A LITTLE STONE, Pretended to be out of the MOUNTAIN, Tried, and found to be a Counterfeit. OR AN EXAMINATION & REFUTATION OF Mr. LOCKYERS LECTURE, Preached at Edinburgh, ANNO 1651. Concerning the MATER of the VISIBLE CHURCH. And afterwards Printed with an APPENDIX for Popular Government of single CONGREGATIONS. Together with an EXAMINATION, in two APPENDICES, Of what is said on these same purposes in a LETTER of some in Aberdene, who lately have departed from the Communion and Government of this CHURCH.  
By JAMES WOOD, Professor of Theol. in S. Andrews.  
EDINBURGH, Printed by ANDRO ANDERSON, for George Suintoun, and Robert Broun, and are to be sold at their Shops, 1654.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, JOHN EARL of CASSILS'▪ LORD KENNEDY▪  
My Lord  
WHat the wise observing King uttered long ago, that of making of Books there is no end, was never more verified in any than it is in the present age, wherein, scribunt docti indoctique, every smatterer and every fancie-full head must have the Press travel to bring forth their frothy conceptions: And Presses by many are made use of as engines to discharge revyling, reproaches, and blasphemies against the God of Heaven, his blessed Truths, ways and Ordinances. For myself, I can say in truth, it hath not hitherto been my ambition to increase weariness of the flesh by much Reading: And that now I come this way to the world's view, 'tis not of mine own mere choice, but because a necessity was laid upon me. The Author with whom I have to do in this ensueing debate, having not only opened his mouth to Preach in the most eminent-place in this Land, but also adventured to Write and Print against the Orthodox Doctrine touching the constitution and Government of the Visible Church of Christ, reviling in special the Church in this Land (yet through its side also striking at all the Orthodox Churches in Europe) as no Church, but a dead carcase having neither matter nor form of a true Church; a nest of unclean birds, idolatrous, etc. And thereupon charging with a great deal of confidence and big words, all truly Godly to come out of it and to separate from it. It was by some Reverend and Godly men thought expedient, that (although there appear little or nothing in what is said by him, which may brangle the mind of any judicious Reader: Yet because it is a thing usual to adversaries of the Truth, if what they say, be it never so weak, get not an Answer, to brag of it as unanswerable; And unsettled minds that have not their senses exercised to discern good and evil, are ready to be taken with any thing busked up with gay words, and so to be carried about, like weathercocks with every wind of Doctrine, as many sad examples of this time prove,) an Answer should be returned to him, lest truth should so much as seem to suffer prejudice any way. And this task they were pleased to lay upon me. Who albeit I do, and cannot but ingenuously acknowledge myself one of the least and weakest Servants of Christ, and that many others there are in this Church, who might far more worthily acquit themselves in this service: Yet durst not withstand the motion, having so clear a Calling, and considering withal how I stand obliged, in my station, to maintain the true Religion, in Doctrine, Worship, Discipline and Government, by the mercy of God established amongst us, in common with the rest of the Lords people in the Land, by Solemn Vow and Covenant, and more particularly by the Lords bringing me, who had been in my younger years educated, as to many things, in a contrary way, to the acknowledgement of ●he truth, in a very gracious manner, with a strong hand, and in much long-suffering patience, whereby he waited to be gracious, that he might be exalted in showing mercy on me.  
Haply it will be matter of talking to some, that this of mine has been so long in coming forth after Mr. Lockier published his. But it is not unknown to many who have been witnesses to my diligence, that my Answer was in readiness within a few Months after his Piece came to my hands, and the task was laid upon me. And had come abroad if several difficulties had not interveened,  
Now when it is to be published, I desire humbly to present it to your Lordship first, and under your Honourable name to the view of the world. I must spare to express all the great causes obliging me so to do: Because to express them would not only be, haply inexpedient; But also would be, I know, unsavoury to yourself, whom I have always found desirous to approve yourself in reality of well doing, but never liking well to hear of other men's euges. Only this much I cannot forbear and must beg your Lordship's leave to say. The personal obligations which you have laid upon me by a continued tract of undeserved respects, ever since the first time I was known to your Lordship, would require a worthier testimony of acknowledgement, then is this mean present, or any thing else my small store of abilities can afford. But to speak truth, it is not so much any personal concernment that hath engaged my heart to your Lordship, as that which hath endeared you to all who know the truth and you: That grace which God hath vouchsafed upon you to walk in tenderness and closeness with himself in your private course and with constant zeal to improve your public station wherein ye have stood, for promoving the interest of Religion and righteousness and the good of God's people without bias or wavering in any revolution of times (wherewith many turning upon the axletree of their own self-interests, have whirled about) the sweet fruit whereof, I doubt not but you find in these glowmie days, and trust shall abide with you to the end, through the mercy of the Lord whose gifts and graces are without repentance.  
I will not adventure upon such severe self-denyednesse to speak more of what I have had the happiness to be acquainted with, in your Lordship. I hope this testimony of my sense of the obligation I lie under to honour your Lordship shall find favourable acceptance at your hands. I will not presume (for indeed it were presumption) to commend my work in it: I pretend to nothing therein, but that, through the Grace of God, I have ingenuously and in simplicity, though in much weakness, spoken for truth: But the matter itself is precious and of great weight, consisting of two great interests of Christ Jesus his Visible Church, which is his Visible Kingdom on earth. The one touching the qualifications of the persons that are to be acknowledged members of his Visible Church, and so, in effect, comes to be a Question de sinibus, of the marches of his Visible Kingdom: The other touching the matter and way of the external Visible Government thereof.  
As to the former, my Author has so straitened the bounds of Christ's Visible Church, that by his sentence none are to be acknowledged as members thereof, and consequently to be under the Ministerial dispensation of the public Ordinances of Christ, the ordinary means of saving souls, but such as are already and antecedently found to be savingly converted, regenerated and sealed of God for his by the Holy Spirit, if not in the truth of the object (which yet most part of his reasoning and discourse pleads for) yet in the positive judgement of very spiritual and discerning men: And that as some others of his way further lay out the matter, upon trial and proof thereof given, by a conversation led without the omission of any known duty, or commission of any known sin: A public declaration of their knowledge in the fundamentals and of other points of Religion necessary to lead a life without scandal, together with a narration of the experimental work of their Effectual Calling unto Repentance and faith: And all Churches that are not constituted of only such matter as this, are, to our Author, wrong constitute. In the former part of this Examination, my labour is to discover the unwarrantablnesse and contrariety of this Tenent, to the Word of God; And to show that all who being of years does seriously profess the Christian faith, and subjection to be disciplined and governed by the Ordinances of Christ, aught to be admitted into the fellowship of his Visible Church, without any necessity of putting them to a trial touching their inward spiritual estate, and judging upon the same whether regenerate or not, as to that effect: And are to be dealt with, by Pastors and private Christians in their respective ways as these that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within, 1 Cor. 5. 12. Upon this point I have insisted the more largely, because not so fully and of purpose handled by others before. And it is, of a truth, of greater importance than many are aware of. 'Tis far from my thoughts to charge our Independent Brethren with any perverse design in taking up and following that opinion which I dispute against. Many of them, known to me by their writings, especially these worthy Ministers in New-England, Cotton, Hooker, Shepheard, Norton, etc. I do from my heart reverence as godly and faithful Servants of Christ, and as burning and shining lights in the Reformed Church: But I think verily, the specious notion of a pure Visible Church has duzled their eyes, and led them upon a way which in itself, beside that it hath no warrant in the Word of God, should it get footing in the world, tends to the ruin & loss of many souls, and to the bringing of the greatest prejudice to the present Cause and Churches, that any thing ever yet did since the first Reformation from Popery: And I am persuaded that, albeit the intention of those holy and reverend men abettors of it, be honest and from simplicity of heart; Yet Satan is underboard (let no man offend at this I say, Peter's example teacheth us, that Satan may abuse good men's zeal and intentions for Christ to wicked ends, contrair to his Cause) Satan, I say, is underboard driving that wicked design. For if that be the the rule and model of constituting the Visible Church, which they give us, are not all the Reformed Churches by this means condemned of wrong constitution, & razed out of the account of true Visible Churches, as not being conformed, nor ever having been set up according to that model? And what could more gratify the Roman Antichrist and his followers then to yield this? Again, is there not hereby a ground laid to Question all Administration of Ordinances that has been in them, and to justify the wild fancy of Seekers, denying that there is, or hath been for many ages any Church or Ordinances in the world? Moreover when as none of the Reformed Churches at this day are thus constitute, if that model should have place, must not either all of them be dissolved and cast down to the ground, that new ones may be reared up of some few precious ones picked out of their ruins, or to the effect they may consist only of persons regenerated and sealed by the Spirit, all other persons who, albeit they profess the truth, subject themselves to Ordinances, yet come not up so far as to obtain a positive sentence, that they are regenerate, upon such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, evidences, as these men require, must be all cast out and banished the Church, put amongst those that are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, without, 1 Cor. 5. 12, left destitute of the custody of spiritual Discipline, Pastoral instruction, inspection, and authority: And so exposed to be a prey to Satan and his Emissaries, Jesuits, Heretics and erroneous spirits whatsoever, to be led away unto what soever pernicious soul-destroying errors, or to turn black Atheists? That this is no needless fear, but a real consequent of this way, is too too clear, by the sad examples of many in these times, who living without the pale of true Visible Churches and not subject to the shepherd's staff and vigilancy, are run out into so many wild errors in Religion as never age of the Christian Church saw the like. Touching the other head, the Author in his Appendix pleadeth for two things. 1. That the power and exercise of Church Government, should be in the hands of the whole body, or community of Professors as well as of the Officers appointed by Christ in the Church. A Tenent not heard of in the Christian Church, until Morellius in France, Anabaptists, and Brownists fancied it, and, as contrary to the Word of God (which to Ministers and other Officers appointed by Christ in his Church as contradistinguished from common Professors, attributeth the name of Rulers, enjoins the work of Ruling, and prescribes the rules of right governing, but never to the people) so cannot but unavoidably draw after it much confusion and frequent schisms in the Church of God, whereof experience affordeth plenty of examples. 2. That this power of Government should be solely, entirely, ●nd Independently in a single Congregation. A Tenent that besides the contrariety thereof to the Word of God and the very light of nature, carrieth with it a multitude of gross absurdities and inconveniencies. By this means let a particular Congregation of 30. or 20. or fewer, 10. or 7. persons (for of so few may a Church, as our Brethren say, be completely constitute) run into never so gross an error, as to Excommunicate a person unjustly, to hold and maintain Heresy in Doctrine, to set up idolatrous worship, there is no Ecclesiastic authoritative remedy left under Heaven to rectify it: All Church-communion amongst the Churches of Christ is taken away: The unity of Christ's sheep-fold, the Visible Church upon earth is dissolved, and Christ should have as many visible bodies as there are particular Congregations: A Minister could not perform any Ministerial act out of his own Congregation: Not Preach but as a private gifted Brother: Not Administer the Sacraments out of his own Congregation, nor give the Sacrament to a member of another Congregation (as Mr. Hooker ingenuously acknowledges, Suru. Part. 2.) admission and ejection of members should only be into, and from a particular Congregation: A child should be Baptised into a particular Congregation only, and not into the Universal Church: And one Excommunicated, cast out only of a particular Congregation, because the power extends no further: Way is made to let in all errors and heresies, and as many Religions as there are particular Congregations, and none can hinder it in an Ecclesiastic way, and many more absurdities should follow, as Learned and Godly men have judiciously observed. Contrair to those Assertions, is my second Part employed for vindication of the true way of Government which Christ has instituted in his Word, and in great mercy set up in this Church, to wit, by his Ministers and Officers, not Lording over the people of God in a Papal or Prelatical way (as this Author either mistakes or calumniats) but Ministerially under Christ the only Lord of his Church, Ruling them according to the Rule of his Word, in a way of rational obedience: And that in a way of communion and association of Churches, and subordination of lesser associations unto greater and larger, as the Lord grants by his providence conveniency. On this I have not insisted so largely as the matter itself might afforded occasion of discourse. Because it has been by learned and reverend men already so fully debated, the proofs of the truth so clearly made out, and all contrary Objections so abundantly discussed and satisfied, that I had little or nothing to add: Yet I trust I have through the Lords help, in some measure, discovered the insufficiency and invalidity of what is brought by this Author, who, I wonder much should have adventured to present the world with such a discourse upon the matter after so learned labours of others, as are extant upon the same.  
I have also in two Appendices taken into consideration what is said upon these same points by some in Aberdene lately turned aside from the truth, in a Letter of theirs directed to some Godly men in the South, May 1652. The reasons moving me hereto were 1. Because of their correspondence with Mr. Lockiers' Piece, and it seemeth they have been in a manner his proselytes. Then having some time had more particular and intimat acquaintance with some of them, it would be to me matter of much rejoicing in the Lord, if I could be instrumental to discover to them the we knesse of the grounds whereupon they have fallen from their steadfastness, that so, if possible, which I wish from my heart, they might be moved to remember whence they have fallen, to repent and to do their first works: And finally t●… what ever should be the effect as to them, the irrelevancy 〈◊〉 the causes of their departure, being laid open, others might see no cause why any should be shaken with their fall. And blessed be God there are not yet many in this Land, that have followed them in this. What may be afterward, the Lord who sees the thoughts of men's hearts afar off knoweth. Time's indeed are sifting: And the ignorance of many, the base earthly time serving minds of others, unadvised principles in some, who, may be sees not yet the far end of their consequences, may prove an advantage to seducements & produce more defection from the profession of the truth, if temptations continue, then as yet we have seen. But let temptations and trials be what they will, the Cause of Christ, even that part of it which I stand for here, the order & Government of this Church, which he has appointed in his Word, and thereby made known to this Church, shall stand firm. It has been a cup of trembling to all that have hitherto laid siege against it, and a burdensome stone to all that have at any time burdened themselves w●…h it, to cut them in pieces: & it will yet prove so to all who will adventure to do the like. And turn their back upon it who will, Christ will not want his witnesses to bear witness unto it; Even if need be, by not loving their lives unto the death. And O but that man might count himself highly favoured of God, whom he should honour with that dignity! as that eminent servant of Jesus Christ Mr. Welsch spoke in relation to himself of suffering for some branches of the same cause, w●…ged in his time. But having detained your Lordship too 〈◊〉, I present this testimony, I have given to it according to my weak measure, to you, commending it not only to your favourable acceptance but also to your judicious censure, and yourself unto the Grace of God who has called you unto the u●…ained love of the truth, and is able to preserve you therein ●…lameable unto the end. I am  
Your Lords●… most humble Servant in the Lord, James Wood   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
ALbeit it hath pleased Mr. Lockier to prefix unto his Book two Epistles of his own, and a third of three of his friends, containing many sharp invectives against this Church, and strange Commentaries upon the Lords dispensations toward us, as striking against our Church constitution and Government: Yet I shall not detain the Reader with scanning of the same, being confident that upon the clearing and vindicating of the truth in the following Treatise, these discourses will be found by the Godly and Judicious to be not only bitter against Brethren in affliction (proving them to be Physicians of no value) but injurious to God and his Truth, in ascribing our calamities to our adhering thereto, and judging of the truth of our Religion by the Lords outward dispensations toward us.   

An Index of the Sections.  

PART. I. Concerning the Mater of the Visible Kirk.  

SECT. I. MR. Lockier his Analysis and explication of the Text, Act. 15. 3. for laying a ground to his Doctrine concerning the Mater of the Visible Kirk, considered. p. 1.  
SECT. II. His Doctrine pondered and the state of the controversy between us and the Independent Brethren touching the necessary qualification of Members of the Visible Kirk cleared. p. 16.  
SECT. III. His first Class of Arguments from Act. 9 26. and 2. 47. and Heb. 3. 5, 6. brought as directly holding forth his Doctrine, Answered. p. 31.  
SECT. iv The Author's Texts which he calls hints and shadows of his Doctrine. p. 40.  
SECT. V Examination of the proof of his Doctrine by induction. p. 56,  
SECT. VI Examination of his proofs brought under the name of reason. p. 83  
SECT. VII. A short modest reply to the bitter use he maketh of his Doctrine. p. 102.  
SECT. VIII. The Objections he maketh to himself and his Answers thereto, considered. p. 107.  
SECT. IX. Some Arguments confirming our Doctrine and everting the adverse opinion about the necessary qualification of Members of the Visible Kirk. p. 127.  
APPEND. Wherein is Examined so muc● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Letter, written by these of Aberdene, who lately have sep●…ted from this Kirk upon the Independent grounds, as relateth to the p●…sent Question touching the necessary qualification of Members of the Visible Kirk. p. 168.    

PART. II. Concerning Kirk Government.  

SECT. I. MR. Lockier his first Assertion. That the Eldership within a particular Congregation is not in most weighty things to exert power without the consent and approbation of the Kirk whereof they are, considered. p. 194.  
SECT. II. Examination of his 1, 2, 3, 4. Argument. p. 203.  
SECT. III. His 5, Argument discussed. p. 226.  
SECT. iv His Argument from common testimony considered and Answered. p. 251.  
SECT. V His Answers to some Objections made against his Assertion from some Passages of Scripture, examined. p. 255.  
SECT. VI His Answers to some other Objections made by way of reason, examined. p. 263.  
SECT. VII. His second Assertion touching Presbyteries of many particular Congregations combined, and the true state of the controversy touching this matter between Presbyterians and Independents laid forth. p. 283.  
SECT. VIII. His first ground against a Presbytery having authoritative juridical power over more Congregations, that it is without foundation in the Word, examined. p. 288.  
SECT. IX. Examination of his 2. medium, that what power of ruling an Eldership hath, it hath it in the same extent with its Pastoral power. p. 311.  
SECT. X. Examination of his 3. medium, that it destroys the end for which Kirk power is. p. 317.  
SECT. XI. Examination of his 4. medium, that a particular Congregation is complete and sufficient in itself without an associate Presbytery over more Congregations. p. 325.  
SECT. XII. A reply to his Answers to some Objections wherein separation from, not only the Kirk of Scotland, but all the Protestant Presbyterian Kirks, as Idolatrous, is driven at. p. 340.  
APPEND. Wherein is Examined what is said in the forementioned Letter of the new Independents of Aberdene, for the Independent congregational, and against the Presbyterial way of Kirk-Government. p. 360.     

AN INDEX Of the places of SCRIPTURE Vindicated or Explained.  
  pag. NUmb. 11. 17. 227. Deut. 29. 2, 3, 4. 10, 11, 12, 13. 133. Prov. 9 3, 4. 155. Isa. 66. 16. to the end. 97. Jerem. 12. 9 101. 31. 33. 53, 56. Dan. 12. 1. 101. Mal. 1. 11. 93. Mat. 3. 5. 6. 134. 7. 181. 13. 24. 47. 163. 16, 17, 18, 19 40. 235. 18. 15, 16, 17, 18. 227. 364. Luke 7. 30. 181. John 3. 26. 137. Acts 1. 15. 23. 289. 26. 244. 2. 38. 119. 136. 47. 34. 4. 35. 292. 6. 3, 4, 5, 6. 294. 8. 13. 118. 9 26. 31. 11. 20, 21, 23. 9 25. 11. 13. 2, 3. 259. 41. 44. 104. 14. 23. 246. 27, 28. 12. 15. 8. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19 14. 22, 23. 239. 371. 27. 285. 28. 297. 16. 4. 242. 20. 28. 32. 66. 276. 296. 312. 21. 25. 242. Rom. 1. 6, 7, 8, 9 60. 173. 10. 14. 17. 156. 1 Cor. 1. 2. to 8. 68 3. 10. to 17. 86. 22. 216. 4. 4, 5. 62. 5. 4. 237. 6. 18, 19, 20. 173. 12, 13, 14. 179. 2 Cor. 1. 24. 27● 2. 6. 236. 5, 18, 19, 20. 156. 6. 16. 91. Gal. 1. 22. 74. 4. 9 64. 6. 1. ib. Eph. 1. 13. ib. 2. 20, 22. 84. 3. 21. 92. Phil. 1. 6, 72. 1 Thes. 2. 13, 14. 74. 108. 5. 12. 324. 2 Thes. 3. 15. 178. 1 Tim. 2. 20. 125. 3. 5. 90. 4. 14. 255. 309. 5. 22. 260. 17. 314. 2 Tim. 1. 6. 258. 2. 10. 159. 20. 124. 21. 163. 24, 25. 156. Tit. 1. 5. 260. Heb. 3. 5, 6. 37. 7. 7. 258. 8. 10. 53, 54. 13. 7. 273. 1 Pet. 1, 2, 3. 74. 5. 3. 212. 273. 13. 74. Rev. 3. 10. 100 4. 53. 11. 1, 2. 44. 76. 13. 6. 104. 19 11. ib. 21. 101.   


EXAMINATION OF Mr. LOCKYERS LECTURE on ACTS 15. Vers. 3. Concerning the MATTER of the VISIBLE CHURCH.  

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 profess 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 Mr. Lockyer, for grounding his Doctrine he intended, pitch upon this Passage of Scripture; which I am ready to think few else would have dreamt 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 expressly, or by necessary and evident consequence. Otherways, as he doth much wrong his own cause, giving his hearers that are judicious occasion to suspect the Doctrine, can have little or no 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 kind, take his Name in vain, before his people, by alleging 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 itself (such as that maintained in this Lecture is not, as we trust, through the Lord's 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 Mr. Lockier here, I leave it to be judged by all discerning and unpartial 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 bond the differences between us. Now in a word only take notice what Mr. 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 truly converted, sanctified, and sealed by the Spirit of God as his; at least so far as men truly converted and very spiritual can discern, (of which additional 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 lie in, this Text.  
section 3 The principal things (saith he) in this verse. 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 spiritual 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 principal purpose, to describe a visible. Church of the New Test. by the proper constituent matter thereof, is but the mere conceit of the Author forced upon the Text, and no ways 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 joined with them, their journey from Antioch to Jerusalem, whether they were sent for resolution upon the Question then in controversy 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 tidings, that the Kingdom of Christ was so spreading, and that even the Gentiles were brought in to it. Here indeed are grounds of useful points of Doctrine: but what is all to that which Mr. Lockier intends, the description of a visible Church by its proper matter? A Church visible to Mr. Lockier is a particular Congregation participating together the Ordinances of Christ. Doth it any ways 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 professors whosoever, but such only as were tried and found, by truly converted, and very spiritual men, able to discern and judge, to be truly regenerate. What evidence is brought to show that this is intended in the Text? This, to wit, that first it is said, being brought on by the Church, and then, says 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 Logic, and interpreting of Scripture. I am not here to deny but the Church of Antioch did consist of such as are here mentioned, i. e. converted Gentiles: but my purpose is to show 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, pitched upon by Mr. Lockier as a ground of his Doctrine, relating the words of one man's continued discourse; so as the one part of them might be taken as exegetick of the other; or as intended to express a description of the thing contained in the other; but is relating two divers actions of two distinct party's, as circumstances of Paul and Barnabas journey: one, real, of the Church of Antioch their Christian courtesy in bringing them on a part of their way: The other (so to call it) verbal, 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 itself. This, I said before, I am not questioning now: but would discover the inconsideratnes of choosing 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 lie not in the Text, in express and formal, or equivalent terms, yet should be deduceable by good consequence from it: I humbly desire that Mr. Lockier would build a clear Syllogism upon any enunciation in this Text, inferring this Conclusion, [the proper matter of a visible Church is converted one's] for in this Text it is not said expressly and immediately, as he would seem to say in the next progress in these words: The complexion of a visible Church under the Gospel is here said to be conversion: the constituting matter, converted one's. This much might suffice for answer to this Text, as it is alleged by Mr. Lockier for to be a proof of the Doctrine intended in this Lecture: for, unless 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 pass over any thing which may be alleged to speak for the point maintained by the Author. I confess it had been fit that the controversy had been first stated: but I am resolved to follow the tract of Mr. Lockiers' discourse, that I may shun the smallest appearance of wronging him. Go we on then.  
section 5 They declared the conversion of the Gentiles: what conversion was this? A mere outside conversion, pag. 3. Nay, would the Author say, an inside truly 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 mere outside conversion? He but feigns an Adversary and wrongeth us, by intimating so much. We conceive thus, that by Conversion here is meant a forsaking and relinquishing of the Heathenish, 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 ways excluding, but comprehending under it also the inward heart-turning by true faith to Christ: but withal 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 spoke of, were such, viz. true heart-converts to their positive judgement, and so far as men truly converted and very spiritual 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; though not restrictively. Mr. Lockiers' additament, viz. [According to what a Christian can discern of a Christian, or in so far as men, etc.] is his own and not the Texts; yea I conceive 'tis contrary to the intention of the Text: because I no ways doubt but the Apostles meant positively that there was amongst these Gentiles heart-conversion in the verity of the thing. But that which Mr. Lockier says 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 alleged 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 alleged, much less proved the former hitherto; he hath alleged nothing to his purpose in hand. And yet, although he hath both alleged and proven this much, he had said but little to his purpose; unless 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 only 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. lieth in these words: Surely if the Brethren had apprehended no more in them (i. e. the Gentiles, of whom Paul and Barnabas spoke) viz. then a mere 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 great joy: but will the Author say, that, unless they had apprehended more than 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 purpose 
* For his mind is that these Gentiles are spoken of in relation, and as matter of a visible Church, & his doctrine is, that none other, not one other, no not in a whole Church, are fit matter of a visible Church but such as are, etc. ) they would had little matter for great joy? I think he'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 little 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 persuaded to dwell in the tents of Shem, (i. e.) the Gentiles by embracing the profession of the Gospel added to the Commonwealth 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 more terms than one of his Text (for, saith he, let us take terms as they lie, and see how other Scriptures do explain them) yet in the following discourse, I find all runs upon one term, viz. conversion, or, converted one's: 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, aught 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, though 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 mere report, took of those converted one's with them, were brought on by the Church. We tell you (as if they had said) of such glad tidings touching the Gentiles: but what they are, see yourselves: here they are: discourse with them: see if they have not the same soul-complexion with yourselves, 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 Poesy, but nothing of Luke's Text: yea but something quite contrair to it. 1. The Author saith Paul and Barnabas, that they might not make a mere report (viz. touching the Gentiles conversion, but might show living present instances thereof) took of those converted one's with them. What hint can he give us from the Text for this? it saith a fare 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 controversy: and then, that these Commissioners were brought on their way by the Church. i e. (as Grotius exponeth it will, aliquousque deducti à fidelium quibusdam, i. e.) they were convoyed on a part of their journey by some of the Church. This was a Christian, affectionate courtesy, and respect put upon them by the Church: So Mr. 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, tried, 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 Phenice and Samaria, where the Declaration was made? Hug. Grot. a man well skilled in the Greek Language, though little to be respected in Dogmatics 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 Mr. 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, etc. 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 effectual 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. Mr. 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 otherways. But however, understand we Gentiles; yet these were but a small part of them spoken of in Mr. Lockiers' Text, whom Hugo Grotius, on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Text, reckoneth up thus, n. Cornelii, Antiochensium, Cypriorum, 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 effectual 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 effectual saving work at the heart at all. I deny not absolutely that there was such effectual 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 believed 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 effectual to more. Only I say, it appeareth not from the Text that it was effectual 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 believed and were converted in this sense. 3 By the grace of God, that Barnabas is said to have seen, is meant the effectual working thereof in bringing so many to embrace 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 spoke as supposing it might be otherways 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 study, quod Hebraei totius cordis appellatione significant, ut ve●…runt Syrus & Arabs Interpretes. As if he had said, ye profess now the faith of Jesus Christ: see that ye content not yourselves with profession alone, which may vanish: 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 lime. 1. The Gentiles of whose Conversion, Act. 15. 3. speaks, were of many more places besides Antioch. Now suppose all here alleged were granted; what evidence can Mr. Lockier give us, that Paul and Barnabas, or any such other persons competently able to judge, had stayed as long in every one of these other places? 2. But to hold ourselves to this Church of Antioch: I confess 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 success 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 Professors, and that in relation to constituting them a Visible Church after that trial, and judgement 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, until, after that whole years' trial, Paul and Barnabas had given judgement what they did find amongst them as to their inward spiritual 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 forgery: 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 trial 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 spiritual estate, before they were constitute in a Visible Church. This Mr. Lockier should have alleged and made good, if he would had a  ground for his Doctrine intended. But doth the Passage cited, Acts 14. 27, 28. say any thing for this purpose? Now I report myself for judgement upon this, to any Reader of ordinary common capacity; let him but take this to consideration: 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 special 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, until 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 several passages of the Story going before: But I need go no further than the immediate preceding 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 show, not what trial 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 alleges 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 general Doctrine touching the proper matter of a Visible Church.  
section 13 Add (saith he) to this, Acts 15. where you shall see further what is solemnly asserted of these Converts in several verses, as v. 8. And God which knoweth the hearts beareth them witness, 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 witness, etc. That they have the like powerful spiritual 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 effectual grace, or else be spoken of some only, but not of the whole. Compare with this, v. 11. 16, 17, 18, 19 what he concludes, Wherefore my sentence is, etc. 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 Ceremonial Law, ought not to be imposed upon the Gentiles converted to the Faith. The Argument is clear and undeniable. GOD the Searcher of hearts hath born witness 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 Ceremonial Performances. Therefore it is his will, that Circumcision, etc. be not imposed upon them, as not being necessary to Justification and Salvation. This is the plain 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 effectual 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 effectual 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 Logic knows that there are enunciations particular, which speaks of some of a kind, definitely: and enunciations universal, 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 truly exponed, either particularly of some only, or universally, of all and every one, proratione materiae contingentis vel necessariae, 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, indefinitely, viz. that God had purified their hearts by believing, must be understood universally of all and every one of them that were turned to Christianity? Nay, I know he'll salve the matter with his qualification, according to what Christian can discern of Christian, and so far as men, etc. 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 always 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 purified 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 judgement 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 ways, I desire humbly to refer myself, I build thereupon this doctrine, etc. pag. 7. To which. It may be humbly conceived that the Author might have spared to speak of his painfulness and plainness, etc. and suffered the deed to speak alone for itself, and other men to judge thereupon, remembering that, Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth. But to pass this, grant that there has been some painfulness in the preceding 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 impartial 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 Controversy 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 days of the Gospel, is persons truly converted, such as God, who knoweth the hearts of all men, can bear witness 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 spiritual, 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 days 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 days 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, etc. 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 Symmetry, but antilogy and Antistasie; no agreement, but a fight of the materials of the building with 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, dwells 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 spiritual, holy and acceptable unto God, might have been offered by persons who only did profess Religion, were dead stones, having nothing of spirituality in them, but mere formality: and so hypocritical, 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, unless either he retract his restriction, or otherwise shore upon some Socinian and Anabaptistick Fancy concerning the ancient Church.  
section 3 Secondly, Let it be marked here, that Mr. Lockier clearly asserteth that the necessary and essential 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 judgement of charity. Others in the Independent way, have spoken more warily in this matter; though indeed I confess 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 of charity. Ans. This seemeth not sufficiently to salve the matter, for this additament seemeth to be brought in rather to express the mean whereby persons so qualified as is said before (viz. truly converted, etc.) are to be found out; then to express any thing in the objective qualification of the matter 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 Author's proposal of his Doctrine, is this, that the judges by whose estimation men are to pass as the qualified matter of a Visible Church, are by him determined to be men truly converted and very spiritual. All Writers of the Independent way, have not, I confess, 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 special 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 truly 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 constitution 
* Barrow discov. false Church, p. ●…0. Ainsworth. . Objection. Ay, but all are true Converts in the judgement 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 pass. 2. I prove the consequence thus: Mr. Lockier speaketh of such men to be Judges, as are not only truly converted, but also very spiritual. Now very spiritual importeth, I conceive, in plain English, if not a superlative degree, yet certainly somewhat above the mere positive; to be very spiritual, is more, yea much more than simply to be really and truly spiritual: So that either he must of necessity say 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 smoking 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 spiritual, but in the positive degree, and only two or three, or a few number in comparison, be very spiritual (certainly this may be by our brethren's 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 business, must be devolved upon these few. Nay I must press it yet further: Albeit it may be granted that when a Church is now completely constitute in its integrality, and organised with all its members, it cannot be well supposed, but there will be therein some such men, very spiritual; 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 spiritual 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 fitness must pass by the estimation of men, more than positive in spirituality? Must it be said in such a case that though they be all satisfied in conscience concerning the truth of one another's conversion, Yet they are not fit matter to make themselves a Church? I would see semblance or shadow of reason for this. Yea it appeareth contrary to sound reason, because in homogeneal 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 spiritualness 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 showing in what sense he takes it (which is not a little fault in determining controverted points) while as he speaks thus, allowed matter of the Visible Church: For matter 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 Ecclesiastic Court, whereupon the Church may and aught to proceed in admitting him to the external communion of the Church. I confess that none are matter of a Visible Church allowed in the former sense or relation, but such as are (not only so far as men most spiritual can discern or judge, but also) in very deed true converts and believers. It's a man's duty in professing Christianity and adjoining himself to the Church of Christ, to believe with his heart as he professeth with his mouth; otherwise he is matter not approven, not allowed of God. But I believe its another thing to inquire what is matter 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 general. Yet I trow it shall be found afterward that the strength and stream of our Author's Arguments, runs in the former; and so are little to the purpose of the Controversy between us and our Brethren, touching the matter 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 controversy, which Mr. 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 School; and that therefore it was not needful, nor becoming, Scholastically to state a controversy. I Answ. Whether in Pulpit or School, 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 before them. This he doth not all along, but in effect speaks so indirectly, as if we allowed all mere professors whatsoever, to be members of the Visible Church. Well, what he hes not done, we shall endeavour according to our weakness to do: and shall deal more liberally with his side, than he hes done with ours. Now then let these considerations be premised.  
section 8 1. Let it be considered that this controversy is not about the Members of the Mystical, 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 Mystical, Invisible, or according to its inward state is the society of men effectually called unto saving communion with Christ, to which doth belong, in the intention and purpose of God, all the promises of spiritual blessings pertaining to life and salvation. The Church Visible and considered according to its external state, is the society 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 Effectual Calling and engraffing men into Christ. Admission of members into the Church Visible, and according to its external 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 controversy. Further, it is to be observed that the question and controversy 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● controversy with Papists, which they, and namely Bellarmine, involve with many Sophisms, is truly and really this (as the judicious Aims. hes well observed, Bellar. Eneru. lib. 2. de Ecclesia cap. 1. thesi. 10, others have not so well considered) whether the whole multitude of professors, comprehending as 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 spiritual 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 intent, that they might obtain a Catholic Visible Church at all times illustriously visible, infallible, and unfailable; and that there Roman 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 showing that not wicked, hypocrites and reprobates, but only the elect true believers are members of Christ's Church, against us for affirming that all who outwardly do seriously profess 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 Professors as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. without, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not as a stranger and alien, but as a Brother, 1 Cor. 5. 11, 12. And consequently may and aught to be overseen, cared for, and fed by the Pastors and Rulers of the Church, as a part of the flock, and by private professors dealt with in duties of Christian fellowship according to their and his capacity. The actus secundus of Visible Church-membership, is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & fruitio, i. e. the fruition and actual use of Church privileges, ordinance▪ and acts of outward Christian fellowship: This distinction is of necessary consideration in this controversy. For it is certain, one may be actually a member of the Visible Church in actu primo, and yet not actually enjoy the use and exercise of all and every Church privilege and ordinance, whereunto Church-membership gives him a right in habitu: Because unto the fruition of the actual exercise of some privilege and ordinance there may be required an especial condition, which may be a man wanteth through some physical incapacity, or some moral defect. As under the Old Testament, persons that were undoubted members of the visible Church of Israel; yet might for some legal pollution, as an issue of blood, touching of a dead body, etc. been debarred from the public Assemblies of the Church and Sacrifices for a time, until 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 obstinately, but submitting himself, may be kept from the actual exercise and use of some Ordinances, until the scandal 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, until 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 than they were, nor now are capable of actual use and exercise of all Church-priviledges and Ordinances. Therefore it is one thing to inquire what is requisite to constitute one capable of Church-membership simpliciter and in actu primo; and another to inquire what is requisite to make one immediately capable of actual 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 adjoin 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 external 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 adjoin himself into the communion of the 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 Ecclesiastic 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 Mr. Lockier himself, pag. 55.  
section 11 4. Consider: There is an holiness relative or adherent, and an holiness absolute and inherent. The holiness relative and adherent consisteth in the separation of a thing from a common use, and dedication of it unto some holy use or end. Holiness 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 holiness, Lam. 4. 1. So the Temple itself, the Vessels consecrated to the Worship of God, the City of Jerusalem, are called holy. In like manner persons in a special 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. Leu. 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 believer, i. e. a Professor of Christian Religion are called holy, because they are comprehended in the Covenant made with, and embraced by the Parents for themselves and theirs: and so are to be esteemed as among Christians separated from profane people, and dedicated to God.  
Again, holiness is either inward and true, which consisteth in the inward renovation of the soul, faith, hope, love and other supernatural habits and their elicit acts: Or external, which consisteth in the Profession of the true and Orthodox Religion, and a conversation, so far as comes under men's knowledge, ordered according to the rule of God's Commands, as is competent to humane weakness, i. e. without scandal, at least, contumacy and obstinacy in some given scandal, and comprehendeth also in it that holiness' relative and of dedication. Further it is worthy diligent observation here, that when it is said the Church is a society of visible saints, this may be understood in a double sense; for the Epithet [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 signs and tokens are perceived and acknowledged to be endued with true inward holiness, and grace of regeneration. Or it may be taken as a note signifying the very nature and kind of the form, i. e. holiness which giveth that denomination. In which sense if it may be taken, than men are said to be visible Saints, in so far as they are adorned with external holiness, although abstract from that internal and true grace of regeneration.  
section 12 The state of the Controversy than lieth in this, to express it as plainly as I may, what is requisite in a person as the necessary qualification in the Ecclesiastic 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 real, internal grace of regeneration, repentance toward God, and faith in Jesus Christ: at least such evident signs thereof, manifested and approven upon accurate examination and trial, as is a sufficient ground whereupon the Church may and aught 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 those of the Separation, are somewhat narrow at the first sight, and seem to require exactness of the highest strain, and so speaks for a candid interpretation of them, to wit, that when such Phrases of theirs occur upon this Subject, as these: Only the Saints, faithful, 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 always really and internally such, by the powerful impression of God's 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 internal 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 Mr. 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 spiritual good in them, we say and hope, and are bound to conceive they are Saints; these are fit matter 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, we mean the elicting of an act of the understanding, whereby we affirm the man to be such: and by a negative judgement, the abstaining from affirmation of the contrary.  negative judgement 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 matter thus: So far as rational 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 less. Then a little after he expresseth clearly a positive judgement: we say and hope, and are bound to conceive they are Saints. Again in propounding the state of the Question, the matter is involved in a cloud: We cannot conclude but in charity there may be and is some spiritual good in them, etc. If we look at that, we cannot conclude but, etc. one would think only a negative judgement were intended: for these words import no more but a necessity of abstaining from an act of judgement, whereby the form in Question is denied 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 matter. 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 moderate, 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 expressly 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 general is their common Tenet, that only such can be taken to be members of the Visible Church, whether as foundationals at the first gathering of the Church, or as additionals by admission into fellowship of the Church; as may and aught to be accounted in the judgement of charity true heart-beleevers, having real communion with Christ, and that upon sufficient evidences given thereof. 1. By knowledge in the Fundamental points of Religion, and such other as are requisite and necessary to be known for leading a life without scandal. 2. An experimental work of Grace upon their hearts, of Repentance towards God, and Faith in the LORD JESUS CHRIST. 3. A conversation, not only without scandal 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 tried first in a way private: if the Church be a gathering, by one another mutually, until they be mutually satisfied in the judgement of charity touching the truth of the grace of each other. If it be in the admission of additional members, the trial 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 spiritual condition, and that both ways too. If these find no reality of satisfaction, they present their dissatisfaction to the Elder or Elders, which stays the proceeding for the present. But if satisfaction hath been gotten by Elders and People in this private way, than the persons to be admitted must further (every one after another, if it be at the first gathering of the Church) make, first a public confession of their knowledge and faith in the grounds of Religion: then a declaration of the experimental work of their effectual 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 blameless conversation. For a testimony to my faithfulness in this representation of their Doctrine, I refer the Reader to these on the Margin 
* hooker's 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 external fellowship of the Visible Church, but such as are already true heart-converts endued with saving grace, and having real internal fellowship with Christ, in the judgement of charity grounded upon such trial and evidences, as we have heard.  
section 15 As for our judgement in the controversy (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 proposal 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 profess the Christian faith, although their lives and conversations were never so wicked and profane, to be fit matter and members of the Visible Church. Which is, I must say, much want of ingenuity in them, and great injury done to us, as will appear shortly. So Mr. Lockier along this Piece intimating our Doctrine speaks always of persons merely professing the things of God. But I wonder much how that did fall from the Pen of Reverend Mr. Hooker, speaking of our judgement, Suru. p. 1. c. 2. pag. 20. The pinch of the difference lieth in this, whether such as walk in a way of profaneness, or remain pertinaciously obstinate in some wickedness, though otherways professing and practising the things of the Gospel, have any allowance from Christ, or may be accounted fit matter 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 Judgement 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 charity, is not requisite as the qualification necessary, in the Ecclesiastic 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 matter of the Visible Church, that they be such as upon trial and approven evidences, may and aught to be conceived, in the judgement of charity, by the Church, already inwardly regenerate, sanctified, taken into real fellowship with Christ. And therefore we judge it altogether unwarrantable to put such as are desirous of the external fellowship of the Visible Church, to such trials 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 summarily 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 sinful courses, (if the person be one coming out of heathenism or some false Religion) or an outward conversation free of scandal, 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 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 Ecclesiastic Court to constitute a person fit matter 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 moral sincerity (as practic Divines are wont to distinguish) though haply not always a supernatural sincerity, i. e. (that I may speak more plainly) which is not openly and discernably simulate, histrionick, scenical, and hypocritical in that hypocrisy which is gross: 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 matter, to think and purpose as he speaketh from whatsoever habitual principle it proceedeth, whether, viz. of saving grace and faith, or of faith historical, 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 suspicion that the profession hath simulation and fraudulent dealing under it, as in one new come from a heretical Religion, or who has been before a persecutor of the faith and professors thereof; there may be a delay in prudency and time taken to try and prove if he dealeth seriously and ingenuously: but that trial must not be to cognosce upon the truth of the work of saving grace in the heart. Pastors' indeed ought wisely and diligently try and acquaint themselves, as far as they can, with the spiritual 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 natural state may be awakened to slay from the wrath to come. But I utterly deny that such a trial 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 Piece 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 add some such other Arguments as may be satisfactory to Readers, and the Author may, if he think fit, take to his consideration.   

SECTION III. Mr. Lockyers' first Class 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 suitable 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 assays to join himself to the Disciples, but they were all afraid of him, and believed 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 tenderness in this matter, viz. of admitting members into their Visible Church-communion: and makes a note upon that particle all, that they were a homogeneal body under the same light, etc. 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 denied him now if bare profession had been enough? It is evident they feared that he did but merely profess, and that they should take in an heterogenerall piece; 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 satisfy them of the reality of God's work upon his heart. And upon this he was received as fit matter for this new house, and as suitable matter to that which was already in the building.  
section 3 Answ. 'Tis a wonder to me, and I profess I cannot wonder enough that any judicious and learned of the Independent Brethren should ever alleged 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 matter 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 strain and force Scripture to speak for it; or else their judgement being somewhat vitiate, as to that particular, with affection, trowes any word almost speaks 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'll say there he essayed to join 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 unlawful 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 upon this supposition made by Mr. Lockier, and other Principles of his was concerning the Visible Church, he may be put to a puzzling 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, until 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 says that the Disciples at Jerusalem their carriage toward Paul was from light, and conscience, and tenderness in the mater of the constitution of the Visible Church, and that they did fear they should take in a heterogeneal piece, 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 Wolf 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 otherways 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 tenderness 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 merely profess, etc. I Ans. 'Tis very poor and unbeseeming a man of understanding 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 merely profess, taking mere 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 confess 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 truly 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 Ecclesiastic 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 add 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 daily 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 matter accepted and taken in to build withal, and none else so far as they could make judgement between things that differed. After this he concludes 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 warrant; and so as a precedent which hath the force of a precept. And then takes occasion to anticipate an Objection thus: And this is over and above a plain demonstration of the possibility 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 real 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 Latin 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 (though 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 withal 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 Ecclesiastic 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 discuss not now) upon outward trial and discerning. This again is besides the Text, which speaketh not one word of this, I mean, the Churches adding or admitting; but of Gods adding, which Interpreters 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 Mr. Lockiers' dilemma falls to the ground, having no ground in the Text to subsist on. It supposeth the Text to be speaking of an Ecclesiastic procedure with persons, upon outward trial 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, etc. 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 Ecclesiastic admission added to the Church, and none else? The Text indeed saith, the Lord added such as were to be saved, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Doth it hence follow, none else were by Ecclesiastic admission added to the Church? The Author must give us leave not to believe every thing upon his bare Assertion, and must find out new Logic ere he prove that consequence; so than we see not how this Scripture consenteth to this point of Doctrine: the simple meaning of the woods being thus much, that daily the Lord was by his effectual 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 eternal salvation. But this no ways importeth, but many others not so destinate to salvation, might adjoin themselves, and be by Ecclesiastic admission received into the outward fellowship of the Church.  
section 6 The 3d. Text is Heb, 3. 5, 6. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of th●se things that were to be spoken after: but Christ as a Son 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 apostatise 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 yourselves, and should it be pursued upon you, you should be thrown out as unhallowed matter: but if others, which should do it, will not do it, the Master himself, who is faithful, will do it, He will 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 groundless 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, until they were erected of the new Independent frame and model? Were all the Christian Churches in Asia, afric and Europe, in the times of the four famous General Counsels (the first whereof was about three hundred years after the Apostles time) now not Churches at all? Here indeed look out the Donatists, ubi cubas in meridie, especially if we'll consider upon what 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, etc. 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 otherways 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 compass 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 apostatise much, forsook their Assemblies, their mutual 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 main mistake & groundless supposition here is this, that when the Apostle saith, whose house ye are if ye hold fast, etc. he meaneth this of an outward Visible Church-state. So long saith he, as ye hold fast, etc. so long ye are a Church (he meaneth a stated Visible Church) but when you let go, etc. you un-Church yourselves, etc. And so, as we see, will have the words to involve a threatening of losing that visible Church-state, upon failing of performance of that which is urged, viz. holding fast the confidence, etc. contrary to the current of all Orthodox Interpreters 
* See Pareus, Hyper. & others in Morlor●t. Excellent is Mr. Dau. 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. etc. i e. If we continue steadfast, inward  gripping the promised glory by hop●; & outwardly avowing, by confession, CHRIST'S Truth. Whereby he neither importeth the possibility of final apostasy of the Saints, nor mindeth to weaken the confidence of Believers, more than 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 persevere, to whom he doth not grant for the present, the privilege of being the house of God. And then he hath this 2d. Doct. such as shall make defection final are not a part of God's house for the present; howsoever they be esteemed. I believe any judicious Reader will see this Interpretation somewhat more genuine than that of Mr. Lockiers. , who expone that whose house ye are, of the state of grace and spiritual communion with Christ, proper to the Mystical 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 Mr. Lockier will have it. The Apostle meaneth the same here, whose house ye are, etc. which he saith v. 14. We are partakers of Christ if we hold fast the beginning of our confidence, etc. So Interpreters agree that one and the same thing is said in both verses, and the very purpose itself 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 Jews? 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 apostasy of Saints, while you hold fast (saith he) the practice and power of what you profess, and when you let it go, etc. is he indeed of this judgement, that men may have the practice and power of godliness, and afterward let it go? If he say, he meaneth of such as have had it, so far as men could judge, etc. well, this qualification, if in any place, should have been mentioned here, where without it, there might be so readily an apprehension of apostasy 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 will have to be the requisite qualification of the matter of of the visible Church, in the Ecclesiastic Court, he may as soon get a Visible Church, as a new World in the Moon, or Mr Mores Utopia. , in very deed? Was there ever any Interpreter that expoundeth him otherwise.   

