and Ministeriall dispensation of the Gospel is ordained and insti­tuted in the Church, to be an ordina [...]y means of Conversion. 2. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. Hence we reason thus: The Ministry of the Gospel, i [...] a Ministry of Reconciliation, i. e. for bringing men from their estate of enimity, to peace with God, and it is the Of­fice of Ministers, as ambassadours in Christs stead, to treat with souls, and bring them in to Reconciliation with God. Therefore they are appointed to be the ordinary means of Conversion. 3. 2 Tim. 2. 24, 25. The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient. In meeknesse instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them Repentance. Then 'tis evident Ministers are instituted to be means of Converting souls, and they must be qualified in relation to this as the work of their Ministry. It is well marked by Estius, tho a Papist, yet in most things, a judicious solid Interpreter, docet hic locus Deum ad convertendum peccatores uti velle operâ homi­num qui externum adhibeant Ministerium correptionis & Do­ctrinae. 4. Rom. 10. 14, 17. 'Tis so clear from this place that the Ministers of the Gospel, by their Ministeriall Preaching thereof, are the ordinary means appointed by God for Conversion and begetting faith, that it cannot be avoyded, but by denying absurdly with Armi­nians, Socinians and others, everters of the Ministry, that by a sent Preacher is not understood any other, but any gifted man, though not called and set apart to the Office of the Ministry. We con­clude then, that seeing the Ministry of the Gospel is ordained of God to be an ordinary mean of converting the elect and bringing them to Christ, it cannot be a condition necessarily requisite in the members of the Visible Church, antecedently to their admission into the society thereof, that they be already converted, or sup­posed and judged to be such, so far as men can discern. And that [Page 157] which followeth upon the contrary; That privat Christians, and not the Ministry of sent Preachers, are the ordinary means and in­struments of converting souls, is a meer dream having no warrand in the Word of God. Hooker Sur. p. 1. c. 7. pag. 84, 85. I know M^r. Hooker stormes at my Reve­rend Collegue, for charging this absurdity upon them: And he confesseth that is a dream, and hath no warrand in the Word, and wonders how such an absurdity is so continually in the eare and minde of M^r. Rutherfurd, and sayeth he knoweth not whence it cometh. But verily the good man was angry at M^r. Rutherfurd without cause. For it cometh as naturally from his principles as any conclusion can come from its premisses: For if a Visible Church cannot be constituted of any but such as are supposed to be before converted; and an Visible Church is prior to an ordinary Minister; neither can there be a Minister but in a constitute Church, (as themselves maintain) I pray, what must be the ordinary means (for there are not alwayes Apostles extraordinarily sent of God) of converting souls but privat Christians? What the good man sayeth, pag. 84. materialls of new gathered Churches with us, are such as have been converted by Ministers in their severall Con­gregations, With reverence of his memorie be it spoken, is chil­dish and nothing to the purpose, for first, the Question is not how or by what means, de facto this or that man is converted, but what followeth upon his Tenet: And according to the genius of this it followeth clearly that all are supposed to be converted (we speak of Conversion ordinarily) before ever they come under a Ministry, and so by privat Christians. And these some, of whom you ga­ther your Congregations, having them from under other Ministers, in their severall Congregations, if these Congregations be rightly constitute, according to your principles, were converted ere ever they came under such Ministers.

section 27 Argument 5. If the mater of the Visible Church were only reall Saints and the complexion of the Visible Church true holines and saving grace (as Mr. Lockier roundly expresseth in his Tenet, pag. 29. and that by expresse opposition to seemingly good, pag. 25.) or such as are positively to be judged such by evidence so far as men very spirituall can discern (as other where he expresseth [Page 158] it) then it doth follow that a man being in the Visible Church, for non-regeneration simply or non-appearance, or defect of positive evidence to ground a positive judgement of his Regene­neration ought to be Excommunicat and casten out of the Visible Church; but the consequent is false: Ergo the antecedent also. The connexion of the proposition M^r. Lockier cannot deny, for in effect it is his own, pag. 28. where he sayeth Excommunication is an Ordinance to cleanse the House of God and keep it pure, and according to what it ought to be so far as men can discern, accor­ding to his Tenet, consisting of only reall Saints, and not one o­ther. And sayeth expresly that if men creep in, where they should not be (i. e. if men not Regenerat creep into the Visible Church) they are to be cast out. 'Tis true, pag. 29. in the end of the pa­ragraph, he mincheth the mater, and sayeth only, not one known to be otherwise can abide within. But he should have said, by the consequence of his Tenet, not one, not known positively, to be such, &c. As to the Assumption, that it is false, that for non-re­generation simply, or defect of positive evidences of Regeneration, persons are to be cast out of the Visible Church. 1. Because there is neither precept nor practice in the Word of God for casting out any upon this account. Let M^r. Lockier produce us any thing from Scripture of this kind. The Scripture enjoyneth Excommu­nication for obstinacie, in known publick scandalous sins in conver­sation, or heresie in Doctrine, or at most for atrocious crimes (whether the persons be judged Converts and Regenerats or not) but no mention of any other cause of Excommunication: And in maters de jure in Religion, a negative Argument from Scripture, is sure, 'tis not commanded, 'tis not written in Scripture, Ergo it ought not to be done. I do professe this consequent following upon this opinion is one of the considerations amongst others, that of a long time has swayed me to think, that 'tis a way which is not of God: But on the contrary (tho I esteem reverently of many of the followers of it and has no harsh thoughts of their intentions therein) that 'tis a subtile device of Satan transforming himself into an Angel of light, set on foot by him as to advance Atheism in the World, so in speciall to overturn the Protestant Religion and Churches. For if none shall be permitted to be members of the [Page 159] Visible Churches, but such as are reall Saints, at least so far as men very spirituall can discern and judge upon such evidences, as these of this way holdeth forth. These being in all parts the far fewest number even very few in comparison: all the rest (of whom yet, many may have some seeds of true saving grace in them, albeit it be not so perceptible to others) tho they were not outwardly contumaci­ous against the Ordinances, must be un-Churched, casten out, to be no more under any Pastorall care, for watching over their souls; to live as they like, without any spirituall means, to restrain or re­claim them: to be a ready prey to Satan and his instruments, to be turned sta [...]k Atheists, or seduced unto any errour or heresie what­soever. What a fair field for hunting and catching of souls, would Romish Emissaries have were this way of Mr. Lockiers put in pra­ctice in all the Reformed Churches? I verily think the keeping of it on foot and driving it on in this Iland is not without influence from that Antichristian Synagogue upon this very designe to over­turn the Protestant Churches.

section 28 Argument 6. That Doctrine which tends unavoidably to the holding out from the fellowship of the visible Church, and so from all the ordinary means of grace and salvation instituted by Christ, not only many who may be the elect of God, and whom we can­not but probably judge to be elect: but also many, who may have some measure of true Regenerating grace in them, and yet leaves a door open to any Reprobat hypocrite (whom it pretends, ought not to be there) to come in if they can but dissemble well and car­ry it fair outwardly; that Doctrine, I say, it seemeth, cannot be from God. But that Doctrine concerning the necessary qualifi­cation of Church-members, asserted and maintained by Mr. Loc­kier is such: therefore, &c. The proposition I conceive will not be denyed by any who will consider these things. 1. That the means of grace and salvation, the Ordinances of God, are institute and set up in the Church, primarly and per se, for the elects sake, that they may obtain salvation. Hence is that of the Apostle, 2 Tim. 2, 10. Therefore I endure all things for the Elects sake, that they may also obtain salvation which is in Christ Jesus, with eternall glory: Notable are the words of that Judicious Popish Commentator Estius upon the words, ideo (Graecè, propter hoc) [Page 160] i. e. ut Euangelium disseminetur ut Verbum Dci currat & clari­ficetur (acutelie pondering the connexion of this verse with the end of the preceeding, but the Word of God is not bound) omnia dura suffero, nullum laborem refugio, idque propter electos: Quamvis enim reprobi sint electis permixti & eadem officia per Ecclesiae Ministros impen̄dantur reprobis, ut Doctrina, oratio, exhortatio, correptio, Sacramentorum Administratio: Non ta­men propter reprobos sed propter electos fiunt. And a little after, Ministros utique oportet cum Paulo in universo suo Ministerio (and so in receiving into the Visible Church) hoc ipsum intendere. 2. That as it is Christ the great and chief Pastor, his own way not to quench the smoking flax, so it is his will that his servants and Ministers should not doit; but that they should receive these that are infirm and weak. Now it being so; can any man think that, that way can be of Christ, whereby the entrance into the Visible Church, and so to the benefit of the publick Ordinances, which are the ordinary means of obtaining salvation, is made so strait, that many elect and such as, we cannot but probably judge to be such may he held forth from the benefit of all these, shut out of the ordinary way of salvation: Yea and even many, who may have beginnings of the true grace of Regeneration. If this were not a way to quench smoaking flaxes I know not what will be.

section 29 As for the truth of the assumption, I make it clear thus 1. As to the former part many of these who professe outwardly the faith, willingnesse to joyn in fellowship with the Visible Church, and to subject themselves to Ordinances, may be of the elect of God. This cannot be denyed, yea nor can we but account them who comes this far on (tho we cannot yet positively say we account them actually Regenerat men) probably to be elect. Yet by Mr. Lockiers Doctrine, tho persons professe the faith, be desirous of the fellowship of the Church, declare willingnesse to subject them­selves to the Ordinances; Yet unlesse they be truely Converted, and Regenerat, sealed of God by his Spirit for his, so far as men very spirituall can discern, they are not to be admitted into the Vi­sible Church, and are held forth from the benefit of all the publick Ordinances, the ordinary means of salvation. 2. As to the other part, 'tis also clear thus; because there may be many smoaking [Page 161] flaxes, who have some measure of true grace in them, who yet not only are weak in knowledge, unable to give an account of all the fundamentalls of Religion, and such points as are necessary to lead a life without scandall (which yet are required as the ground of that judgement our adversaries will have to passe upon persons, to be admitted members of the Visible Church) but also under ma­ny sensible, sinfull infirmities, which may render them suspected to others, to be no reall Saints, may puzle others to passe judge­ment on them, at least, may put them to a suspence from passing a positive judgement upon them, as true saints, sealed of God for his, by his Spirit. And all such by Mr. Lockiers Doctrine must be held forth from the Visible Church, and so from the benefit of all pub­lick Ordinances, the ordinary means of Salvation. These two con­siderations, I professe have been to me further motives to make me think the way held forth by this Doctrine concerning the qua­lification, in foro Ecclesiae, of Church members, not to be of Christ, it being so obstructive to the proper end and design of the setting up of the Ordinances and means of grace in the Church, and contrary to Christs own way of dealing with souls, and yet no cast-away or unregenerat man shall be excluded, if he but be studied in tra­ctates of theologie, and can carie it fair before men, as indeed hy­pocrisie may stand with great externall formalities of Religion, in word and conversation.

section 30 There are two things I find, may haply by said by the Brethren of this way in answer to this Argument. 1. That such persons may be hearers of the Word, tho they be not admitted members of the Visible Church, we admit say they even infidels to the hea­ring of the Word. To this I think Reverend Mr. Rutherfurd has said truely, that to be admitted as ordinary hearers of the Word, and Church prayers, is a degree of admission to Church-membership; and they who are baptized, and ordinarly hear and professe a willing mind to communicat with the Church in the Holy things of God, they, being not scandalously wicked, ought to be admit­ted, yea are members of the Visible Church. But 2. To say that men are not members of the Visible Church and yet that they may be ordinary hearers of the Word, according to your principles is but a fair word to make Children fain of nothing. For say ye, a [Page 162] Minister is a Minister only in relation to his particular flock and the members thereof, therefore say I, as a Minister he is to Preach the Word only to them, and therefore he must sute his Preaching of the Word unto them, that is unto men sealed of God by his Spi­rit, so far as men very spirituall can discern, and so as a Minister or a Ministeriall Preacher of the Word, he is not obliged to bring any word for hearing, for the case of that man that is not a member, and so if that man hear ordina [...]ly or at all (tho he come to h [...]ar) any Preaching of the Word fitted or prepared to do him good, 'tis more through hap then good guiding, as we say; or else you must say, that a Minister when he is to Preach the Word, he must pre­pare and study something as a Minister, for Visible Church-mem­bers, suteable to such; and something to Preach as a privat gifted man for such as are without. But 1. An ordinary Preacher of the Word as a privat Christian, is a Preacher unknown to Scripture. 2. And one and that same man Preaching at that same time, as a Minister to some, and as a privat man to other hearers, is far more uncouth to cripture. I beleeve a Minister by Scripture rule, ought in his ordinary and publick Preaching of the Word, to act and Preach as a Minister, and to be wholly taken up with the work of his Ministry: For to that he is appointed of God, and commanded to look to and fulfill, Eph. 4. 12. Collos. 4. 17. 2 Tim. 4. 2.

section 31 2. It is said by some of them that they will receive any in whom they see the least thing of Christ, and therefore there is no such hazard of holding out persons that have not true grace in them. To this, that least thing of Christ is some outward evidence to ground a positive judgement, that the man is Regenerat. Now I inquire what is that least thing of Christ, upon sight whereof. you say you will receive men? Is sober serious profession of the true Religion and faith of Christ and of subjecting a mans self to the Ordinances and Government of Christ, sufficient to you, that there­upon you will receive him? Or must there be somewhat more to make it up? If you said the former, we were at agreement, upon the mater, about the qualification necessary in soro Ecclesiae, for admitting of persons to be Church members: but this you ac­knowledge not to be sufficient: Let men thus seriously and sober­ly [Page 163] professe, there must be a time for observing their conversation, and their must be a tryall and searching into the experimentall work in their hearts: Now if it must be somewhat more then that I en­quire, what is the least thing more? We have seen before what they held forth in their rules of tryall, and dare say (yea thinks it were unchristian, unwarrantable rigidnesse to say the contrary) that there may be and are many honest, sincere Converts, in whom there is not to be seen by others, and who cannot shew to others, that which they hold forth as the least, more then that which we have said; and therefore still by their way many truly Regenerat may be held forth, tho desirous of Church communion, and offe­ring subjection to the Word and Ordinances of Christ; for my part. I had rather, twenty hypocrites were let in, then that one graci­ous soul, yea or Elect, tho yet not Regenerat, come this far on, as to desire to be in, and to professe subjection, should be held forth, and yet this accurate and pretended cleanly way of these Brethren, tho it tend to exclude many, who may be are truely Regenerat, yet it may let in any unregenerat, if they can but play the Hypocrite handsomely, and have some Book-learned-knowledge.

section 32 Argument 7. Shall be taken from these descriptions of the Visible Church in the Word of God holding it forth to us frequent­ly as a mixed society of good and bad, under the similitudes of a barn floore, wherein is an heap of wheat and chaffe, Mat. 12. of a corn field wherein are growing together tares and wheat, Chap. 13. 24. of a draw-net gathering in good fish and bad, ibid. vers. 47. &c. and of a great house wherein are vessels of Gold and Silver, and vessels of Wood and Earth, 2 Tim 2. 21. I confesse this Ar­gument hath not been well managed against the opposites, which has given them occasion to slight it, as proving nothing but what themselves grant. For when no more is alledged from these places, but that the Visible Church is such a society, as even when rightly constitute, there are in it a mixture of true beleevers and hypo­crites, they say they yeeld the Argument wholly, that in the pu­rest Visible Churches, there may and will alwayes be a mixture of hypocrites with true beleevers and Saints, de facto: but that the Question is what sort of persons ought, de jure to be admitted or [Page 164] permitted to be members of the Visible Church. But the places duely pondered and considered together will afford us a more pun­gent Argument, which will not leave open a way for such an escape. We present it thus in form: if the Lord himself describing the outward constitution of the Visible Church, as to the mater where­of it consisteth; not only holdeth it forth as a mixed society of some truely good, and gracious, and some bad unconverted and gracelesse ones: But also declareth that his will is that his servants should not cast out of it all such as they conceive to be bad and un­converted, but that they permit even such in the outward Visible Church, leaving to himself to make the full separation of the one from the other: Then it cannot be that by his apointment and in­stitution, it should be the necessary qualification of Visible Church-members, in foro Ecclesiastico, that they be all true converts and gracious ones, at least, so far as men can discern and judge, this proposition if the consequence and connexion thereof hold good; leaves no door open for the former escapes, as is evident: and I conceive that the connexion or consequence of it, is undenyable, because upon the supposition of the opposite of the consequent fol­lowes clearly the opposite of the antecedent, that is to say, if it were Christs institution and will that true grace, at least, so far as men can discern and judge, should be the necessary qualification, in foro Ecclesiastico, of all Church-members, it should clearly follow that it were his will, and the duty of his servants to cast out all such in the Visible Church, as they did see not to be qualified, not gracious converts, which is flatly contrary to that which is sup­posed in the antecedent. Now I assume that the antecedent is clearly held forth to us in these places. 1. 'Tis clear that in these places he holdeth forth the Visible Church in its outward consti [...]u­tion as to the mater thereof, to be a mixed society of good and bad, truely gracious and such as are void of true grace, and not only this, but 2. That not only he permits it to be so untill the last day: But also 'tis his will and he commands his servants to permit such to abide in the Church as even to their discerning are bad, leaving the separation of them to himself at the last. The servant said unto him wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? Yes, would Mr. Lockier say, leave not one of them; No not [Page 165] one of them in a Visible Church; they are where they ought not to be, they want the complexion of the Visible Church, &c. But sayeth the Lord himself: Nay, but let both grow together untill the Harvest.

section 33 Object. If it shall be objected against this exposition and appli­cation of this place, that hereby it should follow that any pro­phane ones ought to be permitted to be members of the Visible Church, which in consequence is contrary to Christs institution of Ecclesiastick Discipline enjoyning incorrigible offenders to be casten out and Excommunicat; and that therefore by these tares must be understood latent hypocrites, which may be such in appearance, as may charitably be judged by men true beleevers. Answ. It cannot be that such latent hypocrites as these only are understood: Why? They are such tares as are seen and known by the servants; they must therefore be such as falls into sins and whose badnesse is obvious to the senses of others, yet there is no contradiction be­tween this of Mat. 13. 29. so understood, and that of Mat. 18. vers. 17. We may say as Augustine on the same places against Donatists, Domino in Euangelio dicenti in illo obtemperare de­bemus ubi ait, si neque Ecclesiam audierit sit tibi tanquam Ethni­cus & Publicanus, & in illo, ubi prohibuit colligi Zizania ne simul eradicetur & triticum, potest enim utrumque custodi­ri: The reason is because they may well be conceived to speak not adidem, in respect to these same sort of persons. The command of Excommunication is against such notorious offenders as to their offences adde contumacie against the Discipline of the Church, or at least, if it be further to be extended, whose offence is atrocious & these that offends these wayes, whether they be tares, gracelesse men, or indued with true saving grace. But there may be sinfull livers in the Visible Church seen to be such by the servants, who falls not under either of these two sorts.

section 34 The Doctrinall notes which the Reverend M^r. Dickson hath upon that Parable, Mat. 13. 24. &c. are worthy the reading and consideration to this purpose we are on, and they are genuine and naturally flowing from the place. The Book is common, so that I need not transcribe all; I shall but bring two or three of them for such as may be has not the Book at hand. 1. The externall Visible [Page 166] Church is worthy to be called the Kingdome of Heaven even in respect of the externall constitution of it in the world notwithstan­ding the wicked hypocrites in it; because therein Christ rules as King, and hath his Subjects, all professing him to be King of Saints. 4. It is mater of grief and offence to see in the Church of Christ so many unprofitable weeds—5. The rash zeal of ser­vants before they consult their Lord and Master is ready with the hazard of the Church and true members thereof, to have such a constitution of the Visible Church as they should suffer none to be a member, who are not inwardly Regenerat: But have all o­thers of whose inward Regeneration they are not assured plucked from among Professours. 6. The Lord although he hath given order to censure scandalous offenders, yet he discharges his servants to presse towards such a separation, as to have all weeds and wic­ked in heart to be cast out; Least while they gather out the grace­lesse tares, they should root out also the gracious wheat with them: For it is not possible for any man to discern the renewed from the unrenewed so clearly but he may be mistaken. 8. The mixture in the Visible Church, Christ the Lord is minded to per­mit and commands to be permitted till the day of Judgement, and then, but not till then, shall a full separation of the godly and the wicked, of the Elect and Reprobat be made; In the time of Harvest I will say gather the Wheat, &c. See also his note on the ver. 47. This Parable teacheth us, that the Visible Church, in the way of gathering members, and in the manner of constitution thereof, it is like a draw-net taking in all who professe subjection to Christ and his Ordinances, good and bad, true and false Professours, for it gathereth of every kinde, to wit, whosoever professe faith in, and promise subjection to Christ.

section 35 Argument 8. The Doctrine which excludes the Infants of Christians from being members of the Visible Church, cannot be from Christ nor have any truth in it. But Mr. Lockiers Doctrine concerning the mater of the Visible Church excludes the Infants of Christians from being members of the Visible Church, go &c. For the proof of the proposition I refer Mr. Lockier to M^r. Bax­ters Dispute against Tombs: If he deny that Infants of Christians are members of the Visible Church, let him take some pains to [Page 167] answer these many, solid and acute Arguments brought by that Learned man, to prove that they are. The assumption is most clear. For M^r. Lockiers Doctrine is that none others, no not one other, are fit mater of a Visible Church, but such as are truly converted, so far as men truely converted and very spirituall are able to discern and judge: This is a thing that cannot be spoken or understood of [...]nfants. And it is remarkable that Mr. Lockier nor here when he propoundeth his Doctrine concerning the mater of the Visible Church, nor else where in prosecuting it in this Lecture, does so much as once, with these whom he allowes to be mater of the Visible Church, take in their Infants, as some others of his mind are wont sometimes to do. And therefore that which M^r. Caudrie sayeth, considering Mr. Hookers conclusion concerning the mater of the visible Church that had he not added a little after, com­prehending the Infants of conf [...]derat believers under their Parents Covenant, he might have been suspected, &c. M^r. Lockier having altogether left this out, I may say it of him positively, he is justly to be suspected of concurring with Anabaptists whose Doctrine concerning the mater of a Church is the very same with his.

section 36 Having added some reasons from Scripture, to these which Mr. Lockier was pleased to take into consideration (besides which he may find sundry others, in other Divines, who have Written on this Subject, as namely, Reverend M [...]. Rutherfurd, Apollonius, his consideration of sundry Controversies, &c. and Spanhemius his Epistle to David Buchanan) I might adde a large enough Ca­talogue of Testimonies from Orthodox Divines, both ancient, especially in their Writings against Novatians, and Donatists, and Moderne, since Reformation of Religion from Poperie. But be­ing of the mind of that Reverend and Learned man, who said, he esteemed more of one Testimony of Scripture, then of ten reasons, and of one solid reason, more then of ten humane testimonies, I will spare to fill up Paper this way, only this I may say, that our opposites have the whole stream of Orthodox and Reformed Di­vines against them, Let the Learned Ames. (a man in some other points too much inclining to the Independent Tenents) speak for this: Bellar. Enervat. Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 1. 11. 5. falsum est [Page 168] (sayeth he) internas virtutes, equiri à nobis ut aliquis sit in Ec­clesiâ quoad Visibilem ejus statum. i. e. its false that inward ver­tues or graces are required by us, that one may be in the Church as to its visible state: And he had good reason to say so: for we shall find all Orthodox Reformed Divines, alwise defining the Visible Church by outward Profession of the true Christian faith or Religion, and externall communion in the Worship and Ordinances of God: But never by inward holinesse and heart­conversion. Thus I have done with Mr. Lockiers Lecture.

