Postscript: In Answer to a Treatise Lately Published, Entitled 'The Presbyterian Government Examined'

When the Printer had done all except two sheets of my former Treatise, there came to my hands a piece against Presbyterial Government, which promises much, but performs little. Though my time be very short, yet I trust to make an answer to it, as full as it deserves.

It has a magisterial and high sounding title, undertaking the examination of Presbyterial Government. But Presbyterial Government secretly smiles, because while she was ready to say much more for herself, he did not put her to it, lest himself should have been put ad metam non probandi. But he particularizes himself, and tells us he has unfolded the weakness of our grounds, and disproved our pretended proofs. The truth is, that the best of them and the most of them he has not touched. He adds that he has proved out of the Word of God the liberty of the people in choosing their own officers. This may be added aute, but caste, I am sure it is not. He would make the world believe that Presbyterians are against the people's election of their officers, which is a calumny. He says, he has annexed certain arguments, proving Presbyterial Government to be contrary to the pattern which Christ has left in the New Testament. These arguments shall be answered with no great difficulty. In this place I shall only say a word of them in general. The man has a notable faculty of proving that wherein the Presbyterians do agree with him, and passing that wherein they disagree from him. Many human testimonies and citations of writers he musters together, to make a simple reader believe that many are of his judgment. But I find none of them all except two or three to affirm any thing which we deny. But why has he taken all this pains? He will present it (forsooth) to the King's most excellent Majesty, and to the right honorable Lords, and the honorable house of Commons now assembled in Parliament. As if it were to be expected that a popular and independent form of Church government in every Congregation, which should most certainly open a door to a thousand remediless confusions, may obtain his Majesty's royal assent, or the acceptation of the High Court of Parliament. No, brother, seek some other friends to your cause, for, if wise men be not too much deceived, the King and the Parliament in their great wisdom do foresee, that whenever Episcopal government shall be removed, another form of Provincial and national Church government must needs succeed to it.

Now to come to the substance of his discourse; first he makes a quarrel against the Presbyteries of particular Churches (which are in Scotland called Sessions), then against all higher Consistories in the Church. As for the Presbyteries of particular Churches, he judges them three ways defective. First he requires that all who are admitted into the company of Elders, even the governing or ruling Elders should be apt to teach and able to exhort with sound doctrine and convince gainsayers, and that not only privately, or in the Consistory, but in the public assembly also, if not exactly, yet competently.

Answ. 1. Though ruling Elders ought to teach, exhort, rebuke, &c. both in the Consistory, and privately from house to house, as the case of every family and person does require (which is all that can be drawn from those alleged places to Timothy and Titus, if so be they ought at all to be extended to ruling Elders) yet there is no place of Scripture to prove that they ought to teach publicly in the Congregation. 2. That expression if not exactly, yet competently is somewhat mysterious. 3. Ruling Elders are expressly distinguished from those that labor in the word and doctrine (1 Timothy 5:17), and from these that teach or exhort (Romans 12:7, 8). 4. If ruling Elders shall teach publicly in the congregation ex officio, and with cure of souls (as they speak) why shall they not also minister the Sacraments, which are appendages and seals of the word, and therefore committed to those, who are sent to the public preaching of the Gospel (Matthew 28:19)? 5. Though he speak here only of ruling Elders, yet I doubt he requires of, at least will permit to all men that are members of the Church the same public teaching and prophesying in the Congregation.

The second defect which he wishes supplied, is, that the temporary ruling Elders may be made perpetual and for life, which he enforces by four reasons. This I assent to providing he admit a distinction between the office itself, and the exercise of the same. The office of a ruling Elder ought to be for his life no less than the Pastor's; yet must we not condemn those Churches which dispense with the intermission of their actual attendance for a certain space, and permit them to exercise their office by course, as the Levites did of old, whose example himself here takes for a pattern.

The third thing he says is of most moment. He does complaine that the Elders do not administer their publik office publikly as they should, but only in their private Consistory. He does permit them indeed to meet apart for deliberation (whereof we shall here afterward) but he will have their Church-office which in the Lord they have received, to be executed publickly in the face of the Congregation. 1. Because an office public in the nature, ought also to be public in the administration. 2. Because the reformed Churches cannot know their Elders whether they be good or bad, except by heare-say. 3. Because otherwise the Elders can not ministerially take heed to the whole flock as they are warned to do (Acts 20:28). Ans. 1. Ruling Elders do execute their office not only in the Consistory, but from house to house throughout al the bounds of the Congregation; wch may easily make them known to that Church where they serve, whether they be good or bad. 2. Their Consistoriall sentences in all matters of importance, such as ordination, Church censures, excommunication, &c. are made knowne to the whole Church. 3. He passeth a short censure upon the reformed Churches. The reformed Churches is a great word, but this man maketh a moat of it. 4. The place (Acts 20:28) cannot helpe him, for ruling Elders do feed and oversee the whole flock, both by discipline in the Consistory, and by taking heed to all the sheepe severally, as every one has need, and in that respect may be called both Pastors and Bishops. Beside I doubt he can prove that place to be meant of ruling Elders. He goeth on to make plaine what hee has said, by descending to some particulars in which the Elders office seemeth especially to consist, and these are says hee, The admitting of members into the Church, upon profession of faith made, and the reproving and censuring of obstinate offenders. These are the most frequent publike administrations of the office of Ruling Elders. And what of them? Hee says, as they leave the execution of these things, to the Elders alone in the setled and well ordered state of the Church, so doe they deny, that they can be rightly and orderly done, but with the peoples privity and consent. His restriction to the setled and well ordered estate of the Church, I cannot understand. Hee had done well to have explained what hee meaneth by that not setled, nor well ordered state of the Church, in which he thinks it belongeth not to the Elders alone, to admit or cut off members. His other ambiguous expression I understand better, for by the peoples privity hee meaneth, that the people should heare the voyces and suffrages of the Elders, and by the peoples consent, hee meaneth the peoples voting with the Elders, as wee shall heare afterward. That the admission of members, ought to bee with the peoples privity and consent, hee will prove by two reasons. 1. Because wee finde in the acts of the Apostles, that men were received into the fellowship of the Church, and baptized publikely, and in the face of the congregation. 2. Because the whole communalty, being neerely to joyne with these that are admitted, ought to take knowledge of the profession of their faith. These reasons can neither conclude the peoples right of suffrage in this matter, nor so much are the peoples hearing of the suffrages of the Elders: But only that the matter might not bee ended without the peoples knowledge and tacite consent. Beside there is no small difference to bee put between the admission of Jewes, Infidells, and Hereticks, upon their profession of the true Christian faith, and the admission of such as have transported themselves from another Christian congregation, bringing with them a sufficient testimonie of their holy profession of faith, and good conversation. In the meane while, Let the Reader note, that this disputer has here in a parenthesis interlaced grosse anabaptistry, holding it a kinde of unorderly anticipation to baptise infants, who cannot give a confession of their faith. And within a few lines, he lets another thing fall from his pen, which smelleth strongly of the Anabaptisticall tenent, concerning having all things common, even bodily goods.