SECTION IU. The Author's 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 keys, binding and losing on earth; the Invisible Church is the greatest part in heaven; and they which are in earth, considered as one with them, as one entire universal Body whereof Christ is the Head, are not capable of Visible, and limited Discipline; therefore I judge we are to gather from Christ's 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 matter he saith this building should be, viz. of such as have a faith which flesh and blood cannot reveal, and to a body thus constitute is the power of the keys, 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 Author's 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 Controversy of the Church, refute the Papists 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 controversy of perseverance, apply it to the Invisible Church, and use it as one of the prime Arguments for proving the certain final perseverance of true Believers. 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. etc. 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 2d. 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. press it as a prime place for the perseverance of Saints. We might instance very many more, 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, etc.  
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 here which is capable of visible & limited Discipline; but the Church Invisible is not capable of this: Therefore, etc. Ans. 1. How is the Major or first Proposition proven? By insinuation thus: He speaks of the power of the keys, binding and losing 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 pass 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 universal body whereof Christ is the Head, are not capable of, etc. Ans. 1. That part of the universal 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 entire 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 Professors with others, are capable of visible Discipline. O! than 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 necessarily follow: for to persons standing under divers considerations, one thing may be attributed, according to one consideration, and another according to another.  
section 3 As to his 2d. Observation. 1. It is contrair in itself to Truth, that the visible Church is to consist only of such as have a faith (he means fidem quâ creditur, or taken subjectiuè: for we shall grant it of faith quae creditur, or taken objectiuè) 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. Qualify it as he will, it is a mere violenting of the Text, sundry Interpretations by divers have been given on these words: Upon 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, Mr. Lockiers' sense cannot have place; For, 1. Understanding by the name of Church, the Church Invisible in that sentence, Upon 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 calls 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 accurate and elaborate Vindication of the Essence and Unity of the Catholic Visible Church: Yet it will little avail Mr. 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 Catholic visible Church, because it is such a Church 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 believing 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. than this; that when as the Jews under the Old Test. believed in an indefinite Messiah to come: now under the New Test. none can be of the Christian Church, but such as believes and confesses that the Messiah is come, etc. 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 keys given, and both these represented, and personated to us in Peter. To pass, I cannot well understand how it can be said that the power of the keys 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 pass it now, trusting with the Lords assistance afterward to evidence that both assertions, viz. that the power of the keys 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 groundless.  
section 4 The next shadow or hint is, Rev. 11. 1, 2. And there was given me a Reed, etc. Hereupon the Author maketh much ado. 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 public condition, shall not be left and ruined, but be carefully looked to and raised from its corruptions, intrusions, and ruins made by unsound men. This is confirmed by a Testimony of Marlorat, hunc in modum jubet ut Ecclesiam, etc. 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 itself. 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 confirm 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 embrace them to be matter of the spiritual house, they are without, and let them be cast out. Why? must not such be received nor abide in the Church seeing they have a profession? Because, first, saith that Author (Marlorat) the house is spiritual, 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, etc. And saith Mr. Lockier himself such kind of Professors and outside Christians will soon in times of temptations conform themselves to the worst of men, yea and be worse than they, and will strike in with the vilest to tread down the holy city, i. e. the true worshippers in Gods Visible Church, that have name and thing, form and power of Godliness. Then he tells that he citys 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 manner. After all these grounds laid down, he inferreth upon the whole this conclusion, that persons professing merely the things of God are not approved and allowed matter 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 them: but casting them by, and will do if we do not; how then we can, but at our peril, both in order to God, and order to such men, embrace them I know not. Thus he upon this place.  
section 5 Ans. 1. Here a word or two in the general. 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 though 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, unless 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 piece 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 compliance with his Tenet, and some of those seeming contradictions in their commentaries, which cannot be agreed without that grain he speaketh of; until he do this, we must account what is spoken by him here, but groundless 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 Godliness in veritate rei: He never once in it mentioneth that qualification, so far as men can judge: Yea, his expressions are such as cannot possibly 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 ask here what he understands by mere professing the things of God? Whether such professing, as is opposite to, and destitute of, even moral and ordinary seriousness, which may sometimes be without an inward saving work of grace; yea or outward convincing positive evidences of it: Or as it is opposite unto an inward saving work? 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 profess the things of God histrionically, mockingly, manifestly purposing to deceive, are neither allowed of Christ, nor to be admitted by men as matter 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 matter by the Lord in the Visible Church, and yet the Church may admit them into the Church, without any peril in order to God, i. e. without sinning by admitting them: as for instance, Simon Magus. If he say he means not here the Lords not approving & not allowing persons simpliciter and in point of their duty, but in relation to Ecclesiastic proceeding with them, in foro exteriore; he shall not have us dissentient from him about this in the general. 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 aught that can be perceived along this Piece, he seemeth always to speak of God's approbation or not-approbation of persons in point of their own duty & simpliciter. But now to put the most candid construction and Interpretation upon his conclusion, let it be so, that by matter 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 Ecclesiastic proceeding, in foro exteriore: and by persons merely professing, be meant persons not truly gracious (not of necessity in truth of existence, but) at least so far as men can discern and judge. Come we now to see what shadow of this point is in the Scripture alleged here: I shall go through the grounds laid down from it in order.  
section 7 To the first, ●t hath some show 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 ruins made by unsound men. If he say that in the former he means utter and lasting ruin, and in the latter, ruin 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 days. 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 Catholic Visible Church? If the Catholic 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 Piece, treating of the matter 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 suitable to his way) I see not how it can be truly 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 alleged 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 accounted his by approbation & so be conveniently cited under his name.  maketh nothing for this. This Author only saith, hunc in modum jubet ut Ecclesiam Joannes metiatur, etc. but saith not, Ecclesiam Visibilem. Nay, it may appear evidently to any attentive Reader, that this Author all along his commentary upon the place in hand, understands by the name of the Church, the Church Invisible, the society of the Elect true Believers, who are Christ's Mystical body. See especially these passages 
* ●. On these words & datus est mihi] he calls them pios Dei cultores, item electos. 2. On these atrium quod, etc.] calls them Ecclesiam de qua non sunt haeretici & hypocritae, quanquam in ea versari vidcantur, and citys 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 falsely arrogating to themselves the title and privileges of the Church. Go we on then to see what the Author out of this, and what follows, 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 than left lose to be disposed on and ordered at men's pleasure? I wots not well what this restriction means; but sure I am it looks illfavouredly: 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 general rule concerning the outward constitution of the Visible Church, as to the matter thereof, and how members ought to be qualified for admission to it, and not rather in a Prophetical vision, to foretell what was to come to pass 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 manner of worship of God instituted by himself, was to be brought to great straits, obscurity, and paucity, 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 upon 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 general) than 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 otherways, 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 ways and idolatry: So Merhiston. And certainly it is very likely that the Court here cannot denotate persons, I mean professors 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 find 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 Mr. 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 right objectively, and in the nature and kind 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 show that such as have only an outside worship, Religion, and devotion, but are destitute of the power thereof are not to be embraced as matter of the Visible Church, but held out or cast out. The 1. is brought from Marlorat, because the house, saith he, is spiritual, and holy, they are not congruous matter, ne complectaris eos in spirituali aedificio Domini. Ans. 1. That spiritual house or edifice 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, though 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 society with the spiritual house of the Elect, by disciplinary ejection of singular persons distinctly, (but by Doctrinal 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 Doctrinal not terminat ad signata individua, (as they call them) i. e. to definite singular persons) atque 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, etc. Ans. 1. 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 pass, 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 Godliness 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 disciplinary ejection, upon that very account that they have not the power of Godliness. 3. As to that he addeth himself such kind of Professors will soon in times of temptations, etc. 'tis true, they may be ready to do so; but tell me, will not even some such fine, well guilded Professors, who may seem as far as men can judge to have the power of Godliness 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 Professors. 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 mere 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 3d. and last shadow or hint is, Rev. 4. Which whole Chapter is taken up to show the state of the holy City ; 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 show thee things which must be hereafter. And immediately I was in the Spirit, and behold a Throne was set in Heaven, etc. Moses had his pattern 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 pattern given him in Heaven, to shadow that this Temple, Altar, worshippers should all indeed be from above, and such as should indeed have an internal 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 choice, and so a spiritual Priesthood.  
section 11 Answ. 1. Here again we are to mark the Conclusion that Mr. Lockier would be at, touching the matter of the Visible Church, such as are all indeed from above, as have indeed an internal consecration, the Law given into the mind, made Jews inwardly, an holy Nation, according to inward choice and call. Here indeed is an anabaptistical model of the Visible Church, all real saints, and not in the judgement of charity only. Mr, Lockiers so far as spiritual 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 internal consecration, that indeed I think to every man's apprehension noteth veritatem rei in se, or judicio veritatis (as they call it) as contradistinguished a judicio charitatis of spiritual 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 show 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 pattern thereof to be a rule to him and others then, and succeeding ages, for regulating the constitution of it, and particularly in the point of Church-members; but why did he not assay some proof 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 progress of his commentary on that Chapter, I find not any evident passage pointing at any particular in the vision, as a pattern, type, or rule, concerning the qualification of such as are to be admitted in the external fellowship of the Visible Church, as the homogeneal 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 general, 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 pattern, a certain portraiture or resemblance of the Church, whereby we might know which is she. Yea albeit I confess 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 general intent and purpose of the vision: and conceives that John being now to receive a new Prophetical Revelation concerning these things that were to come to pass 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 Prophecy, as in the next Chapter is described the Son the Mediator and subordinate Author thereof, as it is ordinary when the Lord is to communicate to his Prophets, and by them to the Church, Prophetical Revelations of great things to come to pass 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 Margin 
* Sequitur (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 etc. so Gomar. . And certainly had it been the purpose of the Spirit, by this vision to hold forth a pattern, portraiture, and resemblance of the true Church common to all ages, lest 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 less able to know which is she (as Mr. Brightman saith) it seemeth the wisdom of the Spirit of God would have portraicted the figure and form of the Church in these things that are most substantial in the constitution of it, so as Christians of ordinary capacity 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 mere 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 Glass like Crystal 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, etc. and to make it the stronger, it is confirmed by a comparison of what was done with Moses, Moses had his pattern upon the Mount nigh Heaven, etc. Answ. 1. Here is a thing begged for a ground, that as Moses was taken up to the Mount to get a pattern of these things, which he was to appoint in the ancient Church, so john is here taken up to get a pattern of the Visible Church, and the things to be ordered in it under the New Test. This, I say, is groundlessly 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 pattern 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 settled 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 pattern, and portraiture, or model of the Visible Church for the time to come. 2. As to that alleged meaning of Moses receiving his pattern near Heaven, viz. to show 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 speak to the purpose in hand) I will not trouble myself to inquire who may be these very learned men that say so. But the thing itself is but a conjecture: and I desire Mr. Lockier concerning this, and the expounding of Heaven here, to remember the axiom acknowledged by Schoolmen 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 truly 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 pattern 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 pattern 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 jer. 31. 33. brought into this discourse concerning the Visible Church, and the matter 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 God's 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' proof of his Doctrine by induction.  
section 1 But (saith he) this is not the way which I most mind to make probation by, of this point: I would prove it by induction, it seemeth then, that he hes not had such confidence in that former way of probation, by testimonies alleged to speak the point in thesi: And I humbly leave it to the judicious and impartial 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 lie.  
section 2 The Churches of the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Collossians, Thessalonians, of the Jews which are mentioned by Peter, james, and the Author to the Hebrews, and in the Acts, were all thus constitute of truly Godly, so far as a Godly man can make judgement of one like himself, Ergo. if these be denied as precedents, than I would ask our Brethren of the Presbytery by what rule they walk? But if these be considered as precedents, I have only to show 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 witness of as indeed sealed for his by his Holy Spirit, as far as men truly converted and very spiritual 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 their 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 proof: but to the purpose; he supposeth that beside these particular Church's 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 matter or members thereof. So doth his Question (than I would ask our Brethren by what rule they walk) import: But we trust ere we have done, to find a rule elsewhere; yet we shall not deny nor refuse these Churches as precedents in this business, in whatsoever can be made clear to have been their practice in this matter, I mean, the notion and consideration under which persons were admitted unto, and reckoned in their external 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 general, and then his proof thereof particularly. The assertion of them all in general is, that all of them were constitute of persons truly 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 truly 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 lieth, 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 truly 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 truly godly) & yet no advantage come thereby to his Tenet, unless 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 warrant 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 truly godly as far, etc. formally considered as such, and under no other consideration, in their in-taking and being reckoned members in their outward visible society: If he could prove this of any one of them we should go over to his side of the controversy: 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, believers, sanctified in Christ jesus, 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 external fellowship of these Churches formally upon this and no other account: that they were such real, internal, truly 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 external 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 proof 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 exaggerate 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 Lord's 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 weakness and nullity of the inductive Argument to the point in controversy. 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 truly Godly so far as Godly and discerning men could make judgement, such as upon trial 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 spiritual matters, and durst not compliment with persons in things of eternal concernment) under the styles of the called of jesus 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 matter of such servant 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 Tyrant Nero, as Paul calleth him (it should be Lion) or Dragon, as john calls all Heathen Emperors 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 than 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, etc. i. e. is understood, not common and outward calling, but that whereby men are effectually called to faith, holiness, 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 meant 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 spiritual matters, as he saith a little before. But, 1. This is an addition to the Text, and how will he prove that it was Paul's mind to speak 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 spiritual matters. But this behoved to have been by conversing with them coram; and that he could not have, it seemeth; 
* Art 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 several 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 general, ver. 8. 2. Report may be a ground of charitable belief (I take belief here in the general logical 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 Romans faith, for it implies a man's own personal experience of things. 2. We say the Apostle in these titles of beloved of God, Saints, Believers, meaneth true saving grace, truly existing, and not in the judgement of charity only: But speaketh there not of all the Romans universaliter & distributiuè, as we say all men are sinners, but communiter & collectiuè, & 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 more or fewer of them were endued with it, and as it seems known 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, faithful, etc. 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, faithful, 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 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 real Saints and believers amongst them. And I think it is a worthy and  consideration, which my worthy Colleague in the Ministry and my Reverend Superior in the College I live in, hath in his due right of Presbytery, pag. 259. in answer to Mr. 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 truly 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 Believers: He Writeth to a Visible Church, but he doth not speak of them always as a Visible Church, but as of an Invisible when he calleth them Temples of the Holy Ghost, etc.  
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 subjoineth 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 faithful Ministry, that all this should signify 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, foul slip, I will not say it hath been done out of design, 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, etc. we have noted on it sufficiently before. I add now this, by what Mr. Lockier saith here, 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 trial 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 mere fiction, of which not the least vestige can be shown in Scripture, and never man dreamt of until these sad times, broodie of many new fancies under the name of new lights. 3. I confess 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 faithful Ministry, are not outward Professors only, but are real 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 real Saints, Elect, to be confirmed unto the end, and so eternally saved; if he say, yes, in Paul's 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, etc. 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 matter, 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: (man's 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 effectual gracious preserving them in veritate rei, and so make use of the place, and press 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 upsetting: or also in relation to what it was at the present time of the Writing of this Epistle: The former cannot be said, because it's 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 he expresseth in his words, albeit some of the Verbs be used in the preterite perfect tense, no man can deny this who hath any judgement. If he say the latter, the very Epistle itself will confute it, wherein, to wit, so gross wickednesses, and impieties are discovered to have been amongst them, and laid to their charge, schisms, contentious suits of Law, fornications, communion and fellowship at Idolatrous Tables, drunkenness at the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, denial 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 real 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 mind to allege it. The point to be proven is, that the Church of the Galat. was constitute of persons all truly 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 surprised and fall into a fault, such among you as are spiritual i. e. more advanced and confirmed in knowledge and piety, and more experimentally skilled in Christianity, being conscious of your own liableness to temptations, apply yourselves to recover and restore such an one with meekness and gentleness; what is this to that conclusion? If Mr. Lockier had assayed to make up a Syllogism upon it, for inferring that conclusion, he would, I no ways doubt, have perceived the impertinency of his alleging 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 than what is said upon the Romans 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, privileges, and graces spoken of by the Apostle to the Ephesians, as blessed with spiritual blessings in Heavenly places, chosen before the foundation of the World, predestinate to the adoption of Children, to the praise of the Glory of His Grace, accepted in the Beloved, having Redemption through His Blood, the forgiveness of sins, obtained the inheritance, sealed with the Spirit of promise, quickened with Christ, raised up together with him to sit in heavenly places etc. are all by the Apostle spoken of and attributed to all and every one in the visible society 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, etc. 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 Covetousness, v. 9, 10. striving about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers, vessels to dishonour, as vessels to honour, Reprobates and Castaways, as well as Elect, the foundation of the Lord having the seal of God's Eternal Predestination & Foreknowledge set upon them, 2 Tim. 2. 19 20. those that oppose themselves and were to be brought with meekness unto Repentance, and recovered out of the snare of Satan who had them captive at his will, v. 25, 26. such as had a form of Godliness but denied the Power thereof, Misleaders and Misled, 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 styles and commendations, mentioned before; did intent 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 styles might been given to them, as far as men could judge, though afterward many of them degenerated, and discovered themselves. Unless 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 allegeth what is said in it to no effect for his purpose. But it is certain that the first Epistle to Timothy was written long before it, this being written long ere he came 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 Timothy, 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 jesus 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 charity, or so far as men can judge, (which is a mere 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 press it as an Argument against the Remonstrants' Universal 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 Colleague Mr. Rutherfurd, and assays 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 Mr. 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 shunned it.  
section 8 The Church here (sayeth he) whether congregational or Presbyterial, must needs be visible: Ans. That is not the question, nor the thing he should have proven; for we shall confess 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 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 unless 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, etc. are called the Church Redeemed with the Blood of God, The conclusion is suppressed but according to the terms of the premises: It can be no other than 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, unless they do see them and know them etc. 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 premises. 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, etc. are called the Church Redeemed by the Blood of God, Ergo, these called the Church Redeemed, etc. 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 form carrieth no more. But yet if one shall infer the conclusion thus, 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 Syllogism 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 Syllogism 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. hooker's, 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 than 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 etc. 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. The flock as it is the object of the Ministers external 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 expressly 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 Pastors 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, etc. 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, than 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 man's 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 Pastor to feed the Elect, that he know distinctly who are the singular persons by the head, but for feeding by public 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 actual efficaciousness, or efficiency of grace) and they were required to feed the elect that way, I confess 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, etc. but the efficiency of grace is in Gods own hand alone, and the Minister has upon him but an external, moral, 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 knows they are there, where he dispenseth them, and let God discern and wail them out from the rest. 3. It is a groundless supposition, and contrary to the truth, that in the current and common sense of Scripture, that redeemed being spoken of spiritual redemption from sin, and eternal 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 Mr. Hooker in this particular: We doubt not but Mr. Rutherfurd, will have more full and accurate considerations on it.  
section 10 I shall add a word or two for proof 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 sanctify and cleanse it, be not the Visible Church, as such, and so all members of the Visible Church, than 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 loved the Church and gave himself for it, that, etc. 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' universal 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 Mystical body of Christ, and also upon the Question of the Visibility of the Church: I instance but a testimony 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 Head 
* This is to be understood of such headship as has allusion to the head of the natural body, which hath a real influence into the body; so no doubt Christ is an head, in a political sort to the Visible Church, having a moral influence, by command, etc. , 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  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 Privileges 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 wickedness, who would afterward openly kith, apostatise from the truth, and become seducers of others. Can the Apostle have a judgement such as is mentioned, of such that they were Redeemed by, etc. 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 traitors who will kith 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 perfect it to the coming of the Lord Jesus; Will it follow hence that all and every one of the Visible Church of Philippi were real Saints so far as man could judge, 
* The 6. vers. by the Orthodox writing-against the Remonstrants upon the head of perseverance, is applied only to the Elect and true Believers, in the judgement of verity, or truth of the thing itself. See Ames. Coron. art. 5. arg. 2. proving this by  reasons.  no Logic will evince this from these words cited: If he had taken in the 7. vers. he might had a fairer show 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 judgement of charity passed upon them all at Philippi, as truly 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 Universal particle All, which he hath not in the former, wherein he expresseth a certain assured judgement of faith (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, being persuaded 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 less 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 yield the point in controversy, to Mr. Lockier. Answ. No ways: 1. Remember what we said; ●…e main point which Mr. Lockier should have proven to make out his general 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 truly 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 general 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 believe 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 busy 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 truly 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 alleged 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 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 endured persecution, sharp trials 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 deal 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 Controversy. Ans. 1. The Apostle Peter clearly writeth to the Elect, truly 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, believing 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 judaea indefinitely and collectively, not universally; saith not that all and every one of them endured such persecution and trials, 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 subjoineth that Profession did then generally expose unto such trials. But undertaking of a profession of Religion exposing to trials, if there be not actual assaulting, is no sufficient ground or evidence positively to hold a man truly gracious so far as men can judge. 3. Such wonders and signs 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 Magistrates call and countenancing of it, when there is no such miracles and signs; and therefore there is not such inequality between profession then and now, nor such inequal 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 assays 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 days of the Gospel with good and bad, with truly good and seemingly good, such as make only 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 only with truly good, and not at all with seemingly good? this indeed is your frequently repeated assertion in this lecture; But first, 'tis contrare to the express 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 additional qualification, which sometimes he inserteth as fare at least as men can judge. Well then, a Church Visible now in the days of the Gospel may be constitute of any who are truly good as far as men can judge, but many such are but seemingly good, and really bad; for man's 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 always what it is judged to be. 2. We form not our objection so naked and waterishly as you make it, there were wicked persons in these Churches, therefore, etc. But take it thus and answer it then: In these Churches, at least severals of them, there were persons, whose ways were such that they could not positively be accounted so far as men could judge, truly gracious, such as God could bear witness 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, etc. Ergo, etc. But this is not the only 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 general 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, showing 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 maxim 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 alleged in it falls to the ground without force; for all that you have alleged in it is a matter of fact; and therefore I may retort upon you thus: Because these Churches did consist of persons truly good so far as men could judge (which is the only thing you can allege 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 lose your Argument taken from them again if you grant but that de facto there were other persons in them then truly godly as far as men could judge, at that time when the Epistles were written to them. For unless you assert that at that time they were constitute of persons all such, you allege the Epistles to no purpose, because the Epistles speaks to them with relation to that very time they were written in. 3. It is rashly and inconsiderately said by Mr. Lockier, without exception, limitation, or qualification, (especially he being now speaking of matters 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 Church's registrate in Scripture to prove they ought the 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 gratify 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  reasoning from facts and practices 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 practices (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 matters 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 general 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 truly 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 general precept shown in the word contrary thereunto, Ergo, etc. 4. What may seem to be alleged by him from Rev. 11. 2. as containing such a general 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 pass upon the Church in time of Antichrists prevalency; 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 of the constitution of a Society, but a typical prediction of the straightness 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 general 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 general 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 alleged; 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 import that then they were all constitute of truly 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 join 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 Logic: 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 truly good, therefore all Churches ought to be constitute only of such persons; it is objected, there were many other persons than 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 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 general rule. I say where is that rule of examining and proving the grace of God in such as offer themselves to join, that they were not so strict to as they should? And where have we an instance of the Church of Jerusalem's greater strictness 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 practise 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 duly strict in this matter, yet are not infallible, and therefore hypocrites may deceive a Church for a time, and so get in where they have no right to be; the Apostle Judas doth confess 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 lieth, 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 subtlety 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 less simply considered then hypocrisy, which after-judgement is an Ordinance to cleanse the house of God and keep it pure, And doth strongly confirm the point I am on, that the matter of the Visible Church should be real Saints. Ans. 1. All this is just nothing to the purpose in hand. Mr. Lockier to prove his general Doctrine, that a Church Visible ought to be constitute, in its matter, of such as are truly Godly, at least so far as men can judge, had undertaken to show 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 their 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 general rule, which was the thing he undertook to prove, and but begs the thing in Question? But to the matter 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 graceless in their hearts do sin in adjoining 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 hypocrites 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 Judas saith, that such men crept in unawars into the fellowship of the Church, who afterward kithed to be such, as I shall not deny, they ought to have been casten out: But Judas saith not, that these when they made a Profession of Religion, and did not vent such abominations, had not 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 alleged 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 express and full rule for this, 1 Tim. 3. And hands ought not to be laid upon any man, without a foregoing trial and proof of these things. But where will ye show us in all the Scripture from the one end to the other such a rule requiring such qualifications in persons, and such a trial of them before, and in relation to their admission into the fellowship of the Visible Church; And to be under Pastoral care and the Ministry of the Word? If he could show us this, either in precept or approved practice, we should soon yield, and be at an end of this controver●…e; But this he cannot, nor ever will be able to show; 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, etc. I desire, 1. That it may be observed that an hypocrite may be taken in a double sense. First, for such an one as grossly and knowingly counterfeits a Profession of Christianity, and so indeed is nothing else but an histrionical stage-professor; Secondly, more largely for any that hath a profession of Christianity, wherein, may be, he is morally serious, but hath not within a Principle of true, supernatural, 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 Kingdom of Heaven. Now if we speak of hypocrites in the former sense, if men appear to be such, I shall confess 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 incorrigibleness in the evil, and of this I shall say more than Mr. Lockier, viz. that it is far greater, not only then drunkenness, and other such bodily sins simply in genere peccati in the nature of sin; But, if it evidently appear, also in genere scandali in the nature of scandal (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 Society of the Visible Church. If a man profess seriously Religion, submitting himself to Ordinances, though there were appearance, yea though it were revealed by God, that yet he were not Regenerate,- and endued with true supernatural Grace, I say such an one were not to be excommunicate; Let Mr. Lockier, or any for him, show a warrant of Scripture for Excommunicating a man for non-regeneration. The Doctrine of all Orthodox Divines 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 Professors 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 drunkenness and such like bodily-sins be less than hypocrisy in this sense, i. e. non-regeneration, simply, and in genere peccati in the nature of sin, yet it is not less in genere scandali, in the kind of scandal and offence unto the Church: Nay this hath not the nature of scandal at all. 6. Yet Mr. Lockier according to the genius of his Doctrine ought to say not only men, when it doth evidently appear that they are hypocrites, but even if it doth not evidently appear that they are truly gracious, and we cannot discern in them the power of godliness, they are to be Excommunicate: For his Doctrine is that none are fit matter to be admitted or permitted to constitute a Visible Church, but such as are truly Godly so far as men truly Godly can judge and discern. I believe most of the Independent way will disclaim 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 duty, 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 external 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 allegeth nothing to the 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 real Saints be the proper matter of a Visible Church, and saving grace the complexion of it; then all Saints so far as men can judge, are not fit matter; for these are not necessarily real 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 joining 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 external 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 shunned. 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 lie lose 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 shortness, and clearness, 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 form 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, Eph. 2. 20. And must be among themselves an uniform, congruous building 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, v. 22. so as they may stand. Then supposing that consequent this will be the second process; But such persons as have not true saving faith, such as Peter's, cannot hold and bear upon Christ, nor can they make up an uniform, 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 fight with the foundation and one another, Ergo, they are not fit materials to constitute the Visible Church. Ans. Truly 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 the jure the Visible Church ought to be constitute of materials or members, truly endued with saving grace and faith; but also it is no true Visible Church which doth not the facto consist of materials all such, i. e. truly in veritate rei endued with true saving grace and faith, and then likely there was never in the world a true Visible Christian Church, unless 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● truly gracious so far as men can judge; yet seeing men's judgements herein are not infallible; some of them, many of them, yea most of them, are not indeed truly 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 symmetry, etc. 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 symmetry one with another. 2. 'Tis grounded upon a mere 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, etc. Papists indeed say it is the Visible Church, that they may draw all the privileges of the Church Invisible, which is the Mystical 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 Catholic 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) until of late Separatists and Independents have joined with Papists in this, and drawn all the privileges, proper to the Church Invisible, which is the Mystical body of Christ, unto every Independent visible Congregation. Mr. Lockier should have proven, and not merely taken for granted, that the Visible Church is the building built upon Christ as the foundation-stone, seeing he knew that it was denied 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 privilege and property of it, in this also joining 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 universal. 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 otherways) and we confess 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, spiritual, eternal 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: yea verily he useth means which he blesseth and maketh effectual for that end, to the keeping down of the evils 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 symmetrical and homogeneal in true saving grace. This is a means altogether unpracticable by men, unless God by an immediate revelation should point out the men.  
section 3 Mr. Lockier for the strengthening 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, lest all the building fall about their ears: and see how he applieth this vers. 16, 17. incongruous superstructions if it be in point of Doctrine, it maketh incongruous matter, it defileth the Temple of God, destroys it, sayeth the margin; 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 profess I cannot forbear to say that I find Mr. Lockier abuse much Scripture in the little bounds of this Piece, 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 fundamental and superstructed, and that these aught to be suitable and agreeable to that, what is this to the matter of the Visible Church? Ay, Yes, by Analogy would he say first, because the Apostle useth the same medium and argues as I do, that if Christ be laid as a foundation, etc. Ans. And must that hold universally? because one using a medium in one mater reasons truly and solidly, therefore another using that medium in another mater and reasoning that same way for form, must also reason truly and solidelie? What if this other err in the application of the medium, and if some of his premises 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 foundation-point of Doctrine in Religion, and all other Doctrines are the superstructures; But Mr. Lockier assumeth amiss 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 applies this, ver. 16, 17. incongruous superstructions, if in point of Doctrine, etc. Ans. This is somewhat spoken in the mist, but for aught I can conjecture or conceive, the meaning seemeth to be this; that wrong Doctrines taught in the Church makes persons unholy, and so unfit matter for the Church to consist of; and so destroys 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 preceding verses. Now if this be not a forcing 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 warn 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 Schismatical 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 severely punish such as any ways 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 than conceiveth that these words are brought in as a reason why he that teacheth wrong or incongruous Doctrines defiles or destroys 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 matter, i. e. unholy, destroys the Temple, i. e. the Visible Church. A mere forgery 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 severely punished of God; the reason of which consequence clearly intimate in the words is, because God will not endure 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 typical Temple of Jerusalem, but that was no type of a Visible Church, but of Christ's Mystical 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 severally 
* Martyr 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, he meaneth they must be truly gracious, and endued with true saving faith; But Christ is the Head, and the Visible Church his Body. Therefore, etc. The reason of the connexion of the first Proposition is, because else there can be no mutual 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 political sense, as a King is called the Head of the Commonwealth, and the People are called his Body: Or (to speak so) in a physical sense according to the similitude of man's 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 political 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 political to its political body; this derivation being only moral, by commands, prohibitions and the like moral actings. But Christ is not a Head in the latter sense, (as the head in the natural body is) to the Church Visible as such; nor is the Visible Church a body to him in this sense, but only vocatione actiuâ and in external 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, internal, Mystical as such.  
section 5 His 2d. Reason is thus shortly. 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 trials; and such as in which God lives, and dwells, and walks. Then none can be matter or members of the Visible Church, but real 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, etc. Ans. Mr. Lockier still in this, as in all his other Arguments, shows that in propounding his Doctrine, he added that qualification, truly gracious so far as men can judge, but dicis causa, and in show, to avoid for a while the odium of the greatest Anabaptists Tenent of the matter or members of the Visible Church. For such as may be gracious and Godly so far as men can judge, men's judgement being not infallible in this (as himself confesseth) may be destitute of the power of Godliness 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 ask him if in good earnest he meaneth that to be a property of a Visible Church rightly constitute in its matter, 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 allege 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 Catholic Church Visible, acknowledging that all particular Visible Churches may err 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 Catholic Church virtually: but Mr. Lockier acknowledges not 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 matter from the beginning, seeing all the first constitute Churches have made defection and let truth fall down, which if he say, besides that it is absurd in itself, I ask why then did he a little before bring us patterns 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 pass, because they kept not a right constitution for their matter. I repone, that takes 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, understand 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, etc. 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 always, 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. come. 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 divers Orthodox Interpretations thereof, both ancient and modern Divines. 
We pass 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 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 praedicate of singular persons, severally, as well as collectively and jointly: But if it signify 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, etc. 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 firmness and constancy in holding out the truth? Hes God than not been glorified in the Church throughout the many preceding generations, wherein there was never heard of Churches so constitute, until of yesterday Separatists and Independents erected theirs? And yet wail 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 let truth fall?  
section 8 The 3d. Argument grounded on Malachi 1. 11. must be thus: If the matter of a Visible Church be not persons truly Godly, then there cannot be offered up in God's house a pure offering, and the Churches of the Gentiles cannot fulfil that Prophecy, Mal. 1. 11. For why? Unto the impure and unbelieving all things are so; every man's 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 Prophecy to say the latter, Ergo. etc. Ans. Mr. Lockier himself will not be able to avoid the stroke of this Argument; no, not by his own way, as some times he expresseth it, for thereby all such as may be accounted truly godly so far as men can judge are to be acknowledged and admitted as matter of a Visible Church; now many of these may be, and undoubtedly are really impure and unbelieving, 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 avoided but impure and unbelieving will be in the Visible Church, such as cannot offer a pure offering. 2. It reproacheth the dispensation and wisdom 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 Prophecy 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 matter thereof shall be persons truly Godly; But there may be and cannot but be, in it many impure and unbelieving 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, unless all the matter, 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 Prophecy be fulfilled of the Churches of the Gentiles, if some in the Churches Visible be truly Godly, though all be not such? Therefore he takes pains without necessity to prove that impure and unbelievers 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 matter 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 unbelieving 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 Spiritual House. 3. That else they cannot be a Holy Priesthood, to offer up Spiritual Sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God through Christ. That the offering and Offerer are one; That the offering may be Spiritual, 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 Spiritual offering in the Visible Church, if all be not such as can offer a Spiritual offering? that's the thing should been alleged to strengthen the former Argument, but it is evidently false. If it be said that the place may be alleged by itself, as holding forth an instance of the general 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, etc. cap. 1. 1, 2, 3. If it be said, but he intended his Epistle to the several 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 privilege or blessing existing, it is not spoken Universally of all and every on in their visible society; 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 form either of these ways: 1. Thus: if the J●ws be to be provoked by the glory and purity of his Worship and Worshippers, than a Visible Church, i. e. every Visible Church ought to be constitute of such matter, i. e. Members, as are all truly Godly; But the former is true, Ergo, etc. and if thus, than we deny the connexion or consequence of the first Proposition; And my reason, for the denial thereof is this: Because I may say, if the Churches Visible be de facto such that all or most part of their Members be truly Godly, and shining in the Power of Godliness, 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 external Church-fellowship, admit none but those that are truly 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, than he requires them to be by way of Rule, relating to Ecclesiastic proceeding with Persons in admiting them to external Visible Church-communion. In a word, the futurition of the provocation of the Jews by the Power of Godliness in Gentile Professors, proveth only, that God is to make the Gentile Professors 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 external society of the Visible Church.  
section 11 Or, Secondly, It may be form thus; If the Jews shall be provoked to turn unto the Lord, and embrace Christian Religion, by the glory and purity of his Worship and Worshippers, than the Visible Church or Churches (use which ye will now) shall be constitute or consist of such as are truly 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 effectual 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 effectual Grace are not our rule in this. 2. Nor yet doth it follow of necessity, 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 doth it follow that de facto even at that time the Church Visible shall be so constitute in its matter, that all and every Member thereof shall be truly Godly and shining in the manifestations of Purity and the Power of Godliness; 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 embrace 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 lie in their way at this day, and I will not say, but the impurity and unrighteousness 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 unrighteousness is amongst them generally, being for the most part most covetous, exorbitant usurers, cheaters, etc. most evidently, the deadest, formal, 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 Whore, will hate her & burn her flesh with fire; and the Lord will purge and reform 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 Professor in the Visible Church shall be truly Godly, or shining so gloriously in the Power of Godliness (for indeed it is not Godliness simply so much, as a more than ordinary shining and eminency of it, that will be the means of this great work, which Mr. Lockier has not heeded well in this Argument) or that if any in the Visible Church be not such convincingly, though otherways professing the truth and pure Worship, and living without scandal, shall be casten out; neither the necessity of that effect doth require, nor can there be warrant of Scripture produced to say or believe 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, godless, 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 expressly and directly, nor by way of consequence, of a rule concerning Ecclesiastic qualification of persons in relation to admission into external 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 thread of that context, as shall fill and satisfy his mind, much different from that of Mr. Lockiers, which is but a new coined Interpretation by men addicted to the millenarian fancy, 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 Grammar of the Text.  
section 14 He, by these spoken of in the beginning of the vers. 19 I will set a sign 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 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 Brethrens, 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 explain 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 professors 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 shunned 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 glass, 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, than 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 makes 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 employed 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 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. it's set down as a new and unusual privilege 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 & unusual thing to take of Jews to be such: for it had been always 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 Abraham's children, Rom. 4. and God's 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 sign 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 several 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 not simply people, but the rest of the people of the World distinguished from the jew. 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 (transgressors 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 truly gracious and regenerate, in so doing makes light of the things spoken of in that Text, he supposeth it without ground or warrant 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 terror of this Text for that.  
section 16 The place Rev. 3. 10. spoken to the Church of Philadelphia is but abused. For, 1. What warrant is there to expone that hour of temptation spoken of there, of the time immediately before the Calling of the Jews? And the Church of Philadelphia in a typical sense of some Churches to be then? 'Tis too much boldness to force such typical Interpretations upon Scripture, where the Spirit of God in the Word goeth not before us to warrant 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 days. But 1. All  Divines have shown their discontentment with his conceit as groundless. 2. Yet doth not he understand by Philadelphia such Churches immediately before the incalling of the Jews, as Mr. Lockier fancies, But hes expressly named some present Churches, which he will have to 〈◊〉 signified thereby, Geneva, France, Low-countrieses, and with the rest even that Church of Scotland, (which Mr. Lockier counts an evil vessel 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 itself which was the Pattern 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 grossly 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 immediately 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 Christ's first coming, but before it, the time of Antiochus persecution: And must Mr. Lockiers naked assertion, without reason, that it is a time immediately before the Jews incalling be sufficient to obtain belief.  
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 grossly missapplyed to the Visible Church of Gentiles to be joined with the Visible Church of the Jews after their incalling, it being clearly, a Prophecy concerning the Universal Church of the Gospel, reaching along from the time of Christ's first coming unto the end, as all Interpreters expound it, and the context itself 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 likened to a speckled bird, as if thereby were meant, that because that Church in its visible constitution, was mixed of hypocrites 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 it's rather a matter of mourning, to see Scripture, and so much of it, so wrested: The simple meaning of the words being this, that as a wild 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, wild, 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 truly Saints but suffering it to be speckled: Seeing all along this discourse, he hes restricted his Doctrine concerning the matter of the Visible Church, to the days of the Gospel? As for his inference wherewith he closeth, consequently the allowed matter of a Visible Church, (Remember we are speaking of Mater allowed in relation to the outward Ecclesiastic Court its proceeding in admitting persons to external Church fellowship) now in the days of the Gospel are persons truly holy, we say it followeth not upon any thing you have been alleging 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 truly holy, de facto. But dispensations of efficacious grace are not a rule of Ecclesiastic 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 Piece, wherein they called him a soft, sweet whisperer, I expected to have found him such here. But sure I am any impartial man, who readeth his Use and application of his Doctrine, may see great want of ingenuity, and such bitterness 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 gins 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 external Church fellowship? Do we by opposing this, oppose a thing, because it is such as it ought to be? Nay, we do but oppose you who says the Church Visible, as such, aught to be, even in the Ecclesiastic Court, that which God never said in his Word, that it ought to be, and makes the door of the Visible Church straiter than ever the Lord made it, and so in effect disclaims the way allowed by God himself, for ordering his Church, as not wise enough nor accurate enough. Or do we set ourselves against a Church of such complexion and constitution as you descrive, consisting of all truly godly so far as men can judge? God forbidden, 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 bless 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 professor 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 duty 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 unless you have it of such a complexion, and will have none permitted to enter the society of the Visible Church, unless before they be truly gracious, sealed of God by his Spirit: at least giving such convincing evidences hereof, as they may be accounted such, as far as men truly 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 warrant in the Word, is contrary to the Word, is obstructive to the salvation of many souls, tendeth to the ruin of the Christian Church and Religion; But to oppose this, and to oppose a Church of that complexion and constitution you speak of, are much different. Here than first we desiderate ingenuous dealing with us.  
section 3 But what a flood of bitterness 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 mere 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 superior light; a tempter showing men to be poisoned with saul's spirit, leavened 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, etc. and not wondering at nor believing the things that God sayeth and doth: 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 God's 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 Prophesy denounced against the Antichrist and his followers, Rev. 19 from v. 11. forward, is applied to them. Is this the soft, sweet whispering we were told of? Ah Mr. Lockier! my soul is sorrowful 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 own at the last day. I beseech you, Sir, return into your own thoughts, and consider as in the Lord's 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 faithful 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 matter, as the most ancient and  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 matter, 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 mere spirit of contradiction, etc. 2. Consider, Sir, what is the matter of quarrel: 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 truly 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 bvilders being safe? Ay but, say you, they maintain it out of a mere spirit of contradiction, as did the learned Jews, seeing a great aptness in many of their Countrymen to receive the Doctrine of Christ, and they not being able to disprove the things that were taught, yet would contradict, so they, etc. Ah Mr. Lockier! What could the accuser of the Brethren said more boldly, and more bitterly? 'Tis true, some of our Countrymen have shown themselves too ready to receive your Doctrine, yet, blessed 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 error that oppose your Doctrine concerning the necessary qualification of persons for being matter of a Visible Church: What are ye to judge them, to do it out of a mere spirit of contradiction, that they are poisoned with saul's spirit, leavened with malice and envy, etc. 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 abhor this your unchristian cruel judging of us. Blessed be God we stand not nor fall at man's judgement we have one that judgeth us, our Lord Jesus Christ, and to him we refer this challenge you have laid to our charge, and, Sir, if you do not repent of the rashness and cruelty of it (which from our souls we wish you may do) we cite you before his Tribunal to answer for it. But, 2. Sir we are content also to stand at the Bar of any impartial, 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 preceding 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 mere 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 evil with evil, bitterness with bitterness, you have cursed us, we bless you, we wish you hearty a blessing, Repentance and forgivennesse of this evil 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 form 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, lest he should not rid his feet well of them, and something thereof might have stuck to such as was judicious. Whatsoever hes moved him so to pass them over, we hope it shall shortly appear, he had some cause rather to pass 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 practices; but about a dogmatic point. Had we been propounding Objections to you, we should not troubled ourselves with these extrinsecall ones, taken from prejudices against persons, abaters of your Doctrine: But should more directly pointed at the throat of the cause itself. Yet we think all Godly Orthodox men in the Christian World, besides yourselves, will judge that the Godly Ministers of Christ in this Island have just cause to lay this practice of picking out of Orthodox Churches (in which Jesus Christ is sound Taught, Sacraments administered according to their institution, and are by the most judicious of your own way confessed to be true Churches from which it is not lawful to make separation) such Professors as by God's blessing upon his Ordinances in these Churches have gotten most good, to make up of them Churches, to yourselves. All Orthodox Christians will judge this justly laid to your charge, as a Schismatic practice having no warrant or precedent 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, Magistrates and People; to the hindering and not ways 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 legal 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 find Churches gathered out of that Church of the Jews, Gal. 1. 22. And whether he meaneth by being in Christ merely 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 legal Nationall Church he meaneth, such as the Jewish, such a Church is abolished, therefore 'tis no fault, yea we ought to gather, etc. For Answer. We may consider a Nationall or Provincial Church of a threefold sort and notion. 1. Wherein all of the Nation are bound to a public and solemn typical 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 Provincial Church, in which many particular Churches are united and subjected unto one Church (as they call it, Mother or Cathedral 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 Inferior Churches enjoy Divine Ordinances and Ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction, of that Mother and Cathedral Church or that Provincial or Nationall Pastor. 3. Such a Nationall Church wherein many particular Churches are joined and united together under one Visible Church-Government) wherein all are equally and collaterally concerned; and have equal interest for the use and exercise of all these Ordinances, which are necessary to the Visible Ministerial Government of these Churches, and mutual Ecclesiastical 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 mere invention of men and Antichristian tyranny, overthrowing the power granted by GOD to the Churches, and Pastors. A national 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. until the fullness of time should come, and then it was abolished and evanished: And a Church Nationall in this sense was legal. But a Nationall Church in the third sense is not a legal or typical Church and Ordinance: But moralis & perpetui juris. Such was the Jewish under the Old Testament in point of Government and Ecclesiastic Discipline. They were many particular Churches, and Synagogues, ●hich did in divers places celebrat the Moral 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 joined and united under one Nationall Visible Ecclesiastic Government. This Visible Church-ship (so to speak) of the Church of the Jews, as it was not legal (I mean ceremonially) nor typical; so neither was it ever abolished. Let Mr. Lookier show me a Text in the whole New Testament importing an abrogation of it; Nay, we trust through the Lord's 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) than a Province or Nation, even a Visible Church Universal. 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 gross Separatism to gather Churches out of Churches upon this account, because they are united into one Nationall Church in this sense. As to that alleged 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 grossly 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 confess 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 warrant in the world. The ground of their gathering out from the rest of the Jews, was because the rest would not believe Jesus to be the Messiah, nor embrace him as their Saviour: But would still adhere to their ceremonial Worship, Sacrifices and Priesthood, and would be saved by their own righteousness, blaspheming Christ and his Doctrine.  
section 4 The second objection he propoundeth 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, etc. I must say again Mr. Lockier doth prudently to make choice 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 Ecclesiastic Power on earth, that authoritatively can interpose to redress▪ wherein they go wrong. And certain it is by this occasion, many Errors have sprung up amongst them that follow this way. And for this very cause it is, that so many maintainers of gross Errors, as Anabaptists, Antinomians, etc. lay hold on this way of Government, as most suitable to their designs, and serviceable for their safety and indemnity. And here I shall desire Mr. Lockier to remember, how that Reverend Mr. Brightman, parallelling the Churches of Geneva, France, Low-countries, and Scotland, put the special point of their commendation, on the nature and way of their Government, viz. Presbyterial, whereby they have more than any Reformed Churches, preserved themselves, in Unity and Truth, free of Schisms 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 congregational Churches, and their friends, it hath been an old wile of the Devil— Nay, I know all is not true which is Printed of Persons honouring and loving Churches of such a constitution, witness Master Edward's Gangrene, nay Master rutherfurd's Spiritual Antichrist, pag. 250, 251. The Lord General Cromwell is charged with public scandal, and unsoundness in the Faith, because of a letter to the Parliament, then having set down a part of that letter out of Mr. Rutherfurd, what Heresy (sayeth he) is in this letter I know not, and then applies to Master Rutherfurd, his constructing of that letter, Psal. 56. 5. and that of Solomon, Pro. surely the wring of the nose bringeth forth blood. Then citys another speech of Master rutherfurd's Spirit. Antich. pag. 251. (viz. to my knowledge there's not this day in England any that is a mere Independent, which maintaineth nothing but Independency, with most of those of New England, and doth not hold other unsound and corrupt Tenets, etc.) 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 doth? Especially this makes him tremble, comparing with what Master Rutherfurd hath in his Epistle, if I lift up my hand or a bloody pen, etc. Answ. 1. 'Tis a poor and sorry 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 form by yourself, that all is true, etc. 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, than I believe has arisen in all the Reformed Churches in Christendom 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 design 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 amiss in it, and to bid the world judge of it. Give me leave to say it of Mr. Lockier, If General Cromwel's Soldiers defended him not better with the Sword, than 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 business, 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 believe those whom the Author's words tends to irritate, will not be so forward to put forth their hand, as he is to solicit them. The other challenge made against that precious man, is evidently ● gross 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 wring of the nose to bring forth blood. I report me to every ingenuous man. If reading Mr. rutherfurd's words as they are alleged by Mr. Lockier himself, he will conceive that Mr. 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 matter of trembling? Verily I cannot but think it a matter of trembling, to see a man with so much confidence and boldness palpably misconstructing an honest man's words to make him odious.  
section 6 He Answ. 3. That there is difference between a cause and occasion. That we walk in a fundamental truth, in the power of it, many take occasion hence to scoff, break forth into much wickedness, is it not therefore the truth which we follow? And then he telleth us that as light hath broken forth in every age, Satan hath laboured to darken it, and giveth instances. As 1. That when the first Fathers began to lay again that great principle and fundamental of the Trinity, to darken this, he set on foot Arrius heresy.— 2. When some of the modern Divines laid that great fundamental point of Justification by faith in Christ, to darken this he conjured up the Anabaptists in Germany, which denied propriety, Magistracy; all which is good; and then addeth, now when God hath made another accession of light, respecting the roof and upper part of the house (the Independent way of constitution and Government of Churches) what stirs, fogs, mists hath he raised? Is all this therefore darkness, dross?— I think things about which the Devil maketh such ado, may rather be thought to have something in them, rather than 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 stirs made it there? When first at Antioch what work made it there? No small dissension, 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 acquitted 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 scoff and break forth into much wickedeesse: But 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 controlment into errors, and is a kind of shelter, for such as holds and maintains errors, to run to, as experience proveth; and this, sure, if it be not an intrinsic 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 general; For neither by the Doctrine of the Trinity was occasion given any ways to the Arian heresy. But the Devil raised up Arius and his heresy, to oppose and darken that fundamental point of Christianity. Nor was there, by the Doctrine of Justification cleared by these modern fathers, occasion given to the stirs of Anabaptists: But these were raised by the Devil in opposition against that and other points of Religion then cleared. I humbly conceive it agrees not well with History to say that upon the father's beginning again to lay that principal fundamental of the Trinity; the Devil did set on foot the Arian heresy: The History of these times seemeth to say that the setting on foot the Arian heresy gave occasion to these ancient fathers, to establish and confirm from the Word of God that principle and fundamental 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 roof and upper part of the house (meaning his Independent way of Church constitution and Government) and then subjoineth by way of Question, and now what stirs, & 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 allegeth that it may rather be thought a way that hath something of God in it, which the Devil opposeth, then to conclude to the contrary because the Devil doth not usually set against his own; Why? The Independent way is that which this day all the emissaries of Satan (I mean not mere independents themselves, many of whom I love and reverence) and almost all the Sect masters of the time betakes themselves to and hugs in their arms. And the Presbyterian way is that which all the errors and heresies of the time opposeth, looketh upon as the great eyesore and hateth cane pejus & angue. 5. 'Tis somewhat more than inconsiderate contempt of his hearers and readers, when he will have them believe; that it was the setting up of his Independent Church order at Jerusalem and Antioch that was the matter and object of the bloody stirs, and no small dissensions there. Ah Mr. Lockier! it was another matter, upon which these things were raised, then who should be members of the Visible Church, or what form of external 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 stirs and dissensions. 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 bitterness and baseness hath heightened 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, than they ingenuous, they had undone themselves and others too.  
Answ. To this impertinent discourse in the general, if I shall say, that it is nothing else, but an issue of carnal bitterness, 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 maintenance of the Truth of Jesus Christ, and of their just liberty against oppression, Prelatical violence, and arbitrary Government? And must this be charged upon them, as Mr. Lockier doth here, 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 quarrel? 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 lie 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 unless I be misinformed when they were come to this height 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, though 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 heightening of the sword to that, to which in likelihood it would not have come, to the bitterness and baseness 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 bitterness of spirit, or did it tend to the heightening of the sword, that the Presbyterians in Scotland, having but girded their sword to them, Anno 1639. upon promises of tolerable 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, Jeremy Burroughs, to the common Counsel of London in Guild Hall, Anno 1642. and blush. I shall 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, etc. 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 until all enemies were hushed 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 justify 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 quarrel be-between us and man, frowardness of spirit in us raised these storms, though we can justify ourselves before the world; Yet we shall not take upon ourselves 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 lie 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, etc. 1. 'Tis upon the matter but an injurious scoff 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 coin, Mr. Lockier, but I may say. Quamvis dignus ego essem hac comtumeliâ, indig●…is tu qui faceres tamen— 2. 'tis utterly impertinent to the preceding purpose he was upon. Was this the quarrel that did principally raise these storms? Where is ingenuity? I believe we might had liberty to turn Malignants enough unto Presbyterians or any other thing we pleased, without any quarrel, 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 obtest you Mr. Lockier, say candidly if either then, when these storms were raised, or now since we felt the dint of them, converting Malignants to be what they would, for your design, be made bones of among you? I'll insist no more upon this invective; but leave it spread before the Lord, that he may, in his time, plead with the Author's heart, for the unjustice and uncharitableness 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 bitterness and in the bond of iniquity, yet upon his profession of faith in Christ he was received into Church-fellowship: Therefore mere 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 mere profession whats●ever we allow as sufficient to this state, admission unto Church-fellowship, some may profess 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 seriousness, was by Philip baptised and received into Church-fellowship, without passing any trial, 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 tried 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 truly regenerate, so far as men can discern, the Text sayeth not this, nor any thing to that purpose. Now let's see what Mr. Lockier replieth.  
section 10 Surely (saith he) it was not shows but substance that was looked at, and conceived indeed to be in this man, so far as man can judge (i) of a tree by his fruit: for de occultis non judicat Ecclesia. There were surely outward signs of repentance in this man, & such as the Apostle Peter, who received him unto fellowship, was satisfied with. Ans 1. Here is a palpable gross 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 Peter's words, Acts 2. 28. to confirm his Assertion concerning Simons qualification in relation to his admission into Church-fellowship, of which place anon. 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 baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, etc. 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 less 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 another great mistake upon the matter, which is the principal ground: and being discovered, the whole inference evanisheth. Mr. Lockier supposeth that the Apostle Peter in these words (Repent and be baptised every one of you for the remission of sins) is speaking unto these people and prescribing a rule to them for 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 fearful 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 matter that pressed them was their conviction of their horrid sin of rejecting and crucifying Christ: and their danger of the dreadful 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 guiltiness, and saved from the wrath of God: This is it that the Apostles rule and direction relateth to: and therefore 'tis more than 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 less 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 judge, as the necessary qualification in foro exteriori Ecclesiae, and as the ground whereupon only the Church may admit persons into external 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 real inward grace, that the Apostle thought him really gracious, a true and real 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 baptised he continued with Philip 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and here is is much insisting upon the signification of the Original word, that it signifieth, to be always 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 one's 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 show me in the Text volam au● vestigium, of Peter's 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 lieth, by his custom in making use of other Passages, which makes me apprehend, he saw that the Reader turning over to it, would easily seen the weakness of his discourse by the conte●… of the words. Saith not the Text itself, that when he was baptised 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. after he was baptised 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 baptised, or by baptism: I repone, first, Then he must grant that 〈◊〉 was required in adultis, for baptising them, then for admitting them to Visible Church fellowship. 2. Then it must follow that persons than were first baptised, and then tried 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 show me in Scripture one baptised and not hoc ipso, made a member of the Visible Church. 2. That his continuing with Philip (whether antecedent or consequent to his admission) is but a poor ground to prove what Mr. Lockier allegeth 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 real Saint. I pray what is said? 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. he constantly followed and waited on Philip, (this is all that the word imports when joined 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 criticism upon the word is to little purpose) and that he was astonished at the miracles and signs that were done. That which Mr. Lockier allegeth that no doubt Simon Magus was very diligent and full of care and circumspection to carry it so in all things, etc. is no doubt a confident assertion without bottom in the Text; and yet is this evidence enough that a man is a true and real Saint as far as men can judge? I wonder how a judicious man, before judicious men, can assert such a thing. I confess this carriage of Simons was ground to repute him not a gross 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 equal in reputation to the Apostles themselves. But they speak not of this, as his design in his continuing with Philip, as the Author mistakes (for that was not a sufficiently apparent mean to obtain that reputation) but as his design in seeking to have the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost for his money, which was the very discovery of his rottenness; so far was it from being any part of diligence, carefulness and circumspection, to carry it so in all things▪ etc.  
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 carried the matter that he seemed another man then a mere professor, otherwise the Apostles had not received him: And when thus his hypocrisy did appear, the Apostles rejected him as one not in Christ, and as one wh● had no share in real 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 Apostle, 2 Tim. 3. 9 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof, from such turn away. Which place (saith he) shows plainly, that it was the power, and not the Procession, and not the form 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 matter so, that he seemed another man then a mere Professor, i. e. as he meaneth a true and real Saint; had he been pleased but to English these testimonies cited by him (as it was his prudence to let them lie under the Latin 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 Latin, 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 profess faith and conversion? Nay, he'll say, it's the power of Godliness, not profession, that's to be looked at. 2. That when Simons hypocrisy did thus appear, the Apostle did abominat the impiety of his deed, discover and bear in upon him the perverseness of his heart, and his miserable estate, and denunce the temple 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, joins a serious exhortation to Repentance and Prayer, with an insinuation of some hope of mercy, v. 2●▪ 2. That the Historian has registrate that Simon did not show himself obstinate, but accepting of the words of Peter, and touched with the terror of the threatened 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 real grace, has no footing in the Text; we will find a further matter ●…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 Excommunicate, is a wild assertion unheard of in the Word of God, which enjoineth 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 scandal, which case yet is doubtful, 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, alleged as a rule, holding forth, that all professors 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 noonday, that the Apostle by the men, of whom he saith, they have a form of godliness, means not every professor unregenerate, or not giving evidences convincing so far as men can judge of Regeneration; but persons, openly and grossly in their conversation scandalous, flagitious, blasphemous, etc. 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 form 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 denied; 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 crept 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 shows, 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 wild and forced Interpretation is that vessels to dishonour, i. e. that are to be cast out of the Church by Ecclesiastic censure, Excommunication? Who ever dreamt 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 employed to more honest and honourable uses in an house. And by to dishonour, meaneth not casting out of the house (to Interpret him so were ridiculous) but to be appointed and employed to more base and fordid uses: And in the kernel or application of the similitude, 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 castaways, 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 Mr. Lockier insinuateth, that bad men in the Church, i. e. men void of true grace and unregenerat, as and because 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 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, truly regenerate and justified. And therefore, 3. It is a most inconsiderate 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 eternal damnation. This is very different from Paul's theology, 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 men's reprobation, a secret which God hath keeped up to himself, and is altogether hid unto, and undiscernible 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 alleged to the purpose, viz. that all men that are not true Saints, or have not true grace (so must Mr. 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, denial 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 wrote to Timothy, and what they were according to the judgement of the Apostle who wrote 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 wrote, then when as writing to them he ●…lled them Saints, he meaneth not that ●f all and every one of them, but spoke it 〈◊〉 the body indefinitely and confusedly, why? Should that b● understood universally, it should be a 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 matter to say, as Mr. 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 real Saints, sealed as his, and yet I pronounce there are in the Church of Ephesus some real un-saints, very reprobates. Indeed if the Apostle here had not determined positively and purè. But by way of suspense and modaliter, in this house, the Church of Ephesus, may be, or possibly there are some vessels of dishonour, there would not be such repugnancy or incompatibility 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 necessary qualification of Members of the Visible Church.  
section 1 MR. Lockier hath chosen out some Objections against his Doctrine as made by his adversary, 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 confess has been wittily done, for gaining advantage in the minds of Hearers and Readers unacquainted with the controversy 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 etc. s●nt to the Assembly at Westminster, 1644. Spanhems' Epistle to M●. Buchana●▪ Mr. Rutherfurd his fi●st and second book against the Independent way; however he might have read them, and found therein, besides 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 add some few more, not troubling ourselves 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 enquiry for the Work of true Grace in their hearts, or positive evidences, that they were truly 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 john the Baptist, the Apostles, and the Master Builder and Lord of the Church Jesus Christ himself, did admit into the external communion of the Visible Church of the New Test. such as did profess the Christian Faith, as soon as they did profess, without delay for trying and searching evidences of the Work of Grace in their hearts; Then in all Church's persons ought to be admitted upon the same terms; And it is not a necessary qualification, in foro Ecclesiastico, for constituting one capable of Visible-Church-Membership, that he be truly converted, such as God who knoweth the hearts of all men can bear witness to, as indeed sealed for his, by his Spirit, so far as men truly converted and very spiritual are 〈◊〉 to discern and judge, but the antecedent is true in all the parts thereof: Ergo, etc.  
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 Baptism upon this ground because they cannot give evidences of Faith; Being pressed with the Argument taken from Infant's 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 essential difference between the constitution of the one Church and of the other, and so deayes the consequence from practice in the one to the other, as we see Mr. Tombs doth 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 essential 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 essentials 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 trial▪ 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 proof of the assumption) they did admit them upon their first making profess●… without delay or further enquiry. I rejoin thus. If the Apostle ●…d admit them 〈◊〉 discerning, and judging positively real grace in them; then that discerning and judging of theirs either 〈◊〉 proceed from; and was the act of an 〈◊〉 ordinary gift of an 〈◊〉 and Prophetical Spirit; or from 〈◊〉 ordinary gift of d●…cretion common to believers. 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 Prophetical 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 habit 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 Prophetical inspiration, whereby they discovered secrets of men's spirits, as 〈◊〉 had in the mater of Ananias and Saphira, Acts, Yet what warrant have w● to believe that they were to 〈…〉 an extraordinary gift of discerning the spiritual 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 matters 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 matters of fact, 〈…〉 conversion and ●aith of 〈◊〉 to be assent to them in passing judgement, when they 〈◊〉 have occasion, we not 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 find many to have been admitted by the Apostles, who ●…ward positively, discovered themselves to be but graceless 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 conclude the persons whom they admitted to be truly 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 truly converted and very spiritual can discern; Was either their present profession of the faith and subjection to Ordinances, simply considered by itself & 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 trial and discoveries.  
section 7 Now to resume these: if the 〈…〉 said we might be soon at a point and agreement, upon the matter, in this Question to●…hing the qualification of Church-members necessary in foro Ecclesiastico: For this is the very thing, upon the matter, 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 trial and 〈…〉 of the soundness 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 itself, but together with some other outward ●…ble effect accompanying it, (such as was that mournful 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 experimental work 〈◊〉 their heart. 'Tis true that in some at their 〈◊〉 embracing the Christian faith and Religion, we find 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 baptised, when as the sacred Story in speaking of these who embraced the Christian Faith and were baptised, seldom 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 did see before pag. 24, 25.) and that Profession of Christian Religion so cir●…stantiate, was more pregnant to signify a great deal more touching inward grace, than the same profession, for matter, doth now or ordinarily out of that case. I repone; 'tis true perseverance and constant holding out in the profession of Religion under the cross and actual 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 than was 〈…〉 dang●… of persecution (th● it was not always actually ●…cuted: Some time the Church had rest round about) so 〈◊〉 Gospel than 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 spiritual heart-change. And therefore I think that no man can in reason say that Profession of the Gospel, liable 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 matter, when there is not 〈◊〉 danger, and withal neither are there such wonders and miracles accompanying it. Further, let it be considered that besides that the sacred historiographer more frequently mentioneth the circumstance of miracles and wonders, then that of the dan●… of persecution, in reporting men's 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 baptism 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 trial and discovery of the sincerity of the work of grace in their hear● then, etc.  
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 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 rehearsed 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 allege. And this (though it be 〈…〉 because it was only a renewing of the General 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 signs 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 denied this, alleging, that this exprobration doth not import that they were yet in a natural unrenued state: But only that they were dull and ●low in harkening to discern and understand sundry particular dispensations of Divine favour and power: And that the like sinful 〈◊〉 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 controversy touching the efficacy of grace in Conversion, see ●…mely Junius his Analys. Deut. 29. Calv. Comment. ibi. Am●s●…ron. Artic. 3. Argument 2. Puss-cat. 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 consider what is said of that people, Deut. 31. 21, 27. and judge i● nothing else be meant, but some particular sinfu●… 〈◊〉 ●…fections and ●…cts incide●… to 〈…〉 Mr. hooker's 〈◊〉 Suru. 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 matter 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 tried 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 degenerate: 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 ago, 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 graceless, 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▪ Baptised huge multitude●●ithout any ●…lay 〈◊〉, 'tis said that all Jerusalem and J●… ●nd the R●…on round about 〈◊〉 went out to him and were Baptised without de●… Mat. 3. 5, ●. Two things principally are replied to the 〈…〉 said in the Text, 〈…〉 6. 2: 〈…〉 in their 〈…〉 of them t● bring 〈…〉 For that 〈…〉 the consideration which 〈…〉 Godly and 〈…〉 hath upon the pla●… 〈◊〉 in Answer to the Rhemists' affirm●… that they did not 〈◊〉 themselves sinners in the general 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 general, 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 themselves 〈◊〉) 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 〈◊〉 confess some 〈…〉 this is nothing to take of the strength of our Argument 〈◊〉 we find it 〈◊〉, that john did delay, or make inquiry of the soundness of the work in their hear●, but presently without more, and with●… delay Baptised them. Secondly, True 'tis, john 〈…〉 bring forth 〈◊〉 meet fo● Repe●…. But did john Bap●… 〈◊〉 their baptism until he should see 〈◊〉 fruits good works in a course of life, ●…ought forth, and thereby 〈◊〉 them 〈…〉 to be true Saints, and so duly qualified that way? Doth 〈…〉 any 〈◊〉 as this? Or is not john's 〈…〉 and clearly, that 〈…〉 in his Harmon. pag. 9●, E●…. 〈◊〉 Bat●…. subjungit 〈…〉 fidem & 〈…〉  
section 10 I know 〈…〉 in May, alleges, that john Baptist, no● content with the external prof●…on of such as came to his baptism, did require of them bringing ●…th of fruits worthy of Repentance before he admitted them: That he did not baptise 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 sufficient to show that john baptised such as came to him upon th● 〈◊〉 profession, without any delay of time, or waiting for trial of the sincerity of their saving Conversion.  
section 11 In like manner find we that the Apostles admitted to Baptism persons as soon as they made profession of the Christian Faith without delay ●or trial of the truth of grace in their hearts: as Acts 2. 38. 41. We read they baptised and so added to the Church three thousand, that same day that they first professed, without delay of the matter 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 sudden, one would think 〈◊〉 Apostles would have waited for a trial and proof of their sincerity, if so be such a trial and proof had been by Christ's 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 manner the Samarit●…, men and women were baptised without any delay, Acts 8. 1●. So Simon at that same tim● albeit to that very day, he had been a Sorcerer, demented that people with his devilish enchantments, 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 baptised by Philip. Finally, whosoever were baptised by the Apostles that we read of, were baptised after this same manner: 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 refused Baptism for a time, until 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●… add 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 baptised, (viz. by the Ministry of his Disciples) and all men came unto him. Whereby it is evident that he baptised men presently and without delay, as soon as they came and professed themselves his Disciples. Shall we then, miserable men, not content with our Lord's example, take upon us to be more severe and exact in his matters then himself? Verily I cannot look upon this too great diligence, but as a counsel of man's pride, shuffling itself in under a mask 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, unless some haply will say, that baptism doth not constitute one a member of the Visible Church (as Reverend Hooker contends in a large dispute, Suru. 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 yield that baptism in itself 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 external profession as we have described before, to men of years, and to Infants by federal holiness derived from their Parents) otherwise baptism could not constitute one a member; Nevertheless we hold this for certain, that baptism is the ordinary Ordinance whereby solemn admission, and initiation into actual 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 external way or means of admitting members of a Visible Church, beside baptism; further let me ask 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 of God. Therefore it is clearly evident, that upon what condition men were admitted to the Laver of baptism, that same was accounted qualification sufficient in foro Ecclesiastico to constitute a member of the Visible Church, and how gross an absurdity in theology were it to say that a man, though orderly baptised, and no new, impediment intervening, yet were not a member of the Visible Church: For hence it should follow that a baptised 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 mankind 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 spiritual condition of all men professing true Christian Religion's, and submitting themselves to the Ordinances▪ of Christ, whether they be regenerate or not: Then it cannot be, by Christ's 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 truly converted and regenerated. But the former is true; therefore so is the latter. The connexion of the proposition is evident of itself. As to the assumption, let it be noted. 1. That I deny not but a Minister has power from God with Ministerial 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 warrant 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 than all things beside in the World, that walk not after the Spirit but after the flesh, etc. to be unregenerat men and strangers from the life of God, & contra. ●. I grant that Ministers have power and authority to apply the general Doctrinal sentence to particular persons in ●…pothesi but conditionally: whom also they may and ought earnestly to press 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 press upon persons the one more than the other. 3. Nor deny I but it belongs to the duty of a Minister seriously and attentively to observe with wisdom, so far as he can, the way of such as are under his charge, to discern and understand, so far as may be, their spiritual condition and estate, and that he may have a probable judgement of discretion concerning the same, this is necessary 〈◊〉 behooveful for him, that he may the 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 spiritual estate of every professor of the Gospel, and positively to pronounce every professor of the Gospel, upon such cognition, to be held a regenerate 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 matter or members. But now let him or any man show me from the Word of God, any authentic 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 professors outward actions and to determine judicially whether sinful and scandalous, or not; but to cognosce, determine and judge judicially and positively upon their inward Spiritual 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 Angels, and in this life secretly, by his Word and Spirit in the court of men's consciences when it seems good to himself. And this is the very ground the Apostle Rom. 14. goeth upon, in dissuading men to judge one another; Which certainly must be understood of their Spiritual 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 confirm the preceding. If it had been our Lords will and institution that true heart godliness, conversion and faith, so far as men can discern, should be the necessary qualification to constitute persons capable of Visible-Church-Membership, and consequently had instituted a power and authority, to cognosce and pass judgement positively upon them concerning the inward work of Grace in their heart, whither they be truly 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 ● trial for regulating the Church's cognition, judgement and determination in this matter, 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, less than which, if Professors 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 etc. The connexion of the proposition is certain and evident, and as I conceive cannot be denied by any man. For first, it cannot be conceived how it can consist with the Wisdom 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 professor, 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 Church's 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, wisdom: Alas! even gracious men being of very different and unequal 'sizes of light and discerning, could not but vary much one from another, so that oftentimes their would be tot sententiae quot capita. Then any man will readily vary from himself at divers times: Yea, the best of men are subject to sinful affections which may and would not doubt oftentimes bias 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 matter were committed wholly to man's judgement without law or rule: Therefore it must be confessed, that there must be a rule for regulating the Church's 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 ways less, 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 matter should be left in a mere uncertainty, and in effect devolved, upon the mere arbitrement of the Church's 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 effectual 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 truly 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 Signs, whereby every Christian, having knowledge thereof, and making conscience to try and search his heart and ways, and to compare the same with the rule, may pass a positive, yea a certain and infallible sentence and judgement 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 wild Antinomians of this time maintaining that this cannot be had by inherent works and signs 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 truly gracious: and that there are some outward works and actings of the flesh designed by the Word of God so gross and corrupt (such as are constant known neglect of the Worship of God, open contempt of Divine Ordinances, customary 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, carnal, without the Spirit and fear of God.  
These things then being put out of controversy, this is the thing we cannot see in the Word of God: a general and universal rule for trying and giving judgement upon all and every Professor in point of Regeneration and non-Regeneration, by others than themselves: and holding forth such definite limited and bounded Characters of Regeneration, whereupon others may pass a positive sentence or judgement, viz. this man is to be held truly Regenerate, because he hath so much, or so much Profession and practice: 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 satisfy his readers and hearers, or done that which was requisite to have been done by him in reason to satisfy and convince them of the doctrine he delivered touching the matter or Members of the Visible Church, viz. that all and every one of them must be truly converted and sealed of God for his, so far as men very spiritual can judge: he should have told them and that from the Word of God, the particular definite bounded Characters whereby all and every Professor may and are to be by others than themselves 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 pass 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 impartial men much unsatisfactory, and still leaving the matter 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 Suru. 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 evil, 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 aught to conceive; There be some beginnings of spiritual good: Here are two things laid down to make up the ground to proceed upon. 1. Living without omission of any known duty, or in commission of any known evil. 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 experimental 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 tried, not only what his knowledge, but what his acquaintance is with the things of Christ and his Kingdom. Experience and acquaintance with Christ importeth more than 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 general and universal rule for judicial trial of professors 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 less, positively judge persons to be truly regenerate and converted ones, this premised, 1. 'Tis to be observed that, as to that part of the ground, knowledge; Mr. Hooker gives us nothing but an indefinite general, so much knowledge as may let in Christ into the soul: But tells not, defines not, the bounds of knowledge, that we might know how much knowledge, will serve for that purpose, and less than which, will not do it. So the rule as to this part set down by Mr. Hooker is but a blind. And verily I think it shall be hard for any man to define particularly, how much knowledge is requisite to let in Christ and less than 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 fundamentals, and other heads of Religion, the knowledge whereof is necessary for leading a life without scandal. 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 scandal, is necessary to a man's 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 days 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 scandal) and yet be truly regenerate, 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 evil. 1. The Church hereby is put upon a ground of proceeding and judging, which is merely 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 scandal, 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 gross evil. But then, 2. Is freedom from living in gross evils, or outward scandals, ground sufficient, with a profession of the truth, for the Church to pass a positive sentence or judgement that a man is regenerate 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 spiritual 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 evil, i. e. living in abstinence from any known evil (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 man's 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 inquire how long time living so is sufficient to ground the Ecclesiastic judgement, and less than 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 matter might not be devolved upon the arbitrement of man's judgement, or rather pleasure. Here is altum silentium, and so again the matter left in the mist. To press 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 Regenerate 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 pass upon him that he is Regenerate? 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 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 immediately under the cognition of the outward Court, to be a ground or medium of their procedure 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 evils formerly committed, and if so, than 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 experimental 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 effectual vocation, in their sound Repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is most unwarrantable and rigid. What? must this be a general rule for all professors, that they must make a declaration of this experimental work upon their heart, that they may be judged Regenerate 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 warrant 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 privileges: But requireth not of them a declaration of the experimental 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 duty in relation to the susception of Baptism, that he believe with all his heart. And together, I confess, insinuateth the requiring of a profession of so much, that he might Administrat baptism to him. But neither does Philip require, nor the Eunuch make a declaration of the experimental work in his heart, in relation to passing a positive judgement concerning the inexistence of the work in his heart. Verily, were this made an universal rule or ground whereby to judge of professors 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 practical 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 real work in his heart; if he could but carry fair outwardly in his conversation, as an hypocrite may, without scandal. 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 endued 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 general rule and ground for judicial trial and passing judgement concerning the Regeneration and Conversion of Professors.  
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 matter, 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 Regenerate, and the doer to be in Christ and in the state of grace, and consequently, that a man cannot positively judge of another's Regeneration by them, but as they appear, someway, to be done out of such Principles, and for such an end. 3. That acts good upon the matter, may in some probability, at least, appear to others, to be done from such principles and to such an end, 'tis not enough to have the man's own word and assertion for it: but there must be, a good time of them, and that under some variety 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 evenness 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 sinful infirmities and affections, so far, as not only to have, but for a long time, may be even to their last days, as to live (though not with inward liking and allowing (which is not seen by others) yet to the outward committing) in known sinful 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 general rule whereby there may and should be a judicial trial and positive judgement passed upon all and every Professor 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 spiritual estate, in relation to admitting them to Church-fellowship (wherein yet I cannot join with him as being too straight 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 evil of them. 2. To carry ourselves towards them in common duties as if they were good, where 'tis clear, that as to the act of judgement, he requireth no more, but that we judge not men unregenerat, and this is nothing else upon the matter 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 take for sufficient qualifications such or such outward professions, prescinding or abstracting (simplici abstractione) from the inward spiritual estate of the man; for when I do not positively judge a man Regenerate or really gracious, but only judges not him unregenerat and graceless, certainly I abstract from both.  
section 22 I will not here slip by what I apprehend myself, and while I am Writing this, I find Mr. Baxter in his Book against Tombs hath distinctly (for until this time I had much longed for it, yet I had not the occasion to see that Piece) which may be replied, to that I have been saying in the prosecution of this Argument, though 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 believers. 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 external 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 believer, but modale that 'tis probable that he is a true believer, 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 believer, 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 confess, 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 piece, and I may 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 Pieces; and may be if God grant us both continuance of life, and me some leisure I shall do that yet, and add some things also out of this Piece last come to my hands.  
section 23 But now to the present purpose. 1. The learned Author and I are fully agreed upon the matter 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 trial 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 hearty 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 Lord's sight. See the Margin 
* Oh that our Brethren that are so inclineable to separation because of the unsoundness of our Church members and un-Church whole parochs (Mr. Lockier doth whole Nations) and gather Churches out of them, as if they were no Churches, and that must have such trial and discoveries of the work of men's conversion before they admit them, would but lay to heart all 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 warrant 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 show his vanity. I say if the name Church be taken in one and the same notion in both Propositions, I confess 'tis true he saith: and he would show his vanity that would deny it: But if in the former thereof Church be taken for that society which is Christ's mystical redeemed body, the Epithet 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  enough to deny it. Again when he saith that the 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 ordinarily said, but can see no reason for it. I find three special Ecclesiastic 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 employed in government of Professors. However I confess the strict signification is principal 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 external 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 external 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 external 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 confess also that 〈◊〉 a man's 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 withal I say he were to be debarred or not received, not upon the account of non-regeneration, or upon that carriage considered under this formality and reduplication, as a sign 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 any thing considered formally under the notion or reduplication, as a sign 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 Regenerate and converted and that the Ministerial 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 Regenerate. 3. I conceive between such as are in a course and carriage, which indeed discovers evidently and certainly non-regeneration (e. g. as to be without the profession of Christianity, to live in some heresy directly contrary to the foundation, as is Socinianism, to live in a constant course of known profanity) and such as are seemingly Regenerate and so to be positively judged such in probability; there may be, yea and are many of a mid sort who are in such an estate and condition outward, and as relating to man's 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 Regenerate, and so to use them, that is to dispense Ordinances to them as such and in a way suitable to men supposed to be Regenerate: 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 confess 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 itself, to ground a positive judgement that he is Regenerate 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 Regenerate in foro exteriori, there is requisite some seemingness (to speak so) of spiritual sincerity in a man's profession, i. e. that he doth it from a spiritual principle, upon spiritual motives, and for a spiritual end: But a mere sober, not mocking, serious profession without more is not a positive appearance of spiritual supernatural sincerity; at least, therefore I humbly conceive it is a mistake to confound seriousness and sincerity, if he understand spiritual or supernatural sincerity (as he must understand it here) for that is larger than this: many are serious in their profession, who are not sincere in this sense: yea may evidence seriousness when they do not as yet give any positive evidence of this. And therefore I conceive, he doth not upon good enough ground quarrel with Tombs, pag. 129. for that Mr. Tombs requiring a profession sober, serious and understanding; he doth disclaim an enquiry after the sincerity of their profession, if Mr. Tombs meant supernatural sincerity, as I conceive he did; the distinction of moral sincerity, and spiritual or supernatural sincerity is common amongst practic Divines, and rational; 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, ordinarily, without observation of a man's 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 man's seriousness in any other action. And 'tis Mr. baxter's own judgement, that as soon as a man maketh profession of the faith, without delay or trial 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 matter concerning the qualification that is sufficient for admitting persons into the Visible Church, viz. sober serious profession, without delay to inquire for more, and so we are agreed in the main about the matter 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 professors, abstracting from Conversion or non-conversion. Which upon the matter, and as to the main business of the matter of the Visible Church, will only make some differences between us in some Arguments to prove the main conclusion. Some Arguments that I use will not suit his way: But that is not much to th●… point. Now I come to a fourth Argument.  
section 24 If the Ministry and Ministerial 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 regenerate, nor in Christ; than 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 external communion and Society of the Visible Church, that they be before truly Regenerate, Converted, sealed of God by his Spirit for his, or give such manifest evidences of this, as that they may and aught to be judged by the Church, truly Regenerate 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 Ministerial dispensation of the Gospel ado with Converting of souls? All with whom he has to do 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 infidel, 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 Regenerate ones, yet they may really be unconverted and unregenerated, and so may, being in the Church and under the Ministry, be converted by the Ministerial Preaching of the Gospel. That is nothing to the purpose: 'Tis but by accident that this cometh to pass, 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 Mr. Lockiers' Tenet, un-Churched again, until he were a true Convert. And that which cometh to pass 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, truly Converted and Regenerate; It followeth necessarily, that the ordinary Minister of the Gospel has nothing ado to Preach points of Doctrine tending to preparatory humiliation, awaking of natural consciences, and Converting souls to Christ, but all his Preaching aught to be upon points that concern comforting, directing, strengthening, confirming, souls already Converted; he shall have nothing ado to entreat souls to be reconciled to God, but he is only to help them to enjoy the sweetness and comfort of Reconciliation, they are already stated in; Farewell all Preaching of men's miserable estate by nature, of the terrors 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 Ministerial 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. Wisdom hath sent forth her maidens, she cryeth upon the high places of the City, 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 wisdom are meant (as Interpreters agree) the Ministers of the Word sent forth by Jesus Christ: Now what is the end and errand for which they are sent? To call and invite such as are simple and have no understanding i. e. (as Cartwright well expoundeth) such as yet are void of Religion and wisdom, (i. e. of true saving grace, though not malicious opposers of the truth, and the professors thereof, that is in effect such as we described in stating the Controversy, serious, sober, outward professors, 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 Ministerial dispensation of the Gospel is ordained and instituted in the Church, to be an ordinary 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 ambassadors in Christ's 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, patiented. In meekness 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, though 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 Ministerial Preaching thereof, are the ordinary means appointed by God for Conversion and begetting faith, that it cannot be avoided, 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 which followeth upon the contrary; That private Christians, and not the Ministry of sent Preachers, are the ordinary means and instruments of converting souls, is a mere dream having no warrant in the Word of God. 
* Hooker Sur. p. 1. c. 7. pag. 84, 85.  I know Mr. Hooker storms at my Reverend Colleague, for charging this absurdity upon them: And he confesseth that is a dream, and hath no warrant in the Word, and wonders how such an absurdity is so continually in the ear and mind of Mr. Rutherfurd, and sayeth he knoweth not whence it cometh. But verily the good man was angry at Mr. Rutherfurd without cause. For it cometh as naturally from his principles as any conclusion can come from its premises: 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 always Apostles extraordinarily sent of God) of converting souls but private Christians? What the good man sayeth, pag. 84. materials of new gathered Churches with us, are such as have been converted by Ministers in their several Congregations, With reverence of his memory 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 private Christians. And these some, of whom you gather your Congregations, having them from under other Ministers, in their several 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 matter of the Visible Church were only real Saints and the complexion of the Visible Church true holiness and saving grace (as Mr. Lockier roundly expresseth in his Tenet, pag. 29. and that by express opposition to seemingly good, pag. 25.) or such as are positively to be judged such by evidence so far as men very spiritual can discern (as other where he expresseth it) than 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 Excommunicate and casten out of the Visible Church; but the consequent is false: Ergo the antecedent also. The connexion of the proposition Mr. 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 real Saints, and not one other. And sayeth expressly that if men creep in, where they should not be (i. e. if men not Regenerate creep into the Visible Church) they are to be cast out. 'Tis true, pag. 29. in the end of the paragraph, he mincheth the matter, 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, etc. 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 Mr. Lockier produce us any thing from Scripture of this kind. The Scripture enjoineth Excommunication for obstinacy, in known public scandalous sins in conversation, or heresy 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 matters 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 profess 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 (though I esteem reverently of many of the followers of it and has no harsh thoughts of their intentions therein) that 'tis a subtle device of Satan transforming himself into an Angel of light, set on foot by him as to advance Atheism in the World, so in special to overturn the Protestant Religion and Churches. For if none shall be permitted to be members of the Visible Churches, but such as are real Saints, at least so far as men very spiritual 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) though they were not outwardly contumacious against the Ordinances, must be un-Churched, casten out, to be no more under any Pastoral care, for watching over their souls; to live as they like, without any spiritual 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 error or heresy 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 Island is not without influence from that Antichristian Synagogue upon this very design 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, etc. The proposition I conceive will not be denied 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 eternal glory: Notable are the words of that Judicious Popish Commentator Estius upon the words, ideo (Graecè, propter hoc) i. e. ut Euangelium disseminetur ut Verbum Dci currat & clarificetur (acutelie pondering the connexion of this verse with the end of the preceding, 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 impenndantur 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 public Ordinances, which are the ordinary means of obtaining salvation, is made so straight, 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 smoking 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 profess outwardly the faith, willingness to join in fellowship with the Visible Church, and to subject themselves to Ordinances, may be of the elect of God. This cannot be denied, yea nor can we but account them who comes this far on (though we cannot yet positively say we account them actually Regenerate men) probably to be elect. Yet by Mr. Lockiers Doctrine, though persons profess the faith, be desirous of the fellowship of the Church, declare willingness to subject themselves to the Ordinances; Yet unless they be truly Converted, and Regenerate, sealed of God by his Spirit for his, so far as men very spiritual can discern, they are not to be admitted into the Visible Church, and are held forth from the benefit of all the public Ordinances, the ordinary means of salvation. 2. As to the other part, 'tis also clear thus; because there may be many smoking 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 fundamentals of Religion, and such points as are necessary to lead a life without scandal (which yet are required as the ground of that judgement our adversaries will have to pass upon persons, to be admitted members of the Visible Church) but also under many sensible, sinful infirmities, which may render them suspected to others, to be no real Saints, may puzzle others to pass judgement on them, at least, may put them to a suspense 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 public Ordinances, the ordinary means of Salvation. These two considerations, I profess 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 Christ's own way of dealing with souls, and yet no castaway or unregenerat man shall be excluded, if he but be studied in tractates of theology, and can carry it fair before men, as indeed hypocrisy may stand with great external 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, though 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 truly, 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 baptised, and ordinarily hear and profess a willing mind to communicate with the Church in the Holy things of God, they, being not scandalously wicked, aught 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 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 suit his Preaching of the Word unto them, that is unto men sealed of God by his Spirit, so far as men very spiritual can discern, and so as a Minister or a Ministerial 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 ordinarily or at all (though 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, suitable to such; and something to Preach as a private gifted man for such as are without. But 1. An ordinary Preacher of the Word as a private 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 private man to other hearers, is far more uncouth to cripture. I believe a Minister by Scripture rule, aught in his ordinary and public 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 fulfil, 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 Regenerate. 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 man's 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 matter, about the qualification necessary in sorrow Ecclesiae, for admitting of persons to be Church members: but this you acknowledge not to be sufficient: Let men thus seriously and soberly profess, there must be a time for observing their conversation, and their must be a trial and searching into the experimental work in their hearts: Now if it must be somewhat more than that I inquire, what is the least thing more? We have seen before what they held forth in their rules of trial, and dare say (yea thinks it were unchristian, unwarrantable rigidness 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 show to others, that which they hold forth as the least, more than that which we have said; and therefore still by their way many truly Regenerate may be held forth, though 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, than that one gracious soul, yea or Elect, though yet not Regenerate, come this far on, as to desire to be in, and to profess subjection, should be held forth, and yet this accurate and pretended cleanly way of these Brethren, though it tend to exclude many, who may be are truly Regenerate, 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 floor, wherein is an heap of wheat and chaff, 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. etc. and of a great house wherein are vessels of Gold and Silver, and vessels of Wood and Earth, 2 Tim 2. 21. I confess 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 alleged 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 believers and hypocrites, they say they yield the Argument wholly, that in the purest Visible Churches, there may and will always be a mixture of hypocrites with true believers and Saints, de facto: but that the Question is what sort of persons ought, de jure to be admitted or permitted to be members of the Visible Church. But the places duly 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 matter whereof it consisteth; not only holdeth it forth as a mixed society of some truly good, and gracious, and some bad unconverted and graceless 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 appointment 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 undeniable, because upon the supposition of the opposite of the consequent follows clearly the opposite of the antecedent, that is to say, if it were Christ's 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 constitution as to the matter thereof, to be a mixed society of good and bad, truly gracious and such as are void of true grace, and not only this, but 2. That not only he permits it to be so until 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 one of them in a Visible Church; they are where they ought not to be, they want the complexion of the Visible Church, etc. But sayeth the Lord himself: Nay, but let both grow together until 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 profane ones aught to be permitted to be members of the Visible Church, which in consequence is contrary to Christ's institution of Ecclesiastic Discipline enjoining incorrigible offenders to be casten out and Excommunicate; 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 believers. 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 badness 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 add contumacy against the Discipline of the Church, or at least, if it be further to be extended, whose offence is atrocious & these that offends these ways, whether they be tares, graceless men, or endued with true saving grace. But there may be sinful livers in the Visible Church seen to be such by the servants, who falls not under either of these two sorts.  
section 34 The Doctrinal notes which the Reverend Mr. Dickson hath upon that Parable, Mat. 13. 24. etc. 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 external Visible Church is worthy to be called the Kingdom of Heaven even in respect of the external 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 matter 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 Regenerate: But have all others of whose inward Regeneration they are not assured plucked from among Professors. 6. The Lord although he hath given order to censure scandalous offenders, yet he discharges his servants to press towards such a separation, as to have all weeds and wicked in heart to be cast out; Lest while they gather out the graceless 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, etc. 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 profess subjection to Christ and his Ordinances, good and bad, true and false Professors, for it gathereth of every kind, to wit, whosoever profess 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 matter of the Visible Church excludes the Infants of Christians from being members of the Visible Church, go etc. For the proof of the proposition I refer Mr. Lockier to Mr. Baxters Dispute against Tombs: If he deny that Infants of Christians are members of the Visible Church, let him take some pains to answer these many, solid and acute Arguments brought by that Learned man, to prove that they are. The assumption is most clear. For Mr. Lockiers' Doctrine is that none others, no not one other, are fit matter of a Visible Church, but such as are truly converted, so far as men truly converted and very spiritual are able to discern and judge: This is a thing that cannot be spoken or understood of infant's. And it is remarkable that Mr. Lockier nor here when he propoundeth his Doctrine concerning the matter of the Visible Church, nor else where in prosecuting it in this Lecture, does so much as once, with these whom he allows to be matter of the Visible Church, take in their Infants, as some others of his mind are wont sometimes to do. And therefore that which Mr. Caudrie sayeth, considering Mr. hooker's conclusion concerning the matter of the visible Church that had he not added a little after, comprehending the Infants of confederate believers under their Parent's Covenant, he might have been suspected, etc. Mr. 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 matter 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, etc. and Spanhemius his Epistle to David Buchanan) I might add a large enough Catalogue of Testimonies from Orthodox Divines, both ancient, especially in their Writings against Novatians, and Donatists, and Modern, since Reformation of Religion from Popery. 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 than 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 Tenants) speak for this: Bellar. Enervat. Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 1. 11. 5. falsum est (sayeth he) internas virtutes, equiri à nobis ut aliquis sit in Ecclesiâ quoad Visibilem ejus statum. i e. it's false that inward virtues 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 external communion in the Worship and Ordinances of God: But never by inward holiness and heart-conversion. Thus I have done with Mr. Lockiers' Lecture.   