M^r. Lockiers APPENDIX. SECTION I.

section 2 HIs first Assertion is this: That the Eldership which is within the particular Congregation, is not in most weighty things, to exert power, without the consent and approbation of the Church whereof they are. By things most weighty, I mean these things which are most essentiall to the state of a visible Church: as ad­mission of Members, ordination of Officers, and excommunicati­on of either.

section 3 'Tis worthy Observation how the Author manages this mater of his first Assertion, the point he propounds to be proven, is that the Eldership of a Congregation may not, in most weighty maters, exert power without the consent and approbation of the Church, and for proof of this, his first Argument, SECT. 2. is an alle­geance, that the power of the Keyes was primarly given to the Church of believers, as the subject thereof, Math. 16. 16. which allegeance he is pleased to passe with a very light and slight shew of a proof, as if it were a mater of small Debate. Whether thus he has done from deliberate and advised policy, to shun Debate up­on that which is the very [...], in this Question about Eccle­siastick Jurisdiction, and to make his common Readers the more favourable to his part, as pretending only to dispute for interest of consent and approbation to them in acts of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastick of greatest concernment (and indeed as mans pride naturally car­ries him with a desire to have a finger in rule, so it is a plausible sub­ject to speak for it to him) or if he has done it from some other [Page 195] principle, I will not determine; Let the judicious Reader conje­cture, what he thinks most likely. Only I must say it seemeth to me a very strange and irrationall way of procedure, to take so great pains and make so much adoe, as M^r. Lockier doth here in pleading for a certain condition of persons formall interest and concurrence, in acts and the exercise of jurisdiction, and to make this the Que­stion or conclusion to be insisted on: And mean while, to take it almost for granted without proof, or at most, in a slight overly word to alledge, that they are chiefly invested with that power and au­thority from which these acts must flow, when as he knoweth, at least might have known that his adversaries, not only deny, but by many considerable Arguments goes about to demonstrate, that, that condition of persons never were invested with, never received such a power or authority, from him to whom it belongeth origi­nally. Mr. Lockier does just here, as if a Papist or Jesuite, going about to Dispute the Controversie concerning the Popes suprema­cy, should be taken up all along the Dispute in bringing some topical Arguments, that this and that and the other act of supremacy, as cal­ling of oecumenicall Counsels, to be presiding in them, finall and in­fallible determining of controversies in Religiō, &c. ought to be per­formed by the Pope of Rome; And mean while should misken the Question, if ever Christ gave him a grant of power and authority to perform these things, but only suppose it be so, or content himself to cite for it as it were in transitu, Tibi dabo claves or Pasce oves me­as, as if it were out of question clear that these places held forth a soveraigne power and authority over all things, and persons Eccle­siastick in Peter, yea and in every Pope of Rome, bestowed on them by Christ. I think a judicious adversary might well laugh at a Papists disputing after such a manner. And so may any judici­ous man at M [...]. Lockiers manner and method of disputing here, con­tending much in some topicall Arguments to prove that the people ought to have an hand in such and such acts of Government, and mean while slight proving that they have the power and authority to govern granted them by Christ. I think a rationall disputant would have laboured first and mainly about this; And indeed were this made once clear, we should soon be at an agreement about the acts and exercises of government, once prove the forme or [Page 196] habit to be in such a subject, and there will be no question about the acts thereof, whether they be competent to that subject or not. If any man shall say for him here, that by shewing such and such acts to be competent to the people, it is proven consequent­ly à posteriori, that the habit or power from which these acts do flow is in them: I answer, if that had been his intention so he might have done: But then he should not alledged the inexisten­cy of the power, as a medium to prove that these acts are compe­tent to them (as he doth in his 1. Arg.) for this is nothing else but to run in a round: but we must apply our selves to follow his me­thod.

section 4 To speak a word then to the first Assertion, I will not question the an sit, or being of the subject of this Assertion. Whether there be de jure and of Divine institution, an Eldership, or Presby­terie within a particular Congregation, i. e. a Colledge of Elders belonging to one single Congregation by it self having power of Government and exercising Ecclesiastick Discipline; although I know men Learned and much excercised in the study of the Que­stions concerning Ecclesiastick Government, are of the judgement, that there is not such an Eldership or Presbyterie; And I confesse 'tis right hard to finde in Scripture either precept or example for it: But I shall, going along with Mr. Lockier in the acknowledgment thereof, note but some few things upon the attribute of his Asser­tion: There be three things therein contained. 1. the acting spoken of, viz. exercing of power. 2. the object of that acting, most weighty things. 3. The limitation of that acting about this object, as competent to the Eldership.

section 5 For the first, Mr. Lockier speaketh so here as he would seem to grant to the Eldership some power and exercing of it about these weighty maters, providing it be with consent and approbation of the Church, i. e. the society of Professours they are in. But ve­rily by his way the Eldership as contradistinguished from other professours, and as the Eldership has no power, nor can exert any power at all; I mean power of authority in these maters: All their part is meerly to preside and moderate the meeting of the Church, and as a Moderator, or Chair-man, to propone and state a Question; Ask and gather the votes, and declare the sentence [Page 197] concluded by the votes of the collective body of the Church; con­veen and dismisse the meeting; Or at most as a Committee of a Judicatory, to prepare maters for publick cognition and sentence: All which is no Authoritative power. I think therefore that Mr. Lockier would have dealt more candidly to have plainly said, the Eldership can exert no power at all in these maters; This belongs to the collective body of the Church, and their part is only to pre­side and moderat the meeting in exerting its power: But such plain language, which yet speaks the truth of his way, is too plainly dissonant to the language of Scripture, which speaketh of Church Officers, as Governours of, and to be over the people, and having the rule over them, and many such other things attributeth unto them, which importeth another kind of thing then meer presiding, moderating, or being the mouth of a meeting or a preparatory Committee.

section 6 For the second, why does Mr. Lockier here restrict his asserti­on, to these maters of greater weight? Does he grant that yet they may exert power in maters of lesse weight without the consent and approbation of the Church? Nay, he cannot. For, 1. most of his Arguments following, if they prove ought to his purpose, they prove the Eldership cannot exert power in any maters of Ec­clesiastick Government without the consent of the Church, whe­ther of greater or smaller weight. Yea, 2. in his last Argument to prove they cannot exert power in these greater maters▪ he assu­meth that they may not do it in smaller maters. For (saith he, Sect. 11. Pag. 81.) if in lesse things the Eldership may not act alone, surely not in greater. What then needed this restriction of the object in the Assertion?

section 7 But now what are these maters most weighty? He tell us, these things which are most essentiall to the state of the Visible Church; And then reckons up particularly these three admission of Mem­bers, ordination of Officers, and Excommunication of either. To passe that expression of most essentiall importing degrees in essen­tiality which Philosophy will not admit, as telling us that essentia rei non recipit magis & minus. I do humbly conceive that the fixt Preaching of the Word of God, and right administration of Sacraments are as essentiall (to use his words) to the state of the [Page 198] Visible Church as any of these particulars mentioned. Nay they are much more essentiall; there may be a true Visible Church, where these are, tho Excommunication be wanting, and that ad­mission of members Mr. Lockier speaks of, unknown to the Primi­tive Apostolick times. It has been the constant Doctrine of Refor­med Divines, that the sound Preaching of the Word and right Ad­ministration of Sacraments, are necessary to the being of a Church, and exercise of Discipline only to the well-being. Some Churches have no Excommunication, which though we approve not in this; yet because they have the true Doctrine of the Go­spel taught and professed in them, and the Sacraments therewith administrat right for their substance, God forbid we should account destitute of the most essentialls (to speak so with him) of a true Church. Now if the Preaching of the Word be a thing most es­sentiall to the state of a Church, as certainly it is, must the Mini­sters of Christ, not Preach any Doctrine, as the Doctrine of Christ, without the consent of the Church, i. e. of the professours to whom they Preach? Must it be first propounded to them to have their vote and sentence passe upon it, and upon that Preached? I conceive Mr. Lockier will not own such theologie. 2. That ad­mission of members which [...]e meaneth here, is so far from being one of these things most essentiall to the state of a Visible Church, that, as he and others of his mind conceive it, 'tis but a meer new device, unknown in the preceeding ages of the Church, and with­out ground in the Word of God: He means admission into the fel­lowship of this or that particular Church or Congregation by a Church Covenant as they call it, which he conceives to be that which formally gives Visible-Church-Membership, and that it must be upon such qualification as he has been disputing for in his Lecture. But as there is no warrand in the Word of God for such qualification as necessary to Visible-Church-Membership (as has been cleared in our former part) so it is a plain mistake that admis­sion unto the fellowship of this or that particular Church, is that which formally makes one a Visible Church Member; And that it is founded upon another mistake, which is a [...] in the Church way of the Independent Brethren, viz. that there is no Visible Church Catholick or Universall; but that a particular Con­gregation [Page 199] is the only Church. The truth is, profession of the true Faith and of subjection to Ordinances, with the seal of bap­tisme compleatly makes a man a Member of the Visible Church, (else, such were [...], without, and so but of the world of heathens and strangers, which is absurd) and admission in this or that particular Congregation, gives him only the opportunity of exercise of his Church-membership and the priviledges thereof (whereunto he had right before) hic & nunc, all which has been so cleary evinced by judicious and learned Mr. Hudson, in his Vin­dication of the Essence and Ʋnity, &c. that any man that will not wilfully shut his eyes against the light, may be fully convinced thereof. So then as for admission of Persons into this or that par­ticular Congregation, it is not a mater of so high essentiality to the state of the Visible Church. And for that wherein solemn admis­sion into the state of the Visible Church formally consists, bapti­zing, if Mr. Lockier shall say that this cannot be done without the sentence of the collective body of Professours, he'll speak beside the book of God, which holds forth to us baptisme administrate, by one Minister alone without the knowledge of any particular Church: and mentioneth not any instance, so far as I can remem­ber of Ministers requiring the vote of the Church for baptizing any at any time.

section 8 For the third, the limitation of the Elderships exerting of pow­er, not without the consent and approbation of the Church. Upon this. 1. I would inquire of Mr. Lockier, whom he meaneth by the Church, without whose consent and approbation, this ought not to be done? Whether the whole Congregation, i. e. all Members thereof promiscuously and indifferently, or only some certain Members thereof excluding the rest? If the whole Congre­gation and all the Members thereof; Then women and children also must have an hand in these weighty maters of the Government of the Church: which I cannot well think he will affirme, sure I am, will not be owned by many of his side, and is contrary to the Word of God. If not the whole Congregation, but some certain Members viz. men & these of years of discretion, or of a manlyage; Then 1. why speaketh he of the Church indefinitely without any such restriction not without the consent and approbation of the [Page 200] Church. Are not women a part of the Church, yea and children also under age, unlesse we shall say that they are without, i. e. of the world of heathens and aliens from the Israel and Household of God, which is absurd. Nay I suppose there may be a Church consisting of only women beside the Officers, as in case all the men of a Congregation were removed by death or otherwise, for must we say that a Congregation consisting of 40. men and as many wo­men, if by Pestilence all the men should be removed, excepting the Officers thereof, that it should, because of this, cease to be a Visible Church. 2. It cannot consist with what he saith afterward in sundry of his Arguments brought to prove his Assertion: In the first thereof he alledgeth that the power of the Keyes are given to persons not as Officers, Apostles, or Elders, but as beleevers, to the Church of be­leevers, and beleeving with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal, but I assume that Women are beleevers, and beleevers with such a faith as well as Men, Ergo, by his Argument they must have an hand in the Government by their consent and approbation as well as the men. Again in the third, whereas he alledges, that other wayes (viz. than as he asserted) the Elders cannot but of­fend the little ones of the Church, yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren, for as much as persons may be taken in and ca­sten out concerning which they can have no distinct knowledge. I assume, that this will hold as well for women, little ones of the Church and sisters of tender consciences, as well as men; Be­cause offending of these must be eschewed as well as of those. Further in his fourth Argument, he alledgeth as a ground of his Assert. that the spirit of discerning is not confined to Elders: but may be in great measure in some of the members, and a greater gift when all are joyned together in the Name of Christ, and his presence with them to discern and judge. And addeth, that the Saints shall Judge the World: All which take in female Saints as well as male Saints.

section 9 2. When as there is a consent and approbation of acts of Go­vernment, privat, obedientiall, and not-authoritative: And a consent and approbation publick and authoritative by way of a ju­diciall decisive vote; Why is it that the Author does not in his [Page 201] Assertion determine which of these he means? 'Tis true after­ward in his 5th Argument he is expresse, that the whole Church (and so men, women and children) should be joyntly authorita­tive about these acts of Government: But here in propounding the Assertion involves the mater in an ambiguous generality. It would seem, to bear the ignorant Reader in hand that we did grant nothing to people about these acts of Government, but a passive blind obedience to what is determined by the Eldership; It would seem I say, this is the drift of it, the rather that after­ward SECT. 5. end. he hints at our Doctrine in this expression. If the managing of all things be committed wholly to the Presbyte­ry, and the people left out, only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills who thus impropriat power. But surely this is either a grosse misunderstanding or a foul misrepresentation of the Do­ctrine of Presbyterians in this mater, which may appear by these things which they reach and grant unto the people, in relation to matters belonging to Ecclesiastick Government. As

section 10 First we grant, as to the mater of the Calling of Ministers and Officers of the Church, that to all the people belongeth the power to nominat and elect the persons to be their own Church-Officers: And that to put upon a people, who are Christians and in a capacity to elect, any Church Officer, without their consent and election, is unwarrantable intrusion. But withall we affirm that this nomination or election, is not an authoritative act of Ec­clesiastick jurisdiction, conferring upon the person any Ministeriall or Officiall power and authority, but that this is conferred by the act of ordination [...] the ordinary course appointed by Christ in his Church) Ministerially under Christ, and by vertue of his insti­tution, which act is to be performed by the Rulers of the Church, and not by the people, and that the nomination or election per­formed by the people is only the designation of the persons on whom this power is to be conferred by ordination (if he be one as yet not ordained) and is appropriated to be their Minister. Besides we grant that any of the people has power to object any just ex­ceptions against a person who is a calling to be their Minister and they ought to be heard, and if their reasons be relevant they ought to be admitted.

section 11 Secondly, we grant in like manner, as to admission of members, that any of the members of the Church has power to represent any just exception and reason they know against any person to be ad­mitted, and that their reasons ought to be heard, and, if relevant, to be admitted.

section 12 Thirdly, as to the Preaching of the Word, we grant that the people are not obliged to give blind and implicit obedience to what is delivered by the Ministers, as if they ought to receive, as the Word of God, whatsoever is delivered by them, but that they have power, and ought by the judgement of discretion, to search the Scriptures, whether the things delivered by the Ministers be so, to try the spirits whether they be of God or not, to prove all things and hold fast that which is good, Acts 17. 11. 1 Iohn 4. 1. 1 Thess. 5. 18. and the like judgement of discretion, we grant to them in relation to other parts of worship.

section 13 Fourthly, as to the exercise of Ecclesiastick Discipline and the censure of offenders, and particularly Excommunication. We grant, 1. that privat professours are by the Word of God to ex­hort and reprove offending Brethren, yea and to admonish their Governours if negligent and remisse, Colloss. 4. 17. but this we say is an act not of authority and jurisdiction, but of charity. 2. They are to complain to the Church of such as are obstinate in their offences against their privat reproof and admonition; but neither is this an act of authority and jurisdiction formally, but only preparatory thereunto, it is not gradus in re, but gradus ad rem▪ of authoritative Ecclesiastick Discipline. 3. When a per­son is sentenced by the Presbytery unto Ecclesiastick censure, For example Excommunication, they are to obey that sentence, and by avoyding the person as a Publican and heathen, put it in execu­tion, not in an implicit and blind, but rationall obedience, and as­sent, for they must do it. 1. Out of clear knowledge of faith in themselves of the justice of the sentence, in materia juris, that the offence for which the censure is inflicted is by Gods appoint­ment in his Word so censurable. 2. That the person is guilty of the fact for which he is censured: so that if the person do not ac­knowledge and take with it by confession, the manner and means of probation of it, ought to be signified to them, in the generall, [Page 203] at least. And if they can alledge any just reason against the justice of the sentence, either as to the point of law, or to the mater of fact they ought to be heard and admitted. Nor do we deny but that privat professours, being desirous upon just grounds, and for their clearing in giving obedience in such maters, may and ought to be admitted to hear and be witnesses of the leading and dedu­cing of such processes. By all these it may evidently appear, how injurious an insinuation that is of the Author, wherewith he a­sperseth Presbyterians, that, to wit, by their way, the managing of all things in the Church is so committed wholly to the Presbytery that the people are left out only to see and judge implicitly by their eyes and wills impropriating this power to themselves. This way of managing the Government of Christs Church and binding people to implicit and blinde obedience, we abhorre as An­tichristian usurpation and tyranny. And the Author in asper­sing us with it, has dealt either, uningenuously or ignorantly.

section 14 The thing we say is this, that in these things of Government ad­mission of Members, ordination of Officers, exercise of Discipline, authoritatively to act, vote and judge, as Judges authorized with Christs Authority, belongeth not to privat persons, or the body of professours joyntly with the Eldership (which is the the thing Mr. Lockier plainly asserteth afterward, SECT. 6. init. but in­volveth in a mist, in propounding his assertion at first, for what end he knoweth best himself) but only to Christs Officers, the Rulers set over his Church. Thus having cleared up the meaning of the Question we have in hand with the Author here, come we now to consider his Arguments for his Assertion.

SECTION II. Examination of Mr. Lockiers 1, 2, 3, 4. Argument.

section 1 FIrst (saith he) because the power of the Keyes was not at first given to Peter, as an Apostle, or as an Elder, but as an Be­leever—The consequent he would infer must be this, Ergo, that [Page 204] the Elders must not in these weighty maters of Government, ad­mission of Members, ordination of Ministers, censures, exert power without the authoritative joynt acting and concurring of the Church, i. e. the body of professours therein, with them. Ans. 1. If this consequence be good, then it must follow as well that Ministers cannot exert power of authoritative Preaching the Go­spel but with the joynt authoritative concurrence of the people in Preaching with them. For certain it is that the power of Preach­ing the Gospel is comprehended in these Keyes given to Peter, as well as the power of censures, &c. and therefore if it follow, the power of the keyes was not given to Peter as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a Believer: Ergo the Elders cannot exert power in or­dination, censures, &c. without the joint authorative concurrence of the body of Professours therein, it must follow also: Ergo, they cannot exert power in preaching the Gospel without their joynt authoritative concurrence therein: and so when the Minister prea­ches, all the people must authoritatively preach with him, else his preaching is null. 2. But waving this, and granting it were true that the power of the keyes was first given to believers, and so to Peter, not as a Minister, but as representing Believers. I do not see how it must of necessity follow that the body of Professours must act authoritatively, jointly with the Rulers in the exerting of that power. For we may suppose it was given to the body of the Church, not formally, but radically and virtually to be by them derived to Rulers to be formally exerted by these only, and then the conse­quent will not follow; as, suppose it were true, which many Poli­ticians, and with them some Divines, maintain (which yet for my self I cannot see solide proof of) that the power of Civile Govern­ment is first given of God by a naturall right unto the body of peo­ple: yet from this it followeth not, that no Magistrates elected by people must exert power of Government without the joint autho­ritative concurrence of the people with them; Then when ever a King is to exert an act of Government, or a Parliament, they must do nothing, unlesse the people sit down upon the Throne or in the house with them, and thus no doubt sundry Divines in former times, when they say that the power of the Keyes were given first to the whole Church of beleevers, are to be understood to have [Page 205] meant, that this power was given to them not to be formally in­herent and abiding in themselves, to be exerted and exercised by them: But virtually, by them to be setled upon such persons as they should designe for Ministeriall offices in the Church, by whom on­ly it is to be formally exerted and exercised, which yet is a mistake.

section 2 But let's see how the Author proves his antecedent, viz. That the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter, as an Apostle, or as an Elder, but as a Bel [...]ever. Only by the way, first, 'tis worthy observation that these of the Independent way, are not at agreement among themselves, yea nor some of them with them­selves, touching this mater of the first subject to which the power of the Keyes was given, as we see marked in their own expressions by the learned Mr. Caudrey, in his scheme of contradictions and contrarieties in the Independent way subjoyned to his vindiciae vindiciarum. I shall here note some few of them to this purpose for the Reader, who, may be, has not the book at hand.

section 3 Now see the Authors Argument, upon the confession of his faith, had he this trust bequeathed to him, Mat. 16. 16. Therefore to the Church of Believers, and believing with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal, was the Keyes of power primarily given, and to the Elders in the second place, as exerted out of this first estate, and as Officers and Servants of it. Answ. And first note some­what upon the consequent.

section 4 1. The consequent as here inferred is much different from that which is propounded in the beginning of the paragraph, there it was propounded thus, the power of the Keyes was not first given to Peter as, &c. but as a beleever, here it is the Keyes of power, the former expression, (supposing there were such a distinction of Keyes, as Keyes of power, and another sort of Keyes different from these) being indefinite, may import both, but the latter impor­teth a specification of a definite sort of Key [...]s. What means this variation? That the Reader may understand this mystery the bet­ter, 'tis to be observed, that when as hitherto in the Church of God, by the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, being understood the Ordinances of Jesus Christ which he hath appointed to be ad­ministrate in his Church, or the power of administring these Ordi­nances under himself, these Keyes have been distributed unto the Key of Knowledge, or Doctrine, which is the preaching of the Go­spel, taking in therewith the Sacraments as the Appendicles and seals of the Gospel, and the Key of Jurisdiction, or Discipline, which consists in Censures and absolution from Censures: Independents of late have forged new sorts of the Keyes, whereby they have confounded themselves, and wound confound the whole Church of Christ in the mater of its Government. They tell us there is 1. a Key of Knowledge or Faith, the first subject whereof is every Be­liever, whether joined to a particular Congregation, or not. 2. A [Page 207] Key of interest, power or liberty, which is in all the Brethren of a particular Congregation. And 3. a Key of Rule and Authority, which they say is in the Elders of a particular Church or Congre­gation. The meaning and refutation of these new forged Keyes see in Jus Divin. of Church Govern. part. 2. c. 10. pag. 108, 109. &c. and Mr. Caudreys Vindiciae clav. c. 2. per tot. Now when Mr. Lockier in the consequent of his Argument speaks of the Keyes of power, it would seem he must understand that second kinde of Keyes. For I know no other going under that name amongst In­dependents. Yet may be, by a new conception of his own, he means that all power of government distinguished from the Preach­ing of the Word and Administration of Sacraments, exercised in or­dination of Ministers, and dispensation of censures. Again see another great variation. At first he propounds that the Keyes were given to Peter first as a beleever. This may import (and as spoken there by the Author without any explication, cannot be otherwise understood but that it doth import) that they were given to him as a single beleever; but now in the consequent inferred in the pretended proof, he sayeth thus, they were given first to the Church of beleevers, this is a society of persons collectively and unitedly taken, and not persons singly. 2. Where shall we ever read, the Elders or Ministers called the Officers and Servants of the Church, that is, (as Mr. Lockier meaneth) by way of relati­on to the Church as a Superiour, or Mistresse, deputing and imploy­ing them to officiat and act in her place? We find indeed they are called the servants of the Church of beleevers by way of relation of a means to an end, for their good, 2 Cor. 4, 5. 1 Cor. 3. 22. as Angels or Ministring Spirits sent forth to Minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. Heb. 1. ult. But they are only Christs Officers and Servants, by way of relation of Deputs to officiat, and imployed to serve unto a Superior and Master deputing to offi­ciat, and imploying to serve in his place, and are set over the Church by him.

section 5 But now consider we how this consequent is proven. The Argu­gument as propounded by the Author is Enthymematick, and must suppose another premisse beside that which is expressed, which must be true as well as that expressed, to make the consequence [Page 208] good. Now I humbly desire him to give us that suppressed and sup­posed premisse. Verily, keep him to one syllogisme, and it is impos­sible to do it, observing the rules of good Logick and reason. But it may be done, may be, by two processes; Well then, they must be these for ought that I can conceive, (if he can do it otherwise and better, let him do it, and we shall consider of it) the first is this, that which was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith, was given to him as a Beleever: But the Power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon the confession of his faith Ergo, &c. then ta­king this conclusion for a ground of the second it must be thus That which was given to Peter as a Beleever, was given to the Church believing with such a faith as Peter believed. But to Peter as a Believer was the Keyes of Power given Ergo, &c. It might be no­ted upon the major or first proposition of this latter sylogisme, that which was given to Peter as a Believer was given to the Church as believing with such a faith, as he believed with; That if in the at­tribute thereof, the Church be understood collectively, for the society of such Believers, as united and associated; and withall when it is said, that what was given to Peter as a Believer was given to the Church (thus taken collectively) believing with such faith, the meaning be, that it was given only to the Church considered, viz. collectively: then the connexion is not necessary (and so it is false, because it is materially and indeed an hypothetick propo­sition, and in an hypothetick proposition, if the connexion be not necessary, the proposition is false, as Logicians knows) for that which was given to Peter as a believer, might be given to the Church as believing distributively, i. e. to every one of the Church belie­ving, singly. If it shall be said, that that proposition may be men­ded thus that which was given to Peter as a Believer not singly considered; But as associated with others, that was given to the Church, &c. 1. That qualification is not once mentioned by this Author, nor hinted. 2. Seeing this qualification must be again ta­ken in also in the assumption, thus the Keyes of Power was given to Peter as a Believer, not singly but as associate, then I say, sup­pose we should grant that in the Text now under our hand, Math. 16. 16. the meaning were that the Power was given to Peter as a Believer: Yet, what could the Author bring from that Text to [Page 209] shew that it was given to him as a beleever, not singly; but as qualified with this consideration, as associat with other beleevers? There is not the least hint for this in the Text: But somewhat to the contrair. See Caudrey Review. Of Mr. Hookers Survey. cap. 11. p. 172.

section 6 But the weight of all this proof brought by our Author here, hangs upon the major or first proposition of the former syllogisme, viz. what power was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith, was given to him as a beleever, i. e. considered under this formality, to be a power competent to him, simply as he was a beleeving person. The weight of all the proof, I say, hangs so up­on this, that unlesse it stand good and be necessary, all falls to the ground, and indeed it is but a groundlesse supposition, of no ne­cessity, and may be as easily denyed, as it is supposed. Why? Might it not be, that Christ did upon Peters making so eminent a confession of faith give unto him a power, competent to him not simply, as beleeving with such a faith, and so not common to all beleeving with such a faith: But officiall competent to him as in such a particular office amongst beleevers, or constituting him for­mally, such an Officer? What evidence or necessity of reason can be brought to the contrair of this? I think M^r. Lockier did wiseli­er to suppresse and suppose this basis of his proof, then to have ex­pressed it, because the expression of it would too evidently disco­vered the weaknesse of his proof of his main point, that the Keyes of power, or power of the Keyes, was first given to beleevers, and not to the Officers in the Church. And now I must professe, I wonder much, that (after so many learned men have debated so much on that Text and brought so many considerable Arguments to prove that it cannot be meant in that place, that the power of the Keyes was given to Peter simply as a beleever, or to the Church of beleevers; And given so considerable answers to all Ar­guments brought by others to the contrair, a man of reputation) as Lockier, should come forth with this poor one, that power was given to Peter upon confession of his faith. Ergo, it was given to him as a beleever, or under that reduplication, as if this were enough to dash all, and in reason to convince all gain-sayers. The Lord pity them that are caried about with such a wind of Do­ctrine. [Page 210] I think it not needfull here to waste time and Paper in bringing Arguments to prove that, the power of the Keyes was given to Peter not as a beleever, nor to the community of be­leevers; but as a Minister and Officer in the Church, there is aboun­dance said to this purpose already by learned men, to whom I refer the Reader: namely, Jus Divin. of Church-Government, Part. 2. C. 10. pag. 93. & seq, Mr. Rutherfurd peaceable plea C. 6. pag. 63. Due right. C. 1. pag. 8. &c. C. 8. pag. 179. &c. Caudrey vindic. vindiciar. Cap. 1. Sect. 1. and Review of Hoo­kers Surv. c. 11. Baily disswasive from the errours of the time, c. 9. What is brought against any of these upon the point by Hooker in his Survey, I doubt not but will be sufficiently examined by another more able then 1. If Mr. Lockie [...] will be at the pains to represent any thing upon their Arguments, we shall be ready, with the LORDS assistance, to take it to consideration.

section 7 To that which the Author citeth from Gerson, Claves dat [...] sunt Ecclesiae, ut in actu primo, & Petro, ut in actu secundo. I could have wished that the Author had pointed us to the place where we might have found it, and considered antecedents and con­sequents. I confesse I have not so much leisure as to read over e­very mans writs to find out every passage that may be cited out of them at randome. Yet for Answer, this of Gerson, maks nothing for the Authors purpose. For, 1. By the name of the Church, Gerson understands the Church Universall, as is clear to any that knows any thing of his and the Parisian Doctrine of his time. Our Author means a particular Congregation, to which the Inde­pendent way asserts, the fulnesse of the power of the Keyes to have been given, of such a subject recipient of the power of the Keyes, Gerson never dreamed. 2. Gersons mind was not, for ought can be perceived in his writs, that the power of the Keyes was given first to the Church, as distinguished from the Rulers and Officers, as the subject in whom it is formally inherent and so to be acted formally thereby: But to the Church as conveened and re­presented in a generall Counsell, in the Church Synodically conveened. Potestas Ecclesiasticae jurisdictionis, si sit Ecclesiae data, Concilium generale representans Ecclesiam, habet illam; imo videtur quod Ecclesia sparsim considerata, non habet illam [Page 211] potestatem, nisi in quodam materiali seu potentiali, sed Congre­gatio & unitio quae fit in Concilio generali dat ei formam. De po­test. Eccles. Consid. 4. Whence it is evident that in these words, Claves datae sunt Ecclesiae, ut in actu primo, & Petro, ut in a­ctu secundo, Gerson is not to be conceived to speak of the Church denotating the body of beleevers only, as contradistinguished from all Officers and Ministers, and so is not speaking of Peter as com­prehending or representing all Officers and Ministers, but of Peter under the imaginary notion of a Pope or Head of the Church, and as standing in contradistinction both to the body of beleevers and also to all Inferiour Officers and Ministers, even conveened in a Councell, and so of the Church, as comprehending all Inferiour Officers and a generall Councell of them. And here, because some are ready for the Independent Tenent, concerning the first subject of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction, to alledge the judgment of the Parisian Theologs, at, and after the time of Councells of Basil and Constance, affirming the Church to be that first subject, it is to be observed carefully, besides that these Theologs, means not a particular Church, but the Universall Church; That the Question which they had in hand with their adversaries the Papaline flatterers, was not between beleevers as such, and all Officers and Ministers as such, but between the Universall Church as comprehending Inferiour Officers, and that as conveened in a generall Councell, on the one part, and the Pope of Rome on the other: Whether the pre­cedency of Ecclesiastick power and jurisdiction, was seated in the Pope, or in the Universall Church so considered as we have expres­sed? This was the state of the controversie, and that for which the Parisian Doctors stood, was the latter of these. This is clear to all that have read any of these Doctors Writings upon that ma­ter: So that to alledge their Assertion concerning the first and su­pream subject of Ecclesiastick jurisdiction, for the Independent Te­nent in this Question, which is between a particular Church of be­leevers on the one part, as contradistinguished from all Officers and Ministers, and Officers of the Church upon the other, is very im­pertinent.