APPENDIX, Wherein is Examined so much of that Letter Written by these of ABERDENE, who lately have separated from this Church upon the INDEPENDENT grounds, as relateth to the present Question touching the necessary qualification of Visible Church-members.  
section 1 LAst Summer some persons, Ministers, and others in Aberdene, did Write a Letter of the date, 24. of May, to some Godly men in the South, declaring their separation from the communion of the Church of Scotland, upon two points of Controversy between us and these of the Independent way, viz. the constitution of the Visible Church, and the Government thereof, contrary to their solemn Vows made to Almighty God in two Covenants, the Nationall Covenant of this Kirk, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three Kingdoms, and undertaken with so▪ lemn declaration of their conviction in Conscience of the truth of Religion, professed in this Church, and under the pains of Gods everlasting wrath, and of infamy and of loss of all honour and respect in this world if they should ever make defection from the same; which curse, I pray the God of all grace avert from them, granting unto them Repentance and forgiveness of their great sin, through Jesus Christ.  
section 2 It is not my purpose here to write an Examination of that whole Letter, knowing some Godly and able men have done that sufficiently already to themselves, whose pains I hearty wish, the Lord may be pleased by his blessing yet to make effectual upon the hearts of these men, to reduce them from their error, into unity with this Church in his Truth, from which they have departed; I mind only to consider what new appearance of reason they bring touching these two points, the qualification of Church-members and form of Government, and shall speak to the former in this Appendix, to the latter in another after our second Part of Mr. Lockiers' Examination. The cause why I do this, thus apart in Appendices, is partly because I was loath to interrupt so much, the thread of Mr. Lockiers' Examination: Partly because it was long time, and I had gone on a great way in that Examination, ere a Copy of this Letter came to my hands. Come we then to consider here what they say upon the first point.  
section 3 Their Thesis is this. To us it seemeth, for aught we can search in the Word, that none should be admitted constitute members of a Visible Church: But such as with a profession of the truth, join such blameless and Gospel-like behaviour, as they may be esteemed, in a rational judgement of charity, believers, and their children. On which I would represent these animadversions. 1. A little before, they express a restriction of this to Gospel Churches. 1. As I conceive Churches of the New Testament, for aught we understand (say they) the real constitution of Gospel Churches, etc. Now as to this, we desire these things propounded upon the same restriction made by Mr. Lockier before, Sect. 2. may be considered. 2. When as they speak of the members of a Church, and not of the Church, I would know whether they do acknowledge the being and unity of an Universal Visible Church, or not. If they acknowledge the being and essence thereof, then why do they not define the qualification of members in relation to it; but in relation to a Church, i. e. a particular Congregation? Is the necessary qualification of a member of the Visible Church Universal, one thing, and the necessary qualification of a member of this or that particular Congregation, another; and may one be fit to be a member of the Universal Visible Church, and yet not qualified to be a member of a particular Congregation? If they deny the being and unity of the Universal Visible Church (which may be, probably, they do) than I desire them in the fear of God, to consider and, if they can give us satisfactory answers to the weighty reasons from the Word of God, brought by sundry late Divines, particularly these of the Judicious and Learned Mr. Hudson, in his late Treatises on that purpose, to prove the being and unity thereof. Which I am persuaded nor they nor any living man shall ever be able to do. 3. When as they speak not simply, of members, but distinctly, of constitute members (none say they are to be admitted as constitute members of a Visible Church) I would ask them what is the other part of the distinction? What other members are there of the Visible Church, unto which these constitute members are contradistinguished? How are they called in their specification? And what is their necessary qualification? 4. When as they say that none are to be admitted constitute members, but such as with a profession of the truth, join such blameless and Gospel-like behaviour as they may be esteemed in a rational charity believers. i e. true gracious believers with a saving faith. 1. I would ask here why do they omit that part of the qualification required and made a part of the ground of esteeming persons believers, by others of that way they have taken themselves to? viz. a declaration of the experimental work of effectual vocation upon their heart, and only mentioned the behaviour or conversation. 2. Why have they not defined that blameless and Gospel like behaviour which is requisite to be a ground of esteeming persons believers, what at least is requisite and must concur to make it up, and less than which will not serve? That so we might have the general determinat rule, whereby cognition is to be made and estimation to be passed upon all professors of the truth, that they are believers, or otherways. For certainly while as they say, but indefinitely, such a blameless and Gospel behaviour, and tells not what is requisite to make up such a behaviour, they leave the matter in a mist of uncertainty, and for aught we can see, devolves the weight of that estimation upon men's apprehensions without a rule. If they say they were writing an Epistle to friends, and could not therein say all that is to be said in the mater. I Answer, that, if they could have told it, it might been said in short bounds, and it was as necessary for clearing their mind, to have been told as the Thesis, they have set down, itself. But yet let them point us to such a rule in the Word, if they know where it lieth. For my part, I profess humbly, I could never yet see in the Word of God, an universal definite rule whereby judgement may and aught to be passed upon all and every professor of the truth, by others, that they are to be held for true believers or otherwise. 5. When as in the designation of the persons that are fit to be admitted members of the Visible Church, they with Parents, join their children. I do hearty acknowledge their Orthodoxy in this, beyond others of that way, who have omitted wholly that addition, and wishes they may continue in that point of truth, considering how easy it is, as the Authors of that Epistle themselves may perceive by experience in others that went off with them first, by that step they have gone on to slide into that other of excluding the Infants of believers from the Visible Church. But now I would know whether they acknowledge such Infant's members completely, I mean in actu primo, or not? If they say the former, they are at a disagreement with others of the Independent way. If they say the latter, than we must have another distinction of constitute members and so many sorts of members of the Visible Church, and so also, we must have many sorts of qualifications of members.  
section 4 But now take the matter of the Thesis as it is, that the necessary qualification to make one (of years) fit to be admitted a member of the Visible Church, is, together with profession of the truth, such a conversation as may make a man to be esteemed, i. e. positively judged a true believer or Regenerate person. I shall not here add any new reasons to what I have brought before: But shall come briefly to consider if these present Authors have brought any new strength of reason for that Tenet: Only I would desire them in the fear and love of the truth, to consider if they can find in the Word of God, amongst all these many, whose admission into the fellowship of the Visible Church of Christ, is mentioned therein; any instance of persons or one person, who after their first professing Christian faith and Religion, was, what ever their behaviour and course had been before to that very time, delayed of their admission to be Church-members until they should be seen and found, with that their profession, to join such a blameless and Gospel-like behaviour, as the Authors requires; many of them, no doubt, until that time had been of a very  and un Gospel behaviour and course of life: And certain it is, that to be seen joining with profession of the truth, an unblameable and Gospel-like behaviour requires some delay and length of time. For my part I could never yet see any instance of this kind, but on the contrary; finds, that persons, as soon as they once embraced the profession of the Christian faith, albeit to that very time their behaviour had been most , were forthwith baptised and so admitted members into the Christian Church. Consider this, I beseech you dear brethren, if so ye will yet suffer yourselves to be called and exhorted by me.  
section 5 But now we come to the gr●…nds of confirmation of their thesis. Such (say they) were the Churches founded by the Apostles (which ought to be patterns to us) as appears by the title given to them. Saints, sanctified, justified, washed by the blood of Christ. For Answer, we refer to what we said before, to that same inductive Argument in Mr. Lockier, now in a word only, to make this Argument good, it must be alleged and made out, not only that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apostles (at least such as are mentioned in Scripture) were actually and defacto consisting of such members as were all and every one Saints, justified, etc. in the positive judgement of charity: But also were in their gathering constitute of all and every one formally considered and taken in under the notion of such upon trial found and judged to be such; But 1. 'Tis not so much as alleged by the Authors that they were so gathered and constituted, nor can these titles, let them take them as they will import any thing of this. 2. Nor suppose these titles should import that the Church●… to which they are given were eventually consisting of such members, as were all and every one such: Does it follow, that all and every one of the Churches founded by the Apostles, were so; I mean even such of them as are mentioned in Scripture: Because these titles are not given unto all and every Church founded by the Apostles or Apostolical men, in the Apostles time: We give instance of the Churches, Smyrna, Pergamus, Thyatira, Sardis, Laodicea, nay had the Authors duly considered what is said of these Churches, Revel. 2, and 3. I think they could not in reason said, what they say here. Nor, 3. Do these titles import necessarily that the Churches to which they are given, did the facto, and eventually consist of all and every one such. These titles may and must (at least of some of them) be understood of their visible body synecdochically, by a denomination taken from the better part, as I would rather say of the body communiter & confuse, not universaliter.  
section 6 The Authors of the Epistle touches not at the two former exceptions (which yet are sufficient to overturn this Argument, and I doubt not, but one of the Authors, he that, as I conceive, has been the Penner of this Epistle, a man well enough acquainted in Argumentation, and able to discern what may be alleged to be defective in an induction, might well perceived) but only labours to infringe the third. We cannot (say they) acquiesce to the common Answer that these expressions are to be understood of the better part. Answ. Yet as good, and as judicious as you, the whole stream of Interpreters, until Anabaptists, and Separatists did arise, have given, and acquiesced in, that Interpretation of these titles. But if you can bring solid reason to prove they must be understood otherwise, we shall yield as to this; We give more assent to one solid reason, then to an hundred Authorityes of mere men. Come we then to see what reason is brought to prove they ought to be understood otherwise. 1. For that (say they) they are to be understood of them all according to the judgement of charity: The Holy Ghost has clearly said, Rom. 1. 7. To all that be at Rome, beloved of God, called Saints. And again, vers. 8. I thank my God for you all. This the first, than they subjoin another. We hope when the Apostle saith, 1 Cor. 6. 18. flee fornication, none will deny but he speaks to the whole Church: Yet to the same persons he immediately adds, verse. 19, 20. Your body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, you are not your own, you are bought with a price, this is an Argument taken from the condition of the persons whom he exhorteth thus. But the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth. Therefore they were all such as the Apostle judged in charity the redeemed of the Lord. Answ. Remember what we have said before, that though all were granted that is here alleged, yet the main point in Question touching the constitution of these Churches is not proven. The main point in Question is upon what formal consideration only, the members of which these Churches did consist, were received and admitted into the constitution thereof. But the most that can be made out of what is alleged here, let it all be granted, is, that all the members were such de facto and eventually; this being remembered, to the present purpose. 1. Suppose it were granted, and that the reasons alleged did prove, that these titles, as given to the Churches of Rome and Corinth were to be understood as the Authors will, of all and every one in these Churches, that they were judged by the Apostle in charity, the Redeemed of the Lord, truly sanctified, etc. It is hereby clear and evinced that so these titles, must be understood also, when they are given to the other Churches founded by the Apostles? I know the chief Author of the Epistle has more skill (however it be with others of them) in Logic, then to think so, and hopes he doth not so despise others that have any tolerable knowledge that way, as to think they would take such a thing off his hand, and therefore wonders, that having undertaken to prove that all the Churches founded by the Apostles, were constitute of such members as were all positively judged in charity, Redeemed and Sanctified, because of the titles of Redeemed and Sanctified given to them: And then that these titles given to them, must not be understood synecdochically by a denomination taken from the better part; but of all and every one of them: In the proof of this he brings in two of them, without so much as one word of assay to prove the like of the rest. If it shall be said that if that be proven of one or two, it is proven also by consequence of the rest. I deny it, for the Question being about the sense wherein a title ascribed to several particular Societies, whether, viz. it be ascribed to them universally as competent to all and every individual contained therein; Or only by a denomination taken from a better part of these individuals? To prove that is to be so or so understood of one or two of them, is not sufficient to conclude, that so it is to be understood of the rest: If yet it shall be replied, that there is no reason why it should not be so understood of the rest of these Churches, as of these expressed. I answer this much at least should have been alleged (which is not) to have made the Argument in appearance, at least, to have some force for the main point intended. But what if, though it should be granted that these titles are attributed to the two Churches expressed here, are to be understood as spoken of them universally: yet it shall be shown that in some other of these Churches founded by the Apostles, there were persons to whom these titles could not be applied? We conceive this hath been done before in our answer to Mr. Lockier particularly of the Church of Ephesus, and that the 2 and 3. of the Rev. hold the same clearly forth of some others. But 2. as for that brought for the Church of Rome we refer to what we have answered before to M●. Lockier, in that same purpose. 3. As to the Argument brought to prove that the title of Redeemed (and consequently the rest) is given to all and every one of the Church of Corinth, it lieth thus in form as propounded by the Authors themselves. The Apostle exhorting the Corinthians to flee fornication, taketh an Argument from the condition of the persons whom he exhorteth (to wit that they were Redeemed) but the exhortation is to all the Church of Corinth. Therefore they were all such as the Apostle judged in charity to be Redeemed of the Lord. Answ. I wonder exceeding much, that such a loosely form Argument should have come from the hand of such a Philosophe, as I take to have been the principal Author of this Epistle; for take it as it lieth here, it looketh not like a piece of art, a syllogism consisting of three terms: but seemeth to have some more. But to take it in the most candid way, I conceive it may be resolved into those two processes to make it formal, the first may be thus, all these to whom the Apostles exhortation to flee fornication there is directed, are by him called Redeemed: And so were at least to his judgement of charity. But to all the Church of Corinth is that exhortation of the Apostles directed. Therefore, etc. The other is for proof of the major or first proposition of that, thus: These persons who are exhorted to flee fornication by an Argument taken from Redemption as their condition are called Redeemed by the Apostle: But all these to whom that exhortation is directed are exhorted by an Argument taken from that condition. Therefore, etc. Now then to Answer. 1. I think the assumption of the first syllogism may well be denied; viz. that exhortation is directed to all and every one in the Church of Corinth, the Authors prove it not; Only they think it so evident, that none will deny it. But for what reason they are so confident of this I know not, unless it be this, that flying fornication was a duty incumbent to them all and every one of them. But this reason is not constringent; for why may not a duty, which is in a common obligation incumbent to all, be pressed upon some peculiar persons by an exhortation particularly intended and directed for them? I can see no circumstance in the Text here, why we may not conceive this exhortation, though to a duty of common obligation, yet particularly intended and directed by the Apostle to the elect and truly redeemed amongst them, not distinctly by the head and name pointing them out, but confusè, in the Visible Society they were amongst. 2. Passing that assumption of the first syllogism: the assumption of the second which is brought to prove the major of the first, is as lose, viz. that all these persons to whom the exhortation is directed, or are exhorted to flee fornication, are exhorted by that Argument taken from redemption as their condition. This may well be denied, for why may not an exhortation to a common duty, directed to a whole society mixed of persons of different spiritual conditions, be pressed upon all by some Arguments common to all (such as that whereby this exhortation is pressed, vers. 18.) and upon some, by some special Argument relating properly to them. There can be no circumstance of the context alleged to prove, why it may not be conceived to be so here, supposing that the exhortation is directed to all? But, 3. To beat out the bottom of this Argument, I prove from the very Text itself that the Apostle here speaking to the persons, whom he calleth redeemed, speaketh of them as such in the verity of the thing or object, i. e. as truly and really redeemed and consequently cannot be conceived to speak it of all and every one in the Church of Corinth, as the Authors themselves will confess, I doubt not. I prove it thus, these whom the Apostles calls Redeemed here, they are such as might and ought themselves to know, and be assured that they were Redeemed, and had the Spirit of God dwelling in them. But only such as are in reality and the verity of the thing, Redeemed, etc. may and aught to know and be assured of this of themselves. Therefore the second Part of this Argument is clear, because otherwise a man might and ought to know and be assured of a lie, concerning his estate, which is deluded presumption. The first part is also clear from the Apostles words, v. 19 What? know ye not that your bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghost, etc. That know ye not so frequently used by the Apostle, especially in these Epistles to the Corinthians, and in this very Chapter five times, imports a certain assurance of the thing he is speaking of, and therefore here the Apostle imports that these whom he is speaking to as redeemed, and having the Spirit dwelling in them, they are such as may and aught to be assuredly sensible that they were redeemed. And is not this place parallel to that of the very like expression, 2 Cor. 13. 5. Know ye not that Christ is in you? Which all Protestant Divines press against Papists for proving Believers certain assurance and persuasion of grace and salvation. Therefore I conclude: That the Apostle by these whom he calls the Temple of the Holy Ghost, understands them that are such indeed and in truth of the object, and not in the judgement of charity; And what an incongruous interpretation were it to put upon these words, Know ye not that ye are the temples of the Holy Ghost redeemed with a price? this sense; Know ye not that ye are accounted in the judgement of charity, temples of the Holy Ghost, etc. 4. Yet I think it cannot in truth be said that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were judged positively by the Apostle in the judgement of charity, gracious, renewed and sanctified ones, even because of the gross wickedness he in these Epistles expresseth himself to have known to be amongst them.  
section 7 The last exception the Authors of the Epistle goes about to obviate thus, Neither hath it any weight with us to the contrair which is objected that there were gross faults amongst them, as divisions, intemperance, questioning the Resurrection, incest; Will not Lot's drunkenness, David's adultery, Peter's denial, prove these to be sins incident to the Saints, though justly censurable, as the incestuous was excommunicate: a man who once, as is spoken of Gaius, hath been approven of the truth itself, though he be overtaken with gross infirmity, albeit for it he be censurable according to the nature of his offence, yea the highest Ecclesiastic Censure pass against him; yet he is to be esteemed as a brother, 2 Thes. 3. 15. Answ. 1. Tho that objected, hath not with you, yet has it had with many judicious and godly men in the Church of God, both ancient and modern, much weight to the contrair: I name, for the present but one (there be no doubt of many others) because of the Controversy he is upon in making use of this consideration. The godly Orthodox and ancient Augustine, ad Donatist as post collationem, cap. 21. where disputing against the Donatists maintaining separation from all other Christian Churches, because of the mixture 〈◊〉 many wicked ones amongst them from that place, 2 Cor. 6. 14, 15, 16, 17. (just as these Authors of this Epistle do afterward from that same very place, ut non sit ovum ovo similius) answers them from the consideration of these many gross wickednesses expressed by the Apostle as abounding in that Church, that there were many graceless persons amongst them, yet they neither made nor were commanded to make separation from that Church. I humbly desire the judicious Reader to be at the pains to read the whole Chap. and I shall but point at two or three remarkable Passages of it, here see the Margin. 
* In eodem quippe ipso populo Corinthiorun quod dicimus demonstramus ne forte arbitrentur prophetarum tantummodo moris fuisse. & non ad Novi Testsed ad V●…eris consuetudinem pertinere, s●c arguere reprehensibiles quasi omnes in eo populo, arguantur, & sic allo qui laudabiles quasi omnes illi la●dantur. Ecce & ad Corinthlos sic Apostalus loquitur. Paulus vocatus jesu Christi per voluntatem Dei. & Sosthene● frater Ecclesiae quae est Corinthi sanctificatis in jesu Christo vocatis sanctis. Quis haec avdiens credat in Ecclesia Corinthiorum esse aliquos reprobos quandoquidem verba ista sic sonant velut ad omnes directa sit laudatio? Et tamen paulo post dicit: Obs●…ro autem fratres, ut id ipsnm dicatis omnes, & non si●t in vobis schismata.— In ipsis etiam Corinthiis ibi erant qui non credebant resurrectionem mortuorum quae singularis sides est Christianorum— Attendamus verbailla quibus C●inthiorum Ecclesiam in principio Epistolae sic laudat ut dicat● Gratias ago Deo meo semper pro vobis in gratia Det quae data est vobis in Christo Icsu, quia in omnibus divites facti est is— Ecce sic erant ditati in Christo in omni verbo & in omni scientia ita ut iis nihil decsset in ulla graetia, ut in illis essent qui resurrectionem mortuorum adhuc usque non crederent etc. where it is most evident that this learned and godly Father expounds these titles of saints etc. given to the Church of Corinth. not of all and every one, but of a part thereof and that upon this very consideration that there were amongst them persons guilty of such wickedness as are afterwards fallen upon by the Apostle to whom his mind is, these titles were not competent.   
But waving the Authority of men, let us consider the things themselves, and see if the Authors have not, as it would seem, strained themselves here, to make this consideration appear light unto them. Then, 2. Let it be observed that in the account of these gross wickednesses that were amongst the Corinthians alleged as a ground against their assertion, that all and every one in the Church of Corinth were such as were judged true Saints in the positive judgement of charity by the Apostles, some main gross faults are omitted, and some of them reckoned up, are minced by them. First I say some are omitted: as for example, vain carnal abuse unto ostentation of the gifts of the Spirit with which the Apostle meeteth, 1 Cor. 12, 13, 14. vile envying, traducing, and labouring by all means to disgrace and bring in disgust amongst them the blessed Apostle and his Ministry: Read, 2 Cor. 10. and 11. and 12. and consider what was the practices of these amongst the Corinthians, against whom the Apostle vindicates himself, and say if they were such as the Apostle judged true Saints, nay does he, not in express terms, Cap. 11. ver. 13, 14, 15. say of them that they were false Apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the Apostles of Christ, Satan's Ministers, transforming themselves as the Ministers of Righteousness, whose end should be according to their works. 
Martyr in loc. Eos non omni notitia Dei exuit: sed tantum loquitur de ea notitia quae salutaris est & ad regenerationem conducit, ignorare autem Deum hoc nomine se satis declarabant, quod resurrectiomè inficiahantur.  Again some of them reckoned up are minced. Not only were there amongst them intemperance simply, but coming drunk to the Lords table, 1 Cor. 11. 21, 22. and 'tis spoken of as a thing ordinary and habitual in them; not simply committing of fornication, but impudent slighting of it as little or no sin at all, as appears, 1 Cor. 6. not simple questioning (as they Interpret it) i. e. doubting about the Resurrection, but downright positive denying of it, 1 Cor. 15. How say some among you that there is no Resurrection of the dead. How could the Author's hearts endure to parallel such habitual drunkenness and whoredom with Lots and David's lapses through the surprisal of such temptations as they were under: Such heretical denying of a most fundamental point of Religion, the Resurrection from the dead, with Peter's denial, of a matter of fact, his knowledge and acquaintance with Christ (which yet was a grievous sin on the matter) under the violence of a temptation, as if these former, as well as these latter, were to be accounted but infirmities of Saints? Nay, albeit I deny not, but atheistical doubtings may arise and infest the hearts of gracious ones (which yet are a torment to them) yet I see not how a form denial of that fundamental point of the Resurrection, now since Christ's Resurrection, and so clear and full revelation of the Gospel, can be consisting in the heart with true saving faith; And is it not upon this very account that the Apostle speaking to these Corinthians in that 15. cap. vers. 34. sayeth, some (he means of their Church, as the Nether Dutch Notes well observe) have not the knowledge of God, i. e. they have not saving knowledge of God. 2. What, shall we yet say that the Apostle judged all and every one in the Church of Corinth truly gracious Saints. 3. As to that, a man who once spoken of as Gaius, etc. 1. 'Tis true that such a man, though he be overtaken with a gross infirmity, and therefore be censurable and censured with the censure of Excommunication, yet is not for that, to loss the estimation we had of him before upon such grounds; but what is this to the purpose in hand? Have the Authors shown us, or can they show us any evidence or proof that these mentioned in the Corinth. as guilty of these gross wickednesses, were such as Gaius is said to have been, approven of the truth itself, yea or positively in charity judged true Saints and Regenerate? To suppose this, (as the Authors do but suppose it here) is nothing else but to suppose and beg the thing in Question without any proof of it. 2. I conceive the Authors are in a mistake, when as they take that, 2 Thes, 3. 5. esteem him (it is, admonish him, in the text) as a brother, to import necessarily the accounting a man one truly Regenerate; For in Christianity as there is a special brotherhood in regard of communion in Regenerating grace; so there is a common brotherhood, in regard of common profession of Christian Faith and Religion, and it is sufficient to understand a brother in that place, in that more common notion and relation, as is evident by the opposition there made to an enemy. Tho I think the Apostle there is not so much speaking of the state of the man censured, what it is, or aught to be judged; As what the affection and carriage of these yet in the Church ought to be towards him for his good. Thus we have seen and considered the first ground brought by the Authors for their Thesis, taken from the examples of the Churches founded by the Apostles and the confirmation brought to hold it up.  
Their is ere they come to the next, this word casten in, but this is not our case; our Churches are overflowed with a deluge of profane Atheists, who have been such from their birth to this present hour, which I can not otherwise look upon in this place of their Epistle, but as an untimous eruption of despite against their mother Church. Afterward such as it is, it might have come in its place, when they come to speak to the point of their practice of separation from this Church: But here in this place of their Epistle, they are upon the question de jure, of what members Churches Visible ought to be constitute, what is it to this purpose that these Churches have de facto, such and such persons in them? But now to their second ground: John (say they) thought not a bare verbal profession sufficient ground to admit persons to Baptism. These who came to him to be Baptised, unless he saw joined with it fruits meet for Repentance, and upon this score he could not (I conceive it should be, 
* For if it be, he could not, it must be meant de jure, as we say, illud possumus quod de jure possumus. For to deny that Physicè he could were but false & impertinent: but that were to beg the question: for now they are reasoning from his fact or practice to conclude the jus or rule, therefore knowing some of the Author's acure enough to see such a thing, I conceive, it has been first written would not, and that the other is an escape of the transcriber.  he would not, see the reason of my conjecture on the Margin) admit the Pharisees who came to him to be baptised, as is clear, comp. Mat. 3. with Luke 7. 30. the Pharisees were not baptised of John. If it be replied that Christ in Luke speaks only of some of the Pharisees, the scope of the Text will easily refute it. For he chides the Pharisees as worse than the Publicans, in this, that the Publicans came to John's baptism in a capacity to be baptised and were baptised of him, which the Pharisees did not; But if these many Pharisees, Mat. 3. 7. had been baptised of John; and only some others of them rejected his baptism, surely the Pharisees in this had been nothing behind the Publicans, for neither were all the Publicans baptised.  
section 8 In this Argument, these Authors have no small confidence as appeareth, once for all then to vindicate this place from their forgery. 1. Whereas they say John Baptist thought not a bare verbal profession sufficient to admit these to Baptism who came to him to be Baptised, unless he found joined with it fruits meet for Repentance Answ. 1. 'Tis not a bare verbal profession that we plead for as a sufficient ground, nor say we that john Baptist proceeded upon it as a ground in admitting persons to his baptism, a bare verbal profession may be apparently in jest, mocking, and in gross palpable hypocrisy. john no doubt would not thought such a profession a sufficient ground: nor do we think it either. But between such a profession, and a profession wherewith are seen presently and actually fruits meet for Repentance, i. e. positively evidencing and proving true Repentance in the heart; there is a profession sober and serious, though for the present there be not, nor can be for the present, seen such fruits, meet for Repentance joined with it, such a Profession we say as this, is a sufficient ground to admit to Baptism upon; And upon such a Profession, we say john admitted those to baptism, that came to him to be baptised, without enquiring or waiting to see fruits meet for Repentance. For it is most evident by comparing the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, yea and john 3. 23. that great multitudes of people coming to him were baptised by him together, at the same time. Now I pray how did john see fruits meet for Repentance in all and every one of these by themselves? was he acquaint with every one of their conversations personal, before they came there, who will be so impudent as to hazard upon such an assertion especially, of him who lived in the wilderness remote from their Cities and Societies? Or after they came forth to him and offered themselves to be baptised, did john delay their baptism and they abide in conversing with him, so long a time (which could not be for some few days, yea or weeks) as he might see such fruits in their conversation, viz. (as the Authors of this way tell us) omitting no known duty, and committing no known evil, or leading a conversation without scandal? Who will say or believe this either? Or did john see these, by examining every one of them severally, and causing them make a declaration of the experimental work of Repentance upon their heart? 1. But how could he do this, with so great multitudes, yea when all is done, this would be nothing but verbal profession of the work, and not fruits, spoken of in the Text, which are real good works and practices in life and conversation. And as to their hinting at the Baptists words, bring forth fruits meet for Repentance: As if it were imported thereby, that john is requiring the works to be brought forth, and that he might see them in relation unto, and before his administration of baptism to them, is a gross mistake or deceit; for it is evident that john is not requiring a qualification in relation to his administration of baptism to them; But Preaching their duty, without which neither their profession nor outward baptism, nor any other outward privilege or prerogative should save them from the wrath of God. Yea it is evident that this Sermon exhortatory was so far from being Preached to the purpose the Author's intimats, that it was Preached either in the time of the administration, or rather after the administration was performed; As would appear by Mark 1. 8. I indeed a have baptised you.  
section 9 But they prove that John Baptised not but upon seeing fruits meet for Repentance joined with Profession. How? upon this score (not seeing fruits meet for Repentance with their profession) he could (it should be would) not admit the Pharisees who came to him to be baptised. Answ. 1. I know Reverend Pareus thinks these Pharisees were not admitted to Baptism by John: but he gives not this as the ground of John's debarring them, not seeing in them fruits meet for Repentance, but this, that they came out of curiosity, or maliciousness, to disturb his Ministry and were manifest hypocrites: and we confess if any were known to be such, they ought to be debarred, and that to administer Sacraments to such were to prostitute them, as that Reverend Author sayeth, for such are known mockers and dispiters of the Ordinances. 
Musculus, Hum. Aret. Calv. also though he expresseth not this in formal words as those, yet his whole discourse upon the text, materially speaks it clearly enough.  But there may be a profession not of this kind, with which yet there is not, at the present, seen joined fruits, positively evidencing the sound work of Repentance in the heart. 2. Most part of commentators are of a judgement contrare to that of Pareus, that they were not debarred, see these on the Margin: 
* Observe, that these two verses, Luk. 7. 29, 30 by some are taken to be spoken by Christ himself as part of his discourse concerning john Baptist, and so our present Authors of the Epistle take them▪ By others they are taken to be the words of the Evangelist, expressing the different effect, that Christ's discourse concerning John had upon divers hearers, viz. that the common people and very Publicans hearing that discourse glorified God, having been such as were before baptised of John: but the Pharisees despised it and rejected it being such as were not baptised by John we will not now discuss which of the two are most probable, the former interpretation is the more common.  and truly to me there appeareth nothing in the Text against it, but rather some what for it, that these Pharisees that came to him than were Baptised by him: for that sharp objurgation, O generation of vipers, etc. on which weight may be laid, was spoken not only to the Pharisees (though in special way it was to them) but to the whole multitude of the people. Luke 3. 7. Nay doth not john in the prosecution of this discourse directed in special way to the Pharisees say, I baptise you? yea as in Mark, I have baptised you? If any shall say this was not one discourse, with that going before, because Luke sayeth that he uttered the last point as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts, etc. I say this proveth not that it was another discourse, or that there was any interruption or interval of time intervening: it only showeth that upon consideration of these thoughts in men's hearts concerning this, as an special reason, he uttered this point, which yet as appeareth in Matth. and all other interpreters take it, he spoke also for clearing the Doctrine of Baptism, to show what belonged to him as the external Minister of it, and what to Christ as the principal Cause and Author.  
section 10 But see we how our Authors will prove, that these Pharisees that came to John, were not admitted by him, and that upon this score, as not seeing (viz. at that time, so we must circumstantiate the matter) in them fruits meet for Repentance joined with their Profession. 'Tis clear (say they) if we compare Matth. 3. with Luke 7. 3. the Pharisees were not baptised of John. Ans. 1. Suppose it were granted that this were meant Universally of the Pharisees and so of those that came to john, Matth. 3. with the rest: Yet were proven but the half of that which was alleged, viz. that they were not admitted by him to baptism. But nothing is brought for the other half, viz. that it was upon this score, viz. because he saw not fruits meet for repentance with their Profession. Might it not be that he admitted them not, not upon that negative ground, but upon this positive; Because he saw them coming out of curiosity or maliciousness, or jesting, and not so much as in sober seriousness. Nay take these verses, 29. 30. as a continuate part of Christ's speech concerning john, (as our present Authors takes them) and not so much is proven, viz. that john refused to admit them. They import rather, that they themselves refused to be baptised, despised and rejected his baptism; Then that he refused to baptise them desiring to be baptised, and so interpreters commonly, especially those that take these verses to be a part of Christ's speech, understand them. But 2. take these verses as you will, I see not how it appears clearly by them, that these Pharisees that came to john, Matth. 3. were not baptised by him. For take them as the Evangelists words (as it seemeth very probable they should be, comparing them with Math. 11. 15. and the beginning of ver. 31. of that 7. of Luke) than they are meant of such Pharisees as were present hearing this discourse of john, and the meaning is this much, The Pharisees that were present hearing this discourse of Christ, not being baptised of john, etc. Now can this be brought to prove that the Pharisees that came to john, Math. 3. were not baptised: unless you will say, that all the Pharisees in Judea, yea in the world, were present hearing that discourse; Which is neither said in the Text, nor any ways likely they could be present. And take them as a continuate part of Christ's discourse concerning john, and supposing also that it were meant that john debarred them from baptism (the contrary whereof, that themselves rejected, despised it, and would not be baptised by himl, is likely to be meant, as we said a little before) yet it is not clear thereby that these Pharisees that came to john, Math. 3. were not baptised, because the proposition is but indefinite, and so may be verified though understood particularly; And if so, what evidence have we from the words that these that came to john were the men. Judicious Interpreters, by name Musculus and Aretius, expressly comparing the one place with the other, affirm they are not the same particular persons spoken of in both.  
section 11 Against what is said in the last place, our present Authors say, The scope of the context will easily refute it: for Christ chideth the Pharisees as worse in this, etc. Answ. 'Tis easier for men to say, that their Adversary is easily refuted, then to do it. 1. It is likely as we show before, that in these verses 29, 30. 'tis not Christ that speaketh, chiding the Pharisees as worse that way then the Publicans: But Luke expressing how the people and Publicans present upon the one hand, and the Pharisees on the other, were affected with Christ's discourse concernin john. But 2. let them be Christ's own words, it will not be found by the context that it is Christ his scope to chide the Pharisees he speaketh of here for this, that coming to be baptised, they came in an incapacity, and for that incapacity were refused Baptism by john, though desirous (which they should have proven, and not begged) but for this, that they would not be baptised by him; For the words are not, that they rejected the counsel of God, and john baptizeth them not, or therefore were not baptised of him: but they rejected the counsel of God, themselves not being baptised by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Take these words as uttered by Christ speaking on in a continuate discourse, And what can a man conceive to be the meaning of them, but this simply, that they put away, despised, rejected the means of salvation ordained by God (that is his counsels) and made known by his Minister john, and this was an evidence of it, that they were not baptised by him. But, 3. To the point we are on more nearly here; let it be granted which the Authors says, that he chideth the Pharisees for that cause they alleged; The co●…equence built upon it, to prove that these Pharisees that came to john, Mat. 3. were not baptised, is feeble: For it must be thus, Christ chideth the Pharisees as worse than the Publicans, for this, that when as the Publicans came in a capacity to be baptised and were baptised. The Pharisees did not so: Ergo, none of the Pharisees were baptised, & so neither were these mentioned, Mat. 3. I deny the consequence. For the antecedent may be true, and Christ's chiding the Pharisees, generally, reasonable and just, though some of them had been otherways affected and thereupon baptised. As for the reason of the consequence brought by the Authors, if these many Pharisees, Mat. 3. 7. etc. The whole strength of it lies in a sophistical insinuation, that these Pharisees, Mat. 3. because they are said to be many, were the greatest part of all the Pharisees, and these being said to be baptised there were but some few beside, of whom these words, Luke 7. 30. (they were not baptised) could be expounded, this I say is but a mere sophistical insinuation: for albeit these, Mat. 3. be called many, yet their might been Pharisees many more, ten to one beside, of whom that Luke 7. 30. might be said. Now considering that the Publicans and other such common people though all of them were not baptised of john, yet generally they show themselves more obedient and respective to the Ordinances Ministered by john, as also they did unto Christ himself, than the Pharisees did, albeit some of them also might been disobedient to him and not baptised by him, it may be clearly enough seen, that the Pharisees were much behind them in this, and that Christ might justly chide the Pharisees as worse than the Publicans, for the cause mentioned (speaking of them indefinitely) though all and every one of them had not been in the blame. This is not unusual in comparing two sorts, orders or conditions of persons, to blame the one as worse than the other in such a particular respect (in an indefinite speech) when the one is more generally blame-worthy that way, than the other, though, may be, some of the party blamed are free of the fault, and some of the party commended, may be deep enough in that fault. This much for clearing john Baptists procedure in admitting persons to baptism, viz. that he did baptise persons coming to him upon their first profession, without delay or waiting for discoveries of true heart Conversion and Saintship in them.  
section 12 Having ended this Argument from john's order of baptising, they tell us that, many moe and more pressing grounds from the Word might be alleged to make forth this point: But we are loath (say they) to be tedious: only sure we are, holiness becomes the House of our God. It is certain our Churches are not constitute according to this rule in the full extent of it; Yea alas few of our most precious men will acknowledge it to be the rule. Answ. 1. Albeit the Authors conceiving to their knowledge many more grounds to be in the Word of God for making forth their point and having set down here but some few of them, omitting the rest, might, without incurring the hazard of animadversion, alleged that they passed these others, being loath to be tedious, because to wit they were writing an Epistle, not a Tractat: Yet their purpose being in this Epistle, to give an account of their thoughts (as they say in the beginning) in this mater to some Godly men: I humbly conceive, that when as they say, that there might be alleged more pressing grounds (which I doubt not but they speak as even to their own knowledge) for their point than they have alleged, but they are loath to be tedious by setting them down: This censure might justly be put upon it, that either it is an open writing themselves with their own pen, knowingly, foolish wronger's of their own cause; When as purposing to pick out some few grounds of many, for giving an account of their belief to men, whom they would give some satisfaction to, and draw to their judgement and side, they leave out the grounds that are most pressing for making out their point: But verily I think some of them, at least, not so simple as to have committed wittingly and willingly such an error; Or it is, give me leave to say it, a mere windy word, to say the least, inconsiderately uttered. And how sinful a thing it is so to speak, especially in matters of this kind, they are not ignorant. 2. But is that word, Psal. 93. ult. Holiness becometh thine House for ever, hinted at to close up the matter, one of these more pressing grounds, for making forth their point? O! but first this is an Old Testament Scripture spoken in relation to the then Churches of the Old Testament (whatever the place importeth) as well as to the Gospel Churches. Now why then did you before, as seems with your Master, restrict your Doctrine concerning the qualification of Church-members to the Gospel Churches? Or if you will now disown that restriction, is it your mind that this Holiness you plead for, was also the rule of admitting Members to the Visible Church under the Old Testament? Then sure, Moses was in a great fault, who walked not by this rule in his practice about Church Members as no man can deny. Far be it from you to say it, Brethren, when the Lord hath given him a Testimony that he was faithful in all his house. 2. We shall not here mention the divers interpretations of these Words of the Psalm given by several interpreters (see Calv. Pareus in locum) the most genuine interpretation I conceive to be; Either to take them, as our English translation renders them. Holiness becometh thine House: and so as holding forth the duty of these who are the Lords House. Or thus rendering them, to thy house beautiful holiness, viz. belongeth as their peculiar privilege bestowed on them by thee: but whither of these ways they be taken, they make nothing to the Author's point; Not taking them in the latter interpretation, as is evident, the Authors I believe will not say, that God by the efficacy of his Grace works Holiness in all and every Member of the Visible Church. Nor yet taking them in the former; According to which the simple meaning of them, is no other but that which is expressed in the latest edition of the English Annot. on the place a holy life and conversation becometh them that profess themselves to be servants to so great and glorious a Majesty, and who of us will deny this: this importeth what is the duty of all that profess themselves to be in so near a relation to God as his House, which is to be Holy in the Truth of the thing or object, and not only so to carry it before men as to be esteemed by them such in charity, which men may do without the reality or Truth of the thing. And this we grant, that men professing themselves the people of God ought in duty, as they would answer their profession, to be truly Holy. But what is this to the point of the qualification necessarily requisite in persons in foro Ecclesiastico that they may be admitted to the external fellowship of the Church? Wherefore. 3. we confess our Churches were not constitute according to this rule; I mean of the Holiness spoken of in that passage of the Psalm: Nor indeed could they, nor can ever any Churches in this world be so constituted: because it is true Holiness in the reality and truth of the thing, that is spoken of, which falls not under the cognition of the Ecclesiastic court, to be a rule of admitting persons unto the constitution of the Visible Church. 4. I know not well whom they mean by these, few at least precious men whom they insinuate to acknowledge their rule; Except they mean themselves who have sinfully separated themselves from the Church of Christ. But I may say they have no cause to weep and say alas for the precious men that will not acknowledge their new rule of constituting Visible Churches: because it is a rule that God never constituted for that purpose; But they have cause to weep and say alas (which I pray God of his Grace they may do) for themselves that they have separated themselves from the Church of Christ upon the very ground that Donatists separated of old.  
section 13 In the rest of the former part of their Letter they declare their purpose of separating from the Communion of this Church, and their ground of so doing, which I follow not here, it being my purpose to take unto consideration only so much of their Letter as directly concerneth the present Question I had in hand touching the necessary qualification of Church members. I doubt not but some of these men to whom they directed that Letter has returned them a sufficient Answer upon that point of their separation. And one of them has abundantly refuted that same point in Print against Separatists, as many other Orthodox Divines has done the like, not only modern Divines in their writings against late Separatists; But also ancient against Donatists and Novatians. Certain it is and cannot be denied by any that has any tolerable insight in the Ancients that these our Authors in their separation goes upon that same very ground that Donatists and Novatians separated of old. It was one of the Errors of these, that by fellowship with wicked and ungodly men in the Worship and Ordinances of God, others are polluted (as we may learn from Cyprian Epist. 51. and 52. and August. in his writings against Donatists, particularly, contra Epistolam Parmeniani) and therefore did separate from all other Churches as defiled with such mixtures, using as an Argument and ground for them, that same very passage brought by these present Authors for themselves, 2. Cor. 6. As we see by Augustin. ad Donatist. post collationem, cap. 21. cited by us a little before, where the Godly and Learned Ancient does abundantly and solidly refute the Donatists abuse of that place, as he does in his several writs against these proud Schismatics, all their other Arguments: And I much wonder that these our Brethren (I yet say if so they will suffer themselves to be so called by us) should have licked up that Schismatical Doctrine & practice of Donatists, so universally condemned by the ancient Church, and solidly refuted by the Orthodox Divines that then were. But it not being my purpose at this time to prosecute this part of their Epistle, I shall close this Appendix, adding only a word or two out of these two Ancients I have named concerning this matter. Cyprian. Epist. 21. written to 4. Confessors who, having been seduced into the Novatian separation and schism, had returned again to the unity of the Church, and signified the same to Cyprian, thus sayeth he to these Confessors. Postea quam vos de carcere redeuntes, ●…maticus & Haereticus error excepit, sic res erat quasi vestra gloria in carcere remansisset. Illic enim vestri nominis dignitas recedisse videbatur, quando milites Christi non ad Ecclesiam de carcere redierunt in quem prius cum Ecclesiae laude & gratulatione venissent: nam & si in Eccesiâ videntur esse Zizania non tamen impediri debet aut fides aut charitas nostra, ut quoniam Zizania in Ecclesia esse cernimus, ipsi de Ecclesia recedamus; nobis tantum modo laborandum est ut frumentum esse possimus, ut cum caeperit frumentum Dominicis condi horreiss, pro opere nostro & labour fructum capiamus. Apostolus in Epistola sua, 2 Tim. 2. dicit in domo autem magna non tantum vasa sunt aurea, etc.— nos operam demus & quantum possumus laboremus ut vas aureum vel argenteum simus. Caeterum fictilia vasa confringere Domino soli concessum est, cui & virga ferrea data est, esse non potest major Domino suo servus nec quisquam sibi, quod soli filio pater tribuit vendicare se putet: ut ad aream ventilandam & purgendam paleam ferre se jam posse aut à frumento universa Zizania humano judicio segregare. Superba est ista obstinatio & sacrilega presumptio quam sibi furor pravus assumit: Et dum Dominium sibi semper, plusquam mitis justitia deposcit, assumunt, de Ecclesiâ pereunt, & dum se in solenter extollunt, ipso suo humore caecati, veritatis lumen amittunt. Here we see separation from the Church because of the mixture of naughty persons solidly condemned and noted with a black mark by this Godly Ancient. The like or almost the same he hath in the Epistle immediately following that former cited. The word I would present from Augustine is that, contra Epistolam Parmeniami, lib. 3. cap. 1. Ab initio cum omnis pia ratio & modus Ecclesiasticae Disciplinae unitatem Spiritus in vinculo pacis maxime debeat intueri quod Apostolus sufferendo invicem praecepit custodire, & quo non custodito medicinae vindicta non tantum superflua sed etiam perniciosa, & propterea jam nec medicina esse convincitur, illi filii mali, qui non odio iniquitatum alienarum, sed studio contentionum suarum infirmas plebes jactantiâ sui nominis irretitas, vel totas trahere, vel certe dividere affectant, superbia tumidi, per●…i●…a vesani, calumniis insidiosi, seditionibus turbulenti, ne lucis veritate carere ostendantur, umbram rigidae severitatis obtendunt, & quae in Scriptures sanctis salva dilectionis sinceritate & custoditâ pacis unitate ad corrigenda fraterna vitia, moderatiori curatione praecepta sunt ad Sacrilegium Schismatis, & ad occasionem praecisionis usurpant dicentes, ecce ait Apostolus, auferte malum ex vobis ipsis. Yea the very universal Argument and purpose of these Books against Parmenianus, this Ancient himself, Retract. lib. 1. cap. 17. expresseth to be this, in tribus libris contra Parmen. Donatislarum Carthaginensis Episcopi, successorisque Donati, questio magna versatur & solvitur; utrum in unitate & eorundum communione Sacramentorum mali contaminent bonos (which is the very ground whereupon these our Brethren builds the necessity of their separation) & quemadmodum non contaminent disputatur propter Ecclesiam toto orbe diffusam cui calumniando Schisma fecerunt. If I would bring here all that, that Ancient hath against this Tenet and practice of separation of these Authors I might transcribe the most part of all his writings against the Donatists. Therefore I refer the Reader to the writings themselves, and beseeches these our Brethren yet in the fear of God and in humility of Spirit to consider and ponder their way they have run into was condemned, and solidely refuted from the Word of God, in these ancient Schismatics, by the Godly and Orthodox ancient Doctors of the Church in that time. And now I go on to Mr. Lockiers Appendix.    

PART II. Wherein is EXAMINED Mr. LOCKIERS TWO ASSERTIONS, Concerning CHURCH-GOVERNMENT: And what is said for Confirmation thereof.  

I Have been, I confess, well long upon the Examination of Mr. Lockiers' Lecture, because I found not so clear and distinct handling of that matter in others, as I could have wished: and I thought it expedient that, in regard he speaks with so great a deal of confidence in it, and others made so much noise of it, and this newfangle itching-eared age is ready to take with every new fancy, busked up with gay words, and, like children, to be carried about with every wind of doctrine; In this regard I thought it expedient the more fully to discover the weakness and unsatisfactoriness of his alledgeances therein. I shall not need, nor mind I to insist so largely upon the Appendix 
* I mean as to every particular Question handled here; For here are more particular questions handled.  The matter therein touched, viz. What is the proper subject of Ecclesiastic Authority and Government: And whether there be an union of more Congregations and Churches under one common Presbytery: has been already so learnedly and fully cleared by others, that it were but needless labour for me to insist on it; And I confess, I marvel much that Mr. Lockier should have presented the world with so sorry a discourse upon these matters (as I think every judicious Reader will perceive this Appendix to be) when as there are abroad so learned Tractats and Debates on them. Always we must be at the pains to animadvert upon this part of the Stone too, else the world should be made believe we were felled dead with it: But we shall do it as briefly, as to particulars, as we may, and shall refer M. Lockier to such Pieces as are written already, for further business and work to him, as occasion shall require.   