section 8 His second Argument, SECT. 3. is thus, Elders are set over the Church, by the voluntary choise of the Church, whereof they [Page 212] are such Officers, who choose them to be their Ministers in the Lord, and may depose them again, if they prove unworthy of such a station: Therefore have they no absolute power over that Church, to which they are servants; but in the nature of guides, to direct them in the wayes of the Lord, and so long as they go right, to be honoured and followed; but if otherwise, to be admonished; and if impenitent to be rejected, i. e. Excommunicated as they whose sins follow after to judgment. Now such judgment could not be exercised upon Elders, if such an exempted power be taken to themselves, without the Church, but might do what they please with the Church in which they are Servants, and the Church not able, at least not suf­ficiently able to do any thing to them; which is to make them Lords over Gods Heritage, 1 Pet. 5. 3. Answ. Here is much imper­tinency in the conclusion inferred, and in the antecedent bare As­sertions, begged but not proven, and never will be: 1. The con­clusion propounded in the Assertion was, that the Elders in a par­ticular Church are not to exert power in most weighty maters, as admission of Members, ordination of Officers, Excommunication, without the consent and approbation of the Church, i. e. without the judiciall concurrence, consent, and joynt authoritative vote of the members. Now that which is inferred as the conclusion here, that they have not an absolute power over the Church, an exem­pted power to do what they please with the Church, I appeal to all rationall men to give their judgement if this and that be all one. Why? May it not be that the Elders or Officers set over a parti­cular Church may exert power in putting forth such acts of Go­vernment without the joynt authoritative consent and vote of the members of that Church, and yet notwithstanding, not have ab­solute power over that Church, an exempted power to do with the Church what they please? Yes verily: for notwithstanding that, they may in their exerting of power of these acts of Govern­ment. 1. Only act Ministerially and adstricted to a certain de­finite rule over which they have no power. And 2. if they in their exerting their power deviat from that rule and act contrary to the direction thereof, the members may have liberty, upon discerning, by the privat judgement of discretion to refuse obedientiall con­sent to them. 3. And there may be an authoritative power over [Page 213] and above them to which they may be countable, who may au­thoritatively correct and redresse their deviation, and to which the people may have recourse for that [...]ffect. And if so, then their exerting of power in the maters of Government tho without the joint judiciall and authoritative consent and vote of the members therein, is not an absolute power, an exempted power to do with the Church what they please. And so indeed it is in our Doctrine. The power it allowes to Elders and Officers to exert acts of Go­ver [...]ent, without joint judiciall authoritative consent of the members, is a Ministeriall power adstricted to a certain and sove­raign rule of Christs Laws set down in his Word: It allowes to people a liberty, yea asserts it to be their duety, to prove in the judgement of privat discretion, if the Officers in their actings of Government deviat from, or crosse the rule, or not; And in case they do, not to give their obedientiall consent therunto: And that there is authoritative power above the Elders of a particular Con­gregation, &c. So that the Author deals not ingenuously enough, in insinuating such an aspersion upon our Doctrine, that by it is gi­ven to the Elders of a Church an absolute power over the Church, an exempted power to do with the Church what they please. But now judge if the Independent way (in that strain of it followed by our Author) be not guilty of giving a power very like this to members over Officers: When as it allows to the members, or the greater part of the members, of a particular Congregation (which may be 3. or 4.) to censure, depose, Excommunicat all their Of­ficers (which must be 3. at least) by a supream Independent Au­thority, without any Superiour Authority on earth left to have recourse to for redresse, were their proceeding and sentence never so unjust, this I am sure is very absolute, exempted, and lordly­like indeed. Well then, correct the conclusion as it is inferred here, and reduce it to the more modest and ingenuous terms of the Assertion.

section 9 The antecedent or proof which the Author brings in this Argu­ment for his Assertion (and is very confusedly set down) in effect is made up of these Assertions. 1. A Church by their voluntary choise, not only choise their Elders, But 2. makes i. e. ordains, them in their Office, 3. May depose them again, the Elders are [Page 214] the Churches servants, by way, to wit, of relation to her as a Mi­stresse. 4. The Elders are only guides to lead the Church, to wit, as a Chair-man or Moderator in a Judicatory, guides and leads the proceedings of the Judicatory. 5. The Church, if the Elders go wrong, may not only admonish them: But 6. if impenitent, re­ject, i. e. Excommunicate them. Ans. 1. If the Church, or­dain their Elders, may depose them, may Excommunicate them: To speak of Elders exerting power but not without consent and approbation of the Church, is, give me leave to say it without of­fence, upon the mater a Gilli-maufrey. The Church can, and does exert Power it self by it self without Elders exerting any Pow­er, in these weighty maters of Government And what need then to talk of a necessity of their consent and approbation to the Elders exerting the Power? nay by these suppositions the Elders, as such, shall have no Power, no judiciall or authoritative Power at all, to exert; As such they are at most only as Chair-men and Moderators to the Church in its exerting Power. But. 2. all these Assertions making up the Antecedent or proof, except the first concerning the electing of Officers (which is no act of Government, nor makes a man a Minister, but only is a designation of the person to be made a Minister by ordination, or an application of him being a Minister, to exercise his office in a particular charge) and the 5th. concerning admonition (which is not an act of jurisdiction or authority, but a duty of love and mercy competent to every single Professour) except these two, all the rest are but bare unwarranted Assertions, and a very begging of the things in question: More of them seve­rally hereafter. Only in a word now here concerning the last, that the Church may Excommunicate their Elders, however many of the Independents, affirme so: Yet some of them, and these not of least account, have scunnered at it, yea denyed it down-right, and given reason for their so denying. As M^r. Cotton, Excommu­nication is one of the highest acts of rule, and therefore cannot be performed but by some rulers. The Keyes, pag. 16. The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbyterie, because they have not received from Christ an office of rule without their Officers, ib. no act of the peoples power doth properly bind, unlesse the au­thorit [...] of the Presbytery joine with it. 3. But one word more [Page 215] for the present, when the Author sayes that the Elders are set over the Church and yet makes them but servants of the Church, in the sense we have before expressed, subject to judiciall tryall and censures by the Church, &c. he gives us but an empty word, nomen sine re, which is another scorn, it is impossible by his way, to shew us one act of authority, in regard of which, they can be said to be over the Church. See this I say, made good impregnably by Reverend M^r. Rutherfurd, due right of Presbyteries, pag. This is to be look­ed after the retrogra­dation of the number of pages mentioned by the Printer in admoniti­on about Errata. 311. to 323.

section 10 As to the Latine testimonie cited by the Author to confirm what he has been saying concerning the Church of believers power to censure their Elders and Officers, I professe I know not what Au­thor he means, nor have leisure to enquire. But to the two Texts of Scripture pointed at in it: 1. The former Act 11. 3. 'tis true, Peter there giveth an account of his going in to the uncircumcised. But 1. was he required by a Church of Believers only and contra­distinguished from all Elders and Officers (in which notion it is that Mr. Lockier is now speaking of the Church) to do this before them judicially? this is a dream: The Church at Jerusalem, be­fore whom Peter was at that time, consisted of Elders as well as Believers▪ And the Apostles and Brethren that were in Judea heard, &c. and it is well observed by the Nedder Dutch Notes, that under the name of Brethren, are comprehended the Elders, who afterwards, c. 15. 23. are distinguished from private brethren, 'tis said, v. 2. that some of the Brethren contended with him for that deed, now, supposing that they challenged him judicially, and that he made his Apology judicially, how shall it be evidenced from the Text that he did it, before the body of Professours, and not before the Colledge of Apostles and other Elders only, sitting and cognoscing judicially upon the mater? the sharpest sight in the World will not see a vestige of any thing of this kind in the Text, nor can any man shew us either precept or example in Scripture for a Church of Believers alone judicially cognoscing and giving sen­tence of censure upon their Elders and Rulers. 2. Suppose there had been none but private Believers amongst them to whom Peter made that Apologie to remove the scandall; Yet that were but a poor ground to prove, that he did it to them judicially sitting upon [Page 216] him, and as having authority to judge and censure him, for why? One Christian doing any thing at which offence is taken, may and ought to give an account and satisfaction to another privat brother who is offended, for removing the offence: Yet hath not a privat Brother authority or power, judicially to cognosce and passe sen­tence upon another Brother.

section 11 2. To the other place, 1 Cor. 3. 22. brought for that, Peter and so other Church-Officers are the servants and Ministers of the Church. 1. 'Tis true the Pastours there are said to be the Chur­ches, and so also are the world, life, death, things present, things to come, and all things. But I hope none will be so absurd as to say that the World Life, Death, &c. are the Churches, as servants, in way of relation to the Church, as a Mistresse, calling, commissi­onating them under Her▪ they are the Churches as means to Her good, and so are the Pastors and Rulers Her servants in this sense. 2. Tho Independents will not stand to affirme that ordinary Offi­cers are the servants of a particular Church as their Mistresse com­missionating them and having Power over them; Yet I am ready to think their stomacks will stand at it, to affirme so much of the Apostles of Jesus Christ as Apostles: And yet by that Text even the Apostles themselves as Apostles are held forth to be the Chur­ches, as well as ordinary Pastors and Rulers, and that in a like ma­ner for ought can be perceived by the Text.

section 12 The 3. Argument, SECT. 4. Because otherwise (if the Elders should exert power in these maters of Government without the joint Authoritative consent and vote of the members of the Church) the Elders cannot but offend the little ones of the Church, yea the tender consciences of stronger Brethren; But offence ought not to be given to Christ little ones, one of the least of the family. Er­go, &c. To prove the assumption needlesse pains is taken. Now if this Argument hold good, it will conclude, that not only men but women also, must have joint authoritative consent and vote with the Elders in these maters of power and Government: For he might as well in the proposition spoken, what he sayeth, of Sisters, whether little ones or of stronger, but of tender consciences, as of Brethren: And it is no lesse sin to offend the one, then it is to offend the other. But now see we how the consequence of the [Page 217] proposition is proven, for as much (saith he) as persons may be taken in and cast out, and Officers be set up and pulled down, con­cerning either of which, they can have no distinct knowledge, or at least no sufficient ability to hinder, because decisive sentence lyes altogether in the Eldership. [...] [...]lbeit only the El­dership exert power authoritatively in these [...], and sentence de­cisively, yet professours notwithstanding this, may have sufficient knowledge for their privat and obedientiall consent and concur­rence with the sentence of the Eldership, as we have cleared be­fore. And so that part of the proof of the connexion of the pro­position, that if the Eldership only without the Church of belee­vers, exert power authoritatively, the Elders cannot but offend, &c. because if so, the members cannot have distinct knowledge con­cerning these things, &c. this is null, it seemeth the Author was sensible and therefore passeth from that former part to the second with that [or at least] which usually signifieth a tacite passing from that which has been said before, and a betaking to what fol­loweth to be said: They can have no distinct knowledge or at least (saith he) no sufficient ability to hinder, &c. But 2. here lurks a principle of the grossest Levelling that I have heard of, and abro­gating all Government, but of a confused multitude; if privat professours, the body of a Congregation, must have joynt autho­ritative consent and vote with their Rulers in acts of Government, because it will offend them that they have not sufficient ability by their judiciall and authoritaive interposing to hinder the acting of the Eldership, the decisive sentence lying altogether in the Elder­ship: Then I say it is as good a consequence, that a Major and common Counsell of a City must not act without the joynt autho­ritative concurrence and vote of the body of the Citizens, lest they be offended for want of sufficient ability to hinder, by their judicial and authoritative interposing, the actings of the Major and Coun­sell. Again see the clear strength of this proof comes to this much, the people ought to have a joynt authoritative consent and vote with their Rulers, the Eldership; Why? Because they cannot but be offended if they have it not: For to have ability sufficent to hinder judicially and by authoritative vote (of this way of hin­dering he must be understood to be now speaking) and that, is all [Page 218] one thing. Now I say, there being in case of the Eldership of a particular Congregation erring and going wrong, superiour autho­rity to which people may have recourse for authoritative hindering or redressing of the errour and wrong acting, and withall a liberty granted to the people▪ upon evident discerning in their privat judg­ment, the errour [...] the Eldership, to withhold their obedientiall consent to the wrong sentence (which is sufficient to keep them from being accessory, unlesse it were first clear that by Gods ap­pointment they have a command, calling and warrand, also to in­terpose by a judiciall vote to hinder it, whith now in this Argu­ment is the conclusion to be proven and not to be supposed) if they be offended because they cannot and has not place to hinder it by their own judiciall and authoritative concurrence, and vote with the Eldership, the offence is not given but taken.

section 13 But saith he, neither is the offence taken but given, how proves he that? For as much as in these great transactions, the benefit or hurt of every member, is not only equally, but mainly concer­ned. The transaction of other things, which are meerly pruden­tiall, are not of generall concernment, or not of so great generall concernment, no doubt, do properly, and determinatly belong to that power which the Church doth institute within themselves, as their eyes and hands, more conveniently, decently, and expediti­ously to deal with. Answ. 1. A power as eyes, &c. i. e. Of­ficers instituted, i. e. made and ordained by the Church within it self, is a begging of a part of the Question, and a dream unknown to Scripture, which teacheth us that Christ hath set such Officers in the Church, and as for the instituting or ordaining of particular persons into these Offices, either he doth this himself immediatly, as to extraordinary Officers, or by the Ministry of other Officers, as to ordinary Officers, tho the designation of the persons to these Offices may be by the choise of the whole Church, 2. Not Of­ficers only, but the whole Church are eyes by M^r. Lockiers Do­ctrine, attributing to the whole Church joynt authoritative con­currence with the Officers in acts of Government: And where is the rest of the body if all be eyes? 3. It could been wished that the Author had expressed, what are these transactions meerly prudentiall or not of generall concernment, or not of so great ge­nerall [Page 219] concernment, which he saith, belongeth properly and de­terminatly to the Officers or Elders; Which had he done I doubt not, but we should have seen, either maters of meer order, no wayes importing any such power or authority, as Church Officers have attributed to them in the Word of God: But only such as a Chair-man or Moderator of a Judicatory may do in relation to its judiciall proceedings, who yet as such hath no authority over the Judicatory: Or some of them to be such transactions as are of as great generall concernment as any can be. I remember Hooker Surv. Part. 3. c. 3. pag. 41, 42. amongst other things gives to the Elders as properly belonging to them, in mater of censure and Excommunication, the Examination of the cause, and dogmaticall propounding of the sentence, and sayes that the fraternity has no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure propounded by them, then they have to oppose their Doctrine delivered in Preach­ing of the Gospel, and so that the one is as binding as the other. If these be not transactions, more then meerly prudentiall, of very great generall concernment. I professe, I know not what is. Nay, I affirme it, and it is evident, that hereby greater power is given to two or three Elders in a particular Congregation, then ever Presby­terians attiibuted, I say not, to the Elders of a particular Congre­gation, but to any Classicall Presbytery of many combyned Con­gregations: For by the way of Presbyterians, when a Classicall Eldership has given forth sentence of Excommunication, there may be an appeal to a more ample and Superiour Judicatory for judiciall recognition and redresse. But here by this Independent way, power is given to two or three Elders to propound the sentence of Excommunication, which the fraternity are bound to joyn with as much as to obey their Preaching, and there is no superiour remedy of judiciall recognition and redresse left to the party under Hea­ven. 4. If any maters of generall concernment wherein the bene­fit or hurt of every member is concerned, must be authoritatively transacted not by the Eldership alone, but by the members joyntly with them, I see not why all maters of generall concernment ought not to be so also: Magis & minus non variant speciem. But to come to the point wherin lyeth the proof of that, that it is an of­fence given and not taken when the members are offended, because [Page 220] they cannot by judiciall and authoritative vote, hinder the sentence of the Eldership, the decisive sentence lying only in the Elders. If because, in these transactions the benefit or hurt of every member is generally and greatly concerned; Therefore it is an offence gi­ven if they have not such power of judiciall concurrence and vote in the sentence: Then I say women also must have this power and if they offend for want of it (as they are as ready as men to offend if they have not power to get their will) the offence is given and not taken; Because women being members, are comprehended under that every member, and their benefit or hurt is concerned as well as mens. The Author will never be able to avoid this upon his medium. 6. If because in these transactions, the benefit or hurt of every Member of the Church is generally and greatly con­cerned, when they are offended because they cannot by judiciall and authoritative joint vote hinder the sentence, the decisive pow­er thereof lying only in the Elders, the offence is not taken but given, and therefore they ought to have such vote, then say I by as good consequence, it followeth, because in the great transacti­ons in civill Government, suppose, by a Major and his counsell, by a Parliament, the benefite or hurt of every member of the city or Common-wealth is generally and greatly concerned; If the Mem­bers offend that they cannot by joint authoritative vote hinder the sentence, the decisive power thereof lying altogether in these Go­vernours, the offence is not taken but given; And therefore they ought to concur jointly and authoritatively in these transactions with their Governours. Here is again Levelling, backed with reason such as it is. 7. Therefore to Answer directly, 'tis but a loose and false principle, that in all transactions in which the be­nefite or hurt of persons is concerned, all persons whose the hurt or benefite is therein concerned, if they offend that they have not sufficient ability to hinder sentence, by their joint authoritative vote, the offence is not taken but given, and therefore they ought to have such joint authoritative concurrence and vote. Nay it tends to the eversion of all Government and bringing in meer Anar­chy and confusion. Yet 8. I think from this rightly understood may be inferred somewhat which Mr. Lockier would consider in the mater of his next Assertion. For if all whose benefite or hurt [Page 221] is greatly concerned in Ecclesiastick transactions, ought to have au­thoritative joint concurrence in these transactions, then when as in some main transactions in a particular Congregation, for example Excommunication, many others benefite or hurt is greatly concer­ned, beside these who are Members of the Congregation, it must follow that these others ought to have power of joint authorita­tive concurrence in these transactions, or at least some for their in­rerest ought to have such power. And this I conceive will amount to the overturning of the supreme Independent tribunall (as Mr. Hooker calls it, Part. 3. c. 3.) of single Congregations; and set­ting up an Ecclesiastick authoritative Judicatory over more Congre­gations.

section 14 Arg. 4. SECT. 5. Because the spirit of discerning both respe­cting persons and things, is not consined as a peculiar to the Pres­bytery or Eldership of the Church—but the same gift may be in a great measure, in some of the Members, and a greater gift when all are joined together in the name of Christ and his pre­sence with them to discern and judge of a conjunct strength of saints what mighty things and glorious are spoken in Scriptures? That they shall judge the world, Angels, much more able to judge their own affairs: This is the one part of this sections Argument. There followeth another of which afterward. Now to this, 1. If this Argument hold good, then again Women, at least some Women, ought to have judiciall concurrence and vote jointly with the Elder­ship in transactions of Government. Why? the spirit of discer­ning may be in as great measure in some Women, as in some Men, and the greater will the gift be, when they with the Men are ga­thered together, and I think it will not be denyed that Women will be a part of the Saints who are to judge the World and Angels, 2. Upon the same ground, by proportion, it followes, because many private men may have the same gift of discerning in a great measure, that is in Magistrates, in the Members of Parliament; Yea, may be, in a greater measure in some of those then is in many of these, and there is a greater gift when all is joined together; Therefore all such discerning men must have joint authoritative consent and vote, with Magistrates, with the Parliament, in the Acts of Government. Here is again pleading for Levelling. 3. Because some men, may [Page 222] be, have as great a measure of knowledge and understanding for teaching the Word as Ministers, it followeth proportionally, upon that ground, that such men may and ought to Preach authorita­tively, as well as Ministers, and as Socinians, some Remonstrants, and Separatists teach, a gifted man needs not an outward calling to be a Minister; His gift is a calling sufficient. 4. To answer directly, to reason from a gift of discerning in maters coming under Acts of Government to actuall right and power to concur authoritative­ly in these Acts of Government, is a grosse and palpable non sequi­tur. Let a man never have such a measure of a gift, for exerci­sing Acts of Government or publick authority, he must besides, have the warrand of Commission or calling to exert them, else if he take upon him to exert them, he is but an intruder, as all men will grant that are not against both Scripture light, and light of nature, and for turning all Affaires Civill and Ecclesiastick into a Chaos of confusion. 5. Whereas the Author, saying, their wil be a greater gift when all (Officers and private professors) are joi­ned together, (viz. in these Acts of Government) in the name of Christ and his presence with them to discern and judge. We grant, that, when all private Professours with the Church Officers, are joi­ned together, possibly there may be a greater gift of discerning, by way of aggregation then when the Officers are alone: But where­as withall it is tacitely supposed, that all may meet in the name of the Lord (i. e. in his Authority) and may the more expect his presence for assisting the discerning & judging in these maters of Go­vernment: in the former he begs the thing in question, we deny that they do all meet for acts of Government in Christs Authority; and in the latter supposes a great mistake, for the promise of Christs assisting presence for judiciall and authoritative discerning and judg­ing, runs not equally along with the gift of discerning simply; But with his calling and commission to govern. That loe I am with you to the end of the world, as to Acts of Government, is not made to persons having the gift of discerning, simply, tho never so many of them met together: But to persons who beside their gift, are in­vested with his Commission. Therefore you must shew that per­sons have a Commission and Calling, beside their gift, to exert Acts of Ecclesiastick authoritative judging: Or to speak of expecta­tion [Page 223] of the Lords presence to assist their judging, let them be never so many, is to bid men presume to act with expectation of his as­sisting presence without a promise. There may be more of Christs presence expected to assist a few having a Calling and Commission from himself, in exerting Acts of Government; Then with a huge multitude though having gifts enough, but wanting Com­mission. If it shall be said that private Professours have a Commis­sion to judge authoritatively with the Eldership in these maters of Ecclesiastick Government. 1. Then the medium of this Argu­ment is passed from, for it alleageth no more but the gift of dis­cerning, to prove they ought to concur in authoritative judge­ment. 2. This is but said and begged, not proven; Shew us the authentick grant of that Commission. This much for the first part of the Argument in this Section, he addeth further thus.

section 15 The Scripture again saith that variety of gifts are given to the Church, as Christ will, and when he will, and where he will, and by what door, and by what mean hand he will, for the good of the whole, and light comes in some times from a little crany, and hole, when large windows are close shut up, and not one window leaf ope­ned, all the while businesses of great weight are in debate; So that the greatest cannot say to the least, I have no need of thee. All this help to the good of the whole, would be void, if the ma­naging of all things be committed wholly to the Presbytery, and the people left out, to see and judge implicitely, by their eyes and wills, who thus impropriat power. Answ. 1. Here is a foule misrepresentation of the Presbyterian Doctrine, as if it allowed no­thing to the people but a Popish implicit blinde obedience to the Elderships decrees. See this aspersion discovered and wiped a­way, before in our first SECT. and the Author in his own consci­ence knowes, may know, this is a wrong. Further, when Christ has by his institution appropriat a power to a certain order (and he has, as to Pastors and Doct [...]s, the ordinary publick authoritative Preaching of the Word, so to Elders in common the power of Disci­pline) for these alone to exert such power, is no impropriation. But 2. To the Argument propounded here, I say 1. If it hold good, as in the former, it will follow that women must not be excluded from joynt authoritative concurrence in exerting power of Government [Page 224] with the Elders more then men in the Church, Why? Women have their share of the variety of gifts given to the Church, and some of them a greater share then many men, and light may come in by such a weak hand as a woman, when, &c. And so all this help of their share of gifts will be made void if the managing be committed wholly to Elders and other men in the Congregation, and they left out, only to see, &c. And the very like Argument may, by proportion, be framed for admitting all privat persons in a Common-wealth to concur authoritavively in the Civill Go­vernment, with Magistrates. [...]. Take this A [...]ument in plain and full form, it must stand thus to prove the Authors Assertion propounded, SECT. 1. and intended [...] the conclusion here. If the Eldership or Rulers of the Church exert power in these acts of Government, without the joynt authoritative consent and vote of the people or other members, then the help which may be had to the whole, by that share of that variety of gifts bestowed by Christ upon the Church, which is in the other members, should be made void. But this ought not to be, Ergo, nor that. Now I deny the consequence of the proposition, the share of that variety of gifts given to the Church, which is in privat members may be of good use and help for the good of the whole, tho all of them do not concurre authoritatively in exerting or exercising acts of Go­vernment of the Church. May not privat members make their share of gifts forth-coming and helpfull for the good of the whole, by observing, instructing, exhorting, admonishing, and provoc­king to good works one another, in the privat extrajudiciall way of charity? Ay, but it may be said the help of these gifts in them to the good of the whole in the way of authoritative acts of Govern­ment is made void. Answ. This supposeth, that these gifts of privat members, are given to them by Christ, to be exerted for the good of the whole in the authoritative acting of Government, and that the authoritative actings of Go [...]ment, are appointed by Christ to be managed and caried by the formall influence and con­currence of these gifts given to privat members. And this is to suppose, and so, to beg the thing in Question. Yet further, we say the gift that is in privat members may be forth-coming to the good of the whole, which is to be effected by the acts of Govern­ment [Page 225] exerted by the Elders, albeit themselves concurre not with the Elders judicially and authoritatively in these acts, as by admo­nition of offenders, and informing the Rulers of the stubborn of­fenders, which is helpfull by way of preparation, [...]o the good of­the whole by acts of Government: Also by charitative admoni­tion of the Elders themselves, if they be [...]misse or partiall or o­therwayes wrong in exerting acts of Government; by proving in the judgement of privat discretion the actings of Government ex­erted by the Governours, and accordingly giving their obedientiall consent thereunto.

section 16 As for that mutuall help and need of the severall members of the Church in relation to one another for the good of the whole, spo­ken of, 1 Cor. 12. and hinted by the Author, 'tis impertinent to this purpose: For to omit many things which might be brought to clear this from that Chap. this one is sufficient: That 'tis evident the Apostle is not speaking there, of the mutuall need, mutuall help, and mutuall concurrence of the members of the body, by making their severall gifts forth-coming in judiciall Acts of Govern­ment for the good of the whole: As if when the Apostle saith the eye cannot say to the hand, nor the head to the feet I have no need of you (i. e. one member whether greater or lesse cannot say to another I have no need of thee, i. e. every one hath need of ano­ther) his meaning were, every one has need of another in autho­ritative judiciall actings of Government, and therefore we must all whatsoever members we are, help the good of the whole, by con­curring in such authoritative acting. No such thing. But he is there, for remedying the abuse of gifts amongst the Corinthians (amongst whom there was bestowed great variety of gifts) and for preventing Schisms which might be occasioned and produced thereby. Amongst many other considerations presented by him for that purpose, he is, I [...]y, shewing generally that the Spirit having distributed variety of gifts in the Church, not giving all to every member but some to one and some to another, there is no member can stand alone by it self, bu [...] needs the help of another and the gift thereof, whether it be a gift for ruling or for some other operation; And [...] it is, that some of the gifts spoken of by the Apostle there, are soul▪ as belongeth not to these acts of [Page 226] Government, nor are contributive of light, for directing, in go­ing about and exerting them. As for example, the gift of hea­lings, the [...] of speaking with tongues. But would the Author yet duely [...] the Apostles Doctrine along that Chapter, I am perswaded he might therein find as much as does very clearly evert his Assertion, [...] to privat professours, and members of the Church the [...] [...]he Keys and joint authoritative judici­all concurrenc [...] with the Eldership in the acts of Government. Nay, I think that one Chapter contains as much as over [...]urns all the In­dependent Brethren [...] new way and modell of Churches; besides many particulars in [...] contrary to severall particulars of this new way▪ that one generall, so clearly held forth in it, of an Univer­sall Visible Church, is [...]nough to batter it all to the ground, as might be evidenced, were it our purpose here. But for the pre­sent to the pa [...]ticular we are now upon, doth not the Apostle, there as also, Rom. 12. declare the Visible Church, in the constitution thereof to be a body▪ not similar, consisting of parts all homoge­neall or of the [...]ame nature, quality and operation, such as water, fire and the like are: But dissimilar, as mans body is, consisting of severall heterogeneall parts, or members of diverse functions, gifts and operations, some as eyes, some as ears, &c. some to be Rulers, some to be ruled. But if all must joyn in the judiciall and authoritative actings of Government, all are Rulers, all are eyes, and if so, where are the ears? The nature of the body of the Vi­sible Church, as it is declared to be constitute by Christ, is quite alte­red into another kind by this means.