Mr. 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 essential 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 matter of his first Assertion, the point he propounds to be proven, is that the Eldership of a Congregation may not, in most weighty matters, exert power without the consent and approbation of the Church, and for proof of this, his first Argument, SECT. 2. is an allegiance, that the power of the Keys was primarly given to the Church of believers, as the subject thereof, Math. 16. 16. which allegiance he is pleased to pass with a very light and slight show of a proof, as if it were a matter 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 Ecclesiastic 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 Ecclesiastic of greatest concernment (and indeed as man's 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 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 irrational way of procedure, to take so great pains and make so much ado, as Mr. Lockier doth here in pleading for a certain condition of persons formal 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 allege, that they are chief 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 Jesuit, going about to Dispute the Controversy concerning the Pope's 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 ecumenical Counsels, to be presiding in them, final and infallible determining of controversies in Religion, etc. aught 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 sovereign power and authority over all things, and persons Ecclesiastic 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 topical 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 rational 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 form or 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 showing 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 alleged 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 ourselves 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 Presbytery within a particular Congregation, i. e. a College of Elders belonging to one single Congregation by itself having power of Government and exercising Ecclesiastic Discipline; although I know men Learned and much exercised in the study of the Questions concerning Ecclesiastic Government, are of the judgement, that there is not such an Eldership or Presbytery; And I confess 'tis right hard to find in Scripture either precept or example for it: But I shall, going along with Mr. Lockier in the acknowledgement 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 matters, providing it be with consent and approbation of the Church, i. e. the society of Professors they are in. But verily by his way the Eldership as contradistinguished from other professors, and as the Eldership has no power, nor can exert any power at all; I mean power of authority in these matters: All their part is merely to preside and moderate the meeting of the Church, and as a Moderator, or Chairman, to propone and state a Question; Ask and gather the votes, and declare the sentence concluded by the votes of the collective body of the Church; conveen and dismiss the meeting; Or at most as a Committee of a Judicatory, to prepare matters for public 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 matters; This belongs to the collective body of the Church, and their part is only to preside and moderate 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 Governors 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 mere 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 matters of greater weight? Does he grant that yet they may exert power in matters of less weight without the consent and approbation of the Church? Nay, he cannot. For, 1. most of his Arguments following, if they prove aught to his purpose, they prove the Eldership cannot exert power in any matters of Ecclesiastic 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 matters▪ he assumeth that they may not do it in smaller matters. For (saith he, Sect. 11. Pag. 81.) if in less 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 matters most weighty? He tell us, these things which are most essential 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 pass that expression of most essential 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 fixed Preaching of the Word of God, and right administration of Sacraments are as essential (to use his words) to the state of the Visible Church as any of these particulars mentioned. Nay they are much more essential; there may be a true Visible Church, where these are, though Excommunication be wanting, and that admission of members Mr. Lockier speaks of, unknown to the Primitive Apostolic 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 forbidden we should account destitute of the most essentials (to speak so with him) of a true Church. Now if the Preaching of the Word be a thing most essential 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 professors to whom they Preach? Must it be first propounded to them to have their vote and sentence pass upon it, and upon that Preached? I conceive Mr. Lockier will not own such theology. 2. That admission of members which ●e meaneth here, is so far from being one of these things most essential to the state of a Visible Church, that, as he and others of his mind conceive it, 'tis but a mere new device, unknown in the preceding 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 warrant 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 Catholic or Universal; but that a particular Congregation is the only Church. The truth is, profession of the true Faith and of subjection to Ordinances, with the seal of baptism completely 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 privileges 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 Unity, etc. 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 matter 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, baptising, if Mr. Lockier shall say that this cannot be done without the sentence of the collective body of Professors, he'll speak beside the book of God, which holds forth to us baptism 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 baptising 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 matters of the Government of the Church: which I cannot well think he will affirm, 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 Church. Are not women a part of the Church, yea and children also under age, unless 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 allegeth that the power of the Keys are given to persons not as Officers, Apostles, or Elders, but as believers, to the Church of believers, and believing with such a faith as flesh and blood cannot reveal, but I assume that Women are believers, and believers 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 alleges, that other ways (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 allegeth 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 joined 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, private, obediential, and not-authoritative: And a consent and approbation public and authoritative by way of a judicial decisive vote; Why is it that the Author does not in his Assertion determine which of these he means? 'Tis true afterward in his 5th Argument he is express, that the whole Church (and so men, women and children) should be jointly authoritative about these acts of Government: But here in propounding the Assertion involves the matter 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 gross 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 Ecclesiastic Government. As  
section 10 First we grant, as to the matter 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 withal we affirm that this nomination or election, is not an authoritative act of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction, conferring upon the person any Ministerial or Official 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 virtue 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 aught 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 john 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 Ecclesiastic Discipline and the censure of offenders, and particularly Excommunication. We grant, 1. that private professors are by the Word of God to exhort and reprove offending Brethren, yea and to admonish their Governors if negligent and remiss, 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 private 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 Ecclesiastic Discipline. 3. When a person is sentenced by the Presbytery unto Ecclesiastic censure, For example Excommunication, they are to obey that sentence, and by avoiding the person as a Publican and heathen, put it in execution, not in an implicit and blind, but rational 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 God's 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, aught to be signified to them, in the general, at least. And if they can allege any just reason against the justice of the sentence, either as to the point of law, or to the matter of fact they ought to be heard and admitted. Nor do we deny but that private professors, being desirous upon just grounds, and for their clearing in giving obedience in such matters, may and aught 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 Christ's Church and binding people to implicit and blind obedience, we abhor 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 Christ's Authority, belongeth not to private persons, or the body of professors jointly 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 Christ's 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 Keys was not at first given to Peter, as an Apostle, or as an Elder, but as an Believer— The consequent he would infer must be this, Ergo, that the Elders must not in these weighty matters of Government, admission of Members, ordination of Ministers, censures, exert power without the authoritative joint acting and concurring of the Church, i. e. the body of professors therein, with them. Ans. 1. If this consequence be good, than it must follow as well that Ministers cannot exert power of authoritative Preaching the Gospel but with the joint authoritative concurrence of the people in Preaching with them. For certain it is that the power of Preaching the Gospel is comprehended in these Keys given to Peter, as well as the power of censures, etc. and therefore if it follow, the power of the keys 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, etc. without the joint authorative concurrence of the body of Professors therein, it must follow also: Ergo, they cannot exert power in preaching the Gospel without their joint 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 keys 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 Professors 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 myself I cannot see  proof of) that the power of  Government is first given of God by a natural 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, unless 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 Keys were given first to the whole Church of believers, are to be understood to have meant, that this power was given to them not to be formally inherent and abiding in themselves, to be exerted and exercised by them: But virtually, by them to be settled upon such persons as they should design for Ministerial 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 Keys 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 matter of the first subject to which the power of the Keys 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 subjoined to his vindiciae vindiciarum. I shall here note some few of them to this purpose for the Reader, who, may be, has not the book at hand.  
1. The keys were given to Peter as an Apostle, as an Elder, and as a Believer: So the sense is most sit: the Keys, pag. 4.  
The power of the keys is given to Peter, not as an Apostle, nor as an Elder, but as a professed believer. The way, Peter received not the Keys merely as a Believer, but as a Believer publicly professing his faith. The way cleared, P. 2. fol. 39  
9 It appears that Christ gave the Keys to the fraternity, with the Presbytery, ibid. and the way cleared, Part. 2. pag. 22.  
A particular Church of Saints, professing the faith (i members without Offificers) is the first subject of all the Church Offices, with all their spiritual gifts and power: The keys, pag. 31.  
9 As the keys of the Kingdom of heaven be divers, so are the subjects to whom they are committed divers▪ The Keys, pag. 11.  
So Lockier here, but that he addeth not professed.  
The Apostles were the first subject of Apostolical power, ibid. 32.  
A Synod is the first subject of that power whereby error is convinced and condemned, ibid. pag. 47.  
Not believers as believers, but believers Convenanting and fitly capable according to Christ's appointment, Hook. Suru. P. 1. p. 203.  
9 The power of the Keys belongs first to a Congregation of Covenanting believers, Hook. Suru. Part. 1. pag. 219.  
The power of the Keys is in the Church of believers as the first subject, ibid. p. 195.  
That conceit is wide to make one first subject of this power and yet others to share in this power not by means of that, for this is to speak daggers and contradictions, ibid.  
section 3 Now see the Author's 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 Keys 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 Keys was not first given to Peter as, etc. but as a believer, here it is the Keys of power, the former expression, (supposing there were such a distinction of Keys, as Keys of power, and another sort of Keys different from these) being indefinite, may import both, but the latter importeth a specification of a definite sort of Keys. 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 Keys 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 administering these Ordinances under himself, these Keys 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 Keys, whereby they have confounded themselves, and wound confound the whole Church of Christ in the mater of its Government. They tell us there is 1. a Key of Knowledge or Faith, the first subject whereof is every Believer, whether joined to a particular Congregation, or not. 2. A Key of interest, power or liberty, which is in all the Brethren of a particular Congregation. And 3. a Key of Rule and Authority, which they say is in the Elders of a particular Church or Congregation. The meaning and refutation of these new forged Keys see in Jus Divin. of Church Govern. part. 2. c. 10. pag. 108, 109. etc. and Mr. Caudreys Vindiciae clav. c. 2. per tot. Now when Mr. Lockier in the consequent of his Argument speaks of the Keys of power, it would seem he must understand that second kind of Keys. 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 Keys were given to Peter first as a believer. 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 believer; but now in the consequent inferred in the pretended proof, he sayeth thus, they were given first to the Church of believers, 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 Superior, or Mistress, deputing and employing them to officiat and act in her place? We find indeed they are called the servants of the Church of believers by way of relation of a means to an end, for their good, 2 Cor. 4, 5. 1 Cor. 3. 22. as Angels or Ministering Spirits sent forth to Minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. Heb. 1. ult. But they are only Christ's Officers and Servants, by way of relation of Deputs to officiat, and employed to serve unto a Superior and Master deputing to officiat, and employing to serve in his place, and are set over the Church by him.  
section 5 But now consider we how this consequent is proven. The Argugument as propounded by the Author is Enthymematick, and must suppose another premisse beside that which is expressed, which must be true as well as that expressed, to make the consequence good. Now I humbly desire him to give us that suppressed and supposed premisse. Verily, keep him to one syllogism, and it is impossible to do it, observing the rules of good Logic and reason. But it may be done, may be, by two processes; Well then, they must be these for aught 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 Believer: But the Power of the Keys were given to Peter upon the confession of his faith Ergo, etc. then taking this conclusion for a ground of the second it must be thus That which was given to Peter as a Believer, was given to the Church believing with such a faith as Peter believed. But to Peter as a Believer was the Keys of Power given Ergo, etc. It might be noted upon the major or first proposition of this latter syllogism, 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 withal 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, etc. 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 Keys of Power was given to Peter as a Believer, not singly but as associate, than 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 show that it was given to him as a believer, not singly; but as qualified with this consideration, as associate with other believers? There is not the least hint for this in the Text: But somewhat to the contrair. See Caudrey Review. Of Mr. hooker's 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 syllogism, viz. what power was given to Peter upon the confession of his faith, was given to him as a believer, i. e. considered under this formality, to be a power competent to him, simply as he was a believing person. The weight of all the proof, I say, hangs so upon this, that unless it stand good and be necessary, all falls to the ground, and indeed it is but a groundless supposition, of no necessity, and may be as easily denied, as it is supposed. Why? Might it not be, that Christ did upon Peter's making so eminent a confession of faith give unto him a power, competent to him not simply, as believing with such a faith, and so not common to all believing with such a faith: But official competent to him as in such a particular office amongst believers, or constituting him formally, such an Officer? What evidence or necessity of reason can be brought to the contrair of this? I think Mr. Lockier did wiselier to suppress and suppose this basis of his proof, then to have expressed it, because the expression of it would too evidently discovered the weakness of his proof of his main point, that the Keys of power, or power of the Keys, was first given to believers, and not to the Officers in the Church. And now I must profess, 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 Keys was given to Peter simply as a believer, or to the Church of believers; 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 believer, or under that reduplication, as if this were enough to dash all, and in reason to convince all gainsayers. The Lord pity them that are carried about with such a wind of Doctrine. I think it not needful here to waste time and Paper in bringing Arguments to prove that, the power of the Keys was given to Peter not as a believer, nor to the community of believers; but as a Minister and Officer in the Church, there is abundance 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. etc. C. 8. pag. 179. etc. Caudrey vindic. vindiciar. Cap. 1. Sect. 1. and Review of hooker's Suru. c. 11. Baily dissuasive from the errors 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 than 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 confess I have not so much leisure as to read over every man's writs to find out every passage that may be cited out of them at random. Yet for Answer, this of Gerson, makes nothing for the Author's purpose. For, 1. By the name of the Church, Gerson understands the Church Universal, 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 fullness of the power of the Keys to have been given, of such a subject recipient of the power of the Keys, Gerson never dreamt. 2. Gersons mind was not, for aught can be perceived in his writs, that the power of the Keys 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 convened and represented in a general Counsel, in the Church Synodically convened. Potestas Ecclesiasticae jurisdictionis, si sit Ecclesiae data, Concilium generale representans Ecclesiam, habet illam; imo videtur quod Ecclesia sparsim considerata, non habet illam potestatem, nisi in quodam materiali seu potentiali, sed Congregatio & unitio quae fit in Concilio generali dat ei formam. De potest. Eccles. Consid. 4. Whence it is evident that in these words, Claves datae sunt Ecclesiae, ut in actu primo, & Petro, ut in actu secundo, Gerson is not to be conceived to speak of the Church denotating the body of believers 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 believers and also to all Inferior Officers and Ministers, even convened in a Council, and so of the Church, as comprehending all Inferior Officers and a general Council of them. And here, because some are ready for the Independent Tenent, concerning the first subject of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction, to allege the judgement of the Parisian Theologs, at, and after the time of Counsels 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 Universal Church; That the Question which they had in hand with their adversaries the Papaline flatterers, was not between believers as such, and all Officers and Ministers as such, but between the Universal Church as comprehending Inferior Officers, and that as convened in a general Council, on the one part, and the Pope of Rome on the other: Whether the precedency of Ecclesiastic power and jurisdiction, was seated in the Pope, or in the Universal Church so considered as we have expressed? This was the state of the controversy, and that for which the Parisian Doctors stood, was the latter of these. This is clear to all that have read any of these Doctor's Writings upon that matter: So that to allege their Assertion concerning the first and supreme subject of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction, for the Independent Tenent in this Question, which is between a particular Church of believers 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 choice of the Church, whereof they are such Officers, who choose them to be their Ministers in the Lord, and may depose them again, if they prove unworthy of such a station: Therefore have they no absolute power over that Church, to which they are servants; but in the nature of guides, to direct them in the ways 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 judgement. Now such judgement 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 God's 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 matters, as admission of Members, ordination of Officers, Excommunication, without the consent and approbation of the Church, i. e. without the judicial concurrence, consent, and joint 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 rational 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 joint 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 private judgement of discretion to refuse obediential consent to them. 3. And there may be an authoritative power over and above them to which they may be countable, who may authoritatively correct and redress their deviation, and to which the people may have recourse for that ●ffect. And if so, than their exerting of power in the matters of Government though without the joint judicial 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 allows to Elders and Officers to exert acts of Gover●…ent, without joint judicial authoritative consent of the members, is a Ministerial power adstricted to a certain and sovereign rule of Christ's Laws set down in his Word: It allows to people a liberty, yea asserts it to be their duty, to prove in the judgement of private discretion, if the Officers in their actings of Government deviat from, or cross the rule, or not; And in case they do, not to give their obediential consent thereunto: And that there is authoritative power above the Elders of a particular Congregation, etc. 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, Excommunicate all their Officers (which must be 3. at least) by a supreme Independent Authority, without any Superior Authority on earth left to have recourse to for redress, 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 choice, not only choice their Elders, But 2. makes i e. ordains, them in their Office, 3. May depose them again, the Elders are the Church's servants, by way, to wit, of relation to her as a Mistress. 4. The Elders are only guides to lead the Church, to wit, as a Chairman or Moderator in a Judicatory, guides and leads the proceed 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 matter a Gilli-maufrey. The Church can, and does exert Power itself by itself without Elders exerting any Power, in these weighty matters 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 judicial 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 Professor) except these two, all the rest are but bore 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, affirm so: Yet some of them, and these not of least account, have scunnered at it, yea denied it downright, and given reason for their so denying. As Mr. Cotton, Excommunication is one of the highest acts of rule, and therefore cannot be performed but by some rulers. The Keys, pag. 16. The Church cannot Excommunicate the whole Presbytery, because they have not received from Christ an office of rule without their Officers, ib. no act of the people's power doth properly bind, unless the authority of the Presbytery join with it. 3. But one word more for the present, when the Author says 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 judicial trial and censures by the Church, etc. he gives us but an empty word, nomen sine re, which is another scorn, it is impossible by his way, to show us one act of authority, in regard of which, they can be said to be over the Church. See this I say, made good impregnably by Reverend Mr. Rutherfurd, due right of Presbyteries, pag. 
* This is to be looked after the retrogradation of the number of pages mentioned by the Printer in admonition about Errata.  311. to 323.  
section 10 As to the Latin testimony cited by the Author to confirm what he has been saying concerning the Church of believers power to censure their Elders and Officers, I profess I know not what Author he means, nor have leisure to inquire. 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, etc. 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 Professors, and not before the College of Apostles and other Elders only, sitting and cognoscing judicially upon the matter? the sharpest sight in the World will not see a vestige of any thing of this kind in the Text, nor can any man show 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 Apology to remove the scandal; Yet that were but a poor ground to prove, that he did it to them judicially sitting upon him, and as having authority to judge and censure him, for why? One Christian doing any thing at which offence is taken, may and aught to give an account and satisfaction to another private brother who is offended, for removing the offence: Yet hath not a private Brother authority or power, judicially to cognosce and pass 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 Pastors 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, etc. are the Churches, as servants, in way of relation to the Church, as a Mistress, 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 affirm that ordinary Officers are the servants of a particular Church as their Mistress commissionating them and having Power over them; Yet I am ready to think their stomaches will stand at it, to affirm 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 manner for aught can be perceived by the Text.  
section 12 The 3. Argument, SECT. 4. Because otherwise (if the Elders should exert power in these matters 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, etc. To prove the assumption needless 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 matters 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 less sin to offend the one, than it is to offend the other. But now see we how the consequence of the proposition is proven, for as much (saith he) as persons may be taken in and cast out, and Officers be set up and pulled down, concerning either of which, they can have no distinct knowledge, or at least not sufficient ability to hinder, because decisive sentence lies altogether in the Eldership. 〈…〉 albeit only the Eldership exert power authoritatively in these 〈◊〉, and sentence decisively, yet professors notwithstanding this, may have sufficient knowledge for their private and obediential 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 believers, exert power authoritatively, the Elders cannot but offend, etc. because if so, the members cannot have distinct knowledge concerning these things, etc. 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  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) not sufficient ability to hinder, etc. 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 private professors, the body of a Congregation, must have joint authoritative consent and vote with their Rulers in acts of Government, because it will offend them that they have not sufficient ability by their judicial 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 Counsel of a City must not act without the joint 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 Counsel. Again see the clear strength of this proof comes to this much, the people ought to have a joint 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 sufficient to hinder judicially and by authoritative vote (of this way of hindering he must be understood to be now speaking) and that, is all one thing. Now I say, there being in case of the Eldership of a particular Congregation erring and going wrong, superior authority to which people may have recourse for authoritative hindering or redressing of the error and wrong acting, and withal a liberty granted to the people▪ upon evident discerning in their private judgement, the error 〈◊〉 the Eldership, to withhold their obediential consent to the wrong sentence (which is sufficient to keep them from being accessary, unless it were first clear that by God's appointment they have a command, calling and warrant, also to interpose by a judicial vote to hinder it,  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 judicial 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 merely prudential, are not of general concernment, or not of so great general concernment, no doubt, do properly, and determinately 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, etc. i. e. Officers instituted, i. e. made and ordained by the Church within itself, 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 immediately, as to extraordinary Officers, or by the Ministry of other Officers, as to ordinary Officers, though the designation of the persons to these Offices may be by the choice of the whole Church, 2. Not Officers only, but the whole Church are eyes by Mr. Lockiers' Doctrine, attributing to the whole Church joint 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 merely prudential or not of general concernment, or not of so great general concernment, which he saith, belongeth properly and determinately to the Officers or Elders; Which had he done I doubt not, but we should have seen, either matters of mere order, no ways importing any such power or authority, as Church Officers have attributed to them in the Word of God: But only such as a Chairman or Moderator of a Judicatory may do in relation to its judicial proceed, who yet as such hath no authority over the Judicatory: Or some of them to be such transactions as are of as great general concernment as any can be. I remember Hooker Suru. Part. 3. c. 3. pag. 41, 42. amongst other things gives to the Elders as properly belonging to them, in matter of censure and Excommunication, the Examination of the cause, and dogmatic propounding of the sentence, and says that the fraternity has no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure propounded by them, than 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 than merely prudential, of very great general concernment. I profess, I know not what is. Nay, I affirm it, and it is evident, that hereby greater power is given to two or three Elders in a particular Congregation, than ever Presbyterians attiibuted, I say not, to the Elders of a particular Congregation, but to any Classical Presbytery of many combined Congregations: For by the way of Presbyterians, when a Classical Eldership has given forth sentence of Excommunication, there may be an appeal to a more ample and Superior Judicatory for judicial recognition and redress. 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 join with as much as to obey their Preaching, and there is no superior remedy of judicial recognition and redress left to the party under Heaven. 4. If any matters of general concernment wherein the benefit or hurt of every member is concerned, must be authoritatively transacted not by the Eldership alone, but by the members jointly with them, I see not why all matters of general concernment ought not to be so also: Magis & minus non variant speciem. But to come to the point wherein lieth the proof of that, that it is an offence given and not taken when the members are offended, because they cannot by judicial 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 judicial 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 judicial 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 civil Government, suppose, by a Major and his counsel, by a Parliament, the benefit or hurt of every member of the city or Commonwealth 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 Governors, the offence is not taken but given; And therefore they ought to concur jointly and authoritatively in these transactions with their Governors. Here is again Levelling, backed with reason such as it is. 7. Therefore to Answer directly, 'tis but a lose and false principle, that in all transactions in which the benefit or hurt of persons is concerned, all persons whose the hurt or benefit 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 mere 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 benefit or hurt is greatly concerned in Ecclesiastic transactions, aught to have authoritative joint concurrence in these transactions, then when as in some main transactions in a particular Congregation, for example Excommunication, many others benefit 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 tribunal (as Mr. Hooker calls it, Part. 3. c. 3.) of single Congregations; and setting up an Ecclesiastic authoritative Judicatory over more Congregations.  
section 14 Arg. 4. SECT. 5. Because the spirit of discerning both respecting persons and things, is not consigned 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, aught to have judicial 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 denied 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 follows, 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 than is in many of these, and there is a greater gift when all is joined together; Therefore all such discerning men must have joint authoritative consent and vote, with Magistrates, with the Parliament, in the Acts of Government. Here is again pleading for Levelling. 3. Because some men, may be, have as great a measure of knowledge and understanding for teaching the Word as Ministers, it followeth proportionally, upon that ground, that such men may and aught 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 matters coming under Acts of Government to actual right and power to concur authoritatively in these Acts of Government, is a gross and palpable non sequitur. Let a man never have such a measure of a gift, for exercising Acts of Government or public authority, he must besides, have the warrant 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 Affairs Civil and Ecclesiastic into a Chaos of confusion. 5. Whereas the Author, saying, their will 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 Professors 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 withal it is tacitly 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 matters of Government: in the former he begs the thing in question, we deny that they do all meet for acts of Government in Christ's Authority; and in the latter supposes a great mistake, for the promise of Christ's assisting presence for judicial and authoritative discerning and judging, runs not equally along with the gift of discerning simply; But with his calling and commission to govern. That lo 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, though never so many of them met together: But to persons who beside their gift, are invested with his Commission. Therefore you must show that persons have a Commission and Calling, beside their gift, to exert Acts of Ecclesiastic authoritative judging: Or to speak of expectation of the Lords presence to assist their judging, let them be never so many, is to bid men presume to act with expectation of his assisting presence without a promise. There may be more of Christ's 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 Professors have a Commission to judge authoritatively with the Eldership in these matters of Ecclesiastic Government. 1. Then the medium of this Argument is passed from, for it allegeth 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; Show us the authentic 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 cranny, 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 implicitly, by their eyes and wills, who thus impropriat power. Answ. 1. Here is a foul misrepresentation of the Presbyterian Doctrine, as if it allowed nothing to the people but a Popish implicit blind obedience to the Elderships' decrees. See this aspersion discovered and wiped away, before in our first SECT. and the Author in his own conscience knows, may know, this is a wrong. Further, when Christ has by his institution appropriate a power to a certain order (and he has, as to Pastors and Doct●…s, the ordinary public 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 joint authoritative concurrence in exerting power of Government with the Elders more than 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 than many men, and light may come in by such a weak hand as a woman, when, etc. 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, etc. And the very like Argument may, by proportion, be framed for admitting all private persons in a Commonwealth to concur authoritavively in the Civil Government, with Magistrates. ●. Take this A●…ument in plain and full form, it must stand thus to prove the Author's 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 joint authoritative consent and vote of the people or other members, than 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 private members may be of good use and help for the good of the whole, though all of them do not concur authoritatively in exerting or exercising acts of Government of the Church. May not private members make their share of gifts forthcoming and helpful for the good of the whole, by observing, instructing, exhorting, admonishing, and provocking to good works one another, in the private extrajudicial 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 private 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 carried by the formal influence and concurrence of these gifts given to private members. And this is to suppose, and so, to beg the thing in Question. Yet further, we say the gift that is in private members may be forthcoming to the good of the whole, which is to be effected by the acts of Government exerted by the Elders, albeit themselves concur 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 helpful by way of preparation, ●o the good of-the whole by acts of Government: Also by charitative admonition of the Elders themselves, if they be ●…misse or partial or otherways wrong in exerting acts of Government; by proving in the judgement of private discretion the actings of Government exerted by the Governors, and accordingly giving their obediential consent thereunto.  
section 16 As for that mutual help and need of the several 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 mutual need, mutual help, and mutual concurrence of the members of the body, by making their several gifts forthcoming in judicial 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 less 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 judicial 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, showing 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 itself, bu● needs the help of another and the gift thereof, whether it be a gift for ruling or for some other operation; And 〈◊〉 it is, that some of the gifts spoken of by the Apostle there, are soul▪ as belongeth not to these acts of Government, nor are contributive of light, for directing, in going about and exerting them. As for example, the gift of healings, the 〈◊〉 of speaking with tongues. But would the Author yet duly 〈◊〉 the Apostles Doctrine along that Chapter, I am persuaded he might therein find as much as does very clearly evert his Assertion, 〈◊〉 to private professors, and members of the Church the 〈◊〉 ●he Keys and joint authoritative judicial concurrenc● with the Eldership in the acts of Government. Nay, I think that one Chapter contains as much as overturns all the Independent Brethren● new way and model of Churches; besides many particulars in 〈◊〉 contrary to several particulars of this new way▪ that one general, so clearly held forth in it, of an Universal 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 particular 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 homogeneal or of the ●ame nature, quality and operation, such as water, fire and the like are: But dissimilar, as man's body is, consisting of several heterogeneal parts, or members of divers functions, gifts and operations, some as eyes, some as ears, etc. some to be Rulers, some to be ruled. But if all must join in the judicial 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 5th 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, etc. The Scripture is express, that the whole Church should be jointly authoritative about them, and not the Presbytery or Eld●…ship of the Church alone. Hitherto we have had some Theological reasons (such as they are) brought by the Author for his Assertion: How he has acquit himself in these for his intended purpose, we leave it to all impartial Readers to judge. Yet what ever weakness be in these, if he can bring us express Scripture for his Assertion, if one express Scripture, we are ready to yield. See then now how he makes good this undertaking, only Reader take notice here, what it is for which he undertakes to bring express Scripture: That the whole Church should be jointly authoritative, etc. if the whole Church, than Women and Children, are no part of the Church, or they also must be jointly authoritative in these matters of Government. Either here is an hasty unadvised expression: Or an uncouth undertaking, that no sober man, I believe, will join in with him, to bring express Scripture for Women and children's joint authoritative concurrence in the matters of Church-Government, which in effect, is as much as to undertake to bring express Scripture contradicting itself. But come w● to see how this undertaking is made good in these several particulars, that Scripture is express that the whole Church (whether men of age, women and children all together, or men alone) ought to be jointly 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, unless 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 proportion the Eldership of the Gospel Church. To this he Answereth two things. 1. That the Synedrion was instituted for civil affairs, Numb. 11. 17. and then takes some pains to clear that these Officers mentioned in that place, we●e only Civil Officers, notwithstanding that they are said to have received a Spirit whereby they Prophesied, and then concludes, that to make a proportion between a Civil station to an Ecclesiastic, is not regular. 2. I see no reason (saith he) from the context, why it should be thought, that the Jewish Representative, of ●ne kind or other, should be meant their conven●… judicum, or their conventus Ecclesiastici, etc. Ans. 1. Mr. Lockiers judgement concerning the meaning of the word Church (I judge saith he) may have its own due respect, 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, until 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 signify a ●…dge of Rulers and so mig●… be applied to signify a College 〈…〉 argument 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▪ 〈…〉 aught 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 congruity of speech, bear such a particular sense, and to take it in that particular sense in that particular place, is not contrary to the Analogy 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 grammatical signification of the word Church, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is such as may well be applied to signify a co●…tion or College of Rulers, and certain it is, that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftener than once in Scripture used for the convention 〈◊〉 College of Judges or Rulers, as Psal. 82. ●. 1. 2. To take the word in such a sense here for the College of Church Rulers the Eldership, puts no sense upon the place, contrary to the Analogy of fa●…or any truth otherwhere delivered in Scripture, l●t Mr. Lockier show 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 seem 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, private professors 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 definite 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, etc. 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 several members have their several 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 College of Presbyters he seemeth to dilate it to the Church whereof that College 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 Professors: 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 public judicial delations, judging upon them, authoritative commanding amendment of the offence, inflicting of public, 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 public judicial delations, etc. 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, Professors as well as Elders: and then give us leave to ask him, where he can find the Church, so used for only men of age professing, excluding women and children? And, to use his own Argument, if he cannot find 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 practised by these of the Independent way themselves, well observed by worthy Mr. bailie, Dissuasive 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 told and delated immediately, etc. Ergo. the Major or first Proposition is clear in the Text: The Minor or Assumption is their own confession and practice. See Hooker Suru. Part 3. c. 3. p. 36. matters are first brought to the Elders, they must judge whether the matters 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 obliged to obey in the same way, that they are obliged 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 groundless, beside Scripture warrant, 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 judgement contrary to us touching the first subject of the power of the Keys, 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 only: De Pol●…. lib. 3. c. 15. [Ecclesiam primo loco consideratam in his verbis, Praecisè partem Aristocraticam, id est Presbyterium, significare existimamus] Thomas 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 concur authoritatively with them in the acts spoken of in the place, besides that Argument ad hominem, there be many other  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. rutherfurd's peaceable Plea, C. 8. desiring also Mr. Lockier, if he think fit, to assay an answer to his Arguments there for that which we have asserted.  
As for Mr. Lockeirs' insisting so much to refute these who say that Christ in that direction, tell the Church, and if he will not hear the Church, etc. 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. Certain it is, that Christ in giving these directions concerning Ecclesiastic proceeding in the mater of public scandals and censures in the Christian Chur●… at least allude to the manner and o●…er of proceeding in th●●ewish Church abo●… matters 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, matters of judgement and censures, were never authoritatively managed by the people, but only by their Rulers and Elders. Now Christ speaking to his hearers in a form of speech 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 Replies 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 Civil Affairs between man and man, Mr. Lockier might known that these men he speaks against here, could answer that beside the Synedrion instituted for Civil Affairs, there was another Ecclesiastic, distinct from that Civil, for things Ecclesiastic, 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 Ecclesiastic San●hedrin distinct from the Civil, and given so many considerable reasons for it. I wonder much that Mr. Lockier could come forth with a naked. Assertion of the contra●e without the least shadow of proof: As for that he speak for clearing of Numb. 11. that these Officers mentioned there, were Civil, is not ●o purpose 〈◊〉 these Authors; Because they grant these spok●… of there 〈◊〉 Civil Rulers, but they bring other places fo● th●●…her Ecclesiastic Court. If Mr. Lockier would make it out, that there 〈◊〉 no ●…nhedrim amongst the Jews bu● for Civil Affairs, he 〈…〉 well to take into consideration and solidely answer what 〈…〉 for the contrate 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 Ecclesiastic Cou●…, ●n his Moses and A●ron, l●…. 5. c. 1. but also expressly affirming, that this of our 〈…〉 the Church, was spoken with relation to it. His wor●… are remarkable, and worth the inser●… ●ag. 199. The Office (saith he) of the Ecclesiastic Court was ●o put a difference between things Holy and unholy, and between clean ●…d 〈◊〉, Leu. 10. 10. and to determine appeals in controvers●… of difficulty. It was a representative Church, 〈…〉 Ecclesiae, Matth. 18. 17. Because unto them belongs 〈…〉 of Excommunication: belike this Learned man has not been of Thomas Goodwin, B. D. his mind touching Ecclesiastic 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 Ecclesiastic 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 proportional to it. But me thinks. Mr. Lockier reasons but weakly against them that says it is directly meant. There is (saith he) nothing foregoing or following that gives any leaning language this way: But much to 〈◊〉 and signify 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 Ecclesiastic Court, did so understand it of this, as to exclude the ●…der of the 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 Jewish Church, which was then in present being, and enjoining 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 Ecclesiastic Court: Yet I cannot judge so basely of learned Divines, that have understood so, as to think they would of mere 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 hair ●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 Unity 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 applies 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 explains to be true believers 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 external Ecclesiastic 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 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 confess, 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 believers, 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 private 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 confess, 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 immediately 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 Keys to him upon his faith, Whatsoever ye bind on earth, etc. Mat. 18. 18. and just this he saith to Peter, c. 16. 19 And I will give unto thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, etc. 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 believers, these conjunctim have the power to censure— Answ. I confess, I cannot well (such is, may be, my dullness) conceive what is the order and form 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 Civil or Ecclesiastic. 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 Keys 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, than 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 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 believer, and so in him, to the Church of believers the Gospel Church, Ergo, here must be understood, not the 〈◊〉 of ●…e and or other, Jewish or Christian, Answ. It's 〈…〉 ●ver yet proven, not ever will be, that the power of the ●…yer; of binding and losing were, Mat. 16. given to Peter, as a believer, 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 Church of believers.  
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, etc. to deliver such a one to Satan, etc. and by the same power ●…ved in again, that as his punishment was by many, so his consolation 〈◊〉 reception might be by many also, as 'tis 2 Cor. 2. ●. that Sat●… might take no advantage, which is enough to show, 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 kind of dictating, rather than 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 formal authoritative Actors therein. And we deny in like manner, that, 2 Cor. 2. 6. doth import that the reception of the censured or excommunicated, 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 withal 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. 2. c. 10. pag. 97. and humbly desires Mr. Lockier to consider what they have said on the places.  
section 10 What followeth said by the Author in his 7th. SECT, the contrary to this understanding, etc. 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, only briefly to it. 1. Whether ●…e Independent way or the Presbyterian way of Government be liker and nearer to Prelatical or Papal tyranny, ●et all indifferent men judge: When as we put the authoritative and judical Power of censures in the hands of the Eldership or Rulers of the Church only, we make not people mere spectators or witnesses of what is done; But give unto them a rational obediential consent, so that they are not obliged to give their obediential 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 dogmatic 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 proceed 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 Prelatical or Papal way, wherein the procedure is from more to fewer till you come to one: A Lord Metrapolitan or an universal 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 Gospel) may Excommunicate a man and are accountable to none on earth in a Church way, to recognosce or redress, if they do amiss, and if they should deliver souls enough to Satan unjustly, there is none on earth that can authoritatively 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.  Papal power, three Elders with some few private brethren having supreme Power on earth to Excommunicate persons, unaccountable, uncorrigible by any Superior on earth: Or some Presbyters acting in subordination to a larger Presbytery, to whom recourse may be had for recognoscing their proceed and sentence, and rectifying it, if amiss; and if these haply fail, than recourse may be had yet to a Synod▪ may be, consisting of a hundred Ministers, and as many or more choice Elders of all the Churches of a whole Province: Yea and if haply th● 〈◊〉 a failing there, recourse may be had to a Synod 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 ways be nearest to the Papal Power. 2. It's a foul misrepresentation that our Interpretation of the place, 1 Cor. 5. 4. is the very Doctrine of jesuits of Rhe●s. We confess, 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 losing was not given to the who●e Church, at the subject; but for their good as the end, and in this they say righter than they that say the contrare (which they falsely ascribe to all Protestant Divines) But the Rhemists Jesuits 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 Prelatical power and authority lordly, sovereign, dictatorian: tyrannical, obliging the people to absolute blind obedience. We give no power to Elders but Ministerial, the actings and determinations whereof, ought not to be received by people in a way of blind obedience; but may and aught by them, be tried 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 God's 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 odds 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 again, where he calls, liberty of judicial authoritative voteing in Acts of Government the best liberties of the people of God, I think he will find they have liberties much better than 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; join 〈◊〉 ●…tively in the Acts of Government? Certainly this princip●…●s under his words here, and believe though 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 joint authoritative concurrence of the people) and therefore may justly have the same title with other usurpers, etc. 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, evil, and light darkness.  
section 11 The Authors second instance to make out his general Assertion undertaken, SECT. 6. is taken from the proceed of the Synod of Jerusalem, Acts 15. Where the Apostles themselves were present and divers 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 overborne 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 joined 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. 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 impartial men to judge by these things following. ●. Let the matters 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 mere counsel, and no authoritative juri●dictionall decree. Nor could they do any more but counsel and 〈◊〉, by the Independent Doctrine, (which 〈…〉 truth) But from this ad hominem. If 〈…〉 with Apostles and Elders, in a mater of mere counsel and advise; What is that to the purpose now in controversy? Because private Christians may jointly concur with ●…ders in Acts of counsel, does it follow that they must also joint 〈◊〉 ●…thoritatively concur with them in authoritative juridical Acts of Government? ●. When he saith that nothing was done, in the beginning, carrying on, or ending of these matters 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 specifically but with joint authoritative concurrence of etc. may the● not be a interessing of persons, in the managing of such a public procedure, and yet without their authoritative concurrence? viz. to be witnesses of the justness of the procedure, that they may have the more clear satisfaction in their consciences in giving their obediential concurrence, to have their consultative advice upon the business, to have their private, though not authoritative approbation? Mr. Lockier in all this Section does not once mention their joint authoritative concurrence, because as I conceive, he thought the act of the whole Synod to be no authoritative juridical act. 2. Whom means he by the Congregation, without whose interessing in the whole business 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 matters that were to be concluded in the Synod, if nothing could be done without the interessing or joint concurrence of the Congregation and the Brethren of Jerusalem, with the Elders, these other Congregations and Brethren, aught as much and more to have been interessed, and jointly 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 business in 〈…〉 with the Apostles and Elders (which yet M●. Lockie● 〈◊〉 say) first the believers 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 Presbyterial Church, as is demonstrat irrefragably, by sundry, Mr. 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 Believers in Jerusalem, but of the whole caetus Synodious, the Synodical multitude, the Synodical 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 juridical, and as to that which Mr. Lockier intendeth here that the Congregation, private Brethren, jointly concurred with the Apostles and Elders in the determination. Granting that the Brethren mentioned, were private Christians out of office. 1. These were not the whole Churches concerned in the business 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 private Brethren concurred with the Apostles and Elders authoritatively in the determination of the sentence. They gave at most but their private assent and approbation, which we grant may be given unto private Christians in any Synod. That they had not authoritative definitive vote, seemeth clear from somewhat expressed in the history itself 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 and Elders. c. 15. v. 7. Non dicit Lucas convenisse totam Ecclesiam; Sed eos qui ratione officij erant legittimi judices. Calv. come. 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 itself. Secondly, Nor doth it necessarily imp●… their authoritative concurrence in the determination co●…luded in the sentence ●f the Synod, and intimate by the Letters to the Churches. For as Letters being Written to a multitude consisting of persons of divers capacities, some public and in office, some private without office, may contain some things peculiar to the one, some things belonging to the other, yea may recommend one business 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 several capacities, as proceeding from some authoritatively, and from others, a● giving their private consent thereunto which may add 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 aught 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, usual with multitudes, they harkened attentively. 2. Suppose they did speak, propose, and reason upon the matter (as we grant that private 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 received satisfaction by reason, proves it not neither: That may be necessary and given to clear men's consciences in concurring by private approbation and rational 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 follows of Mr. Lockiers' words in this 8. SECT. yet would they not leave, etc. 1. What he means by Presbyters Primats, and these introduceing superintendents bringing in general coercive Assem. I confess I understand not, sure I am, Presbyterians acknowledges not presbyters Primats, nor superintendants either, but that their way is very contrary to both. 2. I confess the Apostles in their practice in this Synod left no example introducing of a Pope, but withal I think ●hey left an example for a Synod (general or particular) wherein Church Rulers may juridically determine controversies in Religion according to the Word of God, obliging people to obedience under hazard of Ecclesiastic censure (as shall be more cleared hereafter) and that this does not supersede any power of people or particular Assemb. of Saints (private believers) 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 Professors of Leiden Synop. Pur. Theol. Disp. 49. the Concil. Thes. 29. Si ex. Laicis cujuscunque status & conditionis sunt viri, pietate, sacrarum rerum intelligentiâ, sapientiâ & prudentiâ, modestiâ, pacis study & 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 ex divino Verbo judicium sed privatum, ●e humana placita pro divinis accipiat, Math. 7. 19  
section 14 For h● 3. instance concerning 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, 〈…〉 signs 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 4th instance is of ordination of Elders. This we acknowledge to be a potestative act of Ecclesiastic authority, and affirm that in Churches constitute and in the ordinary way of calling, by Christ's appointment in the Words belongs only to these who have Ecclesiastic Authority, the Presbytery or Eldership. Let's see how Mr. Lockier showeth us express Scripture, that the people must jointly concur authoritatively therein. His first Scripture is, Acts 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communibus calculis, simul suffragijs electus est: By joint voice was Mathias 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 matter; And y●t lest this might prove a means to justle out the privilege of the whole Church in matters of essential concernment, after the Lord's designation which was proper to him, they jointly 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 matter jointly to a●…. Answ. 1. Granting that by that word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were signified an act of ordination performed upon Mathias 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. rutherfurd's reasoning from the Text to the contrary, to show that it was only the Apostles, is very considerable, Due righ● of Presbytery, c. 8. pag. 1●0. ●…eed not transcribe his groundsel 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 twenty were drawn out to this Work, and Peter spa●e 〈◊〉 them all ●bout the matter 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 formal actors. 2. That Peter in his speech 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 witness, 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 confess 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. Clau. pag. 28, 29. whose  considerations I present here. That place Act. 1. was not an ordinary case, wherein the people had little or no hand. I add 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 less 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 Mathias 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 ordinary 〈…〉 Ministry of men; Bu● extraordinarly and immediately from Christ himself; As Paul alleges 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 privilege of the whole Church— seemeth to me, to say no more, very inconsiderately said▪ What more could the Lords full constituting Mathias an Apostle, without any interveening Act of the Church, prove a means, to justle out the privilege of the Church in matters essential, 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 people's formal 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 Margin he rejecteth the opinion of some, though learned men, that sayeth here was no ordination but only 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 showeth what this ordination was in the formality of it; That the Apostles in and with every Church of Believers where they came, did make suffrage who should undergo this great Office of Eldership in such Churches, and so jointly with each Church, and not by distinct exempted power above them was this work done, according to 
* In that place is no pattern for ordinary ordination of ordinary Elders, see before.  the first pattern, 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; 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 joined, Why? may not Fasting and Prayer, be joined with other actions besides ordination, with election? the nature of the business itself affords a 〈◊〉 concludent Argument: It was a calling of men to a Ministerial ●…ffice in the Church of Christ, and this cannot be done, ordinarily, 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 undergo 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 Ecclesiastic matters, wherein he will have the Church of Believers to have authoritative concurrence. But 3. more di●…ctly to the point in hand, the whole strength of the Author's reason here to prove that the private Believers in these Churches concurred formally with the Apostles in the ordination of these Elders, lies 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 matter competent to two; which was the number of the Apostles employed in this business, 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. 
* Calvin's words pondering the same signification are clear that the act of ordination was only 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 sign 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 confess I see no necessity of rendering 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● 〈◊〉 used to signify expressly the 〈◊〉 o● suffrages in such matters, 〈…〉 i● is known to any that has an● knowledge in the Greek Language, that sometimes it is used to signify simply the a●… of con●tuting or making, and 〈…〉 ●e●her of a Law, o● person in an Office, not expressly 〈◊〉 the manner or way o● doing, by suffrages, or lifting up o● the 〈…〉 And thus simply the Old Latin ●…erpreter ●enders i●●n this place, & c●m constituissent illis per singulas Ecclesias Presbyteros, etc. and I think hardly can it with congruity of speech be otherways 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 private 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, unless 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 express Scripture for private Believers formal and authoritative concurrence in the act of ordination of Elders. And whereas he adds 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 only, 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 pass in maintaining his point undertaken. And I pray, tell us why such places of Scripture as plainly attributes the act of ordination to Presbyteries only, should be expounded to take in the people with Elders, by these two examples, wherein yet their is no demonstrative ground brought to evidence that the people had formal hand in ordination of the Officers mentioned in them: And not rather these two examples or practise● (seeing it is not expressly said in them that the people concurred in the ordination) be expounded by such places wherein the acts of ordination is expressly attributed 〈◊〉 Eldership alone? I v●rily ●hink that to any understanding man, the latter of these two will seem most rational. 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 induction of particulars, Finally (saith he SECT. ●….) I might instance in lower matters, which would strengthen th● Argument; for if in less things the Eldership may not act alone, surely not in greater. Answ. 1. If Elders may not in lesser matters 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 less matters they may not act alone, Ergo not in greater. Some persons may have the managing of great matters laid upon them by special commission from such as have supreme authority to commissionate in these matters, and yet have no special commission laid upon them to manage less matters. men's capacity to act alone, or not alone, but with others, in such matters, ariseth not from 〈◊〉 quantity or weight of the matters, 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 less things alleged 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 Keys 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 stuff is here to the purpose 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 〈…〉 recommendatory 〈◊〉 not be at all directed●●to● 〈◊〉 ●…ceived by the Eldersh● 〈◊〉, but the whole Church: 〈◊〉 ●…fesse this is a strange Assertio●●nd he that will believe 〈…〉 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  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 special 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, aught to be) directed to the whole Church, then ought the whole Church also to concur in actings of Church Government and jurisdiction: 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 john 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 Keys: It was a receiving of them into duties of Christian kindliness 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-people, 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 College of Elders in the Church, if they all jointly and equally act authoritatively in matters of Ecclesiastic Government and jurisdiction, without the authoritative concurrence of the whole Congregation, yet not according to their own pleasure, but according to the Rules of God's 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 than yet we have seen, for popular concurrence in Acts of Ecclesiastic 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 IU. Mr. Lockiers Argument from common Testimony, SECT. 12. considered and Answered.  
section 1 MR. Lockier having alleged first reasons, next some express Passages of Scripture (wherein how he has acquit himself we leave to be judged by the impartial 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 matters of greatest weight, i. e. all acts of Ecclesiastic Government. By common consent he must mean the testimony of Ecclesiastic Writers, and now I pray what testimonies of Ecclesiastic Authors brings he? Just two, one of yesterday, I may say juggling in the business, 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 confess 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 suit 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 only of th● 〈…〉 ●…lats, excluding no● 〈…〉 all other Presby● 〈…〉 Church. 2. By the●… 〈…〉 wherein he saith, that 〈…〉 known and frequen●… 〈…〉 he means 〈…〉 of the Church 〈…〉 themselves 〈◊〉, or therewith taking in the next 〈…〉 the church▪ If 〈◊〉 mean the latter, I conceive he would ●one much better to 〈◊〉 cited some Writers of these times themselves saying so much, then taken the matter upon report from Whitegift. But let him, if he can produce any Ancient Writers Ecclesiastic 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 says so that in the Apostles times the state of the Church for outward Government was popular—: But 1. Whitegift withal for uphold●…●he power and Government of Prelates in the Church of England, excluding all other Church Officers, maintains most falsely 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 principal Governor 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 itself, and no otherways 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, though he has assayed to do, and says here he has prove● it, I leave to the Readers to judge. Whitegift would never allege precept of Scripture for this, and for practice I find none alleged by him, but in the mater of Election of Officers, which is no act of government or authority, and yet he allegeth that neither in that did they always 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 profess a discla●… of Mo●…llius for this. But 〈…〉 it is no other. And 〈…〉 Author ●ere is ingenuous in taking 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 Council 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 choice of their Officers, unless it formerly had. What meaneth this Canon (●aith he) unless 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 Ecclesiastic 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 suffrage with the Officers in all matters 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 Council, indirectly importing that they ●…d hand in one act, and that no formal act of Government and Authority? And is this all the common testimony we must be content with? Now when as all acts of Ecclesiastic power, authority and government (in Scripture designed by the Keys) are comprehended in these, 1. Public 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 people's concurring jointly 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 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 〈◊〉 spiritual liberties, and 〈◊〉 of Christ, 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 model 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 believe these hierarchical Lords never did, nor ever will look upon Presbyterians, as any of their kind. 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 God's Word they stand not: Nor have they cause to take any works or blows, 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, though they 〈◊〉 they have sinned against him, and desires therefore to bear his indignation. If men has given them blows 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 outcry, O Lord how low shall we be, etc. 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 God's 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 the case of it, and see whether the Presbyterian way, or that way you stand for has effected them: And I believe 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 wisdom 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 Classical Presbytery or a Presbytery of more associate 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 Apostolical 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 College of ordinary, perpetual Elders, or extraordinary, yet it was an Eldership and not the people that performed this act of ordination, as he himself yields. 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 matters of greatest weight. And S●. ●…. 10. even in an ordination of a● extrao●dinar Officer, of grea● 〈◊〉 then an Evangelist, 〈◊〉. Wherein he allege th●…●at lest it might have proved a 〈◊〉 to lustle out the privilege of the ●hole Church in matters of essential concernment, he was enstated a●ongst the Apostles themselves not by the ●…ffrag●… of some, i. e. the Apostles alone but by the suffrages 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 Prelatical writers, that it was an company of Bishops that were, both Elders, and more than 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 extraordinary Elders might have their ordination from man, & le facto. Ma●hias had his so. So that by this ●e ●ayeth here Mat●ias, though an Apostle could not be one of this Eldership.  ordination from man. But this conceit 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 rational man will imagine, that the Holy Ghost intending to express 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 Presbytery 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. 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 ordinarily distinguishing names in Scripture, the latter signifying the ordinary, perpetual, 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 divers 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 Mr. Lockier here, I need not transcribe his words, seeing the Book is common, the Reader may have recourse to itself, 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Lockiers' Reason to prove the contrary is of no force. Timothy was an extraordinary Officer, an Evangelist, and it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to an extraordinary, That same worthy Author, we mentioned, sufficiently discovereth the weakness 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 Episcopal 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 Mr. 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 Paul's concurrence in the business. In this mixed 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 alleged 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 less is blessed by the greater, to which, as to this particular in hand, that worthy Author has sufficiently Answered, by two things First, that although Timothy as an Evanelist was greater than a single Presbyter, yet that proves not that he was greater than 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 than he that is blessed, every way: But quatalis, in so far as he blesseth, and so why might not the Presbytery be greater than 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 ask Mr. Lockier, how can people give the Office of a Minister which they have not in themselves, nay, the Office of an Apostle, as he allegeth that the people ordained Mathias an Apostle, whatsoever 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 Ecclesiastic Office, not being by way of proper efficiency, nor yet the Ordainers acting therein as principal agents or conferrers of the office (that is God's part by his institution) but as moral 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 warrant from God to intervene 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 warrant 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 show, 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 believe, but that it is a pattern of ordination in ordinary (which some of the most judicious of his own side acknowledge with us) showing 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 Mr. Lockier, in a mistake or inanimadvertency has imagined when he wrote 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 definite 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 concur in it, as appears, v. 1. There were at Antioch certain Prophets and Teachers; I hope it will not be denied 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 Timothy 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 partial, but to weigh fit qualifications in every one, that they were blameless, the Husband of one Wife, not accused of riot, not selfwilled, 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 general, 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 rational obediential consent, but private; 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 only. 3ly It is to be observed how the Author labours to cover the force of these places for proving of this, by slipping by the principal 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, as, I think, possibly he could. But let him take it thus. If ordination of Pastors by Apostolic authority be committed to Officers in the Church as Officers, than it belongeth not unto the people. But the former is proven from these places. Therefore, etc. The Proposition is clear of itself. 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 publicly, 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 do by an Official power, and as an Officer, as is evident by comparing that v. with v. 9 Therefore, etc. Again, here is an express Commission to men in Office, to ordain, and charge laid upon them to be ware 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 Author's 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 than 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 matter, 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 and elected, by the people's suffrage, as is shown before, whether we refer the Author and the Reader. I shall only 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 expressly giveth ordination to the sole Officers. You speak untruly (saith he to the Rhemists) which accuse us, as if we so commended the Church's Election, as we shot out the Bishop's Ordination, which we not only give unto them, but make them also the chief and directors in the Election; Understanding 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 express Scriptures for Officers acting in it; And he has none for the people's 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 mind 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 find 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 Ecclesiastic Ministry, to the same belongeth to confer it. 
Gul. Apollon. Consider. of sundry Controv. c. 4. pag. 58, 59    

SECTION VI Mr. 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 general,) 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, than Church-Government is a Democraty, 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, signify 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 Democraty or popular Government in the Church, condemned by the French Church in Morellius: Which also Independents themselves would fain seem to disclaim, but it will not be for them. The Author is pleased in his wisdom 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 matters of this kind, are carried and determined by the authoritative suffrage, consent and descent 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 matters for their authoritative decision, and to be their mouth to declare the sentence determined by their authority, yea and wherein, the body of the people, may authoritatively call all the Officers to a judicial account, judicially cognosce upon their Administration, censure, degrade, yea and Excommunicate them all together, such a Church Government must needs be democratical or popular, and therein all are Rulers and therein different names and stations signify nothing, (I say not simply but as Mr. 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 itself, the most popular and Democratricall that we read of, was never more popular than 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 undeniably evident both by their Doctrine and practice, Ergo, etc.  
section 3 Now what answers the Author to this Objection? He brings us a number of words clouted up unhandsomely enough out of hooker's Suru. Par. 1. c. 11. which I think not worth the while to insist particularly upon. Briefly, the sum 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 manner of managing this, and exerting it: He expresseth it also, To declare, act and exercise judgement in the name of the rest, which he calls organical 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 lieth formally in one: But be it so) And so their (to wit, the Elders) power is distinctly useful and significative. Ans. To pass by here the exagitating of that distinction of a power essential and a power organical (the absurdity whereof in Philosophy might be shown abundantly, might we stay upon every such trifle) 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 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 Mr. Rutherfurd. Due Right. pag. 36, 37. Gul. Apollon. Consider. of certain controv. c. 4. pag. 64, 65, 66. Mr. 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 amongst 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, though Writing to the Church of Corinth in general 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 moral 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, it's 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 essential power (as he calleth it) competent to the whole Church, thus, Some to judge; and then the act of the Original or Official power, thus, Some to declare, act and exercise that judgement: I would ask 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 itself, which belongeth to the essential power of the whole body: Or he must understand the execution of the sentence, as for example, shunning the company of the Excommunicate; But that is no act of Office-power nor of authority, but is common to all the Church Men and Women: Or he must understand the public 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 than 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 yielded 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 private 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 formal terms: 'Tis true, I yield it, the Government of the Church is democratical. And as for that he sayeth, that seeing the Elders have in their hands the manner of managing the judgement, therefore their power is useful and significative, and not useless and nothing from the whole. True, it is not simply useless 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 useless 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 organical 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, organical and dissimilar. Yet more, it hath yet a greater confusion in●t by attributing the judicial determination of all matters of Government and Jurisdiction to the suffrages of the people, who by Scripture are these who are to be ruled, and to obey, and are as the feet and the hands in the natural body; Indeed it maketh these who ought to be ruled, to be the Rulers, & contra; Sets the feet above the head, etc. 2. Effectively, it cannot but in the exercise of it produce many confusions. Was there ever a democratical 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 Aristocratical and Monarchical Government, and scarce accounted worthy the name of an allowable Government? But see we the Author's Answer.  
section 5 No: 'Tis not confusion: The Church being considered as an organical body, the power of acting may be fundamentally and intrinsically in the whole, and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place, and way. As for instance, in the natural 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, etc. 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 salt of the Printer, and that it should be, 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 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 associates here, will not comply with his physical conceptions, whatever they esteem of his theological 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 several 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) substantially and informative, and in the whole rest of the body, virtually and operatiuè, 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 solecism (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, etc. he brings for it that common saying amongst the Schools, 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 informatiuè, and withal that it is in it as a spiritual form, indivisible, without extension of parts. But to pass this and to come to our present purpose. I verily think, Mr. Lockier could not made choice of a fit 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 intrinsically in the whole, and yet each organ move orderly in his distinct place and way, as in the natural body the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally, etc. 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 organical act in a political body, thence it should follow that all the organs were but one organ, and the body of the Church were no organical body; But a similar body: As, if each member in the natural 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. private 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 follows that all and every one of them are formally Governors and Rulers, the private Christians as well as the Elders, and there is no distinction between them at all, as to governing, except of mere order in acting. Certainly if all and every member of the natural 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 madness to say that in the natural body, each member doth formally act seeing: So it is exceeding absurd, supposing the Church to be an organical body, and some of the organs 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 natural body; Yet to say, that all and every member in the Church hath a formal authoritative hand or influence in the acts of governing, 2. See the incongruity of the Author's comparison. The power (sayeth he) may be fundamentally in the whole, (viz. body, For he is speaking in the immediately preceding words of an organicall-body) and yet each organ, etc. for instance, the sensitive faculties are in all the soul originally, etc. What incongruity is this, to propound in the general of power fundamentally in a whole body organical; And then for an instance o● simile to tell us of powers or faculties in the whole soul originally? Is the soul an organical 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 by consequence say that the sensitive faculties are in the whole body fundamentally, and radically. Answ. 1. 'Tis a very gross 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 gross 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 natural body, and so that wherein the power of governing is fundamentally and radically, as the sensitive faculties of the natural 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 loss here with his simile. Jesus Christ as King of the Church is unto the Church as the soul in the natural 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 express) Ecclesiastic organical powers (such as the senses are ●n the natural 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 to do things, fathers govern alone, so overseers, etc. 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 matters 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 alleged in this Argument, besides the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Elders, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, guides, leaders, conductors, governor's, Heb. 13. 7, 17, 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 5. 17. Rom. 12. 8. 1 Thessal. 5. 12. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Governments, or Governors, 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 appropriate as importeth power and authority of Governing, Ergo, etc. For the major or first proposition, I think it may be clear to any of itself. And if any shall be so wilful 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 signify, 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 sum is this. These titles, Elder, Overseer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Conductor, Governor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Original of the New Testament are wont to give to political Officers, to express their political power and government, now all these titles and denominations, are attributed to Christ's Officers in his Church, as cannot be denied: 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 ordinarily attributed to the Officers in contradistinction to the body of the Church. But see we what the Author answers.  
section 8 Minutas (saith he first in general) in Parables must not be fastened on, but principalia, what is their main scope. Ans. What? And are all these names given to Christ's 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 signify or explain a like thing: and not a simple term or title given to a thing. Indeed some of them, no doubt, are metaphorical; But a simple Metaphor, for aught 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 Metaphor. 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 confess are Metaphorical, as Father, Pastors, or Shepherds, Stewards: But withal others of them, as, Presbyters (in the political sense of the word) Rulers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are as properly and univocally attributed to them as unto such as in the civil Commonwealth 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 to th●t 〈…〉 ●o it is here, as 〈…〉 Eccl●sia●… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 a com●… 〈…〉 endued 〈…〉 ●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 〈…〉 to direct 〈…〉 ●…sell or 〈…〉 the Rul● 〈…〉 having 〈…〉 others, 〈…〉 rules a●… 〈…〉 superior 〈…〉 as Beza 〈…〉 vit no● 〈…〉 word 〈…〉 oxime 〈…〉 Sep● 〈…〉 ●the● 〈…〉 th● is 〈…〉 use 〈…〉 of Government 〈…〉 Church, 〈◊〉 it 〈…〉 Mr. Lo●●… 〈…〉 the only 〈…〉 ●…me name, 〈…〉 whic● 〈…〉 way of counsel and 〈…〉 of ●…wer and 〈…〉 to all the Church 〈…〉 way of 〈…〉 to authority, 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 merely 〈…〉 ●reater knowledge 〈…〉 ●an of knowledge 〈…〉 ●oer of 〈…〉 Erastian sayeth: 〈…〉 ●differ one from an other 〈…〉 ●ost contrary to common 〈…〉 ●…ment. 2. I would 〈…〉 wholebody of the 〈…〉 then mee● di●ection 〈…〉 ●thoritative power of government 〈…〉 that their power over 〈◊〉 absolute 〈…〉 ●ver their ●aith? I thinks 〈…〉 say that▪ 〈…〉 Ministerial and such 〈…〉 very place, 2 Cor. 1. as in v. 24▪ ●…ed by the Author, he affir●… 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 mere 〈…〉 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, etc. 〈…〉 ●…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 term upon them and fights 〈…〉 own 〈…〉 We 〈◊〉 no other sort of pow●… 〈…〉 to Presbyter● over the Church, than he 〈…〉 to the Congregation and Presbyters jointly, 〈…〉 particular member (Unless he will with State-syco●…t ●rastia●… deny all Ecclesiastic 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 Ecclesiastic power of government in itself, whether Lordly domineering 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 want of counsel, 〈…〉, 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 Believer, 〈…〉 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 Believers, 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, competent 〈…〉 and aught 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, etc. I would ask him 〈…〉 beside 〈…〉 expressed, doth he intent by that 〈◊〉 here be understood 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 public cognizance and judgement▪ Ay, 〈…〉 ●his may and aught to be done, by the Author's way, by any other Professors 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 Professors.  
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● 〈…〉 should with the rest of Professors, but 〈…〉 in another thing, than that power which is signified by the names of Ru●…●ver●eers, etc. i. c. the power and authority of governing; For were it that, that they are 〈…〉 ●ood in this 〈…〉 why are they not all 〈…〉 overseers, & 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 conclude 〈…〉 ●…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 〈◊〉 feet, to illustrate how the Elders organical power of Government should not prejudge, destroy, or take away the people's equal sharing in a power of Government, which ●e calleth fundamental (which yet is, by his way as 〈…〉 of Government, as any Rulers in the World ha●… 〈…〉 acteth in the exercise of Government) When I 〈…〉 confess I was amazed, and could scarcely believe my own eye 〈◊〉 that such a thing could be Written by an understanding 〈◊〉 adverting to what he did Write: As w●ste in Chri●… 〈…〉 that as, relateth ●o the purpose he has 〈…〉 before: viz. that Elders organical power of Government ●ould not take away the people's equal share of fund●… 〈◊〉 (a● he calleth it) nor the exercise thereof. 〈…〉 and his Discipl●… Brethren or a Brotherhood 〈…〉 of mutual and equal power fundamental of Government; Mr. Lockier, I know will abhor a thought of this. H● Christ, (saith himself) was th●… sole Ruler, viz. Sovereign and 〈◊〉 and Lawgiver. 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 jointly with them the who●…●…ople? Sure we find no intimation of such an intention by 〈…〉 in the Text: And the thing itself 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 Christ's 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 helpful 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 Mr. Lockier answereth to the Argument for proving the power of Ecclesiastic Government to belong to Christ's Officers in the Church only, and not to the whole body of Believers or Professors, 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 itself (as we trust we have made evident) so he has therein passed by a great part of the Argument, having neglected sundry 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, Aaron's 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 material Arguments tha● he could find used by Presbyterians to prove the power and authority of Ecclesiastic 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 rational 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. Considerate. of certain Gontrov. c. 4. Spanhem. Epist. to David Buchan. q. 2. Mr. Ruth. Peaceable Plea, and Due Right. Now come we to Mr. Lockiers second Assertion.   