SECTION III. Mr. Lockiers 5^th Argument prosecuted, from SECT. 6. to SECT. 11. inclusive discussed.

section 1 FIfthly (saith he SECT. 6.) in these weighty things foremen­tioned, Censures, Ordina [...]ions, &c. The Scripture is ex­presse, that the whole Church should be joyntly authoritative a­bout them, and not the Presbytery or Eld [...]ship of the Church a­lone. Hitherto we have had some Theologicall reasons (such as [Page 227] they are) brought by the Author for his Assertion: How he has acquite himself in these for his intended purpose, we leave it to all impartiall Readers to judge. Yet what ever weaknesse be in these, if he can bring us expresse Scripture for his Assert [...]on, if one ex­presse Scripture, we are ready to yeeld. See then now how he makes good this undertaking, only Reader take notice here, what it is for which he undertakes to bring expresse Scripture: That the whole Church should be joyntly authoritative, &c. if the whole Church, then Women and Children, are no part of the Church, or they also must be joyntly authoritative in these maters of Go­vernment. Either here is an hasty unadvised expression: Or an uncouth undertaking, that no sober man, I believe, will joyn in with him, to bring expresse Scripture for Women and Childrens joynt authoritative concurrence in the maters of Church-Government, which in effect, is as much as to undertake to bring expresse Scri­pture contradicting it self. But come w [...] to see how this under­taking is made good in these severall particulars, that Scripture is expresse that the whole Church (w [...]ether men of age, women and children all together, or men alone) ought to be joyntly authori­tative in these actings.

section 2 As for censures the command of Christ is that we tell the Church, Mat. 18. 17. which word, I judge, doth mean the whole Church, and not the Eldership only, unlesse I could find, the Church thus used in Scripture for the Presbytery only. If it should be said that Church here meaneth the Jewish Synedrion, and so by prop [...]rtion the Eldership of the Gospel Church. To this he Answereth two things. 1. That the Synedrion was instituted for civill affairs, Numb. 11. 17. and then takes some pains to clear that these Offi­cers mentioned in that place, we [...]e only Civill Officers, notwith­standing that they are said to have received a Spirit whereby they Prophesied, and then concludes, that to make a proportion be­tween a Civill station to an Ecclesiastick, is not regular. 2. I see no reason (saith he) from the context, why it should be thought, that the Jewish Representative, of [...]ne kinde or other, should be meant their conven [...] judicum, or their conventus Ecclesiastici, &c. Ans. 1. Mr. Lockiers judgement concerning the meaning of the word Church (I judge saith he) may have its own due re­spect, [Page 228] as the judgement of one man: But, [...] must give us leave to have re [...] [...]oo, [...] judgement of the many, Ancient and Modern, [...] for the [...] part, except of late, untill Mo­rellius, [...] and [...] [...]ose, have understood by the Church, [...] the Elders and Rulers of the Church. [...] Mr. Rutherf [...]oa [...]gable plea, cap. 8. p. 88. to who [...] we might [...]de many moe. 2. If so be that the word Church be of such signification, as that it has been ordinarly [...] used to signifie a [...]dge of Rulers and so mig [...] be applyed to signifie a Colledge [...] [...]rgument to say, the word [...] else [...] Scripture is used for the Presbytery or Eldership only: Ergo, neither is it so used here in this place: By a [...] consequence one might say▪ when it is said, 1 Cor. 11, 10▪ [...] ought to have power on her head, the word power cannot mean, a covering as a sign [...] of subjection to the power of the [...] a double me [...] [...], of the thing sig­nified for the [...] [...] one Correlatum for another) because the word pow [...] [...] found other where in Scripture used in this meaning. Sure if that consequence be good, the genuine true meaning of many places of Scripture (wherein words are found taken in such meaning, as they ar [...] not to be found taken in else where) should be overturned. If a word in some particular passage of Scripture, may, in cong [...]uity of speech, bear such a particular sense, and to take it in that particular sense in that particular place, is not contrary to the Analogie of faith, nor puts a sense upon the passage contrary to any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture, may consist with the purpose of Antecedents and Consequents in the context; It may well be Int [...]ret in such a particular significa­tion, in that particular place, th [...] it could not be found in that same signification, in any other place of Scripture: Much more if the purpose intended in the Text and some circumstances to be found in the context, be such as requires it to be taken in such a signification. Now to the pres [...] purpose in hand. 1. The ge­nuine grammaticall signification of the word Church, [...], is such as may well be applyed to signifie a co [...]tion or Colledge of Rulers, and certain it is, that the Hebrew word [...] is oftener then once in Scripture used for the convention [...] Colledge of Judges or [Page 229] Rulers, as Psal. 82. [...]. 1. 2. To take the word in such a sense here for the Colledge of Church Rulers the Eldership, puts no sense upon the place, contrary to the Analogie of fa [...]or any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture, l [...]t Mr. Lockier shew us any thing of this kind. What is brought by him a little after from 1 Cor. 5. 4. shall be considered in its place. 3. [...]here is nothing in the antecedents or consequents, or in the context of the place inconsistent with it. Yea 4. The purpose spoken of in the Text and circumstan [...] are such as seeme to requ [...] it to be taken in such a signification. [...]y, I will [...]ot say that the purpose or cir­cumstances will force us to take the name of the Church, here, in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the visible so­ciety of Christians, as well, privat professours as Rulers: Yet this I will say, that such is the purpose and such circumstances are in the context, as permits not all and every one Universally, who are coprehended under [...]signification otherwise, to be taken in as the definit persons to whom that dilation of offences, and inflicting of censure spoken of there, doth belong; but that must be the Rulers alone. I like well the judicious observation of Cameron in his prae­lect. on the place, pag. 26. Edit. Salmur. in 4. where after that he has said sundry things before, upon the use of the word Eccle­sia, at last has these words, which I think speaks the most genuine meaning of the place. ‘A [...] haec omnia & illud accedit, &c. to all (saith he) that hath been spoken this may be added, that these things may be said, to be told to the Church, which are told to these, who are with authority over the Church for as the body is said to see, when as only the eyes do see; so the Church is said to hear, that which these only hear, who are as it were the eyes of the Church, no [...] that the Rulers, are vicarii, or substitutes of the Church, as the eyes are not vicarii, or sub­stitutes of the hands and feet: But as the body is a certain who [...]e whereof the severall members have their severall functions, in the very like manner, the Church is a [...] body that consists of the com­paction of more members, to each of which belongeth their pro­per functions; so that when one presents an object to be seen by the eye, he is said to present it to the body, so he that dila [...]eth a matter to the Colledge of Presbyters he seemeth to dilate it [Page 230] to the Church whereof that Colledge is a part:’ so far he judi­ciously.

section 3 Now take the name of the Church in that sense that is compe­tent to the whole body of Christian Professours: yet that all and every one of the body signified by that name cannot be taken as the definite person to whom these actions spoken of here belongs, as formally concu [...]ing therein, I prove 1. because the actions here spoken of, as belonging to the Church, are Acts of Government and Authority, yea Acts of highest authority and power, receiving of publick judiciall delations, judging upon them, authoritative commanding amendement of the offence, inflicting of publick, even the highest censure of Excommunication upon disobedience: But cleat it is from Scripture that not to all and every one, members of the Visible Church, for example women and children, are Acts of Government and Authority, formally competent: and therefore these things ascribed here to the Church cannot be understood to be ascribed to the whole Church; Therefore I think Mr. Lockier must either say one of these two, that of the whole Church, wo­men and children are no parts, or that women and children must have an hand and concurrence formally, in receiving publick judici­all delations, &c. or else he must correct that, Which word (Church, Math. 18. 17.) I judge doth mean the whole Church, and expound it of all men of age in the Church, Professours as well as Elders: and then give us leave to ask him, where he can finde the Church, so used for only men of age professing, excluding women and chil­dren? And, to use his own Argument, if he cannot finde it so used otherwhere in Scripture, how can he judge it to mean so here? But 2. that the persons here designed cannot be all and every one of the Church, that are men of age, but must be the Rulers or Eldership only. I prove 1. by an Argument ad hominem, upon a ground acknowledged, confessed and practized by these of the In­dependent way themselves, well observed by worthy Mr. Baillie, Disswasive from Err. par. 1. c. 9. p. 192. they to whom offences are to be told immediately, after the two or three witnesses in a private way are not heard, are intended and meant here, when Christ saith, tell the Church; But the Elders alone without the people concurring with them, are these to whom offences are to be [Page 231] told and delated immediately, &c. Ergo. the Major or first Pro­position is clear in the Text: The Minor or Assumption is their own confession and practice. See Hooker Surv. Part 3. c. 3. p. 36. maters are first brought to the Elders, they must judge whether the maters be of weight or worth, examine the cause, call witnes­ses, take depositions, yea and at last ere ever the people give any vote, propound the sentence dogmatically, which the people are oblidged to obey in the same way, that they are oblidged to obey their preaching of the Gospel; So then either our Brethren must acknowledge that under the name of the Church here, Tell the Church, are intended the Elders alone, or their doctrine and practice of bringing scandals first to the Eldership thus as we have seen, must of necessity be not only groundlesse, beside Scripture warrand, but directly contrair to the Scripture in hand. And here it is remark­able that the learned and godly Mr. Parker, albeit he be of a judg­ment contrary to us touching the first subject of the power of the Keyes, yet is forced to acknowledge with us that in these words, Mat. 18. 17. Tell the Church, in the beginning of the Verse is meant the Eldership onely: De Pol [...]. lib. 3. c. 15. [Ecclesiam primo loco consideratam in his verbis, Praecisè partem Aristocra­ticam, id est Presbyterium, significare existimamus] Tho in the next immediately following words, If he will not hear the Church, he will have the people, as concurring with the Presbytery, to be understood, which is exceeding strange to me. But 2ly. that which we have affirmed, That it is only the Eldership whom Christ de­finitely intends under the name of the Church there, and not the people as to concurre authoritatively with them in the acts spoken of in the place, besides that Argument ad hominem, there be many other solide reasons both from the circumstances in the place, and from the nature of the purpose spoken of in it, comparing it with other places of Scripture speaking of the same purpose to demon­strate that Assertion. Being resolved to be as short as we can con­veniently in this part of our Examination, in regard the purpose herein treated, is so learnedly and largely handled already by o­thers, we spare inserting of these reasons here, and refer the Rea­der, for satisfaction in the point in hand, to Mr. Rutherfurds peace­able Plea, C. 8. desiring also Mr. Lockier, if he think fit, to assay [Page 232] an answer to his Arguments there for that which we have asserted.

As for Mr. Lockeirs insisting so much to refut [...] these who say that Christ in that direction, tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, &c. meant the Jewish Synedrion or Judicato­ry then standing, the it were granted which he intends, that Christ meant not that, yet it gives [...]o advantage to his cause, that not the Elders alon [...] of the Christian Church, but the whole people must be understand by it. Certaine it is, that Christ in giving these directions concerning Ecclesiastick proceeding in the mater of pub­lick scandals and c [...]nsures in the Christian Chur [...] at least allud [...] to the maner and o [...]er of proceeding in th [...] [...]ewish Church abo [...] maters of judgement and censures, and to their Syn [...]ry or con­sistory with which his hearers were well acquainted, that so they might the better understand his mind concerning the order he was now apoin [...] in the Christian Church, and that is sufficient fo [...] our purpose: For certain it is that in the Jewish Church, maters of judgement and censures, were never authoritatively managed by the people, but onely by their Rulers and Elders. Now Christ speaking to his hearers in a form of speach known to them, and al­luding to that way of Judicature in use amongst them hitherto, what else could they understand, by tell the Church, but, tell the El­ders of the Congregation, see Bez. great annot. on the place. So we need not insist upon examination of his two Replyes to these who say that by the name of the Church here is meant first the Jewish Synedrion, and then by proportion the Eldership of the Christian Church which was to be afterward. Yet this much I may say, that Mr. Lockier has but weakly refuted these: Therefore a brief word to each part of his reply to them.

section 5 To the first, viz. that the Synedrion was instituted for Civill Affaires between man and man, M^r. Lockier might known that these men he speaks against here, could answer that beside the Sy­nedrion instituted for Civill Affaires, there was another Ecclesia­stick, distinct from that Civill, for things Ecclesiastick, and consi­dering that so many See these cited by learned Gillespy, A [...]rons Rod, book 1. c. 3. learned men, much studied and acquainted in the Jewish antiquities, have asserted this Ecclesiastick San [...]hedrin distinct from the Civill, and given so many considerable reasons for it. I wonder much that Mr. Lockier could come forth with a na­ked. [Page 233] Assertion of the contra [...]e without the least shaddow of proof: As for that he speake for clearing of Numb. 11. that these Officers mentioned there, were Civill, is not [...]o purpose [...] these Au­thors; Because they grant these spok [...] of there [...] Civill Ru­lers, but they bring other places fo [...] th [...] [...]her Ecclesiastick Court. If Mr. Lockier would make it out, that there [...] no [...]nhedrim amongst the Jews bu [...] for Civill Affairs, he [...] well to take into consideration and solidely answer what [...] for the con­ [...]rate by that [...] Aaro [...] R [...]d, book 1. c. 3. throug [...] [...] must pu [...] [...] in mind, that he will find a [...] Godwyn, B. D. not only ass [...]ing upon the like grounds [...] Gillespy [...] that di­stinct Ecclesiastick Cou [...], [...]n his Moses and A [...]ron, l [...]. 5. c. 1. but also expresly affir [...]ing, that this of our [...] the Church, was spoken with relation to it. His wor [...] are [...]emarkable, and worth the inser [...] [...]ag. 199. The Office (saith he) of the Ec­clesiastick Court was [...]o put a difference between things Holy and unholy, and between clean [...]d [...], Lev. 10. 10. and to de­termine appeals in controvers [...] of difficultie. It was a represen­tative Church, [...] Ecclesiae, Matth. 18. 17. Because unto them belong [...] [...] of Excommunication: be­like this Learned man has not been of Thomas Goodwin, B. D. his mind touching Ecclesiastick Government; For sure I am that which he sayeth here is as contrary unto the Independent way, as one part of a contradiction to another.

section 6 As for the other part of his reply, SECT. 7. I will not contend for it positively that Christ meant the Jewish Ecclesiastick Court: It is enough for him that he speaks of the order of Judicature to be in the Gospel Church with allusion to that of the Jewish, and so as proportionall to it. But me thinks. Mr. Lockier reasons but weakly against them that sayes it is directly meant. There is (saith he) nothing foregoing or following that gives any leaning lang­wage this way: But much to [...] and signifie that he speaks of that Church which should spee [...] [...]ake place, to wit, the order of the Gospel Church. Ans. 1. Mr. Lockier so speaks here, as if these who Interpret that tell the Church of the Jewish Ecclesiastick Court, did so understand it of this, as to exclude the [...]der of the [Page 234] Gospel Church from the meaning of it. This is a mistake or a mis­representation of their mind, for they comprehend both under it as is known, a [...] so Interprets the direction, as for the present time relating to the Court of the J [...]wish Church, which was then in present being, and enjoyning the same course by Analogy to be ta­ken by Christian then they should have Churches set up. 2. Tho I will not say [...] [...]ere is ground in the words to prove demon­stratively that [...] saying [...] the Church, meant it of the or­der of the Jewish Church directly, and so was [...]cting his present hearers in case of suc [...] offences mentioned there, to have recourse to their Ecclesiastick Court: Yet I cannot judge so basely of learn­ed Divines, that have understood so, as to think they would of meer will, without any expression in the words seeming to incline, or leaning that way, and indeed there are in the context two things especially which seems not improbably to lean that way. 1. Not only speaks he to his heare [...]s in the present [...]se [...] if thy brother offend thee, go and tell him, tell the Church, but also is speaking of a case that might have in that present time fallen out, and which falling out, it was necessary for them to know, and be informed, what course they should follow f [...]edresse of it. Hudson vindic. of the Essence and Ʋnity of, &c c. 1. p. 3. 2. It inclines not a little to understand a Church that was in present being among the Jews, because he applyes his present speech to the capacity of the Jews: Let him be to thee as an Heathen and Publican, who might not have communion with Heathens, and would not with Publicans. But Christians might eat and drink with both: I say not these are demonstrative grounds; Yet they may seem to lean that way. But see we what the Author brings from the Text that the order of the Gospel Church, and it only (for so he must be understood) is meant.

section 7 His first Ground is this, He (Christ) speaks in the verse foregoing of little ones, which he explaines to be true beleevers and converted ones, v. 6. & v. 3. & this is made the qualification of the visible mem­bers of the New Church in the Chapter foregoing, Mat. 16. 17. Ans. 1. That true saving faith and conversion is the qualification (viz. in the externall Ecclesiastick Court) of Visible Church members, is a dream; and that it is taught, Matth. 16, 17. is another dream; and that another kind of qualification (as to substance) is requisite [Page 235] in visible members of the Church under the N. T. then was under the Old is a third, as many of his own side will confesse, who usually, in that Question, bring Arguments from the constitution of the Church under the Old Test. 2. What necessity of conse­quence is here. Christ in the foregoing▪ v. 14. of Matth. 18. speaks of little ones true beleevers, and true faith is, the qualificati­on of members of the New or Gospel Church: [...]rgo, when v. 17. he bids a Brother, if he cannot get an offending [...]rother reclaimed by privat admonition, tell the Church, he is to be understood to speak only of the order to be kept in such offences, in the Gospel Church that was to be afterward; I confesse, if this consequent can be clearly deduced and proven from that ante [...]den [...] per deci­mam nonam consequentiam I am deceived, certainly, the conse­quence of it is not immediatly evident, let the Author assay to make it out.

section 8 2. Ground, Then (saith he) the very words of censure in case the Church be disobeyed, are the same he useth to Peter when he gave the Keyes to him upon his faith, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, &c. Mat. 18. 18. and just this he saith to Peter, c. 16. 19. And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, &c. so that the one explains the other; That by Church is not meant the Presbytery or El­dership of one sort or other but the Gospel Church the Congregati­on of beleevers, these conjunctim have the power to censure—Answ. I confesse, I cannot well (such is, may be, my dullnesse) conceive what is the order and forme of this Argument in relation to prove that which he undertook a little before, viz. that in that, tell the Church, is not meant the Jewish Eldership whether Civill or Ecclesiastick. 1. If he would reason thus, the words of censure here used are the same with these, Mat. 16. 19. when the power of the Keyes were given to Peter upon his faith, and these are words expressing the order of the Gospel Church. Therefore by the name of the Church used here cannot be meant the Jewish Eldership. I Answer, then the Author considers not, that the first words of censure are such as are relative to the order of the Jewish Church, let him be to thee as a Heathen man and a Publi­can. Or, 2. If his purpose be to reason only thus. The power [Page 236] of censure spoken of here, being the same with that spoken of, Mat. 16. these to whom it is ascribed here, and given to there, are the same▪ the one pla [...] explains the other: But there, Mat. 16. it is given [...] Peter is a beleever, and so in him, to the Church of beleevers the Gospel Church, Ergo, here must be understood, not the [...] of [...]e and or other, J [...]wish or Christian, Answ. Its [...] [...]ver yet proven, not ever will be, that the power of the [...]yer; of binding and loosing were, Mat. 16. given to Peter, as a beleever, [...] to the [...] Church of be­leevers.

section 9 He adds for [...], These [...] have the power to censure and cast out, according to that, Corn. 5. 4. When you are gath [...]ed together, &c. to deliver such a one to Satan, &c. and by the same power [...]ved in again, that as his punishment was by many, so his consolatio [...] [...] reception might be by many also, as 'tis 2 Cor. 2. [...]. that Sat [...] might take no advantage, which is enough to shew, how that admission of members should be by a joint act of the Church, as well as excommunication of Members. ANSW. The Author contemns his Read [...] very much, when as he thinks it enough, to cite controverted Pa [...]ges of Scripture, and affirm they speak enough for his [...], without the least essay to bring any argument or ground to prove and clear that to be their mean­ing which he affirmeth. They are too too credulous that will be moved by such kinde of dictating, rather then disputing. We deny that the place, 1 Cor. 5. 4. doth import that the power to censure and excommunicate doth belong to the whole Congregation of be­lievers, as Judges and formall authoritative Actors therein. And we deny in like maner, that, 2 Cor. 2. 6. doth import that the re­ception of the censured or excōmunicated, is by the whole Congre­gation acting therein authoritatively. When Mr. Lockier shall be pleased to present us some reasons for what he saith, we shall take them into consideration. In the mean while, he must give us leave not to be moved by his naked Assertions, and withall we refer the Reader, for further satisfaction concerning these Passages, to Ca­meron. praelect. in Mat. 18. 15. p. 19, [...]0. Edit. Salmur, in 40. Rutherfurd. due right of Pres [...]. c. 2. pag. 36, 37. and c. 10. pag. [...]48, 349, 35 [...], 351, 352. Jus Divin. of Church Government, par. [Page 237] 2. c. 10. pag. 97. and humbly desires M^r. Lockier to consider what they have said on the places.

section 10 What followeth said by the Author in his 7^th. SECT, the con­trary to this understanding, &c. to the end: Is nothing else but a bitter railing, which I think the judicious godly men of his way will not own, and account unworthy the defi [...]ng Paper with transcribing it, onely briefly to it. 1. Whether [...]e Independent way or the Pres [...]yterian way of Government be liker and nearer to Prelaticall or Papall tyranny, [...]et all indifferent men judge: When as we put the authoritative and judicall Power of cen­sures in the hands of the Eldership or Rulers of the Church onely, we make not people meer spectators or witnesses of what is done; But give unto them a rational obediential consent, so that they are not oblidged to give their obedientiall consent and concurrence to the Elderships acts, if they find the [...] not agreeable to the Word of God: And your own most judicious and best advised, make the dogmaticall determination of censure, which they ascribe to the sole Eldership, as obligatory upon the people for their obedience, as we do the Presbyteries sentence, and as their Preaching of the Word of God [...]: [...] 2. whereas in the Presby­terian way, inferior Elderships are countable for their proceedings to Superior, more ample and larger Elderships, and incase of grie­vance by the sentence of an inferior, appeal and recourse may be had to a Superior more ample (which is far from the Prelaticall or Papall way, wherein the procedure is from moe to fewer till you come to one: A Lord Metrapolitan or an universall Pope) but in your way three Elders giving a dogmatical determination with four or five private brethren concurring with them (as they are obli­ged to obey their determination, as much as their Preaching of the Gospell) may Excommunicate a man and are accountable to none on earth in a Church way, to recognosce or [...]edresse, if they do amisse, and if they should deliver souls enough to Satan unjustly, there is none on earth that can autho [...]itatively call them to an ac­count in a Church way to say to them; What do you. Now let the World judge whether of these two be nearest a See a sad instance of this related by M. Cau­drey vindic. vind. Epi­stle to the diss. Papall power, three Elders with some few private brethren having supreame Pow­er on earth to Excommunicate persons, unaccountable, uncorri­gible [Page 238] by any Superiour on earth: Or some Presbyters acting in sub­ordination to a larger Presbytery, to whom recourse may be had for recognoscing their proceedings and sentence, and rectifying it, if amisse; and if these haply fail, then recourse may be had yet to a Synode▪ may be, consisting of a hundred Ministers, and as many or more choise Elders of all the Churches of a whole Province: Yea and if haply th [...] [...] a failing there, recourse may be had to a Sy­node of severa [...] [...]undreds of the choice Ministers and Elders of all the Churches of a whole Nation. I say again [...]et all indifferent men judge whether of these wayes be nearest to the Papall Power. 2. Its a foul misrepr [...]sentation that our Interpretation of the place, 1 Cor. 5. 4. is the very Doctrine of Iesuits of Rhe [...]s. We confesse, we say as they (because therein they say with the truth) that au­thority of giving sentence was not in the whole multitude of the Church, and that the Power of binding and loosing was not given to the who [...]e Church, at the subject; but for their good as the end, and in this they say righter then they that say the contrare (which they falsly ascribe to all Protestant Divines) But the Rhemists Je­suites puts that power in the hands of the sole Prelates, Office [...] that were never of Gods appointing, excluding all other Ministers of Christ, we with the Word of God, disclaiming all Prelates, maintain it to be in all the Ministers and Elders of the Church, to [...]e exercised by them conjunctim: Rhemists with other Papists, make their Prelaticall power and authority lordly, soveraigne, dictatori­an: tyrannicall, oblidging the people to absolute blind obedience. We give no power to Elders but Ministeriall, the actings and de­terminations whereof, ought not to be received by people in a way of blind obedience; but may and ought by them, be tryed and proven in the judgement of private discretion whether they [...]e agreeable to their rule, the Word of God, or not. 3. When as Mr. Lockier sayeth that Gods people are deprived of their best liber­ties, when they have not joint authoritative concurrence and vote in the Acts of Government, but these are only in the hands of the Eldership, and that is a bondage to them, and that 'tis little oddes under whom they have this bondage; one Prelate or many Presbyters. 1. I think upon more serious advice and deliberation he will take up that word againe, where hee [Page 239] calls, liberty of judiciall authoritative voteing in Acts of Govern­ment the best liberties of the people of God, I think he will find they have liberties much better then that. But, 2. does Mr. Loc­k [...]r indeed account it a depriving of people of their Liberties, and a bondage to be under the Government of Rulers, with whom they may not all and every one of them; joyn [...] [...]tively in the Acts of Government? Certainly this princip [...] [...]s under his words here, and beleeve tho it may please Levellers well (for it is just their language) yet it will not [...]ellish very well to such as have the present Government in their hand. [...] When he sayeth that Presbyters take power to themselves without the word (viz. in acting in Government without joynt authoritative concurrence of the people) and therefore may justly have the same title with other usurpers, &c. we say the Author bu [...] begs the Question (that they take that power without the [...]) which he has not yet proven, nor ever will; The Word of God being clear for it, that they are Rulers set over the Church to govern them, and people commanded to give obedience unto them in that relation; [...]nd therefore to call them, as [...], whom Jesus Christ never appointed to be Rulers over his Church, usurpers, is nothing else but to call good, evill, and light darknesse.