SECTION VII. Mr. Lockiers 2. Assertion touching Presbyteries of many particular Congregations combined (whether Classical or Synodical) and their power considered, and the true state of the Controversy touching this matter between Presbyterians and Independents laid forth.  
section 1 IN the former Assertion the Author would throw the Keys of the Kingdom 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 completely constitute by their way) as that they shall exercise all that power, even to the highest acts thereof, Independently as the supreme Tribunal in Ecclesiastic Government under Jesus Christ, upon earth: So as that if there should be any error committed by such a particular Congregation, suppose the greatest error or heresy in Doctrine maintained by it, or a man unjustly Excommunicated and casten out of the Church, there is no Ecclesiastic authoritative remedy under Heaven to redress such an error: No Ecclesiastic Judicatory, to which a grieved person may have recourse, by appeal for Authoritative recognition, or redress 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 explains the subject of it thus. By Presbyteries or Elderships without the Congregation, I mean such an Eldership as is chosen out of several particular Congregations, assuming to themselves, superior and decisive power over them. Afterward he calls it foreign 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 several Congregations, respectively, to transact, and conclude such and such Ecclesiastic affairs within such a limited bounds, ex sua potestate, are a foreign Presbytery. A note or two upon these things and then we shall more clearly and distinctly set forth the true state of the Controversy, 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, foreign 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 several Congregations is a foreign Presbytery. I humbly conceive, for aught I can remember of any of them, he wrongs them exceeding much. I do not remember of any Presbyterian, that acknowledges the Presbytery of several Congregations associate in Government, to be a foreign or extrinsecall Presbytery, to these Congregations: Nor is it so indeed. It cannot be called a foreign Presbytery to all the Congregations associate under it; Because it is made of their own several Elderships: Nor yet can it be foreign or external 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 foreign Judicatory to the whole Kingdom whereof it is the Parliament, nor unto any of the several 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 Cathedral consistory taking to themselves the Government and Jurisdiction over all Congregations in the Diocese were an external & foreign Judicatory to these Churches, because they excluded the other Congregations and their Elderships from all collateral concurrence and copartnership with them in the Government. But the Presbytery we speak for, is made up of the Elders of the several Congregations which it governs, as intrinsecall collateral parts constituent thereof, and therefore cannot be called foreign to these several 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 choice 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 civil force exercised upon persons or things to stop and repress their actions, ipsis etiam renitentibus, we ascribe no such power unto Presbyteries: But a power of executing spiritual censures which have no external force upon persons, yea nor Physical neither, but only Moral, as administered by the Eldership: Tho they may be accompanied by God, With a Physical (I mean a real) 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 Spiritual jurisdiction exercised in Spiritual 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 controversy in this mater.  
section 3 The subject in general, whereupon the Question runneth between us and the Independent Brethren, is a Presbytery or Eldership of more Congregations than 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 controversy lieth. 1. 'Tis confessed by our Brethren themselves that consociation of more particular Churches or Congregations in one Presbytery or Eldership is lawful and useful Hooker Suru. p. 4. c. 1, 2. 2. That these consociations are and may be of several sorts and degrees, some lesser, some greater, Classes, Synods, and these Provincial, Nationall, Ecumenical, Idem, Ibid: So then there is no controversy about the being simply of Elderships and Presbyteries of more Congregations consociated, that they may lawfully be, and of divers sorts is confessed. But there are these points especially concerning them of which there is controversy between us and our Brethren.  
section 4 The 1. is concerning the nature of their power over the several Congregations or Churches consociated in them. Our Brethren of the Independent way attribute no other power unto them but of counsel, & persuasion to inform and hold forth unto the Churches what is commanded by the Word of God, & to exhort & persuade them to their duty, to obedience of what they find commanded in the Word; But allow them no authority and jurisdictionall power to enjoin their determinations from the Word authoritatively under pain of Ecclesiastical censures. So Mr. Hooker, in the forecited place, pag. 2, 3. 'tis true he calls this power of counsel, by the name of Authority. And so Mr. Lockier from him, Sect. 30. but an authoritative power of mere counsel, 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 itself is nothing else but brotherly counsel, which hath no binding force formally as issuing from the Presbytery: But bindeth merely 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 Mr. Hooker; And this is no more than one Brother may do towards another, and one sister Church may do to another. Mr. Cotton in the Keys, ch. 6. seemeth to attribute more power to a Synod. They have (sayeth he) power not only to give light and counsel in matter of truth and practice: But also to command and enjoin the things to be believed and done. The express words of the Synodical letter imply no less, Act. 15. 27. It is an act of the power of the Keys, to bind burdens, and this binding power ariseth 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, 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 counsel 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: Mr. Cotton, not only materially, but also formally, from the authority of the Synod. Yet I conceive for all such fair words, in the intention and real meaning of the Author, little more is understood than what Mr. Hooker sayeth, at most nothing more but a Doctrinal power, which is competent to any single Pastor as M. Caudrey showeth Vindiciae clav. c. 6. pag. 53. We, on the contrare assert that by warrant of the Word of God, the Presbyteries of associated Churches, Classical or Synodical, have a power and authority of Spiritual jurisdiction, whereby they authoritatively discern matters Ecclesiastical and impose these decrees under pain of Ecclesiastic censures, and may inflict Ecclesiastic 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 juridical power we attribute to such Presbyteries of discerning matters Ecclesiastical, and imposing their determinations under pain of censure, is not Autocratorick and absolute, binding absolutely, by virtue of their authority; But Ministerial, and adstricted in its determinations to the rule of the Word of God: So that that obligation formal which floweth from the authority of the Judicatory into the decree in actu exercito, presupposeth that material obligation of the thing decreed, as contained in the Word of God, else it hath not place.  
section 5 2. Point of Controversy is, that the Independent Brethren do not allow the standing use of such associated Presbyteries: But only occasional: We assert that by warrant of the Word of God some such Presbyteries are of standing use as standing ordinary juridical Ecclesiastical Courts. We say that Classical Presbyteries, in the ordinary settled case of Churches are necessary standing Courts for administration of Ecclesiastical Government, and also that Superior Presbyteries, Synodical, may be warrantably of standing use where and when conveniently, moe Presbyterial or Classical Churches may have and enjoy actual combination, as of Yearly Provincial Synods, as in the Churches of the Low Countries are more frequent Provincial Synods, and yearly Nationall Assemblies, as in the Churches of this Kingdom of Scotland.  
3. Point is concerning subordination of lesser Assemblies to greater. The Independent Brethren deny altogether subordination of Inferior Assemblies to Superior as juridical Ecclesiastical 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 counsel and direction, and assert, that a particular Congregation, is the supreme Ecclesiastical Juridical Tribunal 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 Superior Judicatory to have his process juridically recognosced, and the injurious sentence rescinded, but must lie under it without any Ecclesiastic remedy till death, unless that particular Congregation be pleased themselves to revoke their sentence. So doth Mr. 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 juridical subordination of lesser Assemblies Ecclesiastical unto greater, so that appeals may be made from Inferior and lesser, to Superior and greater Assemblies, That it is both against the Law of nature and the positive Law of God to place a supreme, Independent Ecclesiastical juridical power in a particular Congregation, yea, or in any lesser Assembly when as a greater and Superior 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 congregational, Classical, Provincial and Nationall Assemblies is lawful and agreeable to the Word of God.  
section 6 Whereas there are these three principal points of Controversy concerning the matter in hand. The thing Mr. Lockier propoundeth to dispute against in his Assertion, is that which is asserted by 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 Inferior Assemblies to Superior. 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 juridical 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 juridical 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 form. 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 though 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 grossly despise his Reader (to say the least) in his major proposition. What, did never Mr. Lockier read in Presbyterial writers any other scriptural 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. considerate. of certain controv. c. 6. p. 94, 95. on which place Parker himself, the Polit. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 24. groundeth the authority of Synods. 2. The Argument grounded upon 1 Cor. 14. 32. in that same Author, pag. 98, 99 3. The Argument brought from what the Scripture holdeth forth concerning the Churches of Jerusalem, Ephesus, Antioch, Corinth, Assembly of Divines 3. Proposition concerning Presbyterial 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 paedagogical and ceremonial, but essential and of moral conveniency and so perpetual. Gul. Appollon. pag. 96, 97. Did Mr. Lockier never Read these grounds of Scripture urged in this matter by Presbyterians, that alleging 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 controversy, 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 clear them. If he contemned them, we tell him it is easier to contemn 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. etc. The eleven Apostles here meet together, and these as a supreme body over all others, conveen the Church at Jerusalem, dictat what and how to be done, in that case of loss upon the Church, which shows that there is a foreign (put out that name, as none of ours, but a nickname and miscalling of the thing feigned by yourself) 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 than one. 2. That these divers single Congregations are held forth as one Church. 3. That they are under one common Presbytery Governing them; Some, Isay, may be, bring that place jointly with others to make up a proof of that complex medium. Let Mr. Lockier point us at the man that brings it as a full proof by itself. 'Tis an easy 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 fight against their own fictions. So we need not trouble ourselves with following Mr. Lockiers' Answers to this place. Only I shall note some few things said by him in his Answers, which are two.  
section 3 In the first. The station of the Apostles (sayeth he) was extraordinary to take care of all Churches: Being therefore by this place Elders in all Churches, might and did interpose their power in several particular Churches— And therefore what they did modo extraordinario, is not competent to be exemplary; extraordinary practices, 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 confess it true. But that their Ruling of more particular Congregations than one, simply, was extraordinary, and that when they did this, they did it modo extraordinario, may well be confidently said, but will never be proven. And how will Mr. Lockier prove that there were no ordinary Elders with the Apostles in that meeting. I think he shall find this an hard stick of work. But passing these things now. I would here ask him one thing. Why is it that he bringeth this as a solution to this place, Act. 1? Does he mean indeed that the Apostles acted in this matter modo extraordinario, and according to their Apostolical Office? Why then did he before, Sect. 10. allege the managing of this matter of Mathias call, as a ground and pattern 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, until 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 business, 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 ways a pattern for a College of ordinary Elders acting jointly their ordinary power? But 1. though it be true that they were together in Jerusalem, by God's command waiting together for the pouring out of the Holy Ghost: Yet it follows not, that by accident they did join in Collegio for that business: Because being together, by Christ's institution they were to join 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 join 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 controversy Synodically concluded, Act. 15. yet the Author will not for this, say, that in that business 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 than one. That it should be a combination of appropriate Elders to several particular Churches, which these Acts 1. were not, but general 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 Professors than could meet in one Congregation, their Pastors and Elders did teach and rule them in common, not being distributively appropriated to the several 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 several fixed Officers. Therefore we say further, what ever use be to be made of the present passage, Act. 1. in the Question in hand, it is but a poor Argument the Author insinuateth. There was not here concurring Elders of other Churches, this of Jerusalem being the first and only Gospel Church, Ergo, there was not here a Presbytery ruling over more Congregations than one, it doth not necessarily follow. For that very Church of Jerusalem might be made up of several 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 Possessors of lands, etc. sold them and brought the price and laid it down at the Apostles feet. And how this place will maintain a 
* This nickname the Author will put in at every turn, which we desire may be as often rejected as wrongfully given to the Presbytery we speak for.  foreign coercive Eldership I do not yet under, stand. Answ. Here again is a gross mistake or a wilful wronging of his adversaries. I know none that alleges this place by itself as an entire Argument to prove the Presbytery we speak for; the truth as to the use of this passage by Presbyterians in this controversy is this. They alleging the instance of the Church of Jerusalem for a pattern of more Congregations than one, under one governing Presbytery, and for making out this, alleging that Scripture holdeth forth. 1. That Church to consist of more Congregations than one. 2. That yet these are called one Church. 3. That over these Congregations called one Church was one Presbyterial Government in common: To prove the last of these points whereof the Argument consisteth, alleging 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 Church's 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 alleged.  
section 6 The Apostles though they had a capacity over many Churches, yet then there were not many Churches, when this was done. Ans. Yes, Sr, there were many, more than one Church, I mean more particular Congregations, even in jerusalem, see this proven as by sundry others, so particularly by the Assembly of Divines in their third proposition concerning Government, and their answers to the reasons of the Dissenting Brethren, and by the Authors of Jus Divin. 2. part pag. 193, 194, 195, 196. & seq. and the exceptions brought to the contrare by your strongest heads fully cleared. I wonder the Author should so contemn 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 impartial 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 main 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 than 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 daily 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, although that business was not the proper act of their Apostolic vocation and office, nor the main and principal work thereof, and therefore say they, Act. 6. 2. It is not reason that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables: And therefore it was necessary some Officers should be ordained who's more proper and chief work it might be to see to that business: Yet certainly the Apostolic office, containing in it eminently, the power of all inferior 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 business, yet the Apostles did not then altogether cease from joining in acting thereanent, where they might conveniently without hindering 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 divers 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 several 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 several Churches respectiuè: 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 warrant 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 laid hands on these; But what appears from hence of such an Eldership, excerped and commissioned from several 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 fit 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 Apostolical 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, than hence is no warrant 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 draws an Argument from ordination of Elders performed by the Apostles for regulating the ordination of Elders in Churches now, and thereupon alleging (though 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 pattern in ordinary. Now if they acted not by their extraordinary office and power in ordaining Elders, what reason is there to say, that in the ordination of these Deacons, they acted in that way? 2. As to that, but what appears from hence, etc. 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 itself 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 showed 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 joint veice of various commissioned Elders. Answ. To pass 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 pass 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 withal, we say, that one Church, was not one single Congregation, but made up of more than one, and consequently was one Presbyterial 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 Author's Grammatical 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, 'tis silly, and might well be said among Children, but may blush to come out before understanding Men. By this Argument when our Saviour sayeth, upon this Rock will I build my Church. And the Apostle, 1 Cor. 12. He hath set in the Church, First some Apostles, etc. 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 Catholic Church, and not any particular singular Congregation. So the name flock in the Singular Number, why may it not be taken collectiuè for such a flock as contained in it divers particular flocks, as Gen. 33. 13. yea and in the very present Metaphorical sense 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 12. 32. little flock, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 John 10. 16. one Sheep fold, though both in the Singular Number yea, and in the latter place, with the Cardinal number added to it, one, signifieth the Church Catholic, and so comprehendeth many particular Flocks, Folds, and Churches. As to M. Lockiers last words in this Sect. here is no joint voice. etc. indeed we grant that in that meeting there was no joint voting of Elders: Because these Elders than 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 supreme Independent Tribunal 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 several 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 business we Dispute against. Answ. First. 'tis well Mr. Lockier acknowledgeth that was an Eldership of several Churches, even a Synodical Presbytery, a Synod, as himself calls it afterward, Sect. 29. Some of his side have said otherwise, the Dissenting Brethren in their Reasons against the Assemblies allegation of Acts 15. for subordination of Synods. That Ass. was not a formal 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 coercion to enforce their results upon any, but an authoritative juridical power to enjoin authoritatively their determinations agreeable to the Word of God, and to censure the disobedient and disorderly with mere spiritual censures, as admonition, Excommunication, which import no enforcing, ● propriety of speech. Nor do we say, that, that or any other Synod hath power thus authoritatively, to enjoin 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 juridical power authoritatively enjoining its determinations, and which may censure with spiritual Ecclesiastic 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 though 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 sampler to all succeeding generations. In this we agree with him. Only by the way we note, that we see not why he should have said before, Sect. 25. that in the ordination of Deacons the Apostles acted as extraordinary persons, seeing there also they joined the Church with them, in the election of the persons to be ordained. His 2. premisse is, that the sentence decreed in that Synod was not Scripture because they decreed it, as still it was when the Apostles moved by the proper Spirit of their Apo●…olicall station, according to that, 2 Pet. 1. 21. but what they decreed was by debate found out to be either express in Scripture or undeniably deduced from thence: So by one of these ways, was found to be Scripture, and was therefore decreed and enjoined by them upon others. And then goes out a while in clearing this, which we need not insist on. And to pass 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 as much 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 Collegiate Eldership. Answ. This last followeth not upon any thing in the former premises: For though their decrees were not Scripture because decreed by them, but decreed by them because found to be Scripture, or agreeable to general rules of Scripture, and therefore enjoined by them to the Churches: It follows indeed that their primary and fundamental obligatorinesse, is material: 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: Keys, 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 immediately preceding words he has done, that the decrees of this Synod, were binding only materially, as matters revealed in the Scripture, and not formally, can withal 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 foreign Eldership rightly constituted hath particular authority, (i) a power of preheminent and prevailing counsel, though not a power of jurisdiction to constrain their results to be practised, or to censure. Ecclesiastically, in case persons, who have the result of things produced by them, do not follow them. They have as an Ordinance of God, a power of preheminent and prevailing counsel: That is, their result ought to be preferred and prevail more upon our hearts, than what Interpretation other single persons, and ordinary helps, ordinarily afford. Answ. First here ere I come to the main business, note shortly some few things. 1. We never attributed authority to a foreign Eldership, over any persons or Churches. Mr. Lockier here saying that a foreign 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 than ever Presbyterians did, and indeed goeth clearly contrary to truth, and in terms, speaketh very like the Prelatic way, which attributed to a foreign Eldership, the Prelate and his Cathedral, 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 anon. 2. We say yet it is but an odious feigned description of that power of jurisdiction, we attribute to Synods and other associated Presbyteries, when it is called a power to constrain their results to be practised, as we have discovered it before. 3. It is yet a grosser misrepresentation, that we attribute unto such Presbyteries a power to censure persons Ecclesiastically in case they have the result of things produced by them and do not follow them. Did ever any Persbyterian say such a thing as this, that a Synod or Presbytery has power to censure persons who have their results by them and does not follow them. For example, that a Synod in Scotland hath power to censure persons, in England or France, that have their results by them and does not follow them, or that any Presbytery hath power to censure persons of the Church within the bounds of their association, who, may be, have their result● by them and not follow them? If this has been said out of a mistake and ignorance we pity it, and wishes the Author to know our Doctrine better, ere he take upon him to represent it to others. If it has been of purpose to render our Doctrine odious, let his own conscience judge what sort of dealing this is.  
section 13 But to come to the purpose in hand, Mr. Lockiers clear and plain answer, at last to this place of Act. 15. 28. is that that Synod exercised no power of jurisdiction, but a power of counsel or advice only; He calls it indeed a peculiar authority. But when he makes it to be but counsel, that is to give it a bare name, for credit's sake; And to deny it the thing of that name. Counsel or advice is but an act of charity, and (if good) of wisdom and prudence, and not of authority. 'Tis no other act but that which one man may do to a Church, one brother to another, one woman to another, yea as Mr. Rutherfurd saith, Abigail to David, a maid to Naaman. That the Author saith it is a power of preheminent and prevailing counsel, that it ought to prevail more upon our hearts than the interpretation of single persons and ordinary helps, availeth not: For preheminent counsel is still but counsel, and so that which is attributed to the Synod differeth no ways from that which is competent to any single persons to do, or one sister and equal 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 matters of Religion, their counsel would be such a preheminent and prevailing counsel, 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 counsel is preheminent and prevailing, aught to prevail more upon our hearts, etc. not only upon this ground, that they are many, pious and understanding men, and liker to find out the mind 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 aught 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 preeminency or power of prevailing in the decree of a Synod, so that there is an obligation upon our hearts to be more prevailed with, over and above that preeminency and power of prevailing which is in the counsel 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 juridical power: and consequently of censure upon disobedience? For if it shall be said it is not juridical power, but only dogmatic or doctrinal, than I say this is competent to every single Pastor; For a truth of the Gospel taught and delivered by a single Pastor, aught to be believed 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 kind, and so no peculiar authority or power of a Synod, as such an Ordinance of God. But now whereas Mr. Lockier asserteth that this Synod at Jerusalem, Act. 15. had not, nor did exercise a juridical power, but only a power of counsel 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. Aaron's Rod, Book 2. c. 9 Arg. 21. Papers of the Assem. of Divines. Ans. to the Reas. of the Dissenting Brethren against the instance of the Church of Jerus. Jus Divin. of Church Govern. by the London Ministers, Part. 2. c. 14. Mr. Rutherfurd due Right of Presbyteries, pag. 355. At length treating upon this place. Spanhem. Epist. ad David Bucan. class. 3. rat. 3. There is so much said by these to this purpose, that I need not increase the bulk of this Book by setting down any Reasons here against Mr Lockier, if he will be pleased to take unto his consideration what is already said by them, he may do well. Come we to his Reasons brought to prove that this Synod exercised only a power of counsel, not of jurisdiction. Of four brought by Mr. Hooker, Survey Part. 4. c. 1. pag. 13, 14. he borroweth two.  
1. Is made up of two processes, the first whereof is this. These decrees are said to bind these to whom they are sent: But they were sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles. This is evident saith Mr. Lockier, Acts 21. 25. as touching the Gentiles that believe, we have written and concluded that they observe, etc. 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 confess 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 Synodical 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 matter 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 Synodical 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 indefinitely, 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 Synodical 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 process 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 process.  
section 15 Now these (saith he) (i.) all the Churches of the Gentiles had no Commissioners delegated to that Synod: Therefore what the Synod did could not bind them by way of authoritative jurisdiction, because where is no delegation of Commissioners there is no right of jurisdiction; They did bind them only by way of counsel 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, etc. 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 aught 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 pass by the Observation of the two Syllogistick moulds, whereinto Hooker casts this last process, 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 Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, who delegate messengers to the Synod: But the decrees of this Synod bind more than these who delegated messengers to it, to wit, all the Churches of the Gentiles. Therefore it did not intent to bind by Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Truly 'tis a pity to see a Godly man beguiling himself in such matters, with such illogicall silly Arguments. I will not stay to exaggerate this to the full, who sees not the gross 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 than such as it did bind by Ecclesiastical 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 counsel. But this Synod sent their decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles, who n●ver sen● their Commissioners thither: Ergo, they sent only by way of counsel: This is as louse for matter, as to his point in hand, as the former was peccant in form. 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 counsel 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 denied 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. hooker's two Syllogisms, 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 juridical process upon them, appears by these pacific 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 yourselves 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 juridical process (viz. as I conceive, to censure) upon them to whom they sent the decrees, that it must then be said, they acquiesced in mere giving of couns●ll; 〈…〉 Court or Judicatory had no other act of authoritativ● Jurisdiction, 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 juridical Authority, though there be no processing person●●o censure presently joined therewith. And that 〈◊〉 this 〈…〉 and authoritatively (I mean Ministerially) impos● 〈◊〉 ●…tions upon the Churches, the they went 〈…〉 to 〈◊〉 ●ny of them, h●s been abunda●…ly proven by the Autho●… 〈…〉 2. Yea they did actually put ●orth a 〈…〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schism and disse●… 〈…〉 Teacher's, by stigmati●… 〈…〉 Teacher's, and 〈◊〉 them, by declaring them 〈…〉 the Church, ●o●…tters of souls, and tacitly 〈…〉 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 〈…〉 incorrigible and obsti●…●. But 〈…〉 good ear●est, when as he sayeth, 〈…〉 of the Synodical Epistle to 〈◊〉 Church●…, 〈…〉 to these matters, 〈◊〉 give cou●sell 〈…〉 Church's, and wish that for th● purpose they 〈◊〉 Wr●…en not with 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, etc. as if forsooth, because the Syno●●nd their decrees in an Epistle (which was a respectful way) because they recommend the practice and obedi●… of them by the goodness thereof; this did necessarily import they did not enjoin them by authority, but only advised them by way of Christian counsel: Verily such reasoning, ●…red with such a rhetorical wish, Would they were Written, etc. 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 turbulent 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 maintenance and avowing of the Cause of Jesus Christ, and the due authority of his Ordinances, we shall ●…ntly 〈◊〉 ourselves with that of his, Blessed are ye when men 〈…〉 you— and shall say all manner of evil against 〈…〉 for my sake— so persecuted they the Prophet's which were before you.  
section 19 His second reason a●…edged to prove this Synod did exercise only a power of counsel, Sect. 3●▪ in 〈◊〉 i● this much. The controversy decided in this Synod being between the Church of Antioch and some Judaizing Teachers, 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 contested against their opposites, to be judge in their own cause, and to be juridical upon their Antagonists by their own power, cannot equitably 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 〈◊〉 error, 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 alleged to prove that this Synod 〈…〉 did only exercise a power of counsel and 〈…〉 authoritatively determine the matter 〈…〉 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 gross 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 judge 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 public 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 public cause this may be. Even in civil matters this may and must be in some cases: The persons that constitute the supreme Judicatory of a Nation (suppose the Parliament) they are both adverse party and Judge in public causes, as in matters of treason, etc. Especially this exception, from that Maxim which is alleged, that persons cannot be both adverse party and Judge in their own cause, must not have place in matters and controversies of Religion, otherwise there could be no judicial way at all for condemning false and haereticall Teachers: For certain it is that all Ministers of Jesus Christ are obliged by their Calling and the Commandment 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 several particular stations, be uncapable in an Assembly to judge and condemn 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 controlment in an Ecclesiastical way. And ve●…ly this principle, That persons that are an adverse party to false Teachers in matters of Religion, cannot be Judge● on the controversy between them and these Teachers, was very far from the the thoughts of the Churches of God, in the times of these famous ancient Counsels of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, wherein, as in many Provincial Synods of these times, it is well known, Orthodox Divines, that had publicly and zealously appeared before, against the Heretics of these times, did unquestionably sit and vote as Judges in the very controversies they had appeared parties in. But yet to put this matter closer ●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 private, refute and condemn their errors and their Schismatic practices. Now I think he will not deny (except he will deny altogether, that there can be any Ecclesiastical 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 matter in controversy with their antagonists. If this may be in a congregational 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 adds, 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 pattern 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 principal 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 several 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 warrant such a practice, when association with other Congregations may conveniently be had: And there is in Scripture example of Ordination by a Presbytery over divers Congregations, as in the Church of Jerusalem, where were many Congregations, as has been often demonstrated against all exceptions that has been alleged. 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 showed before. 2. Guliel, Apollon. reason to this purpose, Consider▪ of certain Controv. Cap. 6. 9 2. is very considerable. This ordination of Timothy seemeth to have been done in the Church of Lystra, as th● Belgic 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●… considerations are, I conceive, of some weight, to incline us 〈◊〉 think this Presbytery, as i● was not congregational, so was not extraordinary. As 〈…〉 M●. Locki●r allegeth 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. Fixedness of Presbyters to several 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 pattern and binding pracedent to build upon, else from that Ordination, Acts 6. can no warrant 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 than one: Let the Reader judge how he has made it good, by what we have answered, and what we have referred to, for further satisfaction in others.   

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 sum. 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 Pastoral power, and no further; Yea, that an Officers Pastoral power, exceeds in extent his Ruling power, rather than è contra: Therefore a Presbytery over more Congregations than one, which extends the Pastor's 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 limb of that first large ●re brought by th● Dissenting Brothers against the Assemblies third Proposi●…on co●c●…ning Presbyterial 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 ways; Unless it has been his purpose to despise all his Readers. Well, we refer the Reader to these Answers of the Assembly for full satisfaction, and for the present say only 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 than one, but only against an Eldership made up of Elders fixed in their Teaching to several particular Congregations: But nothing against an Eldership consisting of Officers no● fixed to several particular Congregations, but Teaching and Governing in common the several 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 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 do testify, 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 alleged, that the Presbytery we speak for, Ruling over more Congregations extends the ordinary Ruling power of Pastors 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 alleged 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 show that all these things belong to their Office, and that this is the usual practice and work of Elders where their work lies: But none of them prove it prohibited of God or unlawful, 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 mere 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 show 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 we 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 affirm it was an associate flock or Church, made up of several single particular Congregations; For proof and satisfaction herein we refer the Reader to th●●ssemblies Answers to the Dissenting brethren's 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 be alleged 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 occasional Preaching which one Church by consent and desire may admit to another, that the Scriptures forementioned make th● bound of rule; But where men's fixed call and work (he must mean the work of Preaching) properly lieth. 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 equal extent, it should not follow that if Presbyters may Preach to more Congregations than one occasionally; Therefore may Rule over more Congregations than one ordinarily. Yet it will follow they may rule over more Congregations than one, in such a way as they may Preach to them: For say ye their Preaching and Ruling are commensurate by Scripture; Yea further, if Elders may Preach to more Congregations than 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 follow such Elders may Rule over mo●e 〈…〉 out. 2. We do not make the occasions 〈…〉 more Congregations than one 〈◊〉 r●aso● 〈…〉 ●hey may rule over more than one ordinarily 〈…〉, a Minister by Christ's institution and 〈…〉 Office, ●s a Minister, and hath that office habit 〈…〉 to the Universal Visible Church of Jesus Christ, 〈…〉 singl● Congregation (see ●his abundantly 〈…〉 the Learned Mr. Hudson, Vin●ic. of the ●ss●… 〈…〉. c. 6. pag. 138. & seq▪) ●nd so may and 〈…〉 Office 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● ordinary 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, reaches that fixed 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Ruling go together. Answ. These plac●… 〈◊〉 teach, 〈…〉 here 〈◊〉 Preach ordinarily, over these 〈◊〉 also 〈…〉 not that ove● 〈◊〉 only they rule. Mr. 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 Brothers against the Assemblies 3. Proposition concerning Presbyterial Government▪ (whence th●●…thor ●orrow●… i●●…re) 1 Tim. 1. 17. where I doubt not but ●he 〈…〉 been the Printers.   
section 5 Anoth●… ground 〈…〉, 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 Minister. 〈…〉 is, which notes, and constitutes a Minister 〈…〉, according to th● order instituted by Christ, 〈…〉 with Office to 〈◊〉 the Gospel, and to dispense 〈…〉 Which Off●… 〈◊〉 ●…ally 〈◊〉, is in 〈…〉 ●…ely: And ●is fi●ing to 〈…〉 not make him a Minister, bu● only 〈…〉 ●o ●u●h a Congregation for the const●… and 〈…〉. See this we say 〈◊〉 ●…dantly demonst●… 〈…〉 H●dso●▪ Vindi● of the Ess. and Unity, etc. c. 6. pag. 138▪ 〈…〉  
The third thing he bri●geth is th●… 〈…〉 Key●… (viz. of Doctrine and Discipline) 〈…〉 distinguished, 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 Jurisdiction or Discipline, and exerciseth it, but not the Key of Doc●…ine. 2. Eve● where they are soyned together in habit, they are divided and separated in act▪ The Pastor of a Congregation 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● may and doth teach alone, but he 〈…〉 J●…diction alone, but in combination and in colleg●… with others. 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 only in relation 〈…〉 where he is fixed to preach ordina●…y; B●…ause 〈…〉 to divide th● Keys which he allegeth to ●e even in the 〈…〉 ●o tied together a●●e hath said. But I ask him, 〈…〉 preach the Gospel 〈◊〉 other● then of his own 〈…〉 by going 〈…〉 admitting th●… to 〈…〉 to the 〈…〉 the Lord's 〈◊〉 to 〈…〉 ways? 〈◊〉 this, he denies wit● 〈…〉 of Christians, 〈◊〉 of these of one single 〈…〉 public Ordinanc●… of Jesus Christ; if he grant it, than he divides the Keys which 〈◊〉 ●…yes Christ hath tied together.  
section 6 As to his bloody word, 〈◊〉 like many others in this his little piece, a groundless ●…ander; There have not ●een several 〈◊〉 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 papal Prelates. And since by th● 〈◊〉 a-mercy it wa● restored to the Church, it hath been a bl●…d mean, 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 itself inclinable to that, when as the very constitution of it, is to 〈◊〉 to persons alleging 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 this be a way in itself inclinable 〈◊〉 ●…anny, I confess I see not, but we may as w●ll say that ●…ard is d●…ward, and downward is upward. But now to w● the exercise o● the Keys so together and in so narrow b●und●, as Mr. Lock●…: would have them: That is to say, so●… 〈◊〉 of ●n Eldership of a particular Congregation, together wi●h their people (〈◊〉 be 7, 10, or 20, persons) that they are made the 〈…〉 Ecclesiastical on earth, and there may be no 〈…〉 of the Churches of Christ in an authoritative 〈…〉 any wrong whatsoever they m●y do, 〈…〉 and Truth in their dogmatic det●rm●…ations, o● in their 〈…〉 censures upon persons, if this be no● a wa● 〈…〉 tyranny, yea and looseness, 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 3d Medium, pursued in SECTION 38, and 39  
section 1 HIs third Medium to 〈◊〉 that a Presbytery havin●●ower of jurisdiction over 〈◊〉 Congregations than 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 matter of wo●d●r ●o see, what confusion, looseness of reasoning, 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 sum he bringeth three considerations to make 〈◊〉 out, that such Presbyteries destroys or alludes 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 know not what, nor where 〈…〉 many associating Co●… 〈…〉 in common) while thus pretending 〈…〉 like the lapwing ●aw off 〈…〉 their young, my meaning is, 〈…〉 it takes off people 〈◊〉 that which 〈…〉 groun●… may warr●… 〈…〉 a riddle to 〈…〉 What 〈…〉 pronoun their, relate● 〈…〉 to the lapwing, or to the peop●… 〈…〉 of them be said I cann●… 〈…〉 Again, for that which 〈…〉 etc. Wh●… 〈…〉 Congre●…tion 〈…〉 sterie tak●… 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 Or in 〈◊〉 busine●… of comm●… 〈…〉 controverted, 〈…〉 and that not to 〈…〉 And ●ow 〈…〉 Author 〈…〉 ends (i) 〈…〉 then 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 on to 〈…〉 followeth.  
section 3 〈…〉 have many 〈…〉 which are 〈…〉 then 〈…〉 of a Congr●…ion, 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 take 〈…〉 people, 〈…〉 with ot●ers of greater par●… and so is 〈…〉 here yet ●…nd the for●… riddle● cleared. But to 〈…〉 1. That there may be more able 〈…〉 then a particular Congregation● I think 〈…〉 will 〈◊〉 ●eny: And surely it cannot ●e denied in 〈◊〉 th●re this is a ground, whereupon 〈…〉 it is 〈…〉 that besides the Presbytery of a 〈◊〉 Congregation, there should be such more ample Presbytery 〈…〉 unto wh●…●…course may be had in case of supposed 〈…〉 of the Eldership of a particular▪ Congr●…gation● and to which, particular Elderships, may themselves 〈…〉 cases or cases controversal amongst 〈…〉 such particular Elderships' 〈…〉 subject ●…no Superior authorit●… 〈…〉 hold forth the plurality 〈…〉 Presbytery above the Presbytery 〈…〉 as an object or ground to 〈…〉 ●all, that were ●…deed to 〈…〉 ●old it forth 〈◊〉 a more 〈…〉 ●…ght determi●…tions in matters 〈…〉 the holding 〈…〉 of flesh, 〈…〉 but 〈…〉 that 〈…〉 necessity of the 〈…〉 4. p●g. 2. and if it 〈…〉 ●orth 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 thoritative Synod●… 〈…〉 as held forth so 〈…〉: But 〈…〉 ●…dicious 〈…〉 to 〈…〉 Congregation● 〈…〉 60. or 40. 〈…〉 p●…sons) subject to the jud●… 〈…〉 trial 〈…〉 of no● 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastic●… 〈…〉 ●…rth, be not 〈…〉 s●are to 〈…〉 greater ●oth, and ●eader to 〈◊〉 flesh 〈…〉 to hold forth unto them 〈…〉 a single Congregation▪ 〈…〉 particular Congregation● 〈…〉 Let judicious 〈…〉 to licence, to do 〈…〉 out being lya●… to be 〈…〉 say, which of these is likest to prov● a gaudy and taking snare upon flesh and blood.  
section 4 But go we on to the test of this Sect. Let Ministers, Doctors, etc. men of never so great Learning be in a sojourning (we say associate) Presbytery; Yet the Persbytery 〈◊〉 Congregation is like in reason to be more learned in the b●…inesse of their particular members which offend, than strangers; Because they are eye witnesses of persons and things; and have by intimate conversation advantage to Judge of Men and matters concerning them more than others. Here ●…deed lieth the 〈◊〉 (such as it is) of the thing that the 〈◊〉 would have ●aid, to make out his 3. proof against Presbyteries over more Congregations than one, viz. that they destroy and elude the end of Church power and jurisdiction to which they pretend. For Answ. 1. This reason if it have truth and force in it, is as much against any Synod whatsoever, even their own consultative 〈◊〉 as against authoritative Synods and Presbyteries o● 〈◊〉 Congregations. For thus I may well reason against the use of such consultative Synods upon the same very supposit●…●…dged by Mr. Lockier here. Consultative Synods, are no 〈◊〉 of God, but a dev●…e of man, because they elude the end where●… they pretend▪ to wit, finding out more clear and satisfactory ●…ght concerning difficult matters in particular Congregation●: Nay; Because let never so many able Ministers, Elders, and other Christians be in such a Synod, yet the Presbyter●… of the particular Congregation is like in reason to be more learned in the business of their particular members then, etc. And so are more able to give light and resolution it such matters, than strangers in a Synod can do. But 2. This Argument runneth upon sundry ●acit and suppressed false suppositions and mistakes. As, 1. it is supposed that the only matter which Synods can ha●… to co●…os●… upon, and determine, are businesses of the exercise of Dis●…p●…e about particular members of particular Congregations: This is a great mistake: For besides businesses of the exercise of Discipline about particular members of Congregations, there are first matters of faith and of the Worship of God, to be defined from the Word of God; And contrary errors, heresies, and corruptions to be condemned and declared against. Secondly, there are matters of external order and policy, which are determinable by the true light of nature, right reason, and general Rules in the Scripture, about which is exerted that power which is called Diatactick; there are also trials and ordinations of Ministers. Now I do not think that Mr. Lockier will take it upon him, to aver, that the Elders of a single Congregation are like in reason to be more learned, and so more advantaged to judge in matters of this kind, than all the able choice men, Ministers, and Elders from many Congregations assembled together in a Synod, or in a Classical Presbytery. 2. He insinuateth also this supposition, that in businesses of Discipline about particular persons there is no other matter to be cognosced and determined, but Questions of mere fact; For, he speaks of such matters as are known and discerned by sense, and whereof men are eye-witnesses. This is another mistake. For often times in such businesses are involved intricat Questions of Law or (Juris) as frequent experiences in the exercises and processes of Discipline, prove daily. As, suppose the physical being, or doing of an act alleged upon a person, as scandal, be found proven, for example, that he has eaten Swine's flesh before a weak believing Jew: Yet there may be this Question of Law whether such an act so circumstantiat, be under the kind of a scandal: Upon resolution of which doth depend the convicting of a person guilty of a scandalous fact. And again, suppose a person be found unquestionably guilty of a scandalous fact, yet there may be Question of the demerit and weight of it in relation to censure: Now although it be true, that the Presbytery of a particular Congregation is like to be more Learned, as to matters of mere fact in businesses of particular members; Yet it can hardly be said in reason, that 'tis like they will be more learned in Questions of Law involved therein, than many choice able men from many Congregations. 3. He insinuateth also a supposition that the Eldership of a Congregation being more learned or understanding in the business of their members (which yet can reasonably be supposed only for matters of fact) that there can be no other ground of conveniency and expediency to bring their matters to be judged by a more ample Eldership over more Congregations; Which also is false: Where as a Classical Presbytery or Synod is not like in judging to be so liable to personal prejudice against the accused, nor so likely to be swayed with fear or favour, o●●mister respects. And as for the learning and knowledge that the Elders of the particular Congregation have or may have in the business of their members, more than other Elders, may not all that by them be communicate to a Classic Presbytery and Synod, themselves being included in it as a part? 4. I add but this, suppose the Eldership of a Congregation may be more learned in the businesses of their members, yet I suppose (that which is not unusual to fall out) there may be differences among the Elders, or between the Elders and the people (who, according to Mr. Lockier, may have as much hand and more, in the jurisdiction, as the Elders) or both may be divided in their judgements, that nothing can be concluded amongst them: What will you have done in such a case? By all these may sufficiently appear the weakness of his first ground to prove that associate Elderships of more Congregations destroy and elude the end of Church power and Jurisdiction. Come we to the second.  
section 5 His prefaces to it with a big word, as if some great matter were to be brought forth, 'tis good to inquire wisely into this matter, as Solom. saith, what is an institution of God into such an end. Who would not look for some great matter here; Let's see then the product of this wise enquiry. If the power at home in the particular Congregation be the institution of God for its own affairs, this shall discern better, and judge better, and heal better, than all the Learned Assemblies in world, which people little look after, whilst this great noise is made with men of so great parts and worth, which sojourning Presbyteries assemble withal. Parturiunt montes, etc. Answ. If this reason have any force, it also militats as well against all Synods, even consultatory as well as juridical. It shall follow, it was a wrong course they of Antioch took, to carry their controversy to the Synod of Jerusalem. Why? By Mr. Lockiers theological reasoning here, the power at home in the particular Congregation of Antioch (if it was a particular Congregation, as these of our Author's mind may suppose it to have been) being an institution of God for its own affairs, it could discern better, judge better, and heal better their controversy then all the learned Assemblies in the world, and so then that at Jerusalem, etc. 2. But what if the matter to be discerned, judged and healed be not the particular Congregations own (i.) proper affairs; but common, equally concerning other Congregations also. 3. But the grand, and I may say too, gross sophism, here is a clear petitio Quaesiti, a begging of the thing mainly in Question, that only the Judicature of a particular Congregation is of Divine institution, and an associate Presbytery Classical or Synodical is not of Divine institution, unless this be supposed, the consequence is null. One Ordinance instituted of God for one end doth not make void and useless, another Ordinance instituted for that same end: But we say that an associate Presbytery of more Congregations is instituted of God, as well as that of a particular Congregation. The contrary of this, Mr. Lockier should have proven, and not barely supposed, and upon that supposition alleged that the power in the particular Congregation being instituted of God, shall do better than any Presbytery of that kind.  
section 6 Thirdy (saith he) in the nature of the the thing, 'tis a course which casteth those which subject to it upon a multiplication of appeals, and references forth and back from the Session to the Synod, etc. and whether this looks like Scripture Ordinance, or like the thing it pretends to, an effectual removal of burden and offences, whilst it thus hurries poor people up and down, let Christians judge: This is ne quid detrimenti capiant capita Ecclesiae:— it may be, the cries of this and such like, is come up into the ears of the Lord, and ah alas, that good men should be deaf. Answ. 1. This reason what ever it sayeth, sayeth nothing against the being of Presbyteries over more particular Congregations, the unlawfulness of which is the thing Mr. Lockier in his Assertion undertook to prove, but against the subordination of the lesser Presbyteries unto the greater. 2. Neither sayeth it any thing to purpose against this point: But in effect, is rather a cavillation then  reasoning. The subordination of lesser Presbyteries unto greater, as of congregational to Classical, of both to Synodical; Presbyteries, in the nature of the thing casteth not persons upon needless multiplication of appeals, nor Judicators upon needless multiplication of references. But provides a course for relief to persons, when they are, or may be probably, wronged by the sentence of a lesser Presbytery, by appeal to the cognition and judgement of a greater: And an help to lesser Presbyteries, by having recourse by reference to the judgement and authority of a greater; When such help is needful for them, as when they ●nd difficulty in their affairs, either through darkness or weightiness of the matter, or through differences or divisions amongst themselves, or through power and prevalency of persons with whom they have to do in the exercise of their authority: And if this be not more agreeable to Scripture, and a way more likely to remove offences out of the Church of Christ, then to put such an Independent power in the hands of a single Congregation (may be, of 50. or, 40. or, 20. or fewer persons) ●…at if they shall Excommunicate a person, and so deprive him of ●he fellowship of all Churches in the World, or determine, maintain, and teach Idolatry, and grossest Heresy; There shall be no power on earth in an Ecclesiastical authoritative way, to cognosce upon and redress what they do amiss; Let all Christians judge. But that way of subordination of lesser Presbyteries to greater, and of appeals is very agreeable unto, and warranted by the Scriptures of God, has been sufficiently demonstrated, and vindicat against all the exceptions of opposers, by sundry Learned Writers 
* See Mr. Gillesp. Asser. of the Govern. of the Church of Scotland, Assemblies Answ. Jus Divin. , that we need not insist more on it, till we hear more from Mr. Lockier than is said against it here. As to that, this is ne quid detrimenti, etc. we say plainly 'tis but slandering, not reasoning. We acknowledge no capita Ecclesiae, but one head, Jesus Christ, and that all his Ministers, are pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis. And I beseech you Sr. what is the emolument, that any Ministers may reap by the subordination of lesser Assemblies or Presbyteries unto greater, in regard of which they might be said to receive detriment, if the Government were otherways, to wit, Independent in single Congregations? Indeed if they should look to their temporary emolument, they might see much reason to embrace the Independent way, as that which were the fittest means ne quid detrimenti caperent, as any body may easily discern, and I conceive some knows well enough by experience. As to that which is spoken in the end of this Sect. against this way of Ecclesiastic Government allowing appeals from lesser Presbyteries to greater, as raising cries that have come up into the ears of the LORD, we shall say no more but this, if any men, at any time, or any where, in managing that Government, have entangled and perplexed persons rather than extricated and issued their distress, and thereby raised cries into the ears of the LORD, by oppression of persons, that is nothing against the thing itself. Sinful men will abuse even the best of Divine institutions, and may be, there are not wanting cries coming up to the ears of the LORD by oppression of persons in managing of the Independent power of Congregations: Sure I am, it is more apt an hundreth fold to cause such cries. 'Tis a remarkable Story Mr. Caudrey hath to this purpose, in his Epistle before his Vindic. Vindicia. in the fourth instance of mischievous consequences of the Independent way, I need not transcribe it, but refers the Reader to the place: But now seeing Mr. Lockier directeth this bitter charge against the thing itself in its own nature (so he propounds in the beginning of his third Reason) we shall comfort ourselves in this, that it is no new thing and ought not to seem strange to us, that sin is imputed to the truth and pure Ordinances of God, by adversaries, and God's anger alleged to be drawn on by cleaving to the same. We remember how Hezekiah was upbraided upon this account, Is. 37. 7. 10.   

SECTION XI. Examination of Mr. Lockiers 4th Medium, pursued from his SECTION 40, to 47.  
section 1 HIs fourth Medium is, that a particular Congregation is complete and sufficient in itself without an associate Presbytery over more Congregations; Whereby he intends to prove such Presbyteries useless and a device of man and no divine institution, because God would not appoint useless things. His Argument fully set up is this: If every particular Congregation rightly constituted and completed hath sufficiency within itself to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ, to Ordain, to Excommunicate, without the larger Elderships, than larger Elderships are useless; But every particular Congregation rightly constitute and complete hath sufficiency within itself, etc. Therefore, etc. Answ. Ere I reply particularly, first we would understand, what the Author doth understand by the completeness of a particular Congregation, and what may be understood, by having sufficiency within itself to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ: for the former, I conceive the Author meaneth a particular Congregation to be complete in its constitution, when as beside, the body of private Prosessours, there is in it an Eldership made up of all the integral parts thereof, Pastors, or one Pastor, Teachers, or one Teacher at least. and some competent number of Ruling Elders, three at least, so many Officers, according to our Brethren, make up a complete Eldership for a Congregation. For the other we would consider, that by sufficiency to exercise the Ordinances of Christ, we must understand not only a competency of gifts and abilities of wisdom and understanding for exercising such and such acts; But also, power and authority by a divine warrant, institution and call. A private gifted man may have the competency of gifts for Preaching the Gospel, Administration of Sacraments, yet he hath not simply sufficiency to exercise that Ordinance, because he hath not power and authority by calling from God to do it: These premised, for Answ. 1. The major Proposition is a gross nonsequitur, and injurious to the wisdom of God in his Ordinances: for there may be for a certain end a mean appointed of God, which is by itself sufficient for effecting that end simply, and another mean appointed of God for that same end, and yet this is not useless because the other is sufficient; Because this may be for the better, more easy, more safe effecting of it. Manifold instances might be given of this, the promise of salvation or of the blessing of Believers, is of and by itself sufficient enough to give assurance to the Children of God of the immutability of God's counsel and purpose of their salvation: Was therefore the oath added to the word of promise useless. God forbidden it should be said, it is added of superabundant good will that we might have the more abundant assurance and consolation, Heb. 6. 17, 18. So the Preaching of the Gospel is of itself a mean sufficient of faith and salvation: Are therefore the Sacraments, and Discipline, useless? God has appointed, in his Church, means for his spiritual works therein, not only sufficient but abundant, not only for their esse simpliciter, but also for their bene esse, yea for their optimum esse. So that although a particular Congregation have sufficiency to exercise all these Ordinances of Christ, yet larger Elderships of more Congregations associated together, may be of much and singular good use, for the better, or best performance or exercising of them, for exercising them with less danger of erring and miscarrying, with the more authority, and to the begetting of the more reverence, respect and obedience in people. So Mr. Lockiers major which he neglects to prove, but supposeth as if it were without Question, is rotten and false, and consequently the whole frame of his Argument by this falls to the ground, so that we need not insist upon the minor or assumption: But 2. here I would ask Mr. Lockier. What if a particular Congregation be not complete, have not an entire Eldership of its own, I suppose, Pastor and Teacher be removed, the Ruling Elders only remaining, or all of them being removed, in this case whether has the particular Congregation sufficiency in itself to exercise these ordinances, to Ordain, to Excommunicate? If he Answer yes, as it is most absurd and contrary to the Scriptures of God to make a Church exercising the public Ordinances of Christ without the Officers and Ministers of Christ: So, if so, what needed him propound the Argument of a Congregation complete? If he Answer no; May not a Classical Presbytery be of use here? Else how shall their ordinances be exercised to them? For certainly there will be a necessity of exercising some of them, of Ordination at least. But see the minor also,  
section 2 A particular Congregation rightly constituted and completed (as was expounded before, having with the body of Professors a Pastor, Teacher, and a competent number of Ruling Elders, three may be the number, hath sufficiency in itself to exercise all the Ordinances of Christ, to Ordain, to Excommunicate, by itself, without foreign, we say, larger associated Presbyteries. Ans. 1. We conceive that a particular Congregation may be complete in Mr. Lockiers' sense, i. e. having an Eldership intier in all parts thereof, such as is an Eldership consisting of one Pastor, one Teacher, and three R●…ing Elders, five in all, who, may be, have not sufficiency of abilities, as is requisite for due and safe exercising these Ordinances, of Ordination and Excommunication. But 2. Suppose they had competency of gifts for managing the exercises of these Ordinances: yet we say they have not sufficiency in themselves to exercise them without an associate Presbytery where they may conveniently associate, because they have not authority and warrant from God in his Word to do it. I say, where they may conven●…ntly associate: For we deny not but a particular Congregation, being in such a case that it cannot enjoy association with other Churches, through a physical impossibility or impediment, in this case of necessity, may, as it is alone, exercise such acts of Government: but particular Congregations, where they can conveniently associate together, they are obliged by the rule and warrant of God's Word, to associate under common Presbyteries, Classical and Synodical: and in this case, that a particular Congregation ought not, nor may, by warrant of God's Word, exercise these acts of Government of public and common concernment, as Ordination and Deposition of Ministers, Excommunication of persons, by itself alone: But these acts ought to be done by the common Presbytery Classical or Synodical. And that a particular Congregation ought not, nor may not, by warrant of God's Word, perform any act in matters particularly concerning themselves, so without the common Presbytery of the association, but that there should be liberty of appeal to the common Presbytery: And that the common Presbytery may juridically and authoritatively cognosce, and judge upon their proceed and actings: In a word, it may do things of Government particularly belonging to itself in and by itself, but with subordination, to the larger and common Presbyteries, these things have been abundantly proven by sundry learned men, as Mr Gill●sp. in his Assert. of the Government, etc. Mr. Rutherfurd. Gull Apollon. in his consideration of sundry controversies. Jus Divin. The Ass. of Divines, come we to see what Mr. Lockier bringeth for the contrair.  
section 3 First, It is granted by our Brethren (sayeth he) that such a Church hath this sufficiency in the exercise of some Ordinances, as Preaching, Administration of Sacraments, without seeking the consent or help of the Classes: Nor were the Church to neglect these. Whence he concludeth that it may also exercise the other, Ordination and Excommunication. And gives for a proof of the consequence upon that grant. If they may do the greater surely they may do the lesser, and there is no dispensation of so choice an excellency as Preaching, as Paul witnesseth, making it the chief part of his errand. I was sent to Preach the Gospel, not to Baptise.— Answ. 1. 'Tis true, we grant that such a Church, i. e. a particular Congregation having all its Officers hath sufficiency in it to exercise these Ordinances of Preaching and Administration of Sacraments. i e. the Pastors of a particular Congregation may Preach the Word, and Administer the Sacraments without special consent or help and concurrence, of the Classical Presbytery to every act, nor were he to neglect or cease from these, if the Classis should forbid, I mean without just cause; Yet it may be, and it is so indeed by the warrant of God's Word, that the particular Congregation cannot have, in the ordinary way of the Church in a settled and constitute state, the Pastor to exercise these Ordinances but by the consent and potestative mission and Ordination of the Classis, or some associate Presbytery, and though the Pastor of the particular Congregation his exercising these Ordinances be not dependent upon the actual concurrence in the several individual acts; Yet therein he is subordinate to their Ministerial Authority, to try and judge his Preaching according to the Word of God, and, if they find just cause, may forbid him to preach, and they forbidding, he must obey. But 2. It's a gross nonsequitur, a particular Church, or the Pastors in a particular Church, have sufficiency or power to preach the Gospel, and administer Sacraments, without the help or concurrence of the Classical Presbytery. Ergo they may also exercise these other Ordinances, Ordination and Excommunication, without their concurrence; And the proof of it is invalide, because that is greater, and if they may do the greater alone by themselves, they may also do the lesser: For by that same reason it should follow, A Pastor hath sufficiency and power by himself alone to preach the Gospel, to Baptise without the help and concurrence of his fellow-Elders in the Congregation. Ergo he may also by himself alone Ordain and Excommunicate, without their help and concurrence. Why? That is the greater▪ and if he may do the greater alone, he may also do the lesser. The Author himself will not, I conceive, admit the Consequence here. The truth is, the interest of persons to exercise this, or that, or the other, Ordinance is not to be attended or determined, according to the greater or lesser excellency of the work: But according to Christ's commission, institution, and grant of power to them. The exercise of Ecclesiastical power in some things, (which is commonly called power of order) as Preaching of the Word, Administration of Sacraments, is given to Christ's Ministers, severally and a part, considered as single Pastors. So a Pastor may preach the Word and administer Sacraments alone, without concurrence, or special consent, either of the whole Church, or other Rulers to every act: But in other things (these of the power, called the power of jurisdiction) the exercise and power thereof is not given to one, but to an unity: To the community of Governors of the Church united together: not any single Rulers severally. Therefore though a Pastor may preach, and baptise alone, yet he may not Censure nor Excommunicate alone; And if he should do this, the act were invalide, both in foro Dei, and in foro Ecclesiastico. Now the power of Ordination and Excommunication being given to a community, the Question is, whether this community be a particular Congregation, having an entire particular Eldership, or the Eldership of a particular Congregation, by itself and independent from a larger Presbytery, this Mr. Lockier saith, but his Argument, grounded upon our grant, to prove it, is impertinent, as we have seen.  
section 4 But further he would prove that a particular Congregation hath power to exercise all Ordinances, as well as any, thus; Sect. 41. The Keys are not divided: The Keys are all given to Peter as personating the Church of believers in the Gospel, that Kingdom of which Christ said he would build: And I will give unto [thee] the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever [thou] shalt bind on earth, Mat. 16. 19 Surely this particular here used, is not in vain, but to set forth that every Gospel-Church, every particular Congregation of believers, united as a visible organical body, for God's Worship have ability, a power given to it, as to such an end (he means to exercise all the Keys, alone and by themselves, which he expresseth thus) they have not a lame commission, part of the Keys at their girdle, and strangers and foreigners carrying another part. Answ. 1. As to that of dividing the Keys, we have said sufficient before. 2. As to that alleged, the Keys were all given to Peter, as personating the Church of Believers, etc. we have spoken also before in the Examination of his first proof of the first Assertion. Now we add but these things here. 1. I would ask Mr. Lockier what he means by the Church of Believers in the Gospel? Whether the universal Church Visible of Believers? Then he must acknowledge a Church Universal Visible individually one: For certainly the article (the) denotateth a certain singular one thing. But this, I doubt, Mr. Lockier will grant, A Visible Church Catholic, existing really one. And however: it is not his purpose here, to allege that Peter received the Keys, as personating the Universal Church Visible. For the thing he would be at and must prove, is, that all the Keys and exercise thereof are given to every one particular Church or Congregation, singly and within itself. If he say he means a particular Visible Church, I ask which is it, of Rome, or Corinth, or Ephesus? If any one of these definitely, what then becometh of all the rest? Nay but will he say, not any one particular Visible Church definitely, but indefinitely any and every one. But 1. His words are, that Peter in this matter personated the Church Visible, which in propriety of speech, seemeth to me to note a determinate and definite individual, but passing this. 2. It cannot be a particular Visible Church, whether definitely, or some certain one: or indefinitely for any one; Because, as Mr. Lockier himself sayeth, the Church that Peter personated is that which Christ saith, ver. 18. that he would build upon the rock, that the gates of hell should not prevail against it. But this is not any particular Visible Church, but either the Church Invisible of the elect and redeemed ones, or the Church Visible Catholic; Because any particular Visible Church may be prevailed against. 3. That Assertion, Surely this particular here used (to wit, the Pronoun of the second person twice in the sentence, thee and thou) is not in vain, but to set forth that every Gospel Church, etc. is, I may say, an Assertion of such boldness without proof, as any man of understanding may wonder, that a modest man should have uttered it, before men that have not sold away their judgements to be slaves to any man's dictates. What? Must our Saviour's speaking to Peter here, in the singular number, be in vain, unless hereby he intended to set out every particular Congregation, and surely it must be so, and we must believe it surely to be so, because Mr. Lockier saith it, though he do no more but say it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is enough. Is there not another possible Reason to be given of this, that Christ in this giving of the Keys directs his speech particularly to Peter, but this that Mr. Lockier deviseth, so that his speaking to Peter thus particularly must be in vain, if this Reason be not taken, to make it to purpose? Know we not that long ago Cyprian in his treatise, de Vnitate Ecclesiae, has given another reason of this, which I conceive, any judicious man will think much more purpose-like than Mr. Lockiers, Quamvis (saith that Ancient of this matter) Apostolus omnibus post resurrectionem suam, parem potestatem tribuat— tamen ut unitatem manifestaret, unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua authoritate disposuit, hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & honoris & potestatis: Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur ut Ecclesia una monstretur. His meaning is, that Christ at first spoke singularly to Peter in giving the Keys, that he might set forth the unity of the Church spread throughout the whole World. We know also that our learned Countryman Camero in his praelect. on the place, giveth yet another Reason of Christ's thus speaking to Peter singularly, which he very probably confirmeth by sundry circumstances in the Text, and several other considerations from other places, which I need not insert here, but refers the Reader to the Author himself. Yea, I see not reason why it should be thought that Christ's speaking to Peter in the Singular Number, should be thought to be in vain unless some mystical signification had been intended thereby. Christ having asked a Question of the Apostles in common, and Peter one for all the rest having made the answer, might not Christ i● his reply upon the answer, speak singularly to Peter without intending any mystical signification thereby, but his speaking in such a way behoved to be in vain? I confess I see not this. 4. Mr. Lockier saith here in this Assertion that, this particular is used, i. e. Peter is particularly spoken to, to set forth that every particular Congregation of believers united in a visible organical body for God's worship, etc. which is as much as to say that Peter in receiving the Keys personated every particular Congregation united as a visible organical body. But then, 1. How consisteth this with that which he asserted upon the first Ass. Sect. 2. That the Keys were given at first to Peter not as an Apostle, nor as as Elder, but as a Believer, and that, in him the Keys were given to a Church of believers, as believing primarily; and to the Elders, in the second place as exerted out of that state, and as servants of it. Here they are given to Peter as personating a Congregation of believers united as an organical body and so as personating both simple believers and Elders: There they are given to Peter not as an Elder, nor representing Elders, but as a believer and personating believers as believing. 2. If Peter in receiving the Keys personated, a Congregation of believers, united as an organical body for God's Worship, that is, as now constituted, of people and Officers; Then who must exercise the Keys, in relation to a Congregation, wanting its own organs, Ministers and Elders? Go we on.  
section 5 And for the Key of Excommunication (saith he) which is so much denied to the particular Congregation, the Church of Corinth, is blamed by the Apostle, that they did not this of themselves without him, and his urging of them, much more without a Collegiate Church sentence. Answ. True, the Church of Corinth is blamed that they did not this of themselves: But that the Church of Corinth was but an single Congregation, and not a Presbyterial Church, composed of several particular Congregations, under one Presbyterial Government, should been proven, and not barely alleged, or supposed. See the contrary proven by Mr. Rutherfurd, Due Right. pag. 460. & seq. the Authors of Jus Divin. pag. 26. & seq. upon these grounds. 1. The multitude of believers. 2. The plenty of Ministers. 3. The diversity of tongues and languages. 4. The plurality of Churches mentioned therein. 5. A Presbyterial meeting of Prophets.  
section 6 He proceeds to reason, by way of removing an Objection, thus. If it be said they be fit to Preach and Administer seals, but not to Ordain or Excommunicate, because the particular Churches cannot make up a sufficient Eldership. This is the Objection he frames to himself as if it were ours, on which. 1. We say not they, i. e. the particular Congregation, wholly taken, are fit to Preach, or may Preach: But we say that any one Pastor rightly called is fit to Preach and administer seals, his alone 2. We say not simply that the Eldership of a particular Congregation may not in any case ordain, or Excommunicate; But we say that when there are more Congregations, to associate with and when association may be had, they should not perform these acts alone, but in an associate Presbytery. And we make not the principal ground of this, that the Eldership of a particular Congregation, is not sufficient (viz. for gifts and ability) for exercising these acts (although there be a ground of necessity of it ordinarily from this; It being seldom that in particular Congregations there will be found Elderships sufficient for managing these matters.) For although the Eldership of a particular Congregation were very sufficient this way, yet we say they ought not to exercise these acts, by themselves without an associate Presbytery, at least they ought not to do by themselves independently, without subordination to larger associate Presbyteries (as Mr. Lockier intends) because the Scripture doth not warrant, Christ hath not instituted this, but the contrare. Now his reason following, being founded upon this mistake in his Objection, which we have cleared, there is no great need to insist in following it, especially considering it is nothing else, but, the same in very words with the second reason by the Dissenting Brethren to prove the minor of their first reason against the Assembly of Divines, their Proposition touching Ordination, and you have it fully considered and answered by the Assembly in their answers, see their Papers pag. 195. 196. might not Mr. Lockier have read their answer, and either spared the presenting us with that reason, anew again, or given it with some new strength against the Assemblies answers to it? exedit miseros crambe repetita.  
section 7 He further proceedeth thus. Sect. 44. If one particular Congregation so constituted, as is before mentioned, be not sufficient to exercise the full power of the Keys, without a foreign (still we must bid you correct your nick naming things, and say an associate Presbytery) than the first Church, to wit, that of Jerusalem, was lame in its power, till others were erected; And Antioch lame in its power, because but one Church in association with it, and answerably they made lame work, And other Congregations which were scattered up & down in Pontus, Cappadocia, etc. Which in all likelihood by distance of place, and by violence of Heathens, were in an utter incapacity, to any standing, associate Elderships, were all lame and could not supply the mortality of their Ministers and Officers, and so must indeed sink, from a defect intrinsecall, being not able to relieve themselves without a foreign, an associate power. Ans. 1. From that which is said by the men Mr. Lockier disputes against it, to wit, that Elderships of particular Congregations, when they may associate with others have not sufficiency by divine warrant, to exercise acts of jurisdiction of public and common concernment, alone, and by themselves, without the concurrence of associate Elderships, much less, without subordination to them, doth not follow, that the Eldership of one single Congregation, when there is but that one existing in the world, (such as he supposeth that of Jerusalem to have been at the first) Or if a single Congregation, when though there be others existing in the Word, yet it is under a Physical incapacity, by some insuperable impediment, to associate with others (such as he supposeth these Congregations in Pontus, Cappadocia, etc. have been) are so lame and imperfect, that they cannot in that case when necessity requireth, or may not exercise these acts. 'Tis granted in these cases they may. Yet this we say withal, a Congregation in such a condition, though it be not in such a case of absolute imperfection, that it cannot perform necessary acts of Government for its own preservation, yet it is not in so complete and perfect a state of Government, as when it may be and is associate with others, for exercise of Government, this is sufficient to this reason. Only 2. there is, one or two particulars would be noted. 1. While as he supposeth that the Church of Jerusalem was but one single Congregation, if he mean all the time till other Churches in other places were erected, the supposition is beside the truth, as has been proven by the Authors we referred to before upon this matter. Yet I doubt much if it shall be proven that at any time when there was a Government in it, that it was but one single Congregation. 2. As to that he sayeth of Antioch by that one Church wherewith it was associate, I conceive that he means that of Jerusalem, but first how will he prove that it was not associate also with the Churches of Syria and Cilicia. Sure there is great likelihood that it was, at least in that Synod at Jerusalem, considering that the Synodical letter is directed to them and it jointly: again the very Church of Jerusalem, at that time at least, was not a single Congregation, but a Presbyterial Church consisting of more particular Congregations, as the Authors mentioned have proven, and so was Antioch too. See ●us Divin. of Church Govern. P. 2. c. 13. p. 204. Further, did not Mr. Lock before acknowledge that meeting at Jerusalem, to be a Synod, oftener than once, whether it was an association of two Churches or more, this he acknowledged, that it was a Synod, 'tis true he would have it to have been only consultative, and not juridical: But it sufficeth my purpose in calling to mind his acknowledgement, which is to show that he doth very impertinently bring in the Church of Antioch in this Argument, seeing he confesseth it to have been in such an association as made up a Synod, which is an associate Presbytery superior to a Classical Presbytery.  
section 8 To that we said in the Answer to this Reason Mr. Lockier would, it seemeth, say somewhat in the close of this SECT. 44. To say, that in extraordinary cases, unordinary things may be done, is little to the satisfaction of a tender heart, especially in divine things, who is apt to believe, that God hath so shaped his public Ordinances, which are enjoined to be used in all places, that places shall not be a standing let to put his people continually to run beside the instituted rule. To this 1. In extraordinary cases, to do things unordinary, I mean as to the course appointed by a positive law, may be with very good satisfaction to a most tender heart, that is, a well informed and rightly tender heart, and not a superstitious heart: Have ye not read (saith our Saviour, Math. 12. 4, 5.) what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him, how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the Priests? It was an unordinary thing for David, or any other men, not Priests, to eat the Shewbread: Yet in that extraordinary case, when David and his company were hungry, and no other bread was to be had, let their hearts be never so tender, if rightly informed, as they did eat, so with good satisfaction they might eat it. And generally what is not ordinarily to be done by a positive la●, in an extraordinary case, when necessity requires, may be done, and a tender heart have good satisfaction in the doing of it, even in things divine. 2. The nature and constitution of God's Ordinances is not estimat and defined according to what shape, the hearts of men are apt to conceive he has put upon them: but according to what his own word saith of his will concerning them. It was yielding to this aptitude of men's hearts in conceiving Gods shaping of Ordinances, that baptising by private persons, and even midwives, did spring from, into the Church of God. 3. The ordinary and express rule that we speak of, that single Congregations should not exercise acts of jurisdiction of public and common concernment, by themselves alone without associate Elderships, relates to the case when association may be had. But when association cannot possibly be had, as if a Congregation be in a remote Island, or divided from all other Churches by some other insuperable impediment of fellowship, we say that in that case of necessity, it is the ordinary rule to that Congregation to act as it is, alone by itself: If it shall be said, seeing when it is that way alone, it may exercise these Ordinances within itself, then if, other Congregations being in a capacity to be joined with, it may not exercise them alone, it is abridged off the former liberty it had before when it was alone by itself. I answ this is no abridgement of its liberty, but only a strengthening of their power in things of common concernment; As, suppose there being five Elders in a Congregation, while as they are only these five, they may act in the Government of that Congregation. Yet if other fix be added to them, they may not now act without these, yet this is no abridging of any liberty they had, but a strengthening of their power. The truth is, that a Congregation in an incapacity of association with other Congregations, exerciseth and dispenseth all these Ordinances within itself, not as being one single Congregation, but as being the whole Church. A Congregation in such a case, is as if there were not another Congregation in the world, and that is to be the whole Church interpretatiuè. Just as there being in a Congregation five Elders only, these five act all things belonging to Elders in the Congregation, not because they are such a definite competent number, but because they are the whole number; Because if they did act as being such a definite number, they could not admit any more to join with them in the work.  
section 9 Further, it is (saith he) confessed by our Brethren that the Judicatures of Classes and Congregations do not differ specifically, but only in extension: Then if they differ only in extension, the intrinsical power of the Elders of the Congregation, is the same with the Elders of Classes; And then there is no specifical act that the one puts forth, but the other can put forth too, as occasion shall require, can Ordain and Excommunicate as the Collegiate Church, and so is the congregational Church complete if the Classical Church be. Answ. 1. Mr. Lockier is not well enough acquainted, it seemeth, with the judgement of all P●esbyterians concerning the difference between congregational and Classical Elderships, when as he sayeth that they confess there is no specifical or formal difference between them, if he were acquainted better with them, he would find some to be of that mind, that though there be Elders of a single Congregation, yet that there is not a Presbytery of a single Congregation having power, to exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and I confess it is hard to find any pattern in the Word of God of such a Presbytery. But, 2. When as he sayeth, that in the confession of Presbyterians they differ only in extension, he mistakes the judgement of the most part of all Presbyterians, who, and that indeed according to truth, hold that the power of a Classical Presbytery, as to the exercise of Government, not only reaches a larger object, i. e. differs in extension, but also more acts of jurisdiction, as Ordination, Excommunication, which the Eldership of a single Congregation, as one single Congregation, cannot exercise, and that is to differ intensiuè. But I suppose all were granted which is asked here, that Classical Presbyteries differ not specifically from congregational, that their power of jurisdiction differs only extensiuè, that there is no specifical act exercised by the Classical, but the congregational may exercise in itself, when occasion requires, and so that it is complete, this way, (which is just such completeness, as we mean when we say that a Boy is a complete Man) though all this were granted, does it hereupon follow that larger associate Presbyteries juridical are useless devices of men? No ways as has been showed before. Although it were granted that the Eldership of a particular Congregation may exercise all these specifical acts, there may be many cases, wherein it may be not only expedient, but necessary that the matter be judged and determined by an associate Presbytery, as when it is a matter of great difficulty, when other Congregations are much and nearly, or equally concerned, when there is division and difference in the congregational Eldership or Church that the matter cannot be agreed upon and determined amongst themselves, when there is an appeal propter malam administrationem, vel malam administrationem praesumptam, etc.  
section 10 Finally, SECT. 46. If the particular Church had not been complete to do its own work without a foreign, an associate Eldership, the Apostles, would have mentioned something of this combineing of Elderships— and when this might been surely the Church of Christ durst not neglect the use of it: And yet we find not the one, and do find the other,— the Apostle when he took his leave of the Church of Ephesus, commends it not to associate Elders, but both Elders and people as one flock to the grace of God, Act. 20. 32. Answ. 1. Let it be so that the particular Church is complete to do its own work. Yet, 1. Is not every Congregation, as a part of the whole body of the Visible Church of Christ, to look to the work of fellow members, and parts, and of the whole, according to its measure and proportion of power? Should one member say to another, I must see to my own work: Ought I to care for thee? Are there not matters of public and common concernment? 2. No particular Church is politically so complete as to do every work of its own in every case, as has been showed, but it will in this, stand in need of an associate Superior Eldership. 3. It hath been abundantly proven by the Authors we referred to before, that Scripture is not silent, but often mentioneth the thing of associated Presbyteries, and all exceptions made to the contrary abundantly confuted. 4. What Mr. Lockier has found or not found we know not, nor stands on it, but he might have found a Presbytery over more Congregations than one, in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, and he cannot deny but he has found the Church of Antioch making use of an associate Synodical Presbytery at Jerusalem, and that that Presbytery was more than consultative, even authoritative and juridical has been proven: But I think what ever he conceives that he has found of a congregational Eldership exercising jurisdiction, Ordaining or Excommunicating by itself, he shall hardly point us to the place of Scripture where he found the instance of it, what he saith of the Elders and Church of Ephesus from Acts 20. has been answered before.   

SECTION XII. Reply to Mr. Lockiers' Answers to some Objections from SECTION 47. to the end, wherein separation from not only this Church of Scotland, but all the Protestant Presbyterian Churches, as Idolatrous, is driven at.  
section 1 MR. Lockier having hitherto gone about, as he could, to maintain that the power of the Keys and Government of the Church of Christ, ought not to be in the hands of Officers and Governors set over the Church in the Lord, by the Lord himself; but in the hands of the whole Church, and that in the hands of every particular Congregation, independently and supremely without association in or subordination unto any common Ecclesiastic Government (which how well he has asserted and maintained we leave it to all understanding impartial Readers to give their judgement) he applies himself, to Answer some Objections against the things he has handled, as he sayeth. But what Objections are they I pray? none of those which are brought directly against the points maintained by him before this. Likely he found these too hard for him to grapple with, and therefore thought it his wisdom to pass them rather by in silence. And the Objections he brings, are only some things which he conceived might been said against his design in casting this Little Stone at Presbyterian Churches, to drive all good Christians, if they might be affrighted, to separation from them. A wicked and shameful design, especially for a man professing Godliness to have set before him. I mind not here to insist or enlarge myself upon the Question of Separation from Churches, not only because other learned men have spoken abundantly and well upon that purpose, namely my Reverend and Learned Colleague in the Ministry, and Superior in the society wherein I live, Mr. Rutherfurd in his Peaceable Plea and Due Right: But also because I find nothing brought by this Author, upon the matter, worth the staying upon, in handling that matter. I shall only give some few notes upon some things the Author, I think out of hear of passion, hath vented himself in.  
section 2 Having Sect. 47. objected to himself thus. You seem to be for separation from a Presbyterial Church. We find no separation but in case of Idolatry. To this Sect. 48. he answers thus in sum. That not only heathens had their idolatry as Dagon, but also Christians theirs, as a supreme Bishop over all Churches, which he insinuateth to have been the Papists Idolatry. Alas! he might have given other instances of their Idolatry then this (as their worshipping a breaden god, Crucifixes, Relics, Saints departed, Images, etc.) then a supreme Bishop, or Archbishop over the Church in such a Nation (the Prelatical Protestants Idol he would say) and then a combination of Bishops over Churches (hereby meaning an associate Presbytery or Assembly Presbyteers Ruling more Churches, odiously calling them Bishops) that to him is also Idolatry. So, that command 2 Cor. 6. 17. come out from one kind of Idolatry, is come out from all; Or else that rule binds only to separate from Heathenish Idolatry. What is not warranted by the Word is an Idol — Answ. We shall not deny but that whatsoever is practised in the Worship of God, or set up as an Ordinance without Gods warrant in his Word, may be comprehended under Idolatry taking Idolatry in a large sense; but that every thing set up or practised in the Worship of God, or in Ordinances, is such Idolatry as is a ground sufficient to separate from a Church wherein it is practised, as no true Church, is a conceit in itself without warrant of the Word, nay directly contrare to the allowed practice of God's people in the Word, both in Old and New Testament. This conceit of Mr. Lockiers, is very Brounisme and rigid Separatism ingraine. But of this and the place 2 Cor. 6. 17. see enough in the Reverend Author whom I last mentioned. But as for association or combination of Churches, under a common Presbytery, it is warranted in the Word of God, and so is his Ordinance, as has been abundantly proven, and what Mr. Lockier has brought to the contrare, we trust has been sufficiently refuted. And therefore let him consider, his account he has to make to Almighty God, for so atrocious a calumny as his branding it with the name of Idolatry, and involving all the Reformed Orthodox Churches of Jesus Christ, in the fearful crime of Idolatry. And as for his pressing separation from all the Reformed Churches as Idolatrous, I shall say no more, but bring some Godly men amongst Independents themselves giving testimony against him. Hear Mr. Hooker, speaking in the name of the Divines of new England of the Congregations of old England. I would (sayeth he) entreat the Reader that if he meet with such accusations, that we nullify all Churches beside our own— that we are rigid Separatists, etc. such bitter calumnies, a wise meek spirit passeth by them as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion. That which that Godly man in name of many other Independent Brethren with him, intreats may not be believed to be thought or said by them, accounteth it an unworthy and groundless aspersion, Mr. Lockier with open mouth owns and proclaims that and worse: Then we see what the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly of Divines say of their keeping communion with Presbyterian Churches, Papers given in to the Honourable Committee, etc. pag. 29, 30. holding communion with neighbour Churches in baptising our Children (as occasion may fall out in absence of Ministers) in their Churches, by occasional receiving the Communion in their Churches; Also our Ministers to Preach in their Congregations, and receiving theirs also to Preach in ours, as Ministers of the Gospel, as mutually their shall be a call from each other; when we have any cases hard and difficult for ourselves, to advise with the Elders of their Churches; in case of choice of Elders, to seek the approbation and right hand of fellowship from Godly Ministers of their Churches; and when an Ordination falls out, to desire the presence and approbation of their Elders with our own; In case any of our Churches miscarry through maladministration, to be willing upon scandal taken by their Churches, to give an account as unto Sister Churches offended, and to esteem and account (as we do) a sentence of non-Communion by them, by Churches, against us, upon such scandals wherein they are not satisfied, an heavy and sad punishment, and to be looked upon, as a means to humble us, and an Ordinance of God to reduce us. If those men, pillars of the Independent way, had accounted, as Mr. Lockier does, Presbyterian Churches to be idolatrous, would they have professed to hold & retain such Communion with them? Nay, do they not themselves, allege all these things, as Arguments to evidence that they are far from the mind of those who accounts them false Churches. All this (say they) is more, then as if in nothing they were to be complied with, nor their Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church Communion, more is said and done by those who account them false Churches.  
section 3 His second obj. Sect. 49. Answ. Sect. 50. is but a fiction set up by himself, that he may seem at least, to gain a victory. We use not to reason so, many has been converted under Presbyterial Government, doth not this seal it to be of God. We know many have been, and doubts not but some are at this day, converted, under Papal Government which is very Antichristianisme. But this, Sir, we tell you, that Presbyterial Government in the exercise thereof, has been the blessed means under God of Converting souls, reduceing them from their sinful ways to God and his Son Christ Jesus, the terror of evil doers, the preserver of his Church, the Hedge that has guarded the Vineyard of the Lord from Foxes, the very Hammer of Errors, Heresies and Heretics, and therefore is so much at this day maligned and hated of all such, that, in these lamentable times, has turned aside unto their lose and erroneous ways. 'Tis true, Presbyterians takes it for no good Argument to prove Episcopal Government to be of God, that many were Converted under it; and believes it was a Government of man's invention: Yet, Presbyterians never thought of Churches under Episcopal Government, in which the truth of the Gospel was Preached, and Sacraments administered according to Christ's institution, for their substance, as you think of Presbyterial, that they were false Churches. But something more of this in considering his next Objection and Answ: thereunto, which fully unbowels the Author's design against Presbyterian Churches.  
section 4 The Objection he frameth to himself is this. But many Godly being in the Presbyterian way, is it not more proper to purge then to pull down all: To make use of the root, and not up with root and branch. To which his Answer in sum is: that it was just so objected by the Godly in England when the Presbyterians would have down with our Episcopal Church; But it behoved to be up root and branch. So must now the Presbyterian. The Lord's controversy has come about to it, and means the same. And thereupon he gives his plain and faithful warning to his dear Brethren. Does this man know of what spirit he is? To speak so Edomitelike of all Presbyterian Churches. Down with them, raze them to the ground, up with root and branch of them. Hoc Ithacus velit & magno mercentur Atridae. I think the man has wished a piece of acceptable service to Antichrist, and his father the Devil. Lord grant him mercy of it. 'Tis none of our pleading for the Presbyterian way, that many godly being in it, therefore simply purging of Presbyterian Churches, were more proper than rooting up and pulling down all. If any man, Sir, has come to reason with you, thus poorly for Presbyterian Churches, we doubt not but ere that time he has dealt treacherously against the truth. We tell you, the Presbyterian way, is God's way instituted in his Word, the contrary whereof you, but beggingly suppose in framing your Objection, but has not, nor ever will prove. Yet this we affirm, that albeit there be in Churches, corruptions, not only in the conversations of many persons, but also in some things in the Worship and Ordinances, yet if they be not such corruptions as everts and destroys the foundation and substance of Religion: But there is therein, the substance of the Gospel orthodoxly Preached, the Sacraments for their substantials agreeable to their institution, the way to be kept is, purge out the old leaven. And there is neither in Old nor in New Testament, warrant for separating from, or pulling down and rooting up such Churches. And as to that Mr. Lockier allegeth, that Presbyterians would have down Episcopal Churches: Either he has not understood or misrepresented Presbyterians mind in that matter: Indeed Presbyterians were zealous to have the corrupt office of Prelacy plucked up, root and branch, because a plant that God had never planted in his Church, and could not hear of a purging or circumcising of it, that some would been at, by clipping from them officials and such other appendicles and limiting them thus and thus. But that the whole frame of Churches that were under Prelatical government should be razed down to the ground, plucked up root and branch, cast all in a heap of ruin, that out of the ruins thereof, their should been picked out here and there some stones, to build up new Churches, it never entered in the thoughts of some Presbyterians. Nay, but on the contrary, even in the time that Prelates possessed their Government, sound Presbyterians, as with the one hand they did fight against Prelates, the corrupt Officers; So did they at that same time with the other hand, against Separatists (with whom Mr. Lockier here agrees) maintaining the Churches of England to be true Churches from whose communion it was not lawful to separat. Witness amongst sundry others, that grave and judicious piece written by sundry nonconform Divines jointly, in the times of Prelates, and published by Mr. Rathband, An. 1604.  
section 5 But Mr. Lockier in his SECT. 53. goes about to prove that it is not purging that must be applied to Presbyterian Churches, but they must be pulled down and plucked up root and branch, or utterly separated from. His discourse in sum cometh to this much. When the form of Churches or their matter is right, though many things may be done amiss, then purging may be used, but when matter and form both are corrupt and naught, as it is in Presbyterian Churches. For form, knit by situation, and by foreign forinsecal Elderships: For matter three parts of four naught, profane, Atheists, of Elders and people; So that the Church state is quite dead; 'Tis not a man but a carcase, not a Church, but a nest of unclean birds, a den of thiefs: to departed is proper. But to talk of purging such, the dead, is discourse full of weakness, if not of unwillingness to see and censure our own shame— ●…sw. Verily Sr, I am of the mind that any judious man that reads your discourse in this Section, will account it such as is full of that which ye charge on others, weakness and much worse, I will not say the worst that might be said, but shall rather pray God to be merciful to you in this matter, so blinded with prejudice and transported with passion, far otherwise then becometh a man professing, to have the meek and wise Spirit of Christ. 1. If speaking so broadly, he mean of Presbyterian Churches through the World (as indeed your discourse here for pulling them down and separating from them, runneth generally without any exception or limitation) that for their matter, three parts of four are naught, profane atheists, etc. What bold, and blind conjecturing is this? 2. If ye mean only the Church of Scotland, and that therein three parts of four are naught, profane, atheists, both Elders and people: Yet I say, who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? No doubt many amongst us are nothing such as they ought to be, and it has been always so for the most part, in Churches from the beginning: But that they are so many and so gross, profane, atheists, both people and Elders, for a man that is a stranger to the most part of our Churches, Elders and people thereof, to pronounce so peremptorly, is more than he dare answer to God or his own conscience upon second considerate thoughts. 3. Suppose it were so indeed, that three of four in Churches, were naught, yet, supposing in Churches, there be the true Doctrine of the Gospel Preached, the Sacraments, for their substance and essentials agreeable to their institution, the acts of worship for matter pure, must therefore, God's people separat from those Churches, and the true Ordinances and Worship of God therein: Or must the Churches be pulled down, and plucked up root and branch? Show us warrant either of precept or practice for this in the whole Word of God. Nay the strain of Prophets, Apostles, and Christ himself are clearly, as the Sunshine, against it. How often was it so with the ancient Church, that we may say, more than three parts of four were profane and naught? And yet did not the Godly and the Prophets of the Lord continue in the exercise of the Ordinances and Worship of God in that Church? Was it not so in the Church of the Jews, in the time of Christ being amongst them upon earth? Did ever Christ for that require his Disciples to departed and separat from that Church? Or did he not himself, never a white the less, continue in the Church communion thereof? Yea when in glory writing a Letter to the Church of Sardis, of whom he testifies, that they had a name that they were living, but yet were dead, and that there were but a few names there which had not defiled their garments: Yet his wise and meek zeal is not for pulling down and rooting up and separating from the Church Communion in his Ordinances and Worship. But that is his direction, v. 2, 3. Be watchful and strengthen the things which remain and are ready to die.— Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast and repent. 4. But suppose that de facto, in some Churches the generality of persons Elders and people were so gross and abominably profane, that there were no living for godly ones amongst them, is this a good Argument to prove that the very species and kind must be destroyed and plucked up root and branch? Unless that Mr. Lockier could show that the way of Presbyterian Churches of itself, in its very kind, allows Churches to be constitute so, of persons notoriously profane, and atheists, that will not follow: But if he shall say this, we will avow it to be a slander. 5. When as he will have our Churches to be destitute of a right form, because they are not united by way of their Church-Covenant, but are knit together only by situation, and by foreign forensical Elderships: And upon this account, will have them no Churches, but only carcases of Churches. It is utterly false that we make situation or cohabitation in place or a foreign Eldership the form of our Churches. We say according to the Word of God, that the form which gives the being to the Universal Church Visible, and unto every member thereof, is the profession of, and entering unto that general Covenant with God in his Son Jesus Christ, and whereby every Christian is obliged and engaged to walk in all the ways of God and perform all duties towards God, and other Christians, in all their relations, required of them, according as God giveth opportunity and occasion to perform and exercise them. As for Mr. Lockiers' Church-Covenant, distinct from that general Covenant with God in Christ, as the form of a particular Church giving it the being of a Church, and right to the Ordinances of Christ, 'tis nothing else but a new device of men, having no warrant of precept or example in the Word of God either of the Old or New Testament: And his un-Churching of our Churches for want of such a Covenant as this, is like many other things in this piece, has more boldness in it then understanding or reason. Concerning this matter of the Church-Covenant. See Mr. Rutherfurd. Due Right of Presbytery. Caudrey. Review of Mr. hooker's Survey, cap. 4. Gul. Apollon. Consider. of certain Controversies.  
section 6 Mr. Lockier going on yet more to vent his Brounisticall separation objects to himself thus, SECT. 54. But will not my protest serve the turn? If things be corrupt in the Church, and I protest against them, may not I go on with that Church? As for instance: If they take in corrupt members or admit corrupt or impenitent communicants; And I protest against those, may I not go on and partake with these, and yet be innocent, and enjoy as much presence of God in his Ordinances, as if all were holy and good? To which he answereth, SECT. 55. 1. If protesting were only words then such a thing will do. But to say, the precious should not mingle with the vile, and yet the man doth this daily and continually, is not to protest but to mock, and dissemble; Because here is not a mere passiveness in this man, as to the going on in that thing which he protests against. 2. Again, in practical things, 'tis not so much a man's word as his practice, which gives the dislike. If a man of an idolatrous Church, should stand up and protest against the Mass, and yet still go to Mass, I doubt how well this would please God, or deliver him from guilt. Naaman implicitly protests against the idolatry he had practised, that he would worship no God, but the God of Israel: and did he continue to bow down? Yes, say some, but he begs pardon for it. But most aptly in our last English Annot. The word being rendered in the time past: Pardon that I bowed down. 3. Protesting is a piece of revenge, which is the vehemence of Repentance, and the clearing of one's self, which how well this will accord with halting and halving, is worthy of deep thoughts of heart: Can two walk together, etc. 4. And our Brethren, when they protest against an Assembly do not submit unto it.  
section 7 Here is sweet stuff forsooth, very Brounisticall separation ingrained. That if any things be corrupted in a Church, suppose, wicked and scandalous persons be retained therein and admitted to Ordinances, albeit therein be the true Doctrine of the Gospel Preached, and worship, for the acts thereof, and other Ordinances for their substance right, Godly Christians must separate from such Churches and may not in the very instituted Ordinances of Christ, and true exercise of worship, join with such Churches, wherein such wicked persons joins with them. This is the drift and upshot of this passage, as any discerning man may perceive, though it be very intricately and confusedly expressed: We shall not need to fall upon a refutation of this vile error, which has been so learnedly and fully refuted, of old by the Orthodox Ancients, especially Augustin and Optatus in Donatists, by the first Reformers in the fantastic Anabaptists. See particularly, Mr. rutherfurd's Learned Disputes on this purpose, in his Peaceable Plea, and in his Due Right of Presbytery. I shall for the present note but some few things on that which Mr. Lockier hath here.  
section 8 And first to the propounding of the case in the Object. as it is so generally and comprehensively expressed. If things be corrupted in the Church, and I protest against them, may I not go on with that Church? We own not the affirmative of it. We acknowledge that it is not lawful to go on with any Church, in the practice of things that are corrupt in it. 2. We acknowledge further that there may be such corrupt things in a Church, or a society taking unto them the name and profession of a Church, as that it is not lawful to go on with such a Church or join with them in Church communion at all, as where the Worship is grossly idolatrous, or Doctrine is publicly taught or professed contrary to the very foundation of Christianity. But bring the case to the particular corruption instanced by the Author, and then we say, that if in a Church, through negligence or looseness of discipline, corrupt members be admitted, or wicked scandalous persons be admitted to the Communion, the Godly indeed ought in an orderly way to testify against such a corruption, to say to Archippus to the Minister and Rulers, take heed to your Ministry, to mourn for such abuses in the Church: But, ought not to separat from that Church, and the exercise of the true Worship and Ordinances of Christ therein: But, may go on and partake with that Church in warranted acts of Worship, participation of the Sacraments, in the exercise of all Gods instituted Ordinances, and yet be free of the sin of corrupt fellow partakers of these Ordinances, and of the sin of Rulers sinfully admitting such; enjoy God's presence in the Ordinances, as well as if all joining with them were holy and good, and to say that other men's wickednesses in abuse of Ordinances, prejudices or defiles these Ordinances to me using them aright for myself, and testifying against, mourning for others abuse thereof, is a wild error contrary to the stream of holy Scripture both in the Old and new Test. as has been abundantly demonstrated by these I last mentioned.  
section 9 Now for his exceptions against this. To the first, to protest against a thing as evil and wicked, and yet daily and continually to go on in the acting of that thing and practising it, is indeed a wicked mocking of God and man. But daily and continually to go on in the exercise of a lawful and necessary duty, in the company of wicked persons, against whose wickedness I do testify, and does all that is incumbent to me in my station, is not to mock or dissemble, nor to do the thing I protest against: I am but a mere passive, or has no concurrence to the wickedness of others. But there is here in M●. Lockiers' words, a gross supposing or begging of the very thing mainly in Question, viz. That if wicked persons be admitted to fellowship in a Church, as to the communion of the Lords Supper, that the thing a Godly Christian ought to protest or testify against, is all joining in the Ordinance when such wicked persons are joining therein with them: This is a very begging of the thing in Question and utterly false. The thing the Godly aught to testify and protest against, is the wickeds presuming to abuse the Ordinance, and the Rulers sinful permitting them so to do. But to say he does or should protest that no Godly person ought to use the Ordinance of God, or perform warrantable Worship, when wicked persons either thrust themselves in with them, or negligent Rulers permits them so to do, is to suppose the thing in Question, and is unwarrantable, yea contrare to the current stream of the practice of the Godly under the Old and New Testament both, yea to the practice of Jesus Christ himself in the Church of the Jews. To his second exception. 'Tis true, in practical things it is not so much a man's word as his practice which gives the dislike. But the Question is whether, the performance of a lawful and necessary duty of worship, or exercise of a true Ordinance of Jesus Christ, for instance, partaking of the Lords Supper to remember his death till he come again, when and where wicked and scandalous persons will thrust themselves in to do it profanely, or are permitted by Rulers so to do, be such a practical thing as I am obliged to dislike, as a thing unlawful for me to do, this is the Question, the negative whereof we hold to be the truth of God held forth in his Word. The instance produced by the Author for clearing this his second exception, viz. of a man in an Idolatrous Church protesting against the Mass, and yet still going to Mass, is so grossly and absurdly impertinent, that one may wonder how it could be alleged, in this purpose, by an intelligent man. The Mass is even upon the matter one of the grossest Idolatries that ever was in the world. And for a man to go to Mass, when he pretends to protest to go against it, is to add, to commission of Idolatry, mocking of God and sinning against light professedly. So that Mr. Lockier, needed not make it a matter of doubting how well such a practice should please God, or deliver the man from guiltiness. But what is this, to participating of a true Ordinance of Jesus Christ (for instance, the communion of the Lords Table) in a Church not Idolatrous, but may be, negligent and lose in the exercise of Discipline, and permitting wicked scandalous persons to participate in that Ordinance, when the Godly participating with them, testifies against such abuse in the Ordinances? Nay, can it be freed, from great rashness, (I will not say that which I might) to parallel these two together? But yet farther to bring in as a parallel to clear the business, naaman's practising of heathenish Idolatry in the house of Rimmon, amongst a people not so much as professing the true God, but an Heathenish people professedly, denying the God of Israel, what will intelligent pious men say to this? To the third exception. Whether Mr. Lockier defines protesting well, to be a piece of revenge, the vehemency of Repentance, let Lawyers judge. To my simple apprehension, protesting, in the nature of it, has nothing to do with Repentance, as not importing guiltiness in the person protesting, but being an act whereby he testifies against the sinfulness and unjustice of the dead of some others, that he himself may appear clear and free from the concurrence in or the accession to it, and preserves himself in a legal capacity to challenge it before a judge competent, but whereas Mr. Lockier supposeth that a man protesting or testifying against the intrusion or admission of scandalous wicked persons, into the participation of an Ordinance of Christ or lawful necessary act of Worship, if he participate in that Ordinance or Worship, when and where scandalous persons participates therein, that in this the man halts and halves, he does but beg the thing which will not be granted to him, and he will never prove. And on begged suppositions to say, how these will accord, is worthy deep thoughts of heart, favours of contempt of Readers, if not of somewhat else. To the fourth, when there is a Protestation against the constitution and very being of an Assembly, 'tis true there is no submitting to it by the Protesters: But yet there may be a protesting against some on or more particular deeds of an Assembly when the constitution and being of it is acknowledged, and to such an Assembly submission is not refused or denied by any principles of ours: So there may be a protesting or testifying against some particular abuses in a Church, and yet communion keeped with that Church in lawful, true, necessary acts of Divine Worship. But if the Author mean, that if such an abuse be in a Church, as that wicked persons are permitted in it, or coming to Communion, that in that case, the Godly must protest not only against the deed, but the very thing of that Church, as no Church, and therefore must not join therewith, in warranted acts of Worship, but separate from its Communion altogether, he will not have the simile of Assemblies and our carriage to them, to go along with him, and it is in itself without warrant contrare to the warrant of Scripture, and we doubt not to say a most Schismatic Assertion.  
Mr. Lockier in Sect. 56. and 57 brings and answers a new Objection, and therein raiseth much dust to small purpose, about the causality of Baptism, as to the constituting a Church. The Objection, is this, Doth not Baptism give the form of a true Church? and you say if the form and foundation be right, it may be capable to purge itself right. Sir, you are much mistaken, if you think that we hold Baptism alone to give the form of a true Church. We say it is the initial seal and solemn entry and admission of Members into the Visible Church, so this, is a needless Objection brought in, it would seem to vent a new conceit borrowed out of Mr. hooker's Survey, part 1. c. 5. of a Church without Baptism, of which a word shortly upon his Answer to this Objection: Only here we say this, that which gives form and being to a Church is the true Doctrine of the Gospel and Covenant of Grace, for substantials at least, solemnly avowed by the sealing of Baptism, and Preached by a lawful Ministry (Lawful Ministry. I say, as to the essentials of a Gospel-Ministry) these three at least are necessary to give the being of a Gospel-Church. And where these are, though there be many corruptions and defects in the Church, yet it is capable to purge itself from its corruptions, and to supply its defects, and to urge unchurching of such a society, and dissolving of it, as no Church, or total separation from it, is not of GOD.  
But come we to speak a little to the Authors Answer to his Objection: Baptism (saith he) doth not give the form of Church membership. So say we too: Profession of the true Christian faith is that which giveth the form of Church-membership de jure, Baptism is the solemn seal thereof. But Mr. Lock. having in his Objection spoken of that which giveth form & being to a Church, how falleth he now to speak of that which giveth form of Church-membership? Is there no more requisite to give form and being to a Church (we are now speaking of a Church Visible) but that which giveth form to Church membership simply? This is a gross mistake. Profession of the Christian Faith, simpliciter, is that which adaequately gives the form and being to Church-membership simply. But to give form and being to a Church, there must be concurring with this, a Ministerial dispensation of the Doctrine of Faith and Ordinances, by such means as Christ hath instituted them to be dispensed by. A Church existing without a Ministry, complete in the nature and being of a Visible Church, is a thing unheard of in the Word of GOD. See Huds. c. 6. vindic.  
section 12 But to Mr. Lockiers' purpose in hand. His aim here in his solution is to maintain that Baptism is no ways necessary to Church-membership. We confess it is not that which giveth the form and being of a member or the jus, but yet we say it is necessary as the solemn seal of actual admission into the possession of Church-membership in the ordinary way appointed by Christ: The Author's Reasons for his Assertion are two. 1. There may be a Church, and so consequently members of a Church before Baptism. Ministers are before Baptism, and the Church is before Ministers, for out of it are they made and have their keys, etc. See this abundantly dashed by Caudry in Mr. hooker's Suru. c. 5. 2. Saith he, The Church was visibleble when there was no seal, neither Circumcision, nor Baptism, and then how could these constitute a Church? Answ. What a childish reasoning is this? There was a Church without Circumcision and without Baptism, when neither of them was yet instituted by God. Ergo, after Circumcision was instituted to be the solemn seal of his Church, there might yet been a Jewish Visible Church without it, and now after Baptism is instituted to be a solemn initial seal of the Christian Church, there may be a Christian Church without Baptism: he might as well say that there may be a Christian Church without the profession and belief of that Article: JESUS the Son of MARY is the CHRIST, why? the Church was sometime when there was no such Article to be believed.  
section 13 He addeth to these two Reasons, this prejudice: Besides how much this gratifieth the judgement and practice of Anabaptists, any one may see, who constitute Church members by baptism, and how much Presbyterians are against Anabaptists, all their writings show, and how much they lay to our charge for ushering in, and countenancing this Tenent. Answ. How we, holding Baptism to be the seal and solemn admission of Visible Church members, do gratify the judgement and practice of the Anabaptists in that which is Anabaptism, their excluding of Infants of Christians from Baptism, I profess myself one that cannot see. The Author would have done well to have assayed to show us how that any way advantageth their Tenent; Indeed he sayeth true, that Presbyterians are much against Anabaptists Doctrine. But would hereby, fasten a piece of dottage upon them: Because that being so much against that Doctrine, they yet maintain a Tenet concerning Baptism, that much gratifies it, but let him assay to clear this, for it is not enough to say, any one may see it. What ground there is to look upon his Tenet concerning the allowed matter of the visible Church as tending to Anabaptism, we have showed before in the 1. part of this Examination; But it seems to me, that in this place the Author does not a little gratify the judgement of the total enemies of Baptism, and Socinians that accounts it needless amongst Christians. While as he avers that there may be a Church (he must mean a Christian Church else he speaks not to purpose) before baptism, and that even before they be baptised, acting eminent Church acts, as making to themselves Ministers. If this, to aver that persons may be a Church without baptism, and men may be Ministers of a Christian Church without baptism, if this Assertion be not advantageous to enemies of Baptism, I leave it to the Authors second thoughts.  
section 14 His last Ojection. But since this opinion prevailed, we see a vast toleration of all strange and damnable Doctrines. This indeed is an heavy prejudice against your way, and the thing in fact is too too palpably true, and you could not here deny it, but only goes about to extenuat, yea and in a great measure to justify it; and so much the more sad is this charge against you, that not only hath this thing, eventually, followed, since your opinion has prevailed: But it tends to this in the very nature of it, while as it attributes to every single Congregation, may be, of seven or ten persons an Independent supreme Ecclesiastical power in matters of Religion, so that, if any such Congregation should hold and teach any Haereticall Doctrine, there is no Ecclesiastic power on earth that can authoritatively interpose to reclaim or censure them. And for the Civil Magistrate, he, say you, must take heed how he useth his sword for a weed-hook in these maculis mentis. But now briefly see we what the Author returneth in answer to this charge.  
section 15 We are willing to be a terror to evil works, and as unwilling to be a terror to good: We are not so well skilled in divine things as to tell what every thing is in the bud: We are patiented more than some would have us, till the bud blossom and bear, and when we see the fruit naught, upon all occasions, we give our witness against it, by dispute, discountenance, and otherways as we understand the Word to warrant us. Answ. Alas! Sr, are you so ill skilled in Divine things, as that you cannot tell what these many vile errors vented and taught by many in these lands are? which yet to this day are permitted without any terror used against them; and think you that terror enough against such things, to Dispute against them? (as for discountenancing them, we profess, we can find no discountenancing of any maintaining errors amongst us more than those that are most orthodox, and for your other ways of witnessing against them we know not what it is) forsooth, Sr, a bold Haeretick will care much for all your Disputes, yet I believe it is little testimony even this way, that this Author has given against the gross errors of the time: let him show if ever he has moved his tongue, or employed his pen, against Anabaptism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, Socinianism, and other gross errors, which he knows aboundeth amongst his Countrymen both at home and in the Army in this Land, as 〈◊〉 has done with much bitterness, against the Government of the Church of Scotland (which yet is according to the truth of God) and if not he personally, 
* I know not if Mr. Lockier has taken the Covenant.  yet the supreme Representative of his Nation, and many of the prime Officers of the Army stand bound by the Covenant and Oath of GOD to maintain and defend.  
section 16 But (saith he) if Tares and Wheat must grow together into the World, till the end thereof, the Civil Magistrate had need to be wary, how he useth his Sword for a Weed-hook, in maculis mentis, spots of the mind, lest Presbytery get a byblow amongst the rest. Some men's weapons to fight in their quarrels, are to us as saul's Armour to David, too heavy, we cannot tell how to wield them; Because we take a little stone and a sling, when others would take an halter and a cross, do we then give a vast toleration? Not by might nor by power Civil, but by God's Spirit in his Word and other Ordinances, we fight in these quarrels: Which weapons the not so terrible to look on, yet are mighty through God to east down strong imaginations of vain men. Answ. 1. They are not mere maculae mentis, that we think the Magistrates Sword should meddle with: But to extenuat damnable Doctrines vented to the high dishonour of God and seduceing of souls from the Truth of God to the destruction of their souls, under the name of spots of the mind, favours little of the true zeal of God, and to reckon in Presbytery amongst these is to call light darkness, for which, I pray God grant the Author Repentance. 2. If the Civil Magistrate must use the Sword to be a terror to evil works, either he must use it as a Weed-hook against such Haereticall Doctrines, or you must say that Haereticall Doctrines are no evil works, which is to contradict the Word of God in terminis, Philip. 3. 2. 3. It is but an odious intimation that we would have an halter and cross taken against the teachers of every erroneous Doctrine. Indeed there be some blasphemous Doctrines, (and not a few of them in the time) As a halter or a cross is too little for the obstinate ventures of them 
* I have heard with mine ears, some boldly avow that every man anointed with the spirit, is as much a Christ, as JESUS the Son of GOD. : but there are others ways whereby the Civil Magistrates might employ their power for suppressing false Doctrines from being brought forth to the dishonouring of God, if they were as zealous for God's honour as they are for their own interest 〈◊〉 4. While as you do here take off the Civil power from meddling with these strange and damnable doctrines, and allows no other means of dealing against them but by the Word and other spiritual Ordinances, if you do not give a toleration to them, let all men of common sense judge, the Passages of Scripture hinted at by the Author for putting a colour upon this opinion of his, are miserably abused. For the former, the parable of the tares, I refer the Reader to Mr. Rutherfurd.  
For the latter, Zachar. 4. 6. Not by might nor by power but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of Hosts. Certain it is from the whole context, that the Lords meaning there is this; Because the people lately returned from Baylon and now employed in the work of building the Temple, were much discouraged in the prosecution of the work, by the thoughts of the greatness of the work, of the greatness of the power and opposition of their enemies, and of their own weakness, he would have them to know, that it was not by the power of the creature but by his own power, that, that work was to be carried through, and that therefore they ought not to be discouraged, seeing his power was sufficient to bear down and remove the greatest impediments and to make the weakest means effectual to accomplish the work. 5. It is true that the word and other Ordinances are mighty through God to cast down strong imaginations of vain men, but is it therefore a good Argument and Consequence, the Word of God and other Ordinances are mighty through God to cast down such strong imaginations, as Haereticall Doctrines, Ergo, the Civil Magistrate has nothing to do to suppress the teaching of them by his Sword and power; If so, than it will as well follow, he has nothing to do to suppress, or punish the out-breaking of carnal lusts in adulteries, thefts, murders, etc. Why? For I believe the Word and other Ordinances of God are mighty through God to cast down these as well as the other.  
The Author addeth, Order is but making to in Church and State, and therefore things are but disorderly in this Nation, Wars make Laws mute. Answ. 'Tis well that at last he acknowledges that it is so, that errors are tolerat (for that is the charge he is answering to) and that this is disorderly (which yet how it can consist well with what he hath now been saying in the preceding words, I see not) but if the excuse for this be relevant, I leave it to God and all judicious indifferent men knowing the progress of matters these ten or twelve years, and what ought to have been done, and might have been done, had men been willing to have it done, for settling truth, and removing things contrary to sound Doctrine, as was undertaken by Covenant and Oath to the most high God to be done.  
section 17 He shutteth up all, thus. SECT. 58. Finally, Christians, take this answer to all that may be further objected. To be enquiring is honourable, but to be ever learning and never practising is dangerous; It was an heavy curse that Jeremiah wished upon himself, Jerem. 20. 17. It is an heavy curse indeed upon that poor soul concerning whom it may be said, the womb of truth is always great with him, always in pangs and throws with him, but cannot bring forth. Forsooth, Sir, you have soon done with it. We must take this for answer to all that may be further objected against that you have been pleading for. Stand not upon these Objections, but fall to practice, down with our Church Government and Churches to the ground (this to my conception is the scope of these words, else, I confess I understand them not) sure this man has had a wonderful conceit of what he has been saying in this debate, that thinks we should all be so convinced hereby of the truth of that which he has been pleading for, that though we had twenty Objections moe against it then he has touched (as indeed we have many) yet we should step over all, and do what he biddeth us. I will crave leave to say it, I think no man of understanding beside himself, will have such a conceit of it. As for us, we tell him, we are not now to be enquiring about the matter he has been Disputing against, I mean whether it be truth, or if the contrary maintained be him be truth. We have declared before God, Angels, and the World, that the Religion established in this Church by the mercy of God, in Doctrine, Worship, and Government of the Church is the truth of God taught in his Word, and we are sure it is so, and as we are bound by the will of God, and our vows, and Covenants, to abide in the profession and practice of this truth: So we trust that God will establish our hearts with his grace to abide therein. As for such as are fallen away from it, we lament their case, that if they have been moved by any of these things presented by this Author, that they should kithed so ready to be turned about with every wind of doctrine, the God of grace awaken them to remember whence they have fallen, to repent, and do their first works, Amen.   