section 11 The Authors second instance to make out his generall Assertion undertaken, SECT. 6. is taken from the proceedings of the Sy­nod of Jerusalem, Acts 15. Where the Apostles themselves were present and diverse Elders with them, the matters being of great consequence, as well for faith as practice; Yet nothing was done in the beginning, carrying on, or ending of the same, but with inte­ressing the Congregation and the Brethren, their names being to the Letters, they speaking in the Assembly, they having satisfacti­on by Argument, and not overborn by Authority, and these join­ing their assent, in sending back chosen Messengers from amongst them, as Judas and Silas, to other Churches; they were the Apostles, Elders with the whole Church that joyned in it, Acts 15. 22, 23. If at any time the Church might been left out, it might have been at such a time a [...] this, when the inspired Apostles were present and in matters of this nature—yet would they not leave such an example, to future Churches of such a way. Ans. Were Mr. [Page 240] Lockiers cause he pleadeth for, never so good, yet I must crave leave to say, it is ill managed in this instance, If I have not ground to say so, I [...]ave to impartiall men to judge by these things fol­lowing. [...]. Let the maters handled and concluded in this Synod be, objec [...]ly, of never so [...]ca [...] consequence; Yet by Mr. Loc­kiers [...] prosecution of his [...] Assertion, namely, SECT. 30. and [...] The Synods Act and determination thereupon, was meer counsell, and no authoritative juri [...]dictionall decree. Nor could they do any more but counsell and [...], by the Inde­pendent Doctrine, (which [...] truth) But from this ad hominem. If [...] with Apostles and Elders, in a mater of meer counsell and advise; What is that to the purpose now in controversie? Because privat Christians may joyntly concur with [...]ders in Acts of counsell, does it follow that they must also joynt [...] [...]thoritatively concur with them in au­thoritative juridicall Acts of Government? [...]. When he saith that nothing was done, in the b [...]ginning, carrying on, or ending of these maters but with interessing the Congregation and the Bre­thren. 1. Why does he here use so ambiguous a word as, inte­res [...]ing the Congregation: and [...] not plainly and speci [...]icall [...] but with joynt authorit [...]tive concurrence of &c. may the [...] not be a interessing of persons, in the managing of such a publick procedure, and yet without their authoritative concurrence? viz. to be witnesses of the justnesse of the procedure, that they may have the more clear satisfaction in their consciences in giving their obedientiall concurrence, to have their consultative advice upon the businesse, to have their privat, tho not authoritative approba­tion? Mr. Lockier in all this Section does not once mention their joynt authoritative concurrence, because as I conceive, he thought the act of the whole Synod to be no authoritative juridicall act. 2. Whom means he by the Congregation, without whose inte­ressing in the whole businesse nothing was done? Whether the Congregation of Jerusalem alone, or also the Congregations and Brethren of Antioch, Syria and Cilicia? The latter cannot be said, as is evident: and to say the former. First is nothing to make out his purpose: Because these other Churches, being as much if not more concerned in the maters that were to be concluded in [Page 241] the Synod, if nothing could be done without the interessing or joynt concurrence of the Congregation and the Brethren of Jeru­salem, with the Elders, these other Congregations and Brethren, ought as much and more to have been interessed, and joyntly to have concurred. Again, nor yet can it be that all th [...] Congrega­tion or Church of [...]rusalem could [...]e so [...] to concur jointly in acting and voting that businesse in [...] with the Apostles and Elders (which yet M [...]. Lockie [...] [...] say) first the beleevers in [...]erusalem were so numerous that they could not all conveen with the Apostles and [...] one [...] and in one place to act and vote in the [...]. The [...] could not all meet together at once, in one place, for ordinary acts o [...] Worship, and so were indeed a Presbyteriall Church, as is demonstrat irrefragably, by sundrie, M^r. Rutherfurd. The Assembly in their Answers to the Dissenting Brethren. Jus. Divi [...] [...] Church Government, and others: And therefore the whole Church mentioned, v. 22. must not be understood of the whole Church of Beleevers in Jeru­salem, but of the whole caetus Synodious, the Synodicall multitude, the Synodicall Church.

section 12 But to answer directly, we acknowledge and maintain that not only this meeting was a proper Synod, but also the determination thereof was authoritative and juridicall, and as to that which Mr. Lockier intendeth here that the Congregation, privat Brethren, jointly concurred with the Apostles and Elders in the determinati­on. Granting that the Brethren mentioned, were privat Christi­ans out of office. 1. These were not the whole Churches con­cerned in the businesse that was determined (which yet he must say, if he would say any thing to his purpose intended in his first Assertion) as has been shown, yea, nor all the Church of Je­rusalem as hath been also shown. 2. We deny that these privat Brethren concurred with the Apostles and Elders authoritatively in the determination of the sentence. They gave at most but their privat assent and approbation, which we grant may be given unto privat Christians in any Synod. That they had not authoritative de­finitive vote, seemeth clear from somewhat expressed in the history it self of [...]at Synod observed by Mr. Rutherfurd peace. plea. c. 14. p. 213, First these only had definitive vote who met together Sy­nodically to consider of the Question. But these were only A­postles [Page 242] and Elders. c. 15. v. 7. Non dicit Lucas convenisse totam Ecclesiam; Sed eos qui ratione officij erant legittimi judices. Calv. com. in loc. again the Canons of the Synod are denomina­ted [...], decrees which were ordai [...]d by the Apostles and [...] Jerusalem, c. 16. 4. & 21. 25. the particulars rec­koned up [...] Mr▪ [...]ckier proves not the country. 1. That their names wa [...] in th [...] [...]yhodicall Letters (rather the Letter [...] were in their name generally: For we read [...]thing of their particular subscriptions) First this is no act of authority in it self. Second­ly, Nor doth it nec [...]ssarily imp [...] their author [...]tative concurrence in the determination co [...]luded in the sentence [...]f the Synod, and intimate by the Letters to the Churches. For as Letters being Writen to a multitude consisting of persons of diverse capacities, some publick and in office, some privat without office, may con­tain some things peculi [...]r to the one, some things belonging to the other, yea may recommend one businesse to both, but to be acted by them according to their different capacities and stations. So Letters as sent from such a composed company, in name of all, may contain some things as common acts of all in whose name they are written, and some things as proper acts of a part of them, or somethings as proceeding from all but in a different way according to their severall capacities, as proceeding from some authoritative­ly, and from others, a [...] giving their privat consent thereunto which may adde more weight to the authoritative determination amongst others. 2. For their speaking in the Assemb. 1 [...] It is not said in the Text that they did speak: The speech and Disputation that was in the Assemb. for ought appears, was amongst the Apostles and Elders before the Brethren; Not by the Brethren: what is said v. 12. that all the multitude kept silence [...], proves not that they disputed before; the word (as Mr. Caudrey well observeth, vindic. clav. pag. 54.) signifies no more but this, that they were quiet or held their peace from noise or murmuring, usuall with multitudes, they hearkned attentively. 2. Suppose they did speak, propose, and reason upon the matter (as we grant that privat Chri­stians may in a Synod, in an orderly way, so the 2. Book of Disci­pline of the Kirk of Scotland, c. 7.) that proves not [...]t they did vote authoritatively and definitively in the determination, that they [Page 243] received satisfaction by reason, proves it not neither: That may be necessary and given to clear mens consciences in concurring by privat approbation and rationall obedience. 3. That they joined their assent we shall not deny, but the Question is, what sort of assent, whether authoritative and definitive [...] [...] is not proven, nor can be proven from the Text. Their [...]urring in sending Messengers prove [...] it not.

section 13 As to what followes of Mr. Lockiers words in this 8. SECT. yet would they not leave, &c. 1. What he means by Presbyters Primats, and these introduceing superintendents bringing in gene­rall coercive Assem. I confesse I understand not, sure I am, Pres­byterians acknowledges no presbyters Primats, nor superinten­dants either, but that their way is very contrary to both. 2. I confesse the Apostles in their practice in this Synod left no example introducing of a Pope, but withall I think [...]hey left an example for a Synod (generall or particular) wherein Church Rulers may ju­ridically determine controversies in Religion according to the Word of God, oblidging people to obedience under hazard of Ecclesiastick censure (as shall be more cleared hereafter) and that this does not supersede any power of people or particular Assemb. of Saints (privat beleevers) that is competent to them by the grant and appointment of Jesus Christ. I close this purpose of this Section with the words of the Learned Professours of Leiden Synop. Pur. Theol. Disp. 49. de Concil. Thes. 29. ‘Si ex. Laicis cujuscunque status & conditionis sunt viri, pietate, sacrarum rerum intelligentiâ, sapientiâ & prudentiâ, modestiâ, pacis stu­dio & mansuetudine insignes, admitti & accedere possunt, sed vocati, seu ab Ecclesiâ selecti & missi, iique suo ordine & modo rogati, sententiam dicere:—verumtamen ab illis in publicâ hâc actione, consilium & arbitrium potius quàm suffragium re­quiritur. Adfuisse sanè plebem consilio, & Apostolis Presbyte­risque adstitisse, ut auditores, & testes, & silentio saltem suo, si non voce approbatores fuisse, consensumque praebuisse, videre est, Act. 15. Atque id etiam comprobat primarum & probatarum Synodorum praxis & usus ut in Concilio Carthaginensi sub Cy­priano liq [...]et. Interea tamen & populo Christi mane [...] h [...]c suum [Page 244] ex divino Verbo judicium sed privatum, [...]e humana placita pro divinis accipiat, Math. 7. 19.’

section 14 For h [...] 3. instance conce [...]ning elections of Officers, we grant that election of Officers is to be done by the [...]. But election is no [...] (which was one of the th [...] weighty things men­tioned in [...] [...]sse [...]ion, and repeated a [...]ai [...] SECT. 6. wherein he under [...]k [...] [...]hat the Elder [...] to exert power without the [...] authoritative [...] of the people) not [...] i [...] formally give the office power, [...] signes the per­son to be invested [...] the pow [...] by [...] be not one already ordained as [...] [...]he [...] of th [...]s [...] [...] to be Deacons, Acts 6.) or applye [...] [...] to exercise his [...] in this particular charge, if ordained and in office [...]. Nor is it any authorita­tive act of Government. Ordination is done only by the Presby­ters and Officers, as th [...] Deacons elected by the people were or­dained, not by them, b [...]t by the Apostles.

section 15 His 4^th instance is of ordination of Elders. This we acknow­ledge to be a potestative act of Ecclesiastick authority, and affirme that in Churches constitute and in the ordinary way of calling, by Christs appointment in the Words belongs only to these who have Ecclesiastick Authority, the Presbytery or Eldership. Let's see how Mr. Lockier sh [...]weth us expresse Scripture, that the people must joyntly conc [...]r [...]uthoritatively therein. His first Scripture is, Acts 1. [...] Communibus calculis, simul suffragijs ele­ctus est: By joynt voice was Matthias ordained to his place; Af­ter the Lord had pointed out which of the two should be successor to Judas, one would have thought that the Lord pointing out the man, had been enough to formalize the mater; And y [...]t lest this might prove a means to justle out the priviledge of the whole Church in matters of essentiall concernment, after the Lords designation which was proper to him, they joyntly take this designation, and enstate him amongst them, not by the suffrages of some, but by the suffrages of the whole Church by preparing and drawing out of the whole to this particular work by the Apostle Peter, who stood up in the midst of the Disciples, the number being about an hun­dred and twenty, and speaks of this mater joyntly to a [...]. Answ. 1. Granting that by that word [...], were signified an [Page 245] act of ordination performed upon Matthias formally constituting him an Apostle: Yet there can be nothing brought out of the Text to prove that all the Church present concurred formally in that authoritative act▪ Mr. Rutherfurds reasoning from the Text to the contrary, to shew that it was only the Apostles, is very con­siderable, Due righ [...] of Presbytery, c. 8. pag. 1 [...]0. [...]eed not transcribe his groun [...] [...]e [...] Mr. Lockier answ [...] [...] ▪ What he brings is either [...] and [...] sufficient to prove his point o [...] an addi­tion unto, or rather a corrupting of the Text, or a begging of [...]he Question. 1. That the who [...]e hundred and twentie were drawn out to this Work, and Peter spa [...]e [...] them all [...]bout the mater and told them that one amongst them must beg [...]en; [...]s a poor Argu­ment to prove that all were to act formally in the authoritative act of the ordination of the man. They might all be called out to the Work, and Peter might speak to them all and yet not all of them be there in one and the same capacity as to [...]at Work; But some as witnesses and consenters, some as formall actors. 2. That Peter in his speach said to all, that one of them, might be chosen by them. i. e. all of them. This is a plain addition unto or corrupting of the Text, wherein there is no such thing. Peter sayeth, of these men that hath companied with us—must one be ordained to be a wit­nesse, he sayeth not must be ordained by you. 3. When he say­eth they appointed, they gave forth their lo [...] they numbered, mea­ning as he doth, they all, the hundred and twenty, he begs the thing in Question. But 2. I confesse I never thought that in this place was held forth an ordination performed by men, at all, People or Apostles. I find learned Mr. Caudry of the same judgement Vindic. Clav. pag. 28, 29. whose solide considerations I present here. That place Act. 1. was not an ordinary case, wherein the people had little or no hand. I adde the Apostles themselves had little or no hand, For 1. they were confined to some sort of men that had conversed with our Saviour. 2. They propounded two, it was not in their power so much as to nominate the particular man. 3. The Lord himself determined it, and not the Apostles, much lesse the People; As for that word [...] stood upon (as Ma­ster Lockier also stands upon it) it cannot be properly taken, as if they by their votes or suffrages had constituted or ordained Mat­thias [Page 246] to be an Apostle, but barely thus: Seeing God had chosen and ordained him they accepted him by orderly subjection to the revealed will of Christ. With this Interpretation agre [...] that of the learned Nedder Dutch Interpreters, in their Annotation upon the place. All this [...] election they did acknowledge and accept for good. And is it [...] [...]mmonly by Divines made one of the Characters and Proper [...] [...] of Apostles, [...] the [...]ad their calling to that function, not by the ordinarie [...] Ministry of men; Bu [...] extraordinarly and immediately from Christ himself; As Paul alledges for himself [...]o prove his Apostleship. G [...]. 1. 1. Paul an Aostle not of men (this is common to all Ministers) nor by men, (i. e. the inter [...]ening Ministry of men) but by Jesus Christ. But one word more here: That of Mr. Lockiers, one would think that the Lords pointing out the man had been enough—but least this might prove a mean [...] [...]o justle out the priviledge of the whole Church—seemeth to me, to say no more, very inconsiderately said▪ What more could the Lords full constituting Matthias an Apostle, without any interveening Act of the Church, prove a means, to justle out the priviledge of the Church in maters essentiall, than his sole immediate both electing and ordaining all the rest of the A­postles, Mark 3. 13, 14.

section 16 His second Scripture for the peoples formall concurrence in ordi­nation is Acts 14. 23. [...]nd when they had ordained them Elders in every Church. On which the Author for his purpose comment­eth thus. 1. On the Margent he rejecteth the opinion of some, tho learned men, that sayeth here was no ordination but onely an election, and giveth a reason why there behoved to be ordination, because there was Fasting and Prayer joined with the action. 2. Then in the body, sayeth he, [...]. From [...], a hand, and [...], Attollo, to Not at­tollo but tendere, ex­tendere, i. e. to stretch forth. lift up. Which sheweth what this ordination was in the formality of it; That the Apostles in and with every Church of Beleevers where they came, did make suffrage who should undergo this great Office of Eldership in such Churches, and so joyntly with each Church, and not by distinct exempted power above them was this work done, according to In that place is no patern for ordinary ordination of ordina­ry Elders, see before. the first paterne, Acts 1. for to apply this only to the Apostles, in number▪ but two, is improper to the nature of the word, for two to lift up their hands; [Page 247] Suffrage is not a thing to be managed by two, as fencing cannot be done by one. Answ. I grant that here was ordination, though I think Lockiers Argument brought to prove it is but weak, viz. be­cause Prayer and Fasting was joyned, Why? may not Fasting and Prayer, be joined with other actions besides ordination, with ele­ction? the nature of the businesse it self affords a [...] [...]oncludent Argument: It was a calling of men to a Ministeriall [...]ffice in the Church of Christ, and this cannot be done, ordinarly, without ordi­nation. 2. The Author gives us such a description of ordina [...]on of Elders as confounds and makes it [...]ust all one with election, viz. did make suffrage who shall undergoe the office. What is this but election? Yet in these two Sections he distinguishes election and ordination, and brings them as two distinct instances of Ecclesiastick maters, wherein he will have the Church of Beleevers to have au­thoritative concurrence. But 3. more di [...]ctly to the point in hand, the whole strength of the Authors reason here to prove that the private Beleevers in these Churches concurred formally with the Apostles in the ordination of these Elders, lyes upon the gramma­tication of the word [...], which signifies to give suffrages by streaching forth or lifting up of the hand, and so must here be understood that the Elders were ordained by suffrages: And suf­frage is not a mater competent to two; which was the number of the Apostles imployed in this businesse, to which. 1. Let that force of the word be taken in here, and the place rendered, when they had by suffrages ordained or constituted, yet as Mr. Gillespy well observeth Miscell. c. 4. p. 57. out of Calvin. instit. lib. 4. c. 3. § 15. Calvins words pon­dering the same signi­fication are clear that the act of ordination was onely by Paul and Bar­nabas Crea­bant ergo, ipsi duo: Sed tota multitudo, ut mos Graecorum in electioni­bus [...]rat, ma­nibus subla­tis declara­bat quem habere vel &. the sense may be this, Paul and Barnabas did make and ordain Elders, according to the suffrages of the Churches them­selves, that is, they ordained such as the Churches by their suffrages elected and desired. So here are involved two acts. 1. Election, (which is the only act performable by lifting up of the hand in suf­frage) and in that we grant the people concurred. 2. Ordaining and constituting, which was not done by lifting up of the hand in suffrage: But laying on of the hands, as a signe of separating the person to the Office. And this we say was done only by Paul and Barnabas. But, 2ly Albeit that former answer does suffici­ently overturn all Mr. Lockiers reasoning from this place; Yet I [Page 248] confesse I see no necessity of re [...]dering the word here thus made by suffrages. For how ever it be true that the use of this word [...], arises from that manner of suffrage [...]ed amongst the Grecians, either in choosing of persons or [...]aking o [...] Laws, and it be ofte [...] [...] [...]sed to signifie expresly the [...] o [...] suffrages in such matters, [...] i [...] is [...]nown to any that has an [...] knowledge in the Greek Language, that sometimes it is used to signifie simply the a [...] of con [...]tuting or making, and [...] [...]e [...]her of a Law, o [...] person in an Office, not expresly [...] the manner or way o [...] doing, by suffrages, or lifting up o [...] the [...] And thus sim­ply the Old Latine [...]erpreter [...]enders i [...] [...]n this place, & c [...]m constituissent illis per singulas Ecclesias Presbyteros, &c. and I think hardly can it with congruity of speech be otherwaye [...] rendered here. For certainly the substantive to the participle [...], in the [...]t, is Paul and Barnabas, and can be no other, can be none of the people or privat Disciples, as is most evident to any man looking upon the Text, and therefore by this word must here be understood an act done by the two alone; which cannot be formally suffrageing (for as Mr. Lockier sayeth well, that can not be done by two) but another, unlesse ye will Interpret the word in such a figurative sense, as I doubt much it shall be found in the like an [...] otherwhere in the world, viz. thus, and when they (Paul [...] Barnabas) had by suffrages made to them (i. e. the Disciples) Elders, that is, when they had caused them to make by suffrages to themselves Elders. Now let any man judge if the Author has brought us expresse Scripture for private Belie­vers formall and authoritative concurrence in the act of ordination of Elders. And whereas he addes in the close of his Section. By these two first examples are other Scriptures which speak of ordi­nation, as if they did attribute it to the Elders onely, to be Inter­pret, if other answers proper to such places cannot be found out. I Answ. If he find not out more proper answers for these places then to expone them by these two examples, it may easily be per­ceived by what has been said, that he is at a weak passe in maintai­ning his point undertaken. And I pray, tell us why such places of Scripture as plainly attributes the act of ordination to Presbyteries onely, should be expounded to take in the people with Elders, by [Page 249] these two examples, wherein yet their is no demonstrative ground brought to evidence that the people had formall hand in ordination of the Officers mentioned in them: And not rather these two ex­amples or practise [...] (seeing it is not expresly said in them that the people concurred in the ordination) be expounded by such places wherein the acts of ordination is expresly attributed [...] Elder­ship alone? I v [...]rily [...]hink that to any understanding man, the lat­ter of these two will seem most rationall. As for Arguments proving that, [...]ot the people, but only the Officers of the Chu [...]h [...]ve the power of ordination, See these Authors often mentioned.

section 17 To close up this induc [...]ion of particulars, Finally (saith he SECT. [...].) I might instance in lower matters, which would strengthen th [...] Argument; for if in lesse things the Eldership may not act alone, surely not in greater. Answ. 1. If Elders may not in lesser maters act without joint concurrence of the people, what needeth that restriction in the Assertion first propounded, not in most weighty things? 2. It is a very weak Consequence, In lesse maters they may not act alone, Ergo not in greater. Some persons may have the managing of great maters laid upon them by speciall commissi­on from such as have supream authority to commissionate in these maters, and yet have no speciall commission laid upon them to ma­nage lesse maters. Mens capacity to act alone, or not alone, but with others, in such maters, ariseth not from [...] [...]uantity or weight of the maters, but from Commission and wa [...] [...]nd granted by him that hath supreme power and authority over those things. But let's briefly see these particular instances of lesse things alledged by him here.

section 18 As in Letters recommendatory (saith he) they were not dire­cted to the Eldership of such a Church, but to the whole Church, of which they were to be received: So Paul recommended Phebe to the Church of Corinth ('twas to the Church of Rome, Rom. 16. 1, 2.) So John wrote to the Church, concerning certain brethren, that were to be received by them; on [...] Diotrephes the Elder, which stood upon his sole authority in this and such like things, and used the Keyes at his own pleasure, to keep out, and cast out as he would, is noted with this mark not to be of God, but of Satan, for this very thing, and one that had not seen God. Answ. What poor [Page 250] stuffe is here to the purpos [...] in hand? 1. Directing of Letters commendatory to persons▪ Eldership or Church▪ is not their a­ctings, but the actings of some others that [...] the Letters, and I may say their passion. But if it [...] recommen­dator [...] [...] not be at all directed [...] [...]to [...] [...] [...]ceived by the El­dersh [...] [...], but the whole Church: [...] [...]fesse this is a strange Assertio [...] [...]nd he that will beleeve [...] of [...] is too too cre­dulous. 3. The mat [...]er that Paul▪ recommend P [...]eb [...] for to the [...]oman Christians, was a duty of common Christian love, to inter­tain her kindly as a Christian, to assist her as they could in her af­fairs at Rome, a duty jure naturali incumbent to all Christians both conjunctly and severally. And so the recommendation fo [...] that on her behalf, might well be directed to all, Elders and peo­ple. But interest of concurring in actings of Church Government, being not juris naturalis but juris positivi, persons must be sure of speciall warrant and vocation for concurring in them. So that 'tis but a very sick consequence, if Letters of recommendation for such purpose, as these for Phebe, may be (or if ye will, ought to be) directed to the whole Church, then ought the whole Church also to concur in actings of Church Government and ju [...]isdiction: He must have a good head that will make it out. 4. As to the in­stance of Diotrephes, Mr. Lockier is, I conceive, in a mistake when he supposes, that [...]ving of these Brethren, for which Iohn did write to the Church, was to receive them into the state of Church membership (they needed not that, they were Church members, yea it seems Ministers, before) and an act of the Keyes: It was a receiving of them into duties of Christian kindlinesse and charity, v. 5, 6, 7. but what is all this of Diotrephes to the purpose. Be­cause Diotrephes, one Elder, usurped sole authority to himself a­lone in the Church, made peremptor acts inhibiting the members to receive, unto duties of Christian charity, stranger-Christians, did tyrannically at his own pleasure Excommunicat-persons, and that for disobeying his unjust acts, if he for this was marked, not to be of God, but of Satan, not to have seen God, must the same mark be put upon the Colledge of Elders in the Church, if they all jointly and equally act authoritatively in matters of Ecclesiastick Government and jurisdiction, without the authoritative concurrence [Page 251] of the whole Congregatiō, yet not according to their own pleasure, but according to the Rules of Gods Word, nor yet pressing upon the people blind and absolute obedience, but reserving to them the liberty of their judgement of discretion; must they for this be Classed with D [...]otreph [...]s? 'Tis evident Mr. Lock [...] [...]liquely reaches this blow at Presbyterians: but they need no [...] [...] it. I will spare what I might say to this. Only this much [...] [...]e give better proof then yet we have seen, for popular concurrence in Acts of Ecclesiastick Government, I can judge no otherwise of su [...] bitter hints as these, then as is said of Diotrephes words, vers. 10. of that Epistle.

SECTION IV. Mr. Lockiers Argument from common Testimony, SECT. 12. considered and Answered.

section 1 MR. Lockier having alledged first reasons, next some expresse Passages of Scripture (wherein how he has acquit himself we leave to be judged by the impartiall discerning Reader) in the last place. Take (saith he) common consent for this truth (i. e. his Assertion, no truth) that the whole Congregation are to have joint authoritative suffrages in all maters of greatest weight, i. e. all acts of Ecclesiastick Government. By common consent he must mean the testimony of Ecclesiastick Writers, and now I pray what testimonies of Ecclesiastick Authors brings he? Just two, one of yesterday, I may say jugling in the businesse, and another nothing to the purpose, see we them both.

section 2 First, In the first times this was so well known and so frequent in practice—that Bishop Whitegift himself, one that wan­ted not wit nor learning, nor any other help, and setting all his strength to maintain a These contrary to what we are upon, yet is constrained to confesse that in the Apostles times the state of the Church was democratiall or popular, the people or multitude ha­ving hand almost in every thing, Defence, pag. 182. which word almost, doth sute with the thing I am upon. For indeed, as I have said, in all weighty matters the whole body had their joint voice—as hath been before proved.

Answ. 1. That Whiteg [...]ft set all his strength to maintain [...] These contrary to what [...] pres [...]ation of the ma [...] mind. The [...] was, that the [...] Government and ju [...] [...] hands onely of th [...] [...] [...]lats, excluding no [...] [...] all other Pres­by [...] [...] Church. 2. By the [...] [...] wherein he saith, that [...] [...]nown and frequen [...] [...] he means [...] of the Church [...] themselves [...], or therewith taking in the next [...] the [...]hurch▪ If [...] mean the latter, I conceive he would [...]one much better to [...] cited some Writers of these times themseves saying so much, then taken the matter upon report from Whitegift. But let him, if he can produce any Ancient Writers Ecclesiastick of these times either speaking for his Tenet in dogmate, or relating any practice thereof in the Church of these times: This he will never be able to do. If he mean the former, 'tis true Whitegift sayes so that in the Apostles times the state of the Church for outward Govern­ment was popular—: But 1. Whitegift withall for uphol­d [...] [...]he power and Government of Prelats in the Church of Eng­land, excluding all other Church Officers, maintains most falsly and perniciously, there was no particular form of Government ap­pointed by precept in the New Testament. But that the determi­nation of this is [...] the power of the Civil Magistrate, the chief and principall Governour of the Church in his judgement: And therefore granted, for his own design, that the people had sometimes an hand in matters of Government, accidentally, because of the want of Civil Magistrates to establish Rulers. 2. Who had hand in acts of Government of the Church in the Apostles times, can be known best by Scripture it self, and no otherwayes c [...]ainly. If Mr. Lockier, has brought forth any Scripture holding forth, either by precept or practice, that the body of the people ought or did concur formally and authoritatively in acts of Government, tho he has assayed to do, and sayes here he has prove [...] it, I leave to the Readers to judge. Whitegift would never alledge precept of Scripture for this, and for practice I find none alledged by him, but in the mater of Election of Officers, which is no act of govern­ment or authority, and yet he alledgeth that neither in that did [Page 253] they alwayes concur, which I conceive to be an untruth. To close this, let Mr. Lockiers ingenuity b [...] observed here in speaking for a popular and [...] of the Church by his ap­plauding of [...]his [...] Whitegifts▪ Independents commonly re­fuse altogether that the Government they maintain [...] and professe a discla [...] of Mo [...]llius for this. But [...] it is no other. And [...] Author [...]ere is ingenuous in t [...]king with, and applauding that name. For why should not a true thing have i [...] own name?

section 3 His second testimony i [...] the Canon of the Councell of [...]aodie [...], [...]0. years after Christ (yea and 4. if not 8. years more) ordain­ing that the people, after that should have no hand in the choise of their Officers, unlesse it formerly had. What meaneth this Canon ( [...]aith he) unlesse formerly it was so that the people had hand in it? Answ. Let it be so that this Canon doth import that formerly the people had hand in Election of their Officers (as we grant they [...] ought to have, and have with us) Election is no act of Ecclesia­stick Authority or [...]risdiction, nor makes one a Church Officer, as was said before. But what is this to the purpose? His undertaking was to bring common testimony to prove that in the first times of the Church, the body of the people, the whole Congregation had joint authorita [...]ve suff [...]age with the Officer [...] in all maters of great­est weight, i. e. in all acts of Eccles [...]stick Gov [...]ment, is it not a very sufficient making out of this, to [...] one Canon, of one Councell, indirectly importing that they [...]d hand in one act, and that no formall act of Government and Authority? And is this all the common testimony we must be content with? Now when as all acts of Ecclesiastick power, authority and government (in Scripture designed by the Keyes) are comprehended in these, 1. Publick Preaching of the Gospel: 2. Administration of the Seals or Sacra­ments of Baptism and the Supper: 3. Ordination and authorita­tive sending of Officers: 4. Dispensation of Discipline, Excom­munication and Absolution. I would have the Author producing to us common testimony for the peoples concurring joyntly and authoritatively in these or any of them in the first times of the Church.

section 4 What followeth in this SECT. of the Authors, is but a flist of [Page 254] big empty words, added unto weak reasoning, to startle silly Rea­ders, to which shortly. 1. Whom he mea [...]s by his superinten­dents once and again reckon [...] [...] with [...] and Bishops. I know not well, he may be pleased [...] That Bishops and [...] did piece by [...] of God many [...] [...]pirituall liberties, and [...] of Christe, is certain. But any [...] testimony (as he [...] by him, very little of this appeareth, as appeate very evidently. 3. In represen­ting the servants of God that are [...] new devised modell of popular Government of the Church, under the name of the children of these Metropolitans and Bishops is both an un­just and ridiculous slander. I beleeve these Hierarchicall Lords never did, nor ever will look upon Presbyterians, as any of their kinde. 4. To order the Church of CHRIST, as that therein his Officers and Ministers rule his People, under him, by his or­dinances, according to the rule of his Word, & that the people over whom they are set, obey them in the LORD, is not the taking from people any thing, for which these, that teach and hold by that w [...]y, need to repent, nor know we any words of GOD spoken against them for that way; And for [...]ans words without Gods Word they stand not: Nor have they cause to take any works or blowes, or bloods of their body (you have taken too much upon you to pronoun [...] upon their soul blood, think Sir, upon Rom. 14. and let your heart [...] you for this) as inflicted by God on that account, tho they [...] they have sinned against him, and desires therefore to bear his indignation. If men has given them blowes and shed their blood upon that account, let them look to it, and Sir take heed your hands be not defiled with it; As indeed in this Book ye breath out somewhat that way not once. And for your out-cry, O Lord how low shall we be, &c. to it as intended by you, I must say to you, as Job to his friends upon somewhat the like unjust challenges against him, and misconstructions of Gods rods upon him: Will ye speak wickedly for God? And talk deceitfully for him—is it good that he should search you out? Or as one man mocketh another do ye so mock him? But now Sir, look upon the pollutions, and layings waste of his dwelling place in England at this day, which makes all the Churches abroad the World to la­ment [Page 255] the case of it, and see whether the Presbyterian way, or that way you stand for has effected them: And I beleeve ye may say it was not without a Providence of [...] that ye uttered this ex­clamation in that [...] you have [...]red it in: How low, shall W [...] be, er [...] W [...] lay [...] heart.

SECTION. V. Mr, Lockiers Answers to some Objections made against his Assertion from some Passages of SCRIPTURE, SECT. 13, 14. Examined.

section 1 MR. Lockier, now proceedeth to propound against his Asserti­on, and to Answer some Objections, and in wisedom chooses a few of many that are extant to the World in Presbyterian Wri­ters, of als great weight as these he has picked out, and propounds some of them in as slender a way as he can, that the force of them may appear as little as may be: But see we them and his Answers to them as they are.

section 2 Object. First, is from 1 Tim. 4. 14. Here is mention m [...] of a Presbytery or Eldership, by the imposition of whose hands and by no other conju [...], Timothy was ordained: Therefore the Presby­tery wholly without the Church may exert power authoritative in most weighty matters, and [...] and gov [...] the Church alone. This place we conceive will car [...] [...] this and more too, even a Classicall Presbytery or a Presbytery of moe associat Churches. But for the present consider we his answer as to the point in hand. The Presbytery here (saith he) cannot be meaned of an ordinary Eldership, which hath its ordination from men because it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to an extraordinary. Now such was Timothy, to wit, an Evangelist: And therefore comes not under our Dispute, but is to be ranked with extraordi­nary Apostolicall acts, and ordinations to extraordinary Offices which are ceased: of which nature sec Acts 13. 43.

section 3 Answ. 1. Whether this was an ordinary Eldership. i. e. A Col­ledge of ordinary, perpetuall Elders, or extraordinary, yet it was an Eldership and not the people that performed this act of ordinati­on, [Page 256] as he himself yeelds. What then is become of his As­sertion in the preceding Section: That i [...] these first times of the Church, the whole body [...] [...]ear the [...] joint [...]thoritative voice in all maters of greatest we [...]ght. And S [...]. [...]. 10. even in an ordi­nation of a [...] extrao [...]dinar Officer, of grea [...] [...] then an Evan­gelist, [...]. Wherein he alledge th [...] [...]at lest it might have proved a [...] to lustle out the priviledge of the [...]hole Church in maters of essentiall concernment, he was enstated a [...]ongst the A­postles themselves not by the [...]ffrag [...] of some, i. e. the Apostles a­lone but by the s [...]ffrages of the whole Church. 2. If the Pres­byte [...] here cannot be meaned of an ordinary Eldership, what was it? I hope the Author will not say with some P [...]pish and Prelati­call writers, that it was an company of Bishops that were, both El­ders, and more then Elders: I conceive he can mean no other thing but that same which the Author of the Queries concerning ordina­tion. Qu. 19. that they were some other Apostles or Apostles fel­lows together with Paul, who 2 Tim. 1. [...]. is said to have [...]ayed his hands on Timothy, and that Apostles are called Elders, and a com­pany of Apostles are called a Presbytery or an Eldership. I say it seemeth the Author can conceive no other thing to be meant, for he sayeth it must be an Eldership that had not And yet he himself above, Sect. [...]0. Such ex­ [...]raordina­ [...]ie Elders might have their ordi­nation from man, & le facto. Ma [...]hias had his so. So that by this [...]e [...]ayeth here Ma­t [...]ias, tho an Apostle could not be one of this El­dership. ordination from man. But this co [...]ceit is so abundantly answered by Mr. Gillespy of worthy memory, Miscell. c. 8. pag. 104. & seq. that little nee­deth to be added to what is said [...] him. I shall here briefly touch at some particular [...] given in Answer to this. 1. Suppose the Pres­bytery in this place 1 Tim. 4. 14. to be an Assembly of Apostles, yet nothing shall be gained thereby to Mr. Lockiers cause. For the name Presbytery or Eldership, being purposely chosen in this Text which mentions laying on of hands in ordination, will prove, that the Apostles did it as Elders, and as an act of an Assemby of El­ders, not as a thing peculiar to them as Apostles; For no rationall man will imagine, that the Holy Ghost intending to expresse some extraordinary thing, which the Apostles did as Apostles, and which belongs not to ordinary Elders, would in that very thing purposely call them [...], an Assemby of Elders. 2. That the Presbyterie here is not an Assembly of Apostles but of Elders who were not A­postles may be proven. 1 By comparing this Text with 2 Tim. [Page 257] 1. 6. The gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. If it had been an Assembly of Apostles that had laid their hands on Timothy, and so joined with Paul in that action, Paul had not thus distinguished his laying on of hands from that of his fellow Apostles, as if the gifts of the Holy Ghost had been given to Timo­thy only, by the laying on of his hands, and not by, but with the laying on of the hands of his fellow Apostles. Of this difference of the Phrase in the one Text and the other, see this same worthy Author, pag. 101. 2. Apostles and Elders are ordinarly distin­guishing names in Scripture, the latter signifying the ordinary, per­petuall, fixed Rulers in the Church. So that it must be but a devi­sed fiction, to leave the ordinary notion of the word Elder, which signifies an Office diverse from the Apostleship, and to take the Eldership here for an Assembly of Apostles. Nay we do not find at any time in Scripture the name Elder given to the Apostles, at least never to them or any of them as Apostles contradistinguished from other Officers. 'Tis true Peter, 1 Epist. 5. 1. calls himself [...]: But from that very appellation, the worthy Au­thor, we are now borrowing from, doth excellently reason, and for our purpose, against M^r. Lockier here, I need not transcribe his words, seeing the Book is common, the Reader may have re­course to it self, and have much satisfaction. See pages 105, 106, 107. We conclude then and affirm that this Eldership was no o­ther but an Assembly of Elders, as were these, Acts 20. 17. ordi­nary Elders of the Church; And to expound it of an Assembly of extraordinary Officers, is but a fiction without ground in Scripture, devised by men, to shut out clear light. And M^r. Lockier may re­member that as able judicious men as are of his way, the Dissen­ting Brethren in the Assembly at Westminster, in their Reasons a­gainst the Proposition of Ordination, take it to be an ordinary El­dership, and so reason from it to the regulating of ordinary Ordi­nation of Elders in the Church. That a sufficient Presbytery (say they, meaning, as is evident, an ordinary Presbytery) may as­sume all and sole power of ordination, is proved, 1 Tim. 4. 14. by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery.

section 4 M^r. Lockiers Reason to prove the contrary is of no force. Ti­mothy was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, and it is beyond [Page 258] the power of ordinary Officers to give being to an extraordinary, That same worthy Author, we mentioned, sufficiently discovereth the weaknesse of it in the place cited. pag. 103. For 1. If it should be said that Timothy was twice ordained: first to be a Presbyter, then to be an Evangelist, (as some Episcopall Writers say to be a Bishop: but a Bishop distinct from a Presbyter is a humane crea­ature not in Scripture) and the first to be that, mentioned 1 Tim. 4. 14. done by the ordinary Eldership; The second mentioned 2 Tim. 1. 6. done by Paul an Apostle, an extraordinary Officer above an Evangelist; I know not what M^r. Lockier will bring to infringe this. 2. Supposing that he was but once ordained, an E­vangelist and Elder both (as who ever was an Evangelist was also an Elder) yet an ordinary Eldership might concur with Paul in his Ordination, and the act of these ordinary Elders extend no fur­ther but to that which was common to him with other Elders, the Office of Eldership, that which was extraordinary flowing from the Apostle Pauls concurrence in the businesse. In this mixt acti­on we may very well distinguish, what was ordinary and what ex­traordinary, ascribing that to the Presbytery (viz. together with Paul) this to the Apostle. 3. Yet further I say with the worthy Author, I bring these things from, that I can see no inconsistency or absurdity, if it be said that the Presbytery sent forth and ordai­ned Timothy as an Evangelist: that it is alledged an Evangelist is an extraordinary Officer, and therefore the Elders being ordinary Officers could not give him a being, i. e. ordain him, I deny the necessity of the consequence, any reason that can be brought to prove that consequence must be, as I conceive, one of those two, viz. Either, 1. That which is brought by some, from, Hebrews 7. 7. The lesse is blessed by the greater, to which, as to this particu­lar in hand, that worthy Author has sufficiently Answered, by two things First, that altho Timothy as an Evanelist was grea­ter then a single Presbyter, yet that proves not that he was greater then the whole Presbytery, as one of the house of Lords is (sure was) greater then one of the house of Commons; Yet not then the whole house of Commons, 2ly That he that blesseth is not greater then he that is blessed, every way: But quatalis, in so far as he blesseth, and so why might not the Pres­bytery [Page 259] be greater then an Evangelist, not simply and absolutely, but so far as they blessed and ordained him? That Author gives two instances of the like, Act. 9. 17. and Act. 13. 1, 3. Or 2. the reason of that consequence must be this: Because, ordinary Offi­cers not having in themselves that extraordinar office, can not give that which they have not. And if this be it, I would then aske M^r. Lockier, how can people give the Office of a Minister which they have not in themselves, nay, the Office of an Apostle, as he alledgeth that the people ordained Mathias an Apostle, whatsover he can answer for that will serve our turn for the Pres­bytery, ordaining Timothy to that Office, which they had not in themselves. The truth is, mens ordaining a person to an Ecclesia­stick Office, not being by way of proper efficiency, nor yet the Ordainers acting therein as principal agents or conferrers of the of­fice (that is Gods part by his institution) but as morall instruments under God: It is not, ex natura rei, requisite, that the ordai­ners have in themselves formally the Office, whereunto they Or­dain the person; But it is sufficient that they have a warrand from God to interveen as instruments to apply the person to the Office instituted by God. And I see nothing in the Office of an Evan­gelist that can prove that ordinary Officers could have no warrand from God to act in this kind of causality to the applying of a per­son to it. Read that which the often mentioned worthy Author hath judiciously spoken upon the nature of the Office of an E­vangelist, Miscell. c. 7. p. 93, 94. and it will shew, I say not this without reason.

section 5 I trust by these things it appears that this instance of ordina­tion by a Presbytery is not so far from this disputation as Mr. Lockier would have his Reader beleeve, but that it is a patern of ordination in ordinary (which some of the most judicious of his own side acknowledge with us) shewing us also the right hands into which Christ has committed this power, to wit the Eldership. The example which he referreth us to, Act. 13. 2, 3. we thank him for it, as making very much against himself: For albeit Barnabas and Paul, the persons on whom the act mentioned there, passed, did not then receive any new ordination, to an Office extraordina­ry, as M^r. Lockier, in a mistake or inanimadvertency has imagined [Page 260] when he wrot this (they were Apostles before) yet did they receive a new call unto a more particular application, or as it were appropriation of the exercise of their Office unto a certain definit charge, the Gentiles to wit, as Paul himself declareth it, Gal. 2. 7. and yet, we see evidently that as this calling was not perfor­med by the body of the Church, so it was performed by some or­dinary Elders, I say not that it was by ordinary Elders only, for there were Prophets that had hand in it; But I say that ordinary Elders did also concurre in it, as appears, v. 1. There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers; I hope it will not be denyed that Teachers are ordinary Elders.

section 6 2. Object. Is from 1 Tim. 5. 22. and Tit. 1. 5. We read (saith he) that Titus and Timothie did ordain and are exhorted in an ordinary way to go to work by an ordinary spirit; to wit, not to lay hands suddenly on any man, nor to be partiall, but to weigh fit qualifications in every one, that they were blamelesse, the Husband of one Wife, not accused of riot, not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to filthy lucre. And this ordination they acted alone: Therefore the Eldership, may do in most weighty things in the Church without the Church, without the joint consent of the Church. Answ. We bring not these places for the generall, that Acts of Government belong to the Officers of the Church, only; To wit, to act therein authoritatively. But, for this particular, ordinati­on. Again the Author propounds the conclusion invidiously, without the consent of the Church. We acknowledge that in these weighty matters the Church, i. e. the people, are to have a ra­tionall obedientiall consent, but privat; The Question is whether they ought to have an authoritative decisive suffrage? And in the Calling of Ministers they ought to have suffrage in their election: But as for the potestative mission, or ordination, that, we say, belongs to the Officers in the Church onely. 3^ly It is to be obser­ved how the Author labours to cover the force of these places for proving of this, by slipping by the principall words, Titus 1. 5. and ordain Elders in every City, and produces only the words of the verses following, expressing the qualifications requisite and to be presupposed in the persons that are to be ordained. In a word the argument from these places, is by him as slightly propounded, [Page 261] as, I think, possibly he could. But let him take it thus. If ordi­nation of Pastours by Apostolick authority be committed to Offi­cers in the Church as Officers, then it belongeth not unto the people. But the former is proven from these places. Therefore, &c. The Proposition is clear of it self. The Assumption is clea­red from the Texts. First, Timothy is charged to lay hands sud­denly on no man in that same way, and under that same considera­tion that he is charged, not to receive an accusation against an El­der, but upon two or three witnesses testimony; And as he is char­ged to rebuke sins publickly, that others may fear; and that he is charged to observe these other Rules given to him for ordering his administration in the Church, v. 19, 20, 21. But these things are a charge given to him as a Pastor: So by what power Titus was charged to rebuke the Cretians sharply, that they might be sound in the faith, v. 13. By that same power was he left in Crete to ordain Elders in every City. But this he was to doe by an Official power, and as an Officer, as is evident by comparing that v. with v. 9. Therefore, &c. Again, here is an expresse Commission to men in Office, to ordain, and charge laid upon them to be aware of doing it in a wrong way. Let the Author show me in all the New testament, a Commission given to people to ordain Ministers, or a charge laid upon them to take heed how they ordain: But see we now the Authors Answers to these places.

section 7 One of these places (saith he) answers another, and openeth another. 'Tis said to Titus, that he should ordain Elders in every City, as Paul had appointed him. Now it cannot be thought in reason, that the Apostle would appoint him to ordain, otherwise then he himself had ordained: but he himself did ordain by the suf­frage of the people, and did establish them by the help of their fa­sting and prayer, Acts 14. 23. And this is all which is left upon record, for direction in this mater, as yet we can find; and there­fore this appointment Timothy and Titus must and did follow. Answ. 1. True, Paul would not appoint Titus to ordain other­wise then he ordained himself. But that Paul did ordain by the suffrage of the people is but begged: and that place, Acts 14. 23. does not prove it. The most that can be deduced from it, is, that Paul and Barnabas ordained the Elders, being nominated, desi­gned [Page 262] and elected, by the peoples suffrage, as is shown before, whe­ther we refer the Author and the Reader. I shall onely note a word here of worthy Cartwright upon that place, Acts 14. 23. whereby it doth appear that, albeit he standeth for the first signifi­cation of the word [...] in that place, to wit, that it im­porteth giving of suffrages by lifting up of hands: yet he referreth that to Election, which he will have to have bee [...] done by the people: (and we deny not this) but saith not that the people had hand in the ordination of these Elders with Paul and Barnabas: But on the contrair expresly giveth ordination to the sole Officers. You speak untruly (saith he to the Rhemists) which accuse us, as if we so commended the Churches Election, as we shot out the Bi­shops Ordination, which we not only give unto them, but make them also the chief and directors in the Election; Ʋnderstanding by Bishops such as are mentioned in the Scriptures, and not humane creatures. 2. Is this, viz. Acts 14. 23. all that is left upon re­cord for direction in this matter, to wit, Ordination? Then 1. its sure M [...]. Lockier has little ground for his faith that Ordination ought to be done by the people, when as we have so expresse Scri­ptures for Officers acting in it; And he has none for the peoples acting in it but that one, which neither mentions people, nor, vi materiae, by force of the thing spoken in it, can by consequence import any more, as to them, but their suffrages for Election. 2. But it seems he has forgotten himself in short bounds: for did he not, SECT. 8. cite Acts 1. 28. for direction in this matter? Or has he afterward changed his minde of that place, finding that it made nothing for his purpose? But 3. He may, if he will, find more upon record for direction in this matter, besides these present two places: Acts. 6. 3, 6. Acts 13. 1, 2, 3. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 2 Tim. 2. 2. in all which we finde Ordination performed by Officers, without people. Also Tit. 1. 13. Rev. 2. 2, 14, 15, 16, 20. Acts 20. 28, 29. In which places the censuring of Ministers is committed unto, and required of the Officers of the Church, which is never committed unto or required of people. Now to whom be­longeth the Authority of taking away an Ecclesiastick Ministry, to the same belongeth to confer it.Gul. Apol­lon. Consi­der. of sun­drie Con­trov. c. 4. pag. 58, 59

SECTION VI. M^r. Lockiers Answers to some other Objection made by way of Reason SECT. 15. 16. 17. Examined.

section 1 THe Author as he picked out some of the places of Scripture brought by the opposites of his way to prove the powe [...] of the Church Government to be in the hands of Church Officers on­ly (and they are but a few of many and only concerning a particu­lar Act of Government, Ordination, when as they bring many preg­nant proofs from Scripture for the whole power of Government in generall,) so he is pleased to pick out at his pleasure some few of their Arguments by way of reason.

section 2 1. If the Eldership cannot determinately act in the Church without the consent of the Church, then Church-Government is a Democratie, all are Elders, and Officers, and Pastors, and Tea­chers, and Rulers alike, and then what needs different names, and stations, when these, as to distinct power, signifie nothing. Ans. We do justly charge that way of Church Government main­tained by the Author and his Associates, with this, that it sets up such a Democratie or popular Government in the Church, condem­ned by the French Church in Morellius: Which also Indepen­dents themselves would fain seem to disclaime, but it will not be for them. The Author is pleased in his wisdome to propound the Argument for evidencing this, as slightly as he could: But let him take it thus; That Government in the Church wherein, albeit there be such as bear the name of Officers and Rulers, yet not only all the power of Government is placed in the body of the people as in the first and proper subject thereof, and not in their Officers; But also the whole body of the people formally and authoritatively, concur and act in the exercise of all the acts of Government, at least all acts of jurisdiction, so that all maters of this kind, are caried and determined by the authoritative suffrage, consent and dissent of the people, nothing therein being left to the Officers as Officers, but to preside and moderate the body of the people in their autho­ritative acting, or, may be, to prepare and ripen maters for their authoritative decision, and to be their mouth to declare the sen­tence [Page 264] determined by their authority, yea and wherein, the body of the people, may authoritatively call all the Officers to a ju­diciall account, judicially cognosce upon their Administration, cen­sure, degrade, yea and Excommunicate them all together, such a Church Government must needs be Democraticall or popular, and therein all are Rulers and therein different names and stations signi­fie nothing, (I say not simply but as M^r. Lockier) as to any distinct power of Authority. If any will deny the connexion of this pro­position, I beseech such to give a description of a popular Govern­ment. Sure I am that the very Government of Athens it self, the most popular and Democratricall that we read of, was never more popular then that which we have expressed in the Antecedent or first part of the proposition. But now the Church Government maintained by the Author and his Associates is such in every one of these points expressed, as is undenyably evident both by their Do­ctrine and practice, Ergo, &c.