APPENDIX. Wherein is Examined what is said in the forementioned letter of the new Independents of Aberdene, for the Independent congregational and against the Presbyterial way of Church-Government.  
section 1 THese Author's usher in what they say on this purpose with this preface. Touching Presbyterian Government, indeed when thoughts of Questioning it were first born in upon us, we did a long time suppress them as tentations: Because we had so solemnly (though too implicitly) engaged to the maintenance thereof: Yet afterwards, knowing that Truth cannot loss by a search, we brought the matters to the balance of the Sanctuary: And now after seeking of God, as he was pleased to give us grace, and using all helps which we could have, we profess so far as we can see (with reverence to precious and learned men of another judgement) the congregational way comes nearer to the pattern of the Word than the Classical form. And to us it appears, etc.  
section 2 Indeed when these thoughts were born in upon them, they had just cause to look upon them as tentations, and for aught that they have brought for justifying them here, they may justly yet look upon them as tentations, as we trust shall appear in the consideration thereof. But here 1. It may be just matter of enquiry to others, and haply may be of good purpose to themselves to reflect and consider, when these thoughts began first to be born in upon them, at least when they began to out any thing of them. Did we hear any thing of such thoughts in them, but since the late great revolution of State in this Kingdom, after Worcester? and how soon thereafter did we hear of them by some of the number, although others thought fit to suppress them some longer? This may seem to be ground of searching of heart, which is deceitful above measure. 2. It seemeth by the Authors own confession, that the bearing in of these thoughts upon them at first has been from no good cause or principle; Not from the Spirit of God, unless they will say, it has been by an immediate impulse or Enthusiasm. For say they, it was after a long times suppressing of them that they began to consult with the Word of God about them, for that is, as I conceive, to bring them to the balance of the Sanctuary. 3. If implicitly they engaged themselves to the maintenance of the Government defined and settled in this Church, sure then if they will reflect upon the nature and tenor of the engagement, they may find themselves to have committed, in the very act, more sin, than they insinuate here, or I will name. For let them look back again unto the Nationall Covenant, and they shall find that they not only engaged themselves to the maintenance of the Religion professed in this Church in all the points thereof: But also declared and protested themselves under Oath, after due Examination of their own consciences in matters of true and false Religion, to be throughly resolved of the Truth thereof by the Word and Spirit of God, and therefore to believe with their hearts, confess with their mouth, and subscribe with their hands. I do indeed ●ear that many did run unto that Engagement without such conviction of mind upon clear warrant of God's Word found by Examination of the matters. And as to do this with so solemn and dreadful an attestation of God, that they did it upon conviction of conscience, was horrible guiltiness: So it may well be apprehended, that God in his holy judgement, has suffered many, for the discovery of the falsehood of their hearts (may be in mercy to some, may be in wrath to others) to revolt from these their former Engagements. I wish from my heart these Brethren (so I will yet call them, if they will yet be so called by us) if it be true which they say now, that they engaged implicitly, whereas they protested before God that they did it upon through conviction, they would consider this, lay it to heart, and yet again bring their present way to the balance of the Sanctuary. I have been with others witness of some who having engaged in the cause of God in these lands, and carried themselves therein for a long time resolutely and actively, and having afterward foully lapsed into contrary courses, when they have been brought to Repentance for their backsliding; Have declared that they found that their back-sliding had arisen from this, that their engaging in the cause at first and going on in it formerly, was not upon conviction from grounds of the Word of God, but implicitly and for by and extrinsecall respects. 4. It is not competent to me to question, nor will I question their diligence in seeking of God when they began to inquire about this matter (though it be a thing usual nowadays, for men to set out naughtiest wares with this inscription after seeking of God) but as for using of all helps they could have to be cleared, I think some thing may be questioned: For besides helps of men's Writings upon this purpose, might they not have used the help of the advice of the Judicatories of this Kirk and represented the grounds of their doubting to some of them. Acts of General Assemblies require this, that before men vent any innovations in matters of Religion, they should first peaceably represent their Reasons to the public Judicatures: And albeit, they may haply say that the very matters they were questioning was the Authority of these Judicatories; Yet humility, if they had not overweening conceits of their own wits above the judgement of these Judicatures, and charity, if they had so much as they ought towards the Church, wherein they were born, baptised, instructed, some of them had been for some years' Ministers, and acting in association in the established Judicatures thereof, might, it seemeth, led them to so much. But if they accounted the Judicatures unworthy the consulting with, might they not have used the help of conference with some of these precious and learned men, whom they profess to reverence? If they did consult with any of them before they were determined in the matter, yea before they did vent their new judgement, is more than I know or can learn. But come we to their determination and the confirmation of it.  
section 2 So far (say they) as we can see, the congregational way comes nearer to the pattern of the Word than the Classical form. Here it may be asked why they say only that the congregational way comes nearer to the pattern, and not simply that it is the way, conform to the pattern of the Word? What, does the congregational way itself come somewhat short of the pattern, and is there a third way distinct both from it and the Classical, that comes full up to it? Is there here a reservation for a further light? It may be we may hear somewhat of this ere all be done. But go we on to their desinition or proposition of the congregational way. To us (say say) it appeareth that Christ hath furnished a Congregation with their Eldership with complete power of Jurisdiction and censure within themselves. There are here two things asserted by the Authors which accordingly they intent to prove by their two Arguments respectiuè, afterward built upon the passage of Scripture which they cite. 1. That by Christ's appointment the power of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction and censure is in the Congregation (i. e. the body of private professors) and the Eldership jointly (both being to concur formally in the acting thereof) and not only in the Eldership. 2. That any one single Congregation with its Eldership has complete power of jurisdiction and censure within itself, supremely and without subordination to any larger or superior Pre●…yterie. But for further clearing of their mind here it were requisite they should explain these two things to us. 1. Whom they mean by the Congregation contradistinguished from the Eldership, whether the whole collection of Church-members, or only men and those of years of discretion. If the former, than Women and Children must be joint with the Eldership in the power of jurisdiction and censures. If this be their mind we would know it and they would speak it plainly. If the latter, than it is not the Congregation, but some part of the Congregation with the Eldership that has the power of jurisdiction and censure, or else Women and Children are not parts constituent of the Congregation: and then let them tell me where shall they find the name of the Church, in all the Gospel in this notion, taken for the Eldership with the ●ale-professours of adult years, excluding Women and Children? 2. Suppose the whole Eldership of a Congregation be scandalous and censurable who has the power of jurisdiction and censure to exercise toward them? If jurisdiction and censure should be exercised towards them (as I suppose it should be) who has it, and who must do it? If some other Ecclesiastical Court, than should not a single Congregation have complete power of jurisdiction within itself, without subordination to any other Ecclesiastic Court in point of jurisdiction. If the Congregation contradistinguished from the Eldership, than the Congregation alone by itself has power enough of jurisdiction and censure, and then what needed it be said the Congregation with their Eldership? And indeed this is the way that some Independents go: In their judgement the Congregation of private believers, does choose, ordain and make their Eldership, and they may, censure, depose, and Excommunicate all their Eldership. So that these Authors when, intending a description of the congregational way, i. e. the Independent way, they attribute the power of jurisdictiction and censure to the Congregation with their Eldership, if they mean (as their words seemeth to import, and they must be understood, unless they minded to aequivocat) that the power of jurisdiction is given to these jointly, and not to either of them severally, either they have not been acquainted with the mind of all these of the congregational way, or they have dissembled, the latter of which, I have not reason to impute to all these Authors. The truth is the Authors of the congregational way are at a great deal of difference among themselves, even to salt contradictions concerning the subject of the power of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction, as Mr. Caudry has evidenced in the place cited by us before, P. 2. Sect. Go we on to their probation of their Assertion. They cite one passage of Scripture first (telling us withal that there are divers other Scriptures, which they pass by: But I believe it shall be long ere they let us see them) viz. Mat. 18, 15, 16, 17, 18. and do build two Arguments on it according to the two things involved in their Assertion. The former lieth thus in their own words.  
section 3 The Church there (tell it unto the Church) spoken of, has complete power of binding and losing, as is clear from v. 17. and 18. but the Church is not the Classical Presbytery: But the Eldership with the Congregation: Therefore, etc. The Assumption is clear, because it is not to be found in all the Gospel, that a company of Elders, whether of a Classis or a Congregation, apart from the Congregation is called a Church. Indeed a Congregation with Elders commonly, yea and sometime contradistinguished from Elders, ay sometime without Elders, is termed a Church. Act. 15. 4. 22, 23. And Act. 14. 23. Now what an absurdity were it, to reject the usual acception of the word in the New Test, and without any colour of reason to coin a sense which no where is to be found in all the Gospel, though the word be most frequently used in it.  
section 4 Answ. To pass sundry things which might be noted upon this Argument and for brevity's sake to insist only upon that which is material, the drift of this first Argument tends to the probation of the former part involved in the Author's Assertion, to wit, that the power of jurisdiction Ecclesiastic is not in the Eldership or Officers of the Church, but in the community of believers jointly with the Elders: and the weight of the whole Argument lieth upon the signification of the term, Church. And all which is said is but an old song that has been an hundred times dashed by worthy and learned men already: See what we have said already upon the same alledgeance by Mr. Lockier, above, P. 2. Sect. 3. §. 2. and 3. For the present I shall say but these things on it. 1. When as these Authors say that in the New Testament the name of the Church is taken, sometimes for the Congregation (i. e. in their sense, the community of believers) with the Eldership jointly, sometimes for the Congregation as contradistinguished from Elders, and sometime for a Congregation without Elders, and asserteth that here, in this place it is to be understood in the first of these three acceptions, to wit, as it comprehendeth both Congregation and Elders, I would gladly know, how, and by what Argument they prove that it is so to be understood here, and not rather in one of the other two, for the Congregation as contradistinguished from the Elders, or for the Congregation without Elders. For that we see only asserted by them, but no proof of it brought: Only this much they insinuat, that it is commonly so used: But that will not prove that so it must be taken in this particular place. If they would assayed to bring any Arguments to prove that the name of the Church here must be taken, not for the Congregation as contradistinguished from, or without Elders, but for the Congregation with the Eldership jointly; I doubt not but we should found them all to be such, as speaks power of jurisdiction and government in the Eldership as contradistinguished from the rest of the Congregation. 2. What though the word Church, be not where else in the New Testament used for the Elders or Governors of the Church as contradistinguished from the body of believers; yet this is but a very weak Argument to prove that it is not so to be understood here, so be that the genuine grammatical signification thereof be such, as may well be applied (as indeed the word answering to it in the Hebrew is frequently in the Old Testament applied) to signify a College or Society of Judges or Governors as contradistinguished from the people. See Mr. Hudson. Vindic. of the Essence and Unity, etc. 'Tis some rashness in the Authors to call this sense of the word a coined sense. Even profane Greek Authors have used it in such a sense, I mean for a meeting of Rulers. Demosthenes' used the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proconcione magnatum. It is yet more than rashness, I may say it is a great impudence, that they say, it is without any colour of reason taken in this sense in this place. These Authors said before that they have used all helps they could have upon this controversy. Now let them tell us did they never read in any Writers upon this controversy of Church Government, who expones the word Church, of the Eldership or Governors of the Church so much as any colour of reason brought by them for expounding the word in that sense? How can they hold up their face and say this? Did they ever read Beza his Annot. on the place: Or, Mr. rutherfurd's Peaceable Plea, c. 8. Surely the help of these Authors they easily might have had? Sure I am, if they have read these, to mention no moe, they might have found some colour, at least of reason brought for the Interpretation. Nay, let them but read the latter of the two over again, & I believe they shall find such reality of reason brought for it, as they shall never be able to avoid. Verily whether we take the word Church here in a different signification from that whereby it signifies the society of Visible Christians generally, comprehending private Professors as well as Rulers, or not, yet that not all and every one comprehended under that signification otherwise, but only the Rulers are intended as the persons to whom the public acts spoken of in the place, receiving of public delations of scandals, and inflicting of censures does belong, is here invincibly demonstrate because otherwhere in the New Testament these acts, as all other acts of Ecclesiastic authoritative Government, are committed and attributed unto the Officers of the Church, as such, Math. 16. 18. john 20, 21, 22. 1 Tim. 5. 1, 19 Tit. 1. 13. 1 Thess. 5. 12. Heb, 13. 7, 17. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2. and accordingly to them, as contradistinguished from the body of Professors, are given names importing Government and authority: But no where in the Scripture of the New Testament, shall any man show us, either name or thing of Government given to private Professors. We proceed to their second Argument whereby they would prove from that same place that any one single Congregation with their Eldership has power of jurisdiction Independent and Supreme, and to take away all juridical Ecclesiastic Courts larger than, and Superior to a Congregation, Classical or Synodical.  
section 5 The Church (say they) spoken of in this Text, which has compleet power of binding and losing, is the first Ecclesiastical judicatory to which belongeth judicial cognisance of offences: For if private admonition do not gain the offender, than the command is, tell the Church: But our Classical Presbytery is not the first judicatory to which appertains judicial cognizance of offences: For first they come to Sessions, and only by refers from the Sessions to Presbytories. Therefore this Church here spoken of, as having complete power of binding and losing, cannot be the Classical Presbytorie, but the Eldership with the Congregation. No where do we read in the Gospel, of jurisdiction in relation to censure committed to Classical Presbytery.  
section 6 Ans. 1. To the Assumption or second Proposition, it seemeth these Authors have not well understood, or been acquainted with the state and way of Presbyterial Government settled in this Church, and therefore have been too rash and hasty in condemning it or arguing against it, before they understood it. For 1. 'Tis not only false which they say, that the Classical Presbytery is not the first judicatory to which appertains judicial cognizance of offences, but that first they come to Sessions, etc. If this be meant Universally of all offences. Indeed, offences committed by particular persons, settled members of particular Congregations, and as yet abiding within the bounds of the Congregation, comes first to the Session or Eldership of the particular or single Congregation. But there are many offences the judicial cognizance whereof comes not first to a Session, but to a Presbytery, yea may be a Synod, yea may be to the Nationall Assembly. When a private person having fallen into some scandalous sin, and being convened before a Session, adds refractoriness against the discipline and obstinacy to his former offence, this is a new offence, and the judicial cognizance of this offence belongeth first to the Classical Presbytery. So a Classical Presbytery is the first judicatory to which belongeth the judicial cognizance, Of an offence given by a Minister, in the Administration of his calling, Of an offence given by the Eldership of a Congregation (and indeed supposing the first part of these Author's Assertion, viz. that the power of jurisdiction is given to the Congregation with the Eldership jointly, if they grant not an associate Presbytery to take judicial cognizance of their offence, they must exempt them from being subject to any judicial cognizance at all: For they cannot come under the judicial cognizance of another single Congregation) Of an offence wherein more single Congregations are alike concerned, and many cases more: I wonder that these Brethren did not rememher that the first judicial cognizance, of James Grahames offence, of Seaforts, and many other public Malignant wicked practices, was not by Sessions, and from them came by reference to the Classical Presbytery, but by the public Assemblies. 2. It is another gross mistake too that these offences which comes to Sessions or congregational Elderships to be judicially cognosced upon, and from them comes to the Classical Presbytery, or to a Synod, that they come only by refers from the Sessions to the Presbyteries. For they come also by appeal of the party who is under the judicial cognition of the Session, upon maladministration, or supposed maladministration: They may also and do often come by way of authoritative visitation of Sessions and their proceed by the Presbytery.  
section 7 2. To the Major or first Proposition. 1. Suppose it were granted as it standeth, yet it could not make fully against us, to take away altogether associate juridical Presbyteries of more than one single Congregation: Because, as we have shown upon the Assumption, such associate Presbyteries or Ecclesiastic Assemblies, may be, and must be the first Judicatories, in many cases, to which the judicial cognizance of offences doth belong, But, 2. If the Major be taken in this sense, the Church having power of binding and losing is the first judicatory, to which, etc. And it only, taking it with the exclusive note, as it must of necessity be taken, to infer that negative conclusion, Ergo, a Classical or associate Presbytery is not that Church; We deny it as utterly false having no proof from the Text. We say here that the Church invested with authority to cognosce judicially and inflict censure upon offences is the Rulers of the Visible Church Universal, as joined in Collegio, or assembled, whether in the lesser and Inferior Colleges or Assemblies (as a congregational Eldership is in respect of all others; a Classical Presbytery, in regard of Synods; a Provincial Synod in regard of a Nationall; this in regard of a Synod of more Nations, haply associate for Government) to which as the first Judicatory matters may come for judicial cognizance, or in larger and superior, (such as is a Classical Presbytery in relation to a congregational, a Synod in relation to a Classical Presbytery, etc.) to which, may be the matter cannot come at first or as to the first Judicatory having power of judicial cognizance of it. 'Tis true, that in such a case as our Saviour instanceth in the Text, when offence is given by one particular member of a Congregation single and fixed in its constitution and proper Officers (which fixing of single Congregations under appropriated Officers, is not necessary by any divine institution: For more Congregations, may be, have been, as it seemeth, in severals of the primitive Churches, and are at this day in some orthodox Churches served by the same Officers in common without violation of any divine institution) Christ's command Tell the Church intends that the matter should be brought to the Eldership of the Congregation as the first Judicature to which belongeth judicial cognizance of it. Like as if the Congregation be not fixed by its self in its constitution and Officers, that Command intends the bringing of the matter at first to an Eldership common to more Congregations. As also if the matter to be judged, be of public and more common concernment then of one Congregation, that same Commandment, warrants by analogy and proportion, the bringing of the matter first to some more large Presbytery or College of Elders, than the Congregational, as the first Judicature to cognosee judicially upon it: But withal let it be so observed that when Christ instituteth this order, that offences when they cannot be removed otherwise, should be brought to the Church, that is, to an Ecclesiastic Judicature, he sayeth not, that they may not in any case proceed further for judicial cognition and sentence upon the matter, then to the first Judicature to which the judicial cognition of it belongeth; Nor is there any ground in his words, whereupon this can by good consequence be inferred: In a word, there is nothing in this Text either against the juridical power of larger Eiderships then congregational, such as are Classical Presbyteries and Synods: Nor against the subordination of congregational Elderships, to the jurisdiction and authority of such larger Elderships. But upon the contrary, there is in them solid ground whereupon both have been clearly demonstrat by several Presbyterian Writers, and discussed all contrary exceptions and reasonings upon the place: for shortness, I refer the Reader to. Answ. of the Assembly of Divines to, etc. pag. 178. Guliel. Appoll. Considerate. of certain Controversies, cap. 6. pag. 94, 95. and pag. 127. Spanhem. Epistol. ad Dau. Buchan. Class. 3. Arg. 2. Huds. Vindicat. of the Essence and, etc. pag. 156, 157, 158. and pag. 164, 165. Mr. Rutherfurd. Due Right, cap. 10. pag. 310. & seq.  
section 8 To what the Authors add, that no where do we read in the Gospel of jurisdiction in relation to censure committed to Classical Presbytery. Answ. 1. If the meaning be not where in the Gospel do we read, this power committed, by a formal precept, to Classical Presbytery by name, or specifically by itself; it may be granted without prejudice to what we assert (and I pray where will these Authors read in the Gospel this power committed to the Eldership of a single Congregation, specifically, and that as they maintain Independently and supremely?) 2. It is sufficient for us, if we read in the Gospel this power of Jurisdiction committed to the Officers and Rulers of the Church as united together in Collegio, either in one single Congregation, or over more Congregations combined and associate together as is most convenient for exercise of their Ecclesiastic communion: And this we read, Mat. 18. 17, 18. for there, Discipline and Ecclesiastic jurisdiction institute by Christ is committed unto the Officers and Rulers of the Church as united in Collegio: Not to Officers of a single Congregation only, as united; but unto the Officers of the whole Catholic Visible Church of Christ, as united in lesser or larger combinations even to an Ecumenical Assembly. Because the power of Jurisdiction and Discipline Ecclesiastic there is instituted and intended by Christ to be a remedy against all scandals and offences in his Church; but all and every sort of scandal falling out in the Visible Church of Christ cannot be so remeeded or removed by the College of Officers in a single Congregation. They can only be a means for remedying and removing this way scandals and offences concerning their particular Congregation, and therefore there must be understood, as intended here by Christ, larger Ecclesiastical Assemblies and Judicatures to exercise Discipline and Jurisdiction for remedying offences and scandals which congregational Elderships cannot reach. 2. It is sufficient if we read in the Gospel approven examples of larger Presbyteries, then congregational, Classical, or Synodical, authoritatively governing and exercising Acts of Rule over more particular Churches. We read of such a Presbytery as we call Classical, in Jerusalem, Ephesus, Corinth, Ruling authoritatively more Congregations, as has been demonstrat by several Learned men. See namely, Assembly of Divines in their Answer to, etc. upon the proposition 3. of Presbyterial Government. Ius Divin, par. 2. c. 13. We read also an example of a Synod exercising such power and authority, Act. 15.  
section 9 With this last instance, do these Authors meet thus. All the power we find exercised by the meeting at Jerusalem, Acts 15. is dogmatic, the people and Brethren having their interest likeways, which the congregational Divines willingly yield, all the certificate they use, is, if ye do these things ye shall do well, but do not threaten those that disobey with Excommunication. Ans. These things here alleged to elude this place of Scripture have been often dashed. For the present briefly. 1. These Authors speak warrily in calling that Assembly at Jerusalem by the general name of a meeting, and not a Synod; It seemeth here they remembered that what whereas some congregational men acknowledges it to have been a Synod, as Cotton cited before, P. 2. and Mr. Lockier; others finding that not so advantageous for them, deny it, and say only, a reference of one particular Church of Antioch to one particular Church of Jerusalem, as the Dissenting Brethren in the Assembly at Westminster. Papers of the Assemb. pag. 128. and therefore have chosen a name that might serve both, and so displease neither. But that it was a Synod, see cleared by Jus Divin. P. 2. C. 14. 2. Suppose it did not exercise a critical power, or power of censure, yet it followeth not that it had not a power of censure to exercise. On the contrary, the dogmatic power of a Synod being of another sort then the dogmatical power which is competent to a single Pastor, this being only concional, and an act of the power of order, this is juridical and an act of the power of jurisdiction, and of the Key of Discipline, it carrieth along a power of censure with it. Tho this be not always put in actual exercise when the other is: There may be, and ofter is need of a juridical determination of a case by a Judicature, when there is not occasion of exercising of censure by that Judicature, as is evident. 3. It is contrary to clear truth that all the power that Synod exercised is dogmatic. For besides their exercising a dogmatic power in confutation and condemnation of the Heresy taught by the Judaizing Teachers, and vindication of the truth about the great point of Justification by faith alone, without the works of the Law. They do also exercise a diatacticall power for healing the scandal of the weak Jews especially, and their alienation of mind, from the Gentile Christians who neglected their ceremonial observances, by making and enjoining a practical canon, ordaining the Gentiles, to abstain from some things that might any ways occasion their offence. And also a critical power or power of censure against the schism or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 raised by the false Teachers, branding them with the black mark of liars, subverters of souls, and troublers of the Church: This was a degree of censure, and a virtual admonition tending to further censure: But actually to have proceeded further to Excommunication, at first was not seasonable, prudent nor needful. 4. If people and private Brethren were in that Synod (as we deny not but they might be) their interest in the determinations and consultations of the Synod was not by way of authoritative and definitive vote: But at most consultative and by way of private consent and approbation, as we cleared before against Mr. Lockier. 5. That recommendation of obedience to the acts of that Synod from the goodness and benefit thereof, expressed in the close of the Synodical letter, doth not argue their constitutions not to have been made and enjoined by an authoritative power obleiging under hazard of censure. The most authoritative acts of any juridical Court, being sent in a respective way, may be so recommended in such a way. Neither that, that in the constitutions of that Synod there is not an express and formal threatening of those that disobey with censure, doth import by any necessity of consequence, that the power they exercised was not authoritative, and such as might proceed to censure. Juridical courts do not always add to their constitutions express and formal comminations of punishment: Here especially it was not necessary, it being a clear case in itself that those Hareticks and Schismatics who could by no other means be reduced, were not to be suffered but censured and cast forth.  
section 10 Now is this, which we have been considering, the pith and strength of the grounds, whereupon these Authors have not only adventured themselves, to desert and separate from this Church: But also have darred to advise the Brethren to whom they directed their Epistle, to appear with them upon the head of the business, (that is, to put to their hands as chief actors, to throw down to the ground that beautiful order of Government in this Church, by the Officers of Jesus Christ appointed to rule his Church on earth, in congregational and Classical Presbyteries, Synods Provincial and Nationall, ordered in a sweet and excellent subordination among themselves, which was after the first Reformation, upon much deliberation for many years, settled in the Church as warranted and grounded upon the Word of God, was afterward, when opposed, born down and oppressed, sealed by many precious servants of Jesus Christ, with bitter and grievous sufferings, of Imprisonment, Banishment, and even sentences unto death (which the only hand of God restrained from being put in execution) and was again by the good hand of God upon his people in this land, after long oppression under Prelacy, raised up; has been attested by foreign Divines and Churches as the true Government of Jesus Christ in his Visible Church; has been always the hammer to break wickedness and profanity, and the hedge to keep out Errors, Heresies and Schisms; made this Church against all evil doers and enemies of truth, terrible as an Army with Banners, which at this day is the eye sore of all the Sects and Heretics of the times, & the butt of Satan's malice, to throw down and raze this to the ground (which some of the same Reverend men to whom they wrote, have through the grace of God, to their praise in all the Churches, Vindicated against all enemies thereof upon one hand and other, and stand engaged by solemn vows, and the dreadful Oath of God to maintain and defend to their lives end) to set up, I wots not what, and I think the Authors themselves wots not what) and if they do not this, to threaten them with the streaching out of GOD'S hand, and to lay upon them the horrid imputation of being snares to GOD'S people? O Lord, how terrible are thy judgements in these times as upon outward things, so upon the Spirits of men, while men are thus carried about with every wind of Doctrine! What need have these that profess the Truth▪ to take heed that they have received it in love, lest they be given up to believe lies?  
section 11 The Authors add only, That there might be somewhat said from antiquity, that the Government of the Church was partly Aristocratical, partly democratical, in much of the first three hundred years, and that the people had no small influence in matters of Discipline, but that they forbear, as desiring to lean on a surer foundation. Answ. What they have produced of this surer foundation, i. e. the Holy Scripture, to lean themselves upon in their departure from the Church of God in this land we have seen, and how little ground it affords to sustain them, we have seen too. I wish from my heart they had brought somewhat also, though it had been but a little, of that which they allege may be said from antiquity of these ages for their tenant of Church Government, For in truth we profess ourselves to be such as reverence very much, under the Holy Scriptures (which we lean to only, as the foundation of our faith in all matters of Religion) the testimony of the Orthodox Churches in these ages. Mr. Lockier, as we saw before, undertook somewhat of this before, magno hiatu, under the name of common consent, but what he produced to instruct it, may blush before all men that has any wit, and are not stark fools: And I am persuaded what these Authors would have produced, had they assayed it, should have proven as little to their purpose.  
section 12 There are two main points whereof the Independent Government consists. 1. That the power of Ecclesiastic jurisdiction is in, and formally to be exercised by the community of Professors, if not wholly and by themselves, yet jointly with the Elders and Officers, they as well as the Elders concurring authoritatively, in all acts of Government and jurisdiction. 2. That there is not any larger Judicatories or Assemblies Ecclesiastic, than of a single Congregation, whether Classical Presbytery or Synod, juridical; But that the judicatory of every single Congregation is the supreme Ecclesiastic juridical court upon earth, Independent upon and without subordination to any larger or Superior Ecclesiastic judicatory. They grant indeed some sort of Synods, but denude them of all authoritative and juridical power over particular Churches, leaving them only power of advice and counsel; or at most a dogmatic power to determine cases and questions in Religion: but without power authoritatively to enjoin their determinations upon particular Churches, so as to oblige them to be censurable in case of disobedience, or to inflict any censure at all upon offenders.  
section 13 Now 1. suppose (which yet cannot be granted) that somewhat might be brought from antiquity to show that there was in the Government of the Church than a mixture of Aristocracy and Democracie, and that the people had some influence in the exercise of Government: Yet none dare be so impudent as to allege that antiquity for the second point of Independent Government. I think these Authors, some of them at least (for others of them, though they all speak in this Epistle referring this to antiquity, yet we may acquit from all guiltiness of acquaintance with antiquity) knew this very well: And therefore they have wittily enough expressed this reference to antiquity, in that, whereas in their two former Arguments, they affirmed these two points of Independent Government distinctly, now in this reference to antiquity, they allege only generally and confusedly, that there was then a mixture of Aristocracy and Democracie, and that the people had no small influence in Discipline. There is nothing more clear and undeniable in humane History then authoritative juridical Governing Assemblies and Synods of more Churches in these ages of the Church. Ecumenical Synod, there were none (nor could be, because of the evils of these times) after the days of the Apostles until the Nicen Council, yet the thing itself was acknowledged, could the benefit thereof been had, as is evident by that of Cyprian, Lib. 1. Epist. 8. in Pamel. order. Epist. 40. Cum semel placuerit, tam nobis quam confessoribus & clericis urbicis, item Vniversis Episcopis vel in nostra Provincia, vel trans mare constitutis, ut nihil innovetur circa lapsorum causam, nisi omnes in unum convenerimus & collatis consiliis cum Disciplina pariter & misericordiae temperatam fixerimus sententiam. That Provincial Synods (i. e. of many neighbouring Churches having Colleges of Presbyters and Officers over them) were then in actual use is so clear as cannot be denied. See the Magdeburgen Cent. 2. Cap. 7. in princip. they say. Duplex atuem regiminis Ecclesiastici forma (ut hoc saeculo) seize nobis offert consideranda, quarum prior communem singularum Ecclesiarum Administrationem: Altera vero plurium aut omnium inter se consociatarum gubernationem complectitur (note here by the way, that those singulae Ecclesiae, particular Churches, to which they give privatas Synodos afterward, were not, always at least (as we shall show after this) such single Congregations as the Independents stand for, which may meet together at one time in one place, but more ample. Then afterward, p. 135. De consociatione Ecclesiar. they say, si quando Haereses oboriebantur aut aliae Quaestiones graviores; Tum conveniebant vel omnes provinciales, aut plerique Doctores: Et examinata recommuni judicio statuebant, quod vitandum aut sequendum esset, Euseb. l. 3. c. 16. Ex Appollinario dicit: etenim fideles per Asiam multis saepe numero Asiae locis ob hanc causam conveniebant, & nuper natas Doctrinas examinabant, & profanas pronunciabant, haeresi●que istam reprobantes Ecclesiâ ejiciebant & Excommunicabant. Inlike manner Cent. 3. c. 7. titul. De consociatione plurium Eccles. in unâ aliquâ Provinciâ, p. 158. Diximus superiori saeculo, Ecclesias ejusdem Provinciae solitas esse plerumque ad unam aliquam maximè insignem respicere, eamque venerari, & ab ea consilia & mutua officia petere & recte monitis obtemperare: Ea vero res ut paulatim in consuetudinem abiit, ita hoc saeculo observata est: Nam in plerisque Provinciis, caeterae Ecclesiae, eorumque Episcopi & Clerici, se ad ejusmodi alicujus urbis Episcopum, Doctrinâ, pietate & constantiâ insignem, & sacerdotum Collegium associarunt, ut eorum operâ tanquam communium inspectorum & gubernatorum uterentur. And in the same Cent. p. 163. l. 40. De consociatione Vnivers. they say. Si autem graviores Quaestiones aut controversiae incidebant, aut alia negotia quae non ad unius Provinciae Ecclesias attinebant sed ad plures, tum Ecclesia etiam in diversis Provinciis suas operas conjungebant, in petendis aut dandis consiliis, in componendis schismatibus, in refutandis erroribus, in Congregandis Synodis, in Excommunicandis Haeretecis & aliis facinorosis. See also after. pag. 166. l. 22. & seq. See also. Cent. 4. c. 7. p. 517. l. 21. & pag. 522. l. 8. But why insist we in this, instances of Synods of this kind, exercising juridical power authoritatively (I mean Ministerial authority subordinat to the Word of God) determining Questions in Religion, condemning Heresies, Excommunicating Heretics, Schismatics, and other flagitious persons, in these ages are notour to all that have read any thing of antiquity. Cyprian alone in his Epistles affordeth abundant testimony of this. And as for Classical (as we call them) Presbyteries, what else were the Bishop with his Presbyterium, or Collegium sacerdotum 
* Which the Centurists call, Synodos privatas singularum Ecclesiarum. , in these times. I shall not contend here whether in these times there were any single Congregations having a full Presbyterium within themselves, albeit I think it shall be hard for any man to give any particular instance in these ages of a Presbyterium of one particular Congregation such as our Independent Brethren speak for. But certain it is, that the Bishops (who were then but constant precedents differing from other Presbyters, ordine tantum non grad●… aut potestate) with their Presbyterium, or Collegium Clericor●… for the most part were Diaecesan, i. e. over such numerous Churc●… as could not be one single Congregation, to meet in one place at one time for divine Worship, but behoved to be made up of many such single Assemblies (which whether they were fixed or not fixed, we debate not now, nor does the one or the other make any odds in the purpose we are now upon) and so was just such a Presbytery as we call Classical: such was Cornelius in Rome with his Presbytery▪ and Cyprian with his Presbytery in Carthage, and other Bishops with their Presbyteries in other populous Cities. Certain it is that these Presbyteries were juridical Ecclesiastic Courts: And as certain it is that they were not Presbyteries of one single Congregation, such as Independents speak of.  
section 14 As for the other point of Independent Government, if we speak of the authoritative and juridical Acts of Government (such as are Ordination and potestative mission of Ministers, judicial determination of controversies in Religion, Excommunication of Heretical and scandalous persons) I dare affirm that in antiquity a man may as soon find a mixture of Aristocracy and Democracy, let be Morellian, or complete Democracy (which yet is the thing maintained by most part Independents) as in sylvis Delphinum: We shall not deny that the people than had an hand in the election of Ministers, as is evident by many passages of these times, see especially, Cyprian lib. 1. Epist. 4. in Pamel. Ord. Epist. 68 But election is no act of Ecclesiastic Authority or Government, nor doth it constitute any one a Pastor, but is only a designation of the person, to be authoritatively put in that Office by ordination, or to be applied to some particular charge, if he be one already in Office. Nor do we deny but the people might be present at the handling of matters of faith in Assemblies, be hearers and witnesses of the whole proceed thereanent, give their counsel and advice in consultation, also testify their assent and approbation to the determinations: We grant also that Excommunication and losing from Excommunication of persons was not performed without at least the tacit agreement and consent of the people. ●hey are to concur actiuè and executiuè to both; And therefore when any person was to be Excommunicate, the grounds and causes thereof were made known to the people: And when persons Excommunicate were to be received again into the Church, they were brought before the people to make their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 public confession before them, as we do in our Churches now, but none of these, nor all of them, amounts to an authoritative and juridical power of Government. But as for such acts as belong directly to authoritative and juridical Government, as Ordination of Ministers, judicial sentencing persons to be Excommunicate, or absolution from Excommunication, giving of definitive sentence in public determinations of controversies of faith, or of matters pertaining to order, and rites to be observed in the Church, let our Authors produce any testimony, or allowed practice, of the people's formal influence and concurrence in these, if they would say any thing from that antiquity for an Ecclesiastic Government properly democratical, either in whole, or in part.  
section 15 Hierome, who was near these ages, and better acquaint with their way, than these Authors, tells us in the general, in whose hands the power of Government was then, in that remarkable and famous saying of his, on the Epistle to Tit. c. 1. Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in Religione fierent & diceretur in populo, ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego vero Cephae, Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur, etc. See what learned Chamier sayeth on this of Hierome, lib. 10. de Oecumen. Pontifc. 5. §. 22. Answering to Bellarmin. his Arg. Respondeo ad primum etiamsi Aristocratia non sit totidem syllabis nominata, tamen certò significatam his verbis, Communi Presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiae gubernabantur, etc. And he adds, bonam autem fuisse id regiminis formam, inde sequitur, quod ab initio fuisse dicat (Hieronymus) come in Ecclesiâ id sit optimum quod verissimum, id autem verissimum quod primum: Dicit etiam (Hieron.) fuisse ex institutionis Dominicae veritate And mark in this same Learned Author whose words I am now citing, that the very thing he undertakes to demonstrate in that, c. 5. and some following both from Scripture and antiquity, is that the government as well of particular, as of consociat Churches was pure Aristocracy, c. 5. §. 1.  
section 16 More particularly. 1. That ordination and imposition of hands (which only is the authoritative act in the Calling of a Minister, and that which conferreth (Ministerially under Christ) a Mininisteriall power) was in these primitive times the proper and peculiar act, of the Ministers of the Church, or the Presbytery, is so evident and clear to all that has read any thing of these times, that it were waste of time and paper to produce testimonies for it. Indeed we find in antiquity, that after that once there began a constant president to be set up in the Presbytery, with the name of Bishop (which in Scripture is common to all Presbyters) appropriate to him alone, somewhat of the Act of Ordination began also to be peculiar to him, and as he advanced in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, preeminency above Presbyters, so was the power of ordination more and more deferred to him or usurped by him alone, and hence came that point of difference between a Bishop and a Presbyter, of which Jerome in his time. Quid facit exceptâ ordinatione Episcopus quod non facit Presbyter? But that ever the people had any formal concurrence in ordination of Ministers is a thing unknown to antiquity.  
section 17 2. That the power and exercise of the Keys of Discipline, of binding and losing, sentencing unto censure, and absolution from censure, also was only in the hands of the College of Presbyters in those times of the Church, is as evident to such as are any ways acquainted in them. Origen. Hom. 7. in josuam. tertio admonitum resipiscere nolentem, jubet ab Ecclesiae corpore desecari, per Ecclesiae praesides. The Centuriators, Cent. 3. c. 7. tells us that then, Jus tractandi de Excommunicandis, aut recipiendis lapsis publice penes Ecclesiae Seniores erat qui ad eam rem convenire solebant, and they cite for this, Tertullia's Apologetic. The order then observed in receiving penitents, that had offended by grievous scandalous sins, is most clear for this, they were first to compear before the Bishop and his Clergy, i. e. the Presbytery, (wherein the Bishop then differed from other Presbyters, ordine tantum non gradu) by them the penitents cause was judicially cognosced, the manner of satisfaction prescribed and enjoined to them; And having performed that, and made their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, before the people, they were actually absolved, by the imposition of the hands of the Bishop and Clergy, or the Presbytery. Cyprians Epistles are full of testimonies to this purpose. It were needless labour to insist in citation of them: Only I think it worth the pains to produce one Passage, whereby it may evidently appear that the way of absolving and receiving penitents was just as it is now in the Presbyterian Government, as to the matter and substance. It is in lib. 3. Epist. 11. in Pamel. Ord. Epist. 46. from Cornelius' Bishop of Rome to Cyprian, concerning the return of some Confessors from the Novatian schism to the unity of the Church there: Cornelius after he has related how these Confessors, had expressed their desire of reconciliation, to the Presbyters, and taken with the faults laid to their charge in a private and extrajudicial way, he proceedeth thus. Omni igitur actu ad me perlato, placuit contrahi Presbyterium. Adfuerunt etiam Episcopi quinque qui & hodie praesentes fuerunt, ut firmato consilio, quid circa personam eorum observari deberet, consensu omnium statueretur. Et ut motum omnium, & consilium singulorum dignosceres, etiam sententias nostras placuit in notitiam vestri perferri, quas & subjectas leges. His ita gestis in Presbyterium venerunt Vrbanus, etc. Et plerique fratres qui se iis adjunxerant, summis precibus desiderantes, ut ea quae ante fuerunt gesta, in oblivionem cederent, nullaque eorum mentio haberetur— quod erat consequens omnis hic actus populo erat insinuandus ut & ipsos viderent in Ecclesiâ constitutos. Having related the people's expression of their joy he sets down the confession which the penitents made. Nos errorem nostrum confitemur, etc. And then addeth, istâ eorum professione non moveremur?  quod apud potestatem seculi erant confessi, in Ecclesiâ constituti comprobarent: Quamobrem Maximum Prespyterum, jussimus locum suum agnoscere, caeteros cum ingenti populi suffragio recepimus. I need not comment upon the place, it speaks plain enough of itself what we are pleading for.  
section 18 3. That the giving of definitive sentence in questions of faith, or making Ecclesiastic constitutions and canons concerning order to be observed in the Church, in these ages did ordinarily pertain only to Ministers of the Church, Bishops and Elders, & that though others private Christians might be present, hear and consult, that yet these only did sit and vote as ordinary Judges, is undenyablie clear by the History of all Counsels that were then held in the Church: I say ordinary. For I deny not but that sometimes such as were not in any such Ministerial office, did also sit and concur in giving definitive sentence: But these were not any whatsoever private Christians promiscuously: But eminent learned and pious men, and having authority and calling thereunto, either by antecedent agreement of the Churches that were to meet in the Assembly, or by a subsequent assuming and calling of them by the Assembly itself. Which was an especial vocation unto the Ministerial office, ad tempus and in relation to these particular acts which were to be done in the Synod, and in so far did exempt them è sort, out of the state of mere private Christians: But that such as were mere private Christians, i. e. were neither ordinary Ministers, nor had a special calling extra ordinem, concurred to give definitive sentence in Assemblies, was a thing unknown. See what Junius, a man well versed in antiquity, sayeth to Bellarm. Cont. 3. lib. 2. c. 25. n. 2. speaking in relation to ancient Counsels. Eorum qui Conciliis intersunt, varia esse genera; Esse audientes qui in Doctrina & ordine ex auditione informantur: Esse doctos, qui ad consultationem adhibentur: Esse denique Episcopos & Presbyteros, qui decidunt res ferendis sententiis: And again, Cont. 4. lib. 1. c. 15. n. 15. qui sine authoritate Ecclesiae adjunt, eorum alii etiam consultationibus adhiberi possunt, ut docti, praetertim Ecclesiastici, sed dicere sententiam definitivam non possunt.  
section 19 I hear of two main Objections which use to be be made against what I have been pleading for, and for the concurrence of the people in the exercise of the Government of the Church. 1. That is alleged of the Magdeburg. Cent. 2. c. 7. p. 134. coeterum si quis probatos autores hujus saeculi. perspiciat, videbit formam gubernationis propemodum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 similem fuisse. To which may be added that of learned Whitak. Cont. 4. q. 1. c. 1. sic partim Aristocraticum, partim Democraticum, partim etiam Monarchicum (n. si velimus Christum ipsum respicere, as he sayeth a little before) est, semperque fuit Ecclesiae Regimen. Answ. That these Authors called the Government of the Church, either much like unto a democratical, or in part democratical, their meaning and intention was not, that the whole body of private Professors did formally concur in the exercise of such acts, as are formally authoritative and judicial acts of Government, (which were requisite to make the Government formally and properly democratical, either in whole or in part) But only because of such things competent to them, as we have mentioned, §. 14. which are no authoritative or judicial acts of Government. And first for the Magdeburg. see how they explicate that which they say in the next following words. Singulae enim Ecclesiae parem habebant potestatem verbum Dei pure docendi, Sacramenta Administrandi, absolvendi & excommunicandi Haereticos & sceleratos, & ceremonias ab Apostolis acceptas exercendi, aut etiam pro ratione aedificationis novas condendi, Ministros eligendi, vocandi, ordinandi, & justissimas ob causas iterum deponendi— In these words there are two things expressly observable to our purpose. 1. That they in explicating the Democracy they speak of, speak not of the power of single persons as to matters of Government, but of single or particular Churches. Singulae enim Ecclesiae (say they) parem habebant potestatem, etc. whereby it may easily and evidently appear, that while they say that the Government of the Church was much like a Democracy, they mean this, not to take away the Government out of the hands of Christ's Officers of the Church, to put it in the hands of the whole people, at least to join these with them in the formal and proper actings of it; But in opposition to that authoritative and juridical superiority of any one particular Chutch over other particular Churches, as the Prelatical men pleaded for authoritative superiority in their cathedral Churches, over all particular Churches in the Diaecese, and the Papalins for an universal superiority and supremacy in the Church of Rome over all other Churches in the world. 2. It is to be observed that among other things which they reckon up as parts of the Church Government which they say was much like Democracie, they put in, the Preaching of the Word, and Admistration of Sacraments, which themselves before say (and no man of sound judgement will deny) are acts proper to the called Ministers of Christ: Whence also, it is manifest that they mean not a Democracie properly so called, which putteth the formal power and exercise of Government in the hands of all and every one of the multitude, which the Independent Brethren plead for. And indeed will any man consider, what the particular Churches were, to which these Centuriators attribute private Synods (Cent. 2. c. 7. pag. 130.) wherein it may possibly be conceived, that Democracie could have place especially, and it may easily be perceived that they were such, as the whole body of the people (for whose right to concur in juridical acts, the Independent Brethren pleads) could not possibly meet together in one, or be present at once, in their Synods when assembled for exercise of jurisdiction. For most part, at least of them which they call particular Churches, were of such amplitude, and so numerous, that such an assembling of their whole body was not possible, and in truth they were Diaecesan or Presbyterial Churches, and not such single Congregations, as the Question between us and the Independent Brethren concerneth. For mark it, in that very place last cited, speaking of these particular Churches and their private Synods, they bring in the Roman Church for an instance: And who knows not how numerous the Christians in Rome were become ere that time. Add to these things that these same Authors, Cent. 3. c. 7. p. 151. say expressly that jus tractandi de excommunicandis aut recipiendis publice lapsis, penes Seniores Ecclesiae erat, and cite Tertul. Apolog. for it, read also c. 6. ejusdem Cent. pag. 129, l. 30. de ritibus circa claves, and you will find that the judicial power of Discipline was not common to the people but proper to the Ministers, only some interest therein was for honour's sake, given to Martyrs. 2, As to that cited from Whittaker, that learned Theologue himself in the words immediately going before these cited, clears in what respect it is that he says the Government of the Church was always in part democratical, when he saith. Si totum corpus Ecclesiae (n. volumus respicere) quatenus in electione Episcoporum & Presbyterorum suffragia serebat, ita tamen ●t 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 semper à Presbyteris servaretur, Democraticum. So then he calls it partly democratical, in this respect that the people had vote in the election of their Ministers, which we grant the people ought to have, and if any will in this respect call the Government of the Church in part democratical, we shall not contend about the name, only we will say that the election of Ministers, being no more but the nomination or designation of a person to the Ministry, is no proper or formal act of authoritative power.  
The other Objection made use of is from Cyprian. Lib. 1. Epist. 1●. in Pamel. Ord. Epist. 6. Ad id verò quod scripserunt mihi, Donatus & Fortunatus, Novatus & Curdius solus rescribere nihil potui●; quando à primordio Episcopatus mei statuerim, nihil sine Consilio vestro, & sine consensu plebis, 
* Pam●meae, privatâ sententiâ.  meâ privatim sententiâ gerere. Answ. How far that grave, pious and zealous ancient was from the Independent way of Church Government, amongst many places in his Writings, that one famous Passage in Lib. 1. de Vnitate Ecclesiae, doth abundantly demonstrate, and cleareth as with Sunshine. Loquitur Dominus ad Petrum: Ego dico tibi, etc. to these words. Hanc Ecclesiae unitatem. And again a little after from these words, quam unitatem firmiter tenere, etc. to these, quomodo Solis multi radii. This place as it hews down the Antichristian Papal Monarchy, so it is a clear testimony against popular and supreme Independent Government in a single Congregation; while as therein the Author so clearly asserteth the power of the Keys to have been given by Christ and put in the hands of the Apostles, in an equal society of honour and power. 2. That there is one Catholic Visible Church, and that this Catholic Church, is but one charge. Vnus Episcopatus cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. And that, unitatem hanc firmiter tenere & vindicare debent Episcopi qui in Ecclesiâ president, ut Episcopatum quoque ipsum, unum etque indivisum probent. Then which nothing could be said more forcibly, against that crumbling of the Church into so many single Congregations, Independent in themselves and without all union and conjunction in point of Government. But to the place in hand, cited from Epist. 10. lib. 3. Gulartius and Junius Notes on the place, clear the matter well for us. Nempe agebatur de aliqua electione, quam Cypriano quidam è Presbyterio suggessera●, eo quod Ecclesia ex persecutionibus, parte sui Presbyterii destituta esset. Respondet nihil se in hac causa unquam facere voluisse, quin & Presbyterii Consilium & plebis consensum adhiberet. But what is the place and part of the people in election, we controvert not. Nay, we say with the same Ancient, Lib. 1. Epist. 4. Quando ipsa plebs maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos sacerdotes, vel indignos recusandi. And as he says afterward; Eligendus Episcopus immaculatus & integer praesente plebe, etc. But show me a place in that Writer ascribing to the people formal concurrence with the Officers of the Church in any juridical, authoritative Acts of Government, as, in Ordination of Ministers, sentencing persons to censure, to Excommunication, and absolving from Excommunication, judicial and definitive determination of controversies in Religion. But now this Book having grown to bigness beyond my intention at first, I will insist no further, but leave these Brethren I have been last speaking with my hearty desire to God on their behalf, that he would show them mercy to remember from whence they have fallen, repent and do their first works.    
FINIS.