section 3 Now what answers the Author to this Objection? He brings us a number of words clouted up unhandsomely enough out of Hookers Surv. Par. 1. c. 11. which I think not worth the while to insist particularly upon. Briefly, the summe of all comes to this: He tells us there is a power of Judging, to take in and to cast out Members, to exert Office (he means to confer Office) or to de­grade from Office, which he calls essential or fundamental power; And there is the maner of managing this, and exerting it: He ex­presseth it also, To declare, act and exercise judgment in the name of the rest, which he calls organicall power, and Potestas Officii particularis. And tells us that that former power is common to the whole Church Elders and fraternity: The latter is in the El­ders (yet I cannot understand how this can stand with what he saith, that it lyeth formally in one: But be it so) And so their (to wit, the Elders) power is distinctly usefull and significative. Ans. To passe by here the exagitating of that distinction of a power es­sentiall and a power organicall (the absurdity whereof in Philoso­phy might be shown abundantly, might we stay upon every such triffle) and other such minutias. Here, to the main purpose in hand. 1. To talk of, and suppose a power of judging, in taking in and casting out, investing Officers and degrading them, belong­ing [Page 265] to the people and also exercised by them formally, meaning, as he doth, of authoritative judging, is but a supposing and beg­ging the main thing in Question. The place, 1. Cor. 5. 12. proves it not, Tho the Epistle be written to the whole Church of Co­rinth, yet not every command and direction there relates to all and every one in that Church, as to act formally in the work com­manded or required. We say that command of casting out the incestuous person judicially respects the Officers of that Church only. See this made good by M^r. Rutherfurd. Due Right. pag. 36, 37. Gul. Apollon. Consider. of certain controv. c. 4. pag. 64, 65, 66. M^r. Lockiers Argument to the contrary, is weak; The Apostle sayeth cast out from among you. But the incestuous per­son was not only amongst the Elders, but among the people. What a poor Argument is this? Then it should follow, that the Wo­men and the Children should judicially and authoritatively voi­ced in the Excommunication of the incestuous person; For he was not only amo [...]gst the men; but also amongst the Women and Children; These, sure, were a part of the people. So then cer­tainly the Apostle here, cast out from amongst you, tho Wri­ting to the Church of Corinth in generall in the Epistle, yet in this particular command, must be understood to be spe king with rela­tion to such in the Church as were invested with a morall capacity of power and authority to act that which he was commanding. 2. When he sayeth the power of judging is common to the whole Church, Elders and fraternity, its but a fallacy as to Elders; For in effect Elders as Elders, by his way have no power of judging: As such they have only the manner of managing the judgement. 3. When he expresseth the act of essentiall power (as he calleth it) competent to the whole Church, thus, Some to judge; and then the act of the Originall or Officiall power, thus, Some to declare, act and exercise that judgement: I would aske him what he meaneth by acting and exercising judgement? Either it must be the determining of the judgement; But that is nothing else but judging it self, which belongeth to the essentiall power of the whole body: Or he must understand the execution of the sentence, as for example, shunning the company of the Excommunicat; But that is no act of Office-power nor of authority, but is common to [Page 266] all the Church Men and Women: Or he must understand the pu­blick uttering and pronouncing the sentence of judgement: But that is just all one with declaring, and to call this acting and exer­cising of judgement, is very abusive speaking: Except these words be used otherwise in English Language then I know of. But 4. The chiefest thing I would observe is, that the Author in saying much to the objection propounded, has said just nothing, but in effect yeelded it wholly. For when as he sayeth that the power and exercise of judging, to wit, authoritatively (for of this, and not of judging by way of privat discretion is the present discourse) belongeth equally to all the Church, and that the matter of ma­naging this only, belongeth to the Officers, what is this but as much as if he had said in formall terms: 'Tis true, I yeeld it, the Government of the Church is Democraticall. And as for that he sayeth, that seeing the Elders have in their hands the manner of managing the judgement, therefore their power is usefull and si­gnificative, and not uselesse and nothing from the whole. True, it is not simply uselesse and nothing significative. But sure I am it signifies nothing as to any power of Authority and Government. A Mr. Speaker or Presidents part in a Parliament, a Prolocutors or Moderators in an Assembly, is not simply uselesse and nothing, significative, but it is just nothing significative, as to Authority or Government.

section 4 2. Obj. But is not this confusion, for all to have an hand in these great things? This absurdity is most justly charged upon your way of Government. It is confusion to speak so, both formally and ef­fectively. First I say, formally: For when as the Lord has insti­tuted his Visible Church to be a body organicall consisting of dissi­milar parts: some as eyes, some as feet, some as hands, some to rule and some to be ruled, some to be over others to command and govern in the LORD, some to obey in the LORD: This way makes all in the Church to be Rulers, and all to be ruled, all to command and govern, and all to obey: all to be eyes and also all to be feet, and all to be one member, and so the whole not to be a body, to wit, organicall and dissimilar. Yet more, it hath yet a greater confusion in [...]t by attributing the judiciall determination of all ma­ters of Government and Jurisdiction to the suffrages of the people, [Page 267] who by Scripture are these who are to be ruled, and to obey, and are as the feet and the hands in the naturall body; Indeed it ma­keth these who ought to be ruled, to be the Rulers, & contra; Sets the feet above the head, &c. 2. Effectively, it cannot but in the exercise of it produce many confusions. Was there ever a Demo­craticall or popular Government to this day, but it did so? And is not that the evil of popular Government: in regard of which, it is by all intelligent Politicians postponed, both to Aristocra­ticall and Monarchicall Government, and scarce accounted wor­thy the name of an allowable Government? But see we the Au­thors Answer.

section 5 No: 'Tis not confusion: The Church being considered as an organicall body, the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsecally in the whole, and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place, and way. As for instance, in the naturall body of man the sensitive faculties are all in the soul originally: and the soul it solf is in the whole body fundamentally, tota in toto, &c. So that the senses are radically and potentially in all the soul, and the soul radically and potentially in all the body, and yet these senses, act only by such powers (I humbly conceive this to be a sault of the Printer, and that it should be, parts) as are fit to act by, as seeing by the eye, and hearing by the eare. And the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work; The hand to work and the feet to go.

section 6 I humbly conceive the Author had done better to have spared his physiologick simile here, and am of the mind some of his late associats here, will not comply with his physicall conceptions, whatever they esteem of his theologicall Tenets. How the sensitive faculties may be said to be all in the soul, originally, radically, and potentially, I can understand. The meaning being that the soul is the effective principle from which these faculties proceed by way of issue or emanation (as they call it) to have their subjectation or inherency in their severall respective organs, and to say this is not incongruous. But how the soul can be said to be in the whole bo­dy fundamentally, radically and potentially, I cannot well un­derstand. That the soul may be in some one part of the body as in the heart (which some) or brain (which others have thought) [Page 268] substantially and informative, and in the whole rest of the body, virtually and operativè, as the Sun which is substantially and lo­cally in the Heavens, is in the Earth by its influence and operati­on. This I can conceive, and it is not altogether incongruous to say so, though I think it be not true. But to say the soul, especi­ally the soul of man, is in the whole body; fundamentally, radi­cally, and potentially, is such a soloecisme (to speak so) in philo­sophy, as I think we shall hardly meet with one grosser amongst men of any knowledge. For then, not only, does it follow that the soul must be by way of information, only in some part of the body (which tho false, yet is not so untollerable) but also that the whole body is the effective principle from which the soul is produced and issues by way of emanation, into that part of the bo­dy which it is supposed to inform: Now how absurd this is in Phi­losophy, yea in Divinity, let any judicious man consider of it. But yet I further wonder, that the Author, when he is expressing this his way of the souls being in the whole body, to wit, funda­mentally, radically, &c. he brings for it that common saying amongst the Schooles, totain toto & tota in qualibet parte: For indeed that is the proper expression of their Doctrine who main­tain that the soul is in the whole body, essentially and informa­tivè, and withall that it is in it as a spirituall forme, indivisible, without extension of parts. But to passe this and to come to our present purpose. I verily think, Mr. Lockier could not made choise of a fitter comparison to make good and establish the Objection a­gainst his way, which he pretends to answer, then that same he has pitched upon, and his own very words condemns him. He sayeth the Church is to be considered as an organical body. So it is indeed, and this will make for us, as we have shown before. Next where­as he sayeth that it being so considered, the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsecally in the whole, and yet each or­gan move orderly in his distinct place and way, as in the naturall body the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally, &c. To this 1. Suppose it were true that the power of governing were in the whole body of the Church fundamentally or originally, yet it can not be said that each organ formally acteth the acts of Govern­ment; For governing being an organicall act in a politicall body, [Page 269] thence it should follow that all the organes were but one organ, and the body of the Church were no organicall body; But a simi­lar body: As, if each member in the naturall body did formally act seeing, all the members were eyes or one eye. And so, where were the body? To say that however that each member acteth in their acts of governing, yet each acteth orderly in his distinct place, viz. privat Christians in their place, Elders in their place and stati­on: Yet this takes not away the absurdity: For seeing Mr. Lockier will have all and every one in the body of the Church formally and authoritatively to act in the acts of Government, it followes that all and every one of them are formally Governours and Rulers, the privat Christians as well as the Elders, and there is no distinction between them at all, as to governing, except of meer order in a­cting. Certainly if all and every member of the naturall body did formally elicit the act of seeing, albeit that part of the body which we now call the eye, were supposed to act therein, in some respect, somewhat distinctly, as to order, from the rest of the parts: Yet all the rest of the parts were as formally and properly an eye, as it. Therefore as it were madnesse to say that in the naturall body, each member doth formally act seeing: So it is exceeding absurd, sup­posing the Church to be an organicall body, and some of the or­ganes whereof it is composed, are rulers governing and comman­ding in the Lord, to whom subjection and obedience in the Lord is to be given by the rest, and are as the eyes in the naturall body; Yet to say, that all and every member in the Church hath a formall authoritative hand or influence in the acts of governing, 2. See the incongruity of the Authors comparison. The power (sayeth he) may be fundamentally in the whole, (viz. body, For he is speaking in the immediatly preceeding words of an or­ganicall-body) and yet each organ, &c. for instance, the sen­sitive faculties are in all the soul originally, &c. What incongru­ity is this, to propound in the generall of power fundamentally in a whole body organicall; And then for an instance o [...] simile to tell us of powers or faculties in the whole soul originally? Is the soul an organicall body? But may some say, the Author saith, the sen­sitive faculties are in all the soul fundamentally, and radically, and the soul radically and fundamentally in all the body, and so would [Page 270] by consequence say that the sensitive faculties are in the whole bo­dy fundamentally, and radically. Answ. 1. 'Tis a very grosse absurdity to say that the soul is in the whole body fundamentally and radically or potentially, as we have shown before: It is for­mally and by way of information in the whole body. 2. It is a grosse inconsequence, the sensitive faculties are in all the soul, and the soul is in the whole body: Therefore the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally. Nay, they are fundamental­ly and radically in the soul, and therefore are not fundamentally and radically in the body, neither whole nor part. But are for­mally and by way of inhesion, in their respective parts or organs of the body. 3. I would fain know of the Author what he does make in the Church answerable to the soul in the naturall body, and so that wherein the power of governing is fundamentally and radi­cally, as the sensitive faculties of the naturall body are fundamen­tally and radically in the soul? Is it the whole Church as compre­hending both people and Ministers? That is the body. Or is it, the people? That is a part of the body. The truth is, Mr. Lockier is at a losse here with his simile. Jesus Christ as King of the Church is unto the Church as the soul in the naturall body; And the power of governing is fundamentally and radically in him, and not in the body of the Church. And therefore, 3. to make use of the last words of his similitude (for which we thank him as making clearly against himself and for us) as the sensitive faculties are radically and fundamentally in the soul, and act only (as he sayeth well) by such parts as are fit to act by, as seeing by the eye, and hearing by the ear, and the soul acts all its works by such organs as are proper to each work; The hands to work the feet to go: So (to give the apodosis which he had no will to expresse) Ecclesiastick organicall powers (such as the senses are [...]n the naturall body) as the power of governing, teaching, administrating the seals are fundamentally in Christ the King of the Church, and act only by such parts as are fit to act by Rulers, Teachers, and Ministers: These are the proper organs of those works.

section 7 The fifth and and last Obj. he meeteth with is this. The Elders of the Church are called overseers, stewards, shepherds, fathers: All which in their analogy, hold forth a peculiar and sole power [Page 271] to do things, fathers govern alone, so overseers, &c. As to this propounding of this Argument. 1. We speak not for a peculiar sole power to do things indefinitely, in Elders; But for a sole power of authoritative acting in maters of Government, and not excluding or denying unto people a private judgement of discretion to try and prove the actings thereof by the rule. 2. The Author leaves out some of the names and titles given to the Elders, which use to be alledged in this Argument, besides the name [...], Elders, as [...], guides, leaders, conducters, governours, Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24. [...], [...], 1 Tim. 5. 17. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thessal. 5. 12. [...], Governments, or Governours, the abstract being put for the concrete, 2 Cor. 12. 28. 3. Because the Author is pleased to propound the Argument from this ground, in the softest way for his own advantage, we desire the Reader will be pleased to take it thus. These persons and these only in the Church have power and authority to govern, and consequently are to exercise formal­ly acts of Government, to whom in the Scripture by the Spirit of Christ are appropriated such names and titles; which do import the power and authority of governing. But to the Officers of the Church are such names appropriat as importeth power and authori­ty of Governing, Ergo, &c. For the major or first proposition, I think it may be clear to any of it self. And if any shall be so wilfull as to deny it, I would ask him (as doth the learned Authors of jus divin. of Church Government, Par. 2. pag. 170.) to what end and for what reason are such names and denominations impor­ting power and authority of Government, appropriated to some persons, i. e. given to them and not to others, if not for this end and reason, to distinguish them that are vested with authority to govern in the Church, from others, and to signifie, and hold forth a duty or work incumbent to them and not to others? The assump­tion see evidenced at length, in jus divinum of Church Govern­ment, Par. 2. pag. 171, 172, 173. the summe is this. These titles, Elder, Overseer, [...], Conducter, Governour, [...] Stew­ard, Pastor, Governments, Ruler, are names which generally have power and authority gra [...]en upon them and are such names, as not only heathen writers, but also the Greek Version of the Old Tes­tament by the 72. and the Originall of the New Testament are [Page 272] wont to give to politicall Officers, to expresse their politicall pow­er and government, now all these titles and denominations, are at­tributed to Christs Officers in his Church, as cannot be denyed: And are not any where in Scripture attributed to the whole Church or any other member of the Church whatsoever, besides Church Officers: Nay, they are ordinarly attributed to the Officers in contradistinction to the body of the Church. But see we what the Author answers.

section 8 Minuta's (saith he first in generall) in Parables must not be fastened on, but principalia, what is their main scope. Ans. What? And are all these names given to Christs Officers in his Church no­thing else but parables? Or are they Parables at all, taking them as titles or names given to the Officers in the Church? I have thought a Parable (as we take it now in the Scripture sense) to be narratio rei verae vel verisimiliter gestae ad simile significandum seu explicandum (as Pareus describeth, Math. 13. 3.) i. e. a narration of a thing truly done, or probable, to signifie or explain a like thing: and not a simple term or title given to a thing. Indeed some of them, no doubt, are metaphoricall; But a simple Meta­phor, for ought I know, is not a Parable. And I pray, when the Apostle saith, Rom. 12. 8. He that ruleth, let him do it with dili­gence. And 1 Corin. 12. 28. God hath set in the Church—go­vernments. And 1 Thessal. 5. 11. Know those that are over you, [...], in the Lord, and other such places; is the A­postle in these places speaking parables? But be it so that the Au­thor, takes a parable for a simple Metaphore. Will any man but the Author say that all and every one of these forementioned names are attributed to the Officers of Christ in the Church, only Meta­phorically, and none of them in a proper signification. Indeed some of them I confesse are Metaphoricall, as Father, Pastors, or Shepherds, Stewards: But withall others of them, as, Presbyters (in the politicall sense of the word) Rulers, [...], [...], [...], are as properly and univocally attributed to them as unto such as in the civil Common-wealth have the same names attribu­ted to them. The Philosopher tells us, Categor. c. 1. that these are Synonyma, and so participate a name properly, which have not only the name common, but also the same definition accommo­date [Page 273] to th [...]t [...] [...]o it is here, as [...] Eccl [...]sia­ [...] [...] of [...] a com­ [...] [...] indued [...] [...]ay of [...] [...]ndent [...] will no [...] [...] same [...] being [...] pro­ [...] [...] of [...] Church, [...]o import in th [...] [...] authority [...] we [...] to his mor [...] [...]

section 9 Elders [...] should [...] not absolute [...]ow [...] power, is to make th [...] [...] self and o [...]hers, [...] as being [...] stock. Ans. [...], brought by [...] [...]urch of the [...] borrowed [...]rom the [...] [...]ether Eccles [...]stick [...] [...]at can be said to [...]lude the [...] [...]tive power of Government [...] abundantly d [...]sh [...]d by [...] [...]d, Book [...]. c. 9. pag. [...] his read, I wonder [...]ow [...] s [...]ry answer he hat [...] [...] Author hath on this purpose: [...] him, adding what [...] true that the [...] which of th [...]m y [...]u [...] Rul [...] of the Wo [...]d? [...] [...]o more [...] [Page 274] to direct [...] [...]sell or [...] the Rul [...] [...] having [...] others, [...] rules a [...] [...] superio [...] [...] as Beza [...] vit no [...] [...] word [...] [...]xim [...] [...] Sep [...] [...] [...]the [...] [...] th [...] is [...] use [...] of Government [...] Church, [...] it [...] Mr. Lo [...] ­ [...] [...] the only [...] [...]me name, [...] whic [...] [...] way of counsell and [...] of [...]wer and [...] to all the Church [...] way of [...] to authority, [Page 275] and [...] simple [...] forth of [...]ght. 2. [...] this [...] [...]uted to the Office [...] were to mak [...] [...] [...]erse ex­position [...] think the Author [...] [...] [...]repre­senting o [...] [...] [...]ording [...] unto, [...] [...]steriall, not [...] but also limited [...] [...]sts [...] people [...] oblig [...] [...] of the wor [...] [...] simple dire [...] [...] and perswas [...] [...] [...]govern [...] [...] [...]all Go [...] [...] Presbyteria [...] [...] not meerly [...] [...]reater knowledg [...] [...] [...]an of knowledg [...] [...] [...]oer of [...] Erastian sayeth: [...] [...]differ one from an other [...] [...]ost contrary to common [...] [...] ­ment. 2. I would [...] whole body of the [...] then mee [...] di [...]ection [...] [...]thoritative power of government [...] that their power over [...] absolute [...] [...] ­ver their [...]aith? I think [...] [...] say that▪ [...] Ministeriall and such [...] very place, 2 Cor. 1. as in v. 24▪ [...]ed by the Author, he affir [...] [Page 276] of himself and other Officers, that they did not take unto them­selves a [...] power ov [...] [...] of the Church. So in the [...] Officers had a [...] then of meer [...] To spare you [...] power to cor [...] [...] [...]oved to have [...] Go we on with the [...]

section 10 They ar [...] [...] such [...] should use diligent inspe [...] [...] to the [...]ck, that none go ast [...], [...] [...]oof, consolation, &c. [...] [...]ops or Lording Pres­by [...] [...] dominantes in Ecclesi [...] ­ [...] [...] [...]stle doth not by that [...] ove [...] [...] in [...] [...] or Lording Presbyte [...] [...] Church by force and vio­lence▪ Mr. Lockier but stand [...] the Doctrine of Presbyterians in [...] [...]tation of the t [...]rme upon them and fights [...] own [...] We [...] no other sort of pow­ [...] [...] to Presbyter [...] over the Church, than he [...] to the Congregation and Presbyters joyntly, [...] particular member (Unlesse he will with State-syco­ [...]t [...]rastia [...] deny all Ecclesiastick rule and government) and I [...] he will not say, this is Lording, or Lordly rule, dominiering by [...] violence. The Question between Presbyterians and Independ [...] is not touching the nature of Ecclesiastick power of government in it self, whether Lordly domi [...]ering or not, but tou­ching the Subject in which it is, and by which it is to be formally ex [...]sed whether the Officers of the Church, or the whole col­lective body of the Church. We say, the Officers or Elders only, and that the nam [...] [...] [...] importing a ruling power and autho­rity given to them by the Spirit of God [...], in contradi­ [...]ction to the body of the Church, prove [...] this, which is not in­fringed by what is said by Mr. Lockier here. For [...]. when as he [...]yeth that they are called [...] because of diligent inspection, wa [...]fulnesse, heed taking to the flock that none go astray for [Page 277] want of counsell, [...], consol [...] [...], whether be means inspec [...] [...] over, [...] [...]hibiting re­proof, conso [...]on▪ [...] a not-au­thoritative [...] we have our point: For [...] by that name, and the [...] [...]guished from the rest of [...] that the power of r [...]ing is only [...] by them only. If he say the later▪ [...] and [...] to every single Beleever, [...] 11, 12. Coloss. 3. 16. Galat. 6. 1. and [...] might have the name of [...] as well as the [...] Spirit of God gives it to Elders as contradi [...] [...] from single Beleevers, but also from the whole [...]lack [...] [...]hy would the Spirit of [...]od give thi [...] name to Elde [...] [...] [...]guished from the whole flock, if thereby were [...] out wha [...] [...]is common, competen [...] [...] and ought to be [...]one by, every single [...] Lockier, reckoning up the acts whereby the [...] are to [...] the flock; That none, so far [...] [...] none [...] [...] ­presseth some only, and [...] [...]der an, &c. I would ask him [...] beside [...] expressed, doeth he intend by that [...] here be understo [...]d exer­cise of discipline and censures, [...] [...]ons going astray, or [...]one astray, if otherwise they cannot [...] or reclaimed and reduced? I believe they must by this me [...] [...] by these expressed, take heed that none go astray, [...] [...]nd is not this not only a [...] act of Government, but even of corre [...]ve jur [...]diction? O! but may he say, they are not to do this [...]ct by themselves, but to have a care that it be done by the whole body of the Church. But I pray how? by telling the offences of [...] the Church, or giving joint vote as other Professors in the [...] it comes under publike cognizance and judgement▪ Ay, [...] [...]his may and ought to be done, by the Authors way, by any other Professours in the Church, besides the Elde [...]. [...]nd so nothing is left to them in re­gard of which, that name [...] should be more pecu [...]ar to them than any other Professours.

section 11 The A [...] [...] [...] ­seers, and [...] [...] ­thers, as [...] [...] ­ked in [...] [...]her; which [...] [...]en rather [...] ashi [...] his Dis [...] [...] and s [...]l [...] [...] are so Rule [...] [...] But [...] to th [...] Ch [...] [...] that t [...] th [...] [...] [...]y o [...] [...] [...]d [...] and [...] But [...] as a Brother [...] the [...] or in [...] [...] [...]y to con [...] [...] of Ruling and Go­ [...] [...] power, nor alone to exercise [...] [...]in con [...]ction▪ [...] Shep [...] [...] [...]cive that Mr. Lockier, as he [...] so he will not deny that th [...] [...] only of the Church are so called [...] the [...] only [...]ut the rest of the Prof [...] [...] in the power and acts o [...] Ru [...] [...] it i [...] [...] to give the [...] the [...] of [...] as much and much [...]ore o [...] [...] thing [...] [...]hem. 'Tis true in­deed that Elde [...] [...] [...]hood with the rest of Professours, but [...] in another thing, then that power which is signified by the names of Ru [...] [...]ver [...]eers, &c. i. c. [Page 279] the power and authority of governing; For were it that, that they are [...] [...]ood in this [...] why are they not all [...] [...]verseers, &c? If they [...] the name? The thing [...] the rest of P [...]of [...] [...] [...]ession of [...] [...]eing of [...] tell [...] [...]siastick Gover [...] [...] [...]qually in the [...] of Govern [...] [...] cal­ [...] [...] Overse [...] [...] tha [...] [...] Go [...] [...] [...]at then [...] Elder [...] [...] con [...] the [...] meeting [...] vote [...] [...] intimate [...] the whol [...] [...] [...]te con [...]lude [...] [...]er for which [...] over the Church? [...] as in the [...] And as the fa [...] [...] exercised by [...] And [...] of seeing [...] part of the [...] [...] ­vernment [...] Rulers, [...] so in, and [...] [...] ­sed by any other [...]art of the [...] the Auth [...]r [...] the [...] of Christ [...] washing his [...] [Page 280] feet, to illustrate how the Elders organicall power of Government should not prejudge, destroy, or take away the peoples equall sharing in a power of Government, which [...]e calleth fundamen­tall (which yet is, by his way as [...] of Government, as any Rulers in the World ha [...] [...] acteth in the exercise of Government) When I [...] confesse I was ama­zed, and could scarcely believe my own eye [...] that such a thing could be Writen by an understanding [...] [...]dverting to what he did Write: As w [...]ste in Chri [...] [...] that as, re­lateth [...]o the purpose he has [...] before: viz. that Elders organicall power of Government [...]ould not take away the peoples equal share of fund [...] [...] (a [...] he calleth it) nor the exercise thereof. [...] and his Discipl [...] Brethren or a Brother-hood [...] of mutuall and equall power fundamentall of Government; Mr. Lockier, I know will abhorre a thought of this. H [...] Christ, (saith himself) was th [...] sole Ruler, viz. Soveraign and [...] and Law-giver. Or wa [...] Christ here condescending to [...] of Government to­gether with his Disciples? Neither [...] he [...]ay Washing of feet is an act very [...] from [...]. Or was h [...] by abasing him­self to wash his Disciples feet, [...] him [...]ow they being to b [...] Officers of his Church, should [...] the acts of Government in the Church, viz. that they should [...]n the exercise thereof take in joyntly with them the who [...] [...]ople? Sure we find no intimati­on of such an intention by [...] in the Text: And the thing it self in the matter, [...] of such a lesson. that I think never man till [...] would imagined such a thing intended by it. Besides, an [...] is a peculiar action of that same kind with that for which i [...] i [...] given to be an example, done for direction to do the like. [...] washing of feet is an action very far different from exe [...]ise of Government, but is it not evi­dent enough from Christs own [...]pounding [...]f that fact, John 13. 14, 15. that his intention thereby was to give to his Disciples and in them to all Christians an example of [...] and charity amongst themselves, and that every one of them should be ready to the meanest and basest duties whereby they may [...]e serviceable and helpfull to another. Now what is this to Mr. Lockiers purpose here? if this be not, I know not what is [...].

section 12 This which we have considered is all that M^r. Lockier answereth to the Argument for proving the power of Ecclesiastick Govern­ment to belong to Christs Officers in the Church only, and not to the whole body of Beleevers or Professours, taken from the names and denominations, importing power and authority of Govern­ment given by the Spirit of God in Scripture to the Officers, but never to the people, then to them in contradistinction to the people. And all that he has said as is it is but weak in it self (as we trust we have made evident) so he has therein passed by a great part of the Argument, having neglected sundrie of these Titles, and altogether miskenned the Passages of Scripture, which by Pre­sbyterians use to be produced for them, and are urged upon the point as containing much ground for their Doctrine, besides the names or titles given therein to the Officers. I humbly desire the reader, & our Author if he will be pleased, to be at the pains, to con­sider what M. Gillespy hath to this purpose, Aarons Rod, Book 2. c. 9. wherein he proveth that there ought to be an Ecclesiastical Govern­ment in the hands of the Church Officers, see there Arg. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 19, 20. But now are these Objections brought by the Author and as slightly propounded as he might, and, I may say, Answe­red just so; Are these, Isay, all the materiall Arguments tha [...] he could find used by Presbyterians to prove the power and authority of Ecclesiastick Government to be in the hands not of the people, but only of the Church Officers? I cannot think he will say so, if he has been at the pains to Read them. Why then has he pas­sed others in silence, if he minded to give his rationall Readers satisfaction touching his Tenet in this Question? We refer the Reader to see these touched at by the Author here, more pre­gnantly managed, and others besides them, in Jus Divin. of Church Government, part. 2. c. 10, and c. 11. Sect. 2. Gul. A­pollon. Considerat. of certain Gontrov. c. 4. Spanhem. Epist. to David Buchan. q. 2. Mr. Ruth. Peaceable Plea, and Due Right. Now come we to M^r. Lockiers second Asserti­on.

SECTION VII. M^r. Lockiers 2. Assertion touching Presbyteries of ma­ny particular Congregations combined (whether Classicall or Synodicall) and their power considered, and the true state of the Controversie touching this matter between Presbyterians and Indepen­dents layed forth.

section 1 IN the former Assertion the Author would throw the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heaven, the power of the Government of the Church, out of the hands of them whom Christ has appointed to be Rulers over the Church, his Officers, to put the same in the hands of all and every one of the people. And in the second he would so put them in the hands of one particular Congregation (may be, of seven or ten persons: For of so many may a Church be compleatly constitute by their way) as that they shall exercise all that power, even to the highest acts thereof, Independently as the supream Tribunall in Ecclesiastick Government under Jesus Christ, upon earth: So as that if there should be any errour com­mitted by such a particular Congregation, suppose the greatest errour or heresie in Doctrine maintained by it, or a man unjustly Excommunicated and casten out of the Church, there is no Eccle­siastick authoritative remedy under Heaven to redresse such an errour: No Ecclesiastick Judicatory, to which a grieved per­son may have recourse, by appeal for Authoritative re­cognition, or redresse of his grievance: But see we his Asser­tion.

section 2 That Presbyteries or Elderships without the particular Con­gregations, exercing authoritative and coercive power over it, are an invention of man. Having thus propounded his Assertion, He explaines the subject of it thus. By Presbyteries or Elderships without the Congregation, I mean such an Eldership as is chosen out of severall particular Congregations, assuming to themselves, superiour and decisive power over them. Afterward he calls it [Page 283] forrain Eldership, SECT. 20. And so forth in the rest of his Book. And then again undertaking to explain the nature thereof, sayeth, I find among our Brethren themselves that Elders and Brethren, sent and impowered from their severall Congregations, respective­ly, to transact, and conclude such and such Ecclesiastick affairs within such a limited bounds, ex sua potestate, are a forrain Pre­sbytery. A note or two upon these things and then we shall more clearly and distinctly set forth the true state of the Controversie, and what is our Doctrine therein. 1. Whereas he propounds to himself to Dispute against the Authority of an Eldership or Presby­tery without the particular Congregation, i. e. as he calls it after­ward, forrain to the Congregation, he but enters in a conflict a­gainst his own fiction. And whereas he sayeth, SECT. 20. that he finds, amongst their Brethren. (he means Presbyterians) that a Presbytery sent from severall Congregations is a forrain Presby­tery. I humbly conceive, for ought I can remember of any of them, he wrongs them exceeding much. I do not remember of any Presbyterian, that acknowledges the Presbytery of severall Congregations associat in Government, to be a forrain or extrin­secall Presbytery, to these Congregations: Nor is it so indeed. It cannot be called a forrain Presbytery to all the Congregations associat under it; Because it is made of their own severall Elder­ships: Nor yet can it be forrain or externall to any of them; Be­cause every one is a part of it, and in it as a part of the whole. As a Parliament cannot be called a forrain Judicatory to the whole Kingdom whereof it is the Parliament, nor unto any of the seve­rall Cities or Counties, which are parts of the Kingdom, and are in the Parliament by their Deputies or Commissioners, as parts constituents thereof. Indeed the Prelate and his Cathedrall con­sistory taking to themselves the Government and Jurisdiction over all Congregations in the Diocese were an externall & forrain Judi­catory to these Churches, because they excluded the other Con­gregations and their Elderships from all collaterall concurrence and copartnership with them in the Government. But the Presbytery we speak for, is made up of the Elders of the severall Congregati­ons which it governs, as intrinsecall collaterall parts constituent thereof, and therefore cannot be called forrain to these severall [Page 284] Congregations. 2. When as he expresseth the power of these Pres­byteries against which he propounds this dispute, under the name of coercition, calling it a coercive power. He seemeth on purpose to choise an odious word, to render it suspicious by the very name: For the word of coercing, in the common use, mostly seemeth to import, outward bodily or civill force exercised upon persons or things to stop and represse their actions, ipsis etiam renitentibus, we ascribe no such power unto Presbyteries: But a power of exe­cuting spirituall censures which have no externall force upon per­sons, yea nor Physicall neither, but only Morall, as administred by the Eldership: Tho they may be accompanied by God, With a Physicall (I mean a reall) operation upon the persons, either in mercy or judgement. And if at any time those who are for Pres­byteries over more Congregations, speaking of their power, call it coercive, they mean no other thing, but a power of Spirituall ju­risdiction exercised in Spirituall censures, such as the Author him­self and these of his way, attributes to particular Elderships of a single Congregation together with the Congregation over every member thereof. If the Author had dealt ingenuously with us, he should not used such a word without explanation of the thing, he knoweth we mean. But now let's see the clear state of the contro­versie in this mater.

section 3 The subject in generall, whereupon the Question runneth be­tween us and the Independent Brethren, is a Presbytery or Elder­ship of more Congregations then one. Concerning which, there are some things, confessed and uncontroverted, where of we should take notice in the first place that we may the better see where the difference and contoversie lyeth. 1. 'Tis confessed by our Bre­thren themselves that consociation of more particular Churches or Congregations in one Presbytery or Eldership is lawfull and usefull Hooker Surv. p. 4. c. 1, 2. 2. That these consociations are and may be of severall sorts and degrees, some lesser, some greater, Classes, Synods, and these Provinciall, Nationall, Oecumenicall, Idem, Ibid: So then there is no controversie about the being sim­ply of Elderships and Presbyteries of more Congregations consoci­ated, that they may lawfully be, and of diverse sorts is confessed. [Page 285] But there are these points especially concerning them of which there is controversie between us and our Brethren.

section 4 The 1. is concerning the nature of their power over the severall Congregations or Churches consociated in them. Our Brethren of the Independent way attribute no other power unto them but of counsel, & perswasion to informe and hold forth unto the Churches what is commanded by the Word of God, & to exhort & perswade them to their duty, to obedience of what they find commanded in the Word; But allow them no authority and jurisdictionall power to enjoine their determinations from the Word authorita­tively under pain of Ecclesiasticall censures. So M^r. Hooker, in the forecited place, pag. 2, 3. 'tis true he calls this power of counsell, by the name of Authority. And so M^r. Lockier from him, Sect. 30. but an authoritative power of meer counsell, advice and per­suasion may be justly counted a Chimaera. But we shall not contend about names; Call it authority or power or what you will, the thing it self is nothing else but brotherly counsell, which hath no binding force formally as issuing from the Presbyterie: But bind­eth meerly vi materiae, materially in regard of the thing which is propounded by them, as it is a Scripture truth or command, as is confessed by M^r. Hooker; And this is no more then one Brother may do towards another, and one sister Church may do to another. M^r. Cotton in the Keyes, ch. 6. seemeth to attribute more power to a Synod. They have (sayeth he) power not onely to give light and counsell in mater of truth and practice: But also to com­mand and enjoine the things to be believed and done. The expresse words of the Synodicall letter imply no lesse, Act. 15. 27. It is an act of the power of the Keyes, to binde burdens, and this bin­ding power ariseth not only materially from the weight of the ma­ters imposed (which are necessary necessitate praecepti from the word) but also formally from the authority of the Synod, which being an ordinance of Christ, bindeth the more. For the Synods sake. This in the letter of the words is a flat contradiction to what Mr. Hooker sayeth. He sayeth they have only a power of Brotherly counsell M [...]. Cotton not only that, but also to command and enjoin. He sayeth they bind only materially, because what they determine is either expressed in, or infallibly collected out of the Word: [Page 286] M^r. Cotton, not only materially, but also formally, from the authority of the Synode. Yet I conceive for all such fair words, in the intention and reall meaning of the Author, little more is un­derstood than what M^r. Hooker sayeth, at most nothing more but a Doctrinall power, which is competent to any single Pastour as M. Caudrey sheweth Vindiciae clav. c. 6. pag. 53. We, on the contrare assert that by warrand of the Word of God, the Presby­teries of associated Churches, Classicall or Synodicall, have a pow­er and authority of Spirituall jurisdiction, whereby they authori­tatively discerne maters Ecclesiasticall and impose these decrees un­der pain of Ecclesiastick censures, and may inflict Ecclesiastick cen­sures upon the disobedient and refractory in the particular Congre­gations within the combination or association. Only let it be ob­served here, that this authoritative and juridicall power we attri­bute to such Presbyteries of discerning maters Ecclesiasticall, and imposing their determinations under pain of censure, is not Auto­cratorick and absolute, binding absolutely, by vertue of their au­thority; But Ministeriall, and adstricted in its determinations to the rule of the Word of God: So that that obligation formall which floweth from the authority of the Judicatory into the de­cree in actu exercito, presupposeth that materiall obligation of the thing decreed, as contained in the Word of God, else it hath not place.

section 5 2. Point of Controversie is, that the Independent Brethren doe not allow the standing use of such associated Presbyteries: But on­ly occasionall: We assert that by warrand of the Word of God some such Presbyteries are of standing use as standing ordinary juri­dicall Ecclesiasticall Courts. We say that Classicall Presbyteries, in the ordinary settled case of Churches are necessary standing Courts for administration of Ecclesiasticall Government, and also that Superiour Presbyteries, Synodicall, may be warrantably of standing use where and when conveniently, moe Presbyteriall or Classicall Churches may have and injoy actuall combination, as of Yearly Provinciall Synods, as in the Churches of the Low Coun­tries are more frequent Provinciall Synods, and yearly Nationall Assemblies, as in the Churches of this Kingdome of Scotland.

3. Point is concerning subordination of lesser Assemblies to [Page 287] greater. The Independent Brethren deny altogether subordi­nation of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour as juridicall Ecclesia­sticall Courts. Albeit they acknowledge that difficulties arising in a particular Congregation in matters of Government, there may be a going out to an Assembly of more Churches, and if need be, full satisfaction and clearing not being found there, there may be a go­ing forth yet to a greater and more large Assembly. Yet they say, that is elective and only by way of reference and arbitration, and only for counsell and direction, and assert, that a particular Congregation, is the supream Ecclesiasticall Juridicall Tribunall un­der Jesus Christ upon earth. So that a person although wronged by an unjust sentence there (as they are not in their determinati­ons infallible) suppose sentenced to Excommunication (which cut­teth him off from the benefit of Church Ordinances and fellowship of Christians in all the Churches of the World) he may have no appeal from their sentence to another Superiour Judicatory to have his processe juridically recognosced, and the injurious sentence re­scinded, but must ly under it without any Ecclesiastick remedy till death, unlesse that particular Congregation be pleased themselves to revoke their sentence. So doth M^r. Hooker tell us, Survey, par. 3. c. 3. pag. 40, 41, 43. and par. 4. pag. 19. We, on the con­trary, assert that both the Law of Nature, and the positive Law of God revealed in his Word, both in the Old and New Testament, holdeth out to us a juridicall subordination of lesser Assemblies Ecclesiasticall unto greater, so that appeals may be made from In­feriour and lesser, to Superiour and greater Assemblies, That it is both against the Law of nature and the positive Law of God to place a supream, Independent Ecclesiasticall juridicall power in a particular Congregation, yea, or in any lesser Assembly when as a greater and Superiour is to be had and may conveniently be had. We assert also that, that series and gradation of this subordination which is acknowledged and maintained by Protestant Churches, viz. of Congregationall, Classicall, Provinciall and Nationall Assemblies is lawfull and agreeable to the Word of God.

section 6 Whereas there are these three principall points of Controversie concerning the matter in hand. The thing M^r. Lockier propoun­deth to dispute against in his Assertion, is that which is asserted by [Page 288] us in the first point: Yet some of his Arguments afterward used, toucheth not at that, but against the third, a series of subordina­tion of Inferiour Assemblies to Superiour. But come we now to consider his proofs such as they are, and let the Reader have before his eyes the true state of the Question as laid forth by us.

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 M^r. 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. [Page 289] 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 M^r. 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 [Page 290] with others to make up a proof of that complex medium. Let M^r. 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 M^r. 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 M^r. 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, [Page 291] 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 [Page 292] 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, S^r, 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 [Page 293] 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 [Page 294] 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, [Page 295] 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. [Page 296] 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 [Page 297] 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 [...] Luke 12. 32. little flock, and [...] 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 [Page 298] 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 [Page 299] 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 [Page 300] 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. M^r. 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. [Page 301] 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 M^r. 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 [Page 302] 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 M^r. 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. M^r. 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 M^r 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 M^r. 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 M^r. 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 [Page 304] 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 [Page 305] 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 [Page 306] 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 [...] 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 [Page 307] 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 [Page 308] 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 [Page 309] 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. [Page 310] 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 [Page 311] it good, by what we have answered, and what we have referred to, for further satisfaction in others.

SECTION IX. Examination of his 2d. Medium pursued in his SECTION 34, 35, 36, 37.

section 1 His second Medium is, that such a Presbytery opposes the word. His Argument here comes to this much in summe. The Scrip­tures give in their testimony; not one or two but in plenty, that what power of jurisdiction or ruling an Eldership hath, it hath it in the same extent it hath its Pastorall power, and no further; Yea, that an Officers Pastorall power, exceeds in extent his Ruling power, rather then è contra: Therefore a Presbytery over more Congregations then one, which extends the Pastors ordinary ruling power beyond the extent of his ordinary Teaching, doth oppose the Word of God. Answ. When a [...] this Argument, which is but a limme of that first large [...]re brought by th [...] Dissenting B [...]ethren against the Assemblies third Proposi [...]on co [...]c [...]ning Presbyteriall Government, and all the confirmation [...] thereof brought by these same Brethren, hath already received so considerable answers from the Assembly of Divines in their Papers extant to the World; I wonder why Mr. Lockier should present it again to us here so bare­ly, without taking these answers to consideration, or assaying to infringe them any wayes; Unlesse it has been his purpose to de [...]pise all his Readers. Well, we refer the Reader to these Answers of the Assembly for full satisfaction, and for the present say onely in brief. 1. If all that is said in this Argument were granted▪ yet would it not conclude simply against an Eldership Ruling more Congregations then one, but only against an Eldership made up of Elders fixed in their Teaching to severall particular Congrega­tions: But nothing against an Eldership consisting of Officers no [...] fixed to severall particular Congregations, but Teaching and Go­verning in common the severall Congregations associated under their one Government: And likely it is, that so it was in the Church of Jerusalem and others these first Churches; Certainly [Page 312] the contrair cannot be proven; And we think so it may be at thi [...] day, as it is indeed in some Reformed Churches without repugnan­cy to any positive Divine institution. But, 2. granting that the Scriptures doe testifie, that the ordinary Ruling power of Elders is not extendended beyond their ordinary power of Teaching (for that which Mr. Lockier addeth that the Scripture holdeth forth that rather the Teaching power exceeds in extent his Ruling po­wer, we desire proof of it, for he brings none) we say that it is a mistake which is alledged, that the Presbytery we speak for, Ru­ling over more Congregations extends the ordinary Ruling power of Pastours beyond the extent of their ordinary Teaching power: It does only extend the ordinary exercise or actus secundos of the one, beyond the ordinary exercise or actus secundos of the other, having herein a call to the one and not to the other, which is no incongruity, nor doth oppose any part of the Word of God. As for the Scriptures alledged by the Dissenting Brethren in th [...]t forecited Reasons, and from them here by Mr. Lockier, we still affirm, with the Reverend Assembly in their Answers, none of the [...] proves the contrary, they only shew that all these things belong to their Office, and that this is the usuall practice and work of Elders where their work lyes: But none of them prove it prohi­bited of God or unlawfull, for an Elder upon a call to do or exer­cise one of these, where they have not occasion and a call to do the rest. Any thing that Mr. Lockier sayeth to the contrary of this is but his meer assertion, but no proof from the words of the Texts, for which I appeal to the judgement of any understanding man reading and considering the Texts themselves: Let any man shew me out of these Scriptures any thing bearing this much, Elders rule these particular Congregations only, which you do ordinarily teach: So we shall not need to insist upon them particularly, only a note upon somewhat said by him upon some of them.

section 2 When as upon that, Act. 20. 28. That there were many Offi­cers belonging to this Church of Ephesus, herein we join with him, and that it is manifest here was but one flock, on this wee join also, as to the word one flock: But that it was one single flock, or Congregation only, as he meaneth, we utterly deny, and af­firme it was an associate flock or Church, made up of severall single [Page 313] particular Congregations; For proof and satisfaction herein we re­fer the Reader to th [...] [...]ssemblies Answers to the Dissenting Bre­threns reasons against the instance of the Church of Ephesus. And here again I must crave leave to say Mr. Lockier exceedingly con­temneth his Readers, when as such considerable Answers being gi­ven and extant against all that could bee alledged by these ablest men of his side, to prove that there was not many, but one single Congregation in Ephesus, he without any assay to infringe these Answers, obtrudes [...] bare naked Assertion, that it was but one. What? Must [...] to him, a [...] Pythagoras Disciples to captivate their judgement and acquiesce with [...]?

section 3 Against his reasoning upon this Medium, he propounds an Objection as one of our Arguments, Sect. 36. and Answers it, Sect. 37. Obj. Elders may Preach in this Church and that, and many particular Churches; Therefore they may, according to this you have said, rule over many particular Churches. To which he Answers, 'tis not occasionall Preaching which one Church by con­sent and desire may admit to another, that the Scriptures foremen­tioned make th [...] bound of rule; But where mens fixed call and work (he must mean the work of Preaching) properly lyeth. To where I am called to Preach (he must mean ordinarily) this bounds, commensurates and proportions my power as an Officer to Rule, so that to go beyond this, is to go beyond the Word, to oppose the Word. Ans. 1. Albeit from what you have said, viz. that the power of Preaching and the power of Ruling are commensurat and of equall extent, it should not follow that if Presbyters may Preach to more Congregations then one occasionally; Therefore may Rule over more Congregations then one ordinarily. Yet it will follow they may rule over more Congregations then one, in such a way as they may Preach to them: For say yee their Preach­ing and Ruling are commensurate by Scripture; Yea further, if Elders may Preach to more Congregations then one, not only oc­casionally but ordinarily, which they may (as suppose in a City where are many Congregations, the Ministers be not fixed to them severally, but teach them in common, as they may do without vio­lation of any Divine institution, and that de facto it was not so in the first Churches, nothing can be brought to demonstrat) it will [Page 314] follow such Elders may Rule over mo [...]e [...] out. 2. We do not make the occasion [...] [...] more Congregations then one [...] r [...]aso [...] [...] [...]hey may rule over more then one ordin [...]rily [...], a Mini­ster by Christs institution and [...] Office, [...]s a Mi­nister, and hath that office habit [...] to the Universall Visible Church of Jesus Christ, [...] singl [...] Con­gregation (see [...]his abundan [...]ly [...] the Learned Mr. Hudson, Vin [...]ic. of the [...]ss [...] [...]. c. 6. pag. 138. & seq▪) [...]nd so may and [...] O [...]fice and [...]ny part thereof in relation to [...] Church, (i) par­ticular Congregation o [...] [...] according as [...] promo­ving of the good of the whol [...] [...] and h [...] [...] par­ticular call there [...] and [...] of Preaching be bounded [...] yet his [...] Ru [...]ng may be ordinar [...]y [...] Congregatio [...] hav [...] a call thereunto▪ by [...] that Congre [...]tion [...]nd [...] the [...] together [...]or [...] and [...] association [...] obliged to [...]ter [...]

section 4 In th [...] [...]st of hi [...] [...] it [...] are brought to [...], that a Mini [...]e [...] [...] wor [...] [...] Preaching bounds hi [...] ord [...]nary power of [...] that wh [...] he does not that, h [...] [...]nnot do this [...] Thess. [...]. [...] [...] that labour among you▪ [...] compared with, [...] that [...]uring to be in the Wor [...] and [...] These [...] sayeth he, [...]eacheth that fixed [...] and [...] Ruling go to­geth [...]r. Answ. These plac [...] [...] teach, [...] here [...] Preach ordinarily, over these [...] also [...] not that ove [...] [...] only they rule. M^r. Loc [...]ier [...] but proveth not, no [...] [...]an prove from the words.The Au­thor hath it, 1. 17. I will not say but it may be an escape of the Printer. Only 'tis to be no­ted, that the place is [...]ust so Printed in the Reasons of [...] Dissenting Brethr [...]n against the Ass [...]mblies 3. Proposition co [...]cerning Presbyteriall Government▪ (whence th [...] [...]thor [...]orrow [...] i [...] [...]re) 1 Tim. 1. 17. where I doubt not but [...]he [...] been the Printers.

section 5 Anoth [...] g [...]ou [...]d [...], It is not bare labouring in the Word in a place th [...] [...] Elder ( [...]a [...] I conceive, that formal­ly constitu [...] and [...] one a [...] Elder) but being over them fixed and [...] such a station over them; And then where this is pi [...]ched [...] [...]is [...]nds his work of conduct and discipline. [...] th [...] it is not bare labouring in the Word in a place, [...] constitu [...], and denom [...]tes an Elder or Minister ( [...] [...]he Word in a place, such la­bouring [...] no [...] called to that work, And [...] of Christ) but it is as true, that n [...] [...] is, [...] commissioned to such a station (i.) to such [...] that notes him or constitutes him a Min [...]ster. [...] is, which notes, and constitutes a Minister [...], according to th [...] or­der instituted by Christ, [...] with Off [...]ce to [...] the Gospel, and to dispence [...] Which Off [...] [...] [...] ­ally [...], is in [...] [...]e­ly: And [...]is fi [...]ing to [...] not make him a Minister, bu [...] onl [...] [...] [...]o [...]u [...]h a Congre­gation for the const [...] and [...]. See this we say [...] [...]dantly demonst [...] [...] H [...]dso [...] ▪ Vindi [...] of the Ess. and Ʋniti [...], &c. c. 6. pag. 138▪ [...]

The third thi [...]g he bri [...]geth is th [...] [...] Key [...] (viz. of Doctrine and Discipline) [...] distinguis [...]ed, ye [...] [...] divided, Chris [...] [...] [...]oined and [...] together: But to [...] where w [...]e are [...] is to divid [...] [...] [...]ow [...]ell Christ [...]ll [...]ke [...] how well men▪ [...] s [...]verall hundred [...] [...]ars in blood and tyranny, hath sh [...]w [...]d [...] A [...]sw. 1. The Key [...] o [...] Doctrine and Discipline are not so [...] [...]on from another, as the Author by his big words w [...]uld [...] his Readers in hand. 1. In the very [...] or actus prim [...] ▪ they are separated; The Ruling Elder [...]ath the Key of Jurisd [...]ction or Dis­cipline, and exerciseth it, but not the Key of Doc [...]ine. 2. Eve [...] where they are [...]oyned together in habit, they are divided and se­parated in act▪ The Pastor of a Congr [...]gation when he [...]cheth doth not e [...]cise Discipline, nor when he exerciseth Discipline or Jurisdiction doth he at that same time teach: Yea further; H [...] [Page 316] may and doth teach alone, but he [...] J [...]diction alone, but in combination and in colleg [...] with [...]thers. Obj. But they are divided in regard of the object by th [...] Presby [...]erian way. The Pastor in the associate Presbytery [...] [...]urisdiction over them whom he doth not teach; And Ch [...]i [...] [...] joined them together in thi [...] relation, that t [...] one [...] [...]cised towards any, but to [...] the oth [...] is also [...] Author indeed sayeth so, that Christ [...]th appointed [...] brought a place of Scripture [...] The places by him here [...] put home this to the Author [...] can exercise rule onely in relation [...] where he is fixed to preach ordina [...]y; B [...]ause [...] to divide th [...] Keyes which he alledgeth to [...]e even in the [...] [...]o tyed togethe [...] a [...] [...]e hath said. But I ask him, [...] preach the Gospel [...] other [...] then of his own [...] by going [...] admitting th [...] to [...] to the [...] the Lords [...] to [...] wayes? [...] this, he denyes wit [...] [...] of Christians, [...] of these of one single [...] publick Ordinanc [...] of Jesus Christ; if he grant it, then he div [...]des the Keyes which [...] [...]yes Christ hath tyed tog [...]ther.

section 6 As to his bloody word, [...] like many others in this his little peece, a groundlesse [...]ander; There have not [...]een severall [...] of years, since that way of Government [...]ch we sta [...]d [...] by Christ [...] [...] associated Presby [...]s was [...] the Christian [...] Which for many hundreds of years wa [...] [...]bed thereof by Po [...]s, and papall Prelates. And since by th [...] [...] [...]mer­cy it wa [...] restored to the Church, it hath been a bl [...]d meane, where it has had place, to preserve the Church of Jesu [...] Christ; But for blood, if he mean shedding of blood by i [...], 'tis [...]ot a very bloody slander to attribute this to it: And for tyranny, I think no man qui non perfric [...]it fronte [...], can say, it is a way of it self inclinable to that, when as the very constitution of it, is to [...] to persons alledging themselves wronged, (and possibly wronged indeed) by the sentence and judgement of a smaller Judicatory, a way of recognition and relief by a larger associated Judicatory. If [Page 317] this be a way in it self inclinable [...] [...]anny, I confesse I see not, but we may as w [...]ll say that [...]ard is d [...]ward, and dounward is upward. But now to w [...] the exercise o [...] the Keyes so together and in so narrow b [...]und [...], as Mr. Lock [...]: would have them: That is to say, so [...] [...] of [...]n Eldersh [...]p of a particular Congrega­tion, together wi [...]h their people ( [...] be 7, 10, or 20, persons) that they are made the [...] Ecclesiastica [...] on earth, and there may be no [...] of the Churches of Christ in an authoritative [...] any wrong whatsoever they m [...]y do, [...] and Trueth in their dogmaticall det [...]rm [...]ations, o [...] in t [...]eir [...] censures up­on persons, if this be no [...] a wa [...] [...] tyranny, yea and loosenesse, and con [...]usion [...] l [...]t any man of common sense judge: [...] proof even a few years hath given of th [...] [...] [...]ell: Who ma [...] [...] see it, and what tru [...] Chri [...] [...] it without b [...]e [...]ng heart and weeping eyes, [...] a [...] this day.

SECTION [...] Examination of Mr. Lockiers 3^d Medium, pursued in SECTION 38, and 39.

section 1 HIs third Medium to [...] that a Presbytery havin [...] [...]ower of jurisdiction over [...] Congregations then on [...], is [...] de­vice of man and not a [...] ordinance of God, is, that [...] destroy [...] [...]he end for which Church power and jurisdiction is, & to which it pre­tends. In the prosecution whereof [...]t is a mater of wo [...]d [...]r [...]o see, what confusion, loosenesse of re [...]soning, and (I may say also) none-sense there is. 'Tis not worth the while to insist on [...]he Ob­servation of every particular th [...] [...]ight [...]e observed▪ In summe he bringeth three considerations to make [...] out, that such Presby­teries destroyes or [...]ludes the end of Church power and jurisdicti­on to which it pre [...]ndeth. One i [...] in Sect. 38. two others in the following Sections.

section 2 First: These sojourning Eldership [...] (sojourning Elderships we [Page 318] know not what, nor where [...] many associating Co [...] [...] in common) while thus pret [...]nding [...] like the la [...]wing [...]aw off [...] their young, my meaning is, [...] it takes off people [...] that which [...] groun [...] may warr [...] [...] a riddle to [...] What [...] pronoune their, relate [...] [...] to the lapwing, or to the peop [...] [...] of them be said I cann [...] [...] Againe, for that which [...] &c. Wh [...] [...] Congre [...]tion [...] [...]terie tak [...] [...] of [...] Or in [...] busine [...] of comm [...] [...] contraver [...]ed, [...] and that not to [...] And [...]ow [...] Author [...] ends (i.) [...] then [...] of [...] on to [...] followeth.