But I proceed with him to the second head, concerning excommunication, and Church censures by the Elders, with the peoples privity and consent. This he proveth by three arguments. 1. Because Paul says, These who sin, rebuke publikely, that others also may feare a brave argument indeed. This charge is not given to ruling Elders; and if it had, it can neither prove the suffrage of the people, nor their hearing of the suffrage of the Elders, but onely the execution of the sentence of the Elders, in the presence and audience of the congregation. 2. Hee argueth from these words, Tell the Church, where hee would make it appeare, that by the Church is not meant the Senate of Elders excluding the people; yes hee says, that in this circumstance now in consideration, it comes neerer the truth to expound the Church to be the Bishop, since neither Bishops nor their Court-keepers, doe exclude the people from their consistories. Sure I am, in Scotland, (let others speake for themselves) The Bishops in their visitations, high Commissions, Privie-conferences at Synods (in which they passed their decrees) did exclude both the people, and the most part of the ministers. He thinkes it a course unheard of either among Jewes, Gentiles, or Christians, before this last age, that publike judgements should be privatly exercised, and without the peoples privity. This (if at all to the point) must be understood, not of the finall execution, but of the judiciall sentence or decree. What then shall wee thinke that the Senators at Rome or the Areopagites at Athens, did never conclude or degree any thing, concerning a publike judgement, except in the audience and presence of the people. The Judges in Israel did sit in the gates of the City, that all persons both poore and rich, great and small might have accesse to them with their complaints, and that the sentence of judgement, might bee the more notorious & exemplary being given forth and promulgat in the gates: This proveth not that the Judges did debate, voyce, and conclude all matters in the publike audience of the people. It appeareth rather that they were so accomodate, that they might doe these things apart from the multitude. It is too much for him, to affirme either that the Synagogues were places of civill conventions and judgements, or that nothing was in the Synagogues decreed without the peoples privity, while as hee has given no proofe nor evidence at all for it.

You need not, my Masters be so curious in the notation of the name [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], which every smatterer in Divinity knoweth. But what of it? You say, the Elders (as such) are called, to wit, to their office of Eldership, but called out they are not, being themselves to call out the Church. It is true that the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] noteth not only a calling, or a gathering together, by vertue of verb [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], but also a separation by vertue of the particle [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. But I hope it is no paradox to say, that the Elders are both called or gathered together to the Eldership, and called out or separate from the rest of the Church to that office. And it is as far from a Paradox to say that they who are called out cannot call out others, especially the one calling out being to an office, and the other calling out being from nature to grace.

He cannot think that the name, Ecclesia, Church, has been used by any Greek Author before the Apostles times, or in their days, or in the age after them, for the assembly of sole Governours in the act of their government. I shall first give instances against him in the verb, because he said, the Elders (as such) cannot be said to be called out. The Septuagint read, (Deuteronomy 31:28) [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], Gather to me all the Elders. The like you may find, (1 Kings 8:1; 1 Chronicles 28:1). I shall next put him in mind that the Septuagint sometime turn Kahal by [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], as (Proverbs 26:26), His wickedness shall be shewed before the whole Congregation, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩]. And it is plain that the name of the Congregation, or Church, is given to the Elders, for that which is said of the Elders, (Deuteronomy 19:12; Joshua 20:4) is said of the Congregation, (Numbers 35:24; Joshua 20:6). So (Exodus 12:3) compared with verse 21. This if he will not take well from us, let him take it from an Anti-presbyterian, who observeth from (1 Chronicles 13:1, 2, 4) and (2 Chronicles 1:3) that both Kahal and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] are used for the Elders and Governours. Guide to Sion, pag. 5. The place (Deuteronomy 23:1, 2, 3) is well worthy of observation. It is ordained that he who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, or is a Bastard, or an Ammonite, or a Moabite, shall not enter into the Congregation of the Lord to the tenth generation. The word is Kahal in the Hebrew, and [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] in the version of the 70, yet Iunius, Piscator, and Pelicanus on that place, and Martyr on Iud. 11:1, hold that by the Church or Congregation in that place is meant Consessus Iudicum, the Court of Judges and Rulers, which is called The Congregation of the mighty, (Psalm 80:2). So that the true sense of the place, is the secluding of those persons from bearing any office or rule in the Common-wealth of Israel, whereby they might be members of those Courts which did represent Israel. The same sense is given by Lyranus, Cajetan, Oleaster, Tostatus, and Lorinus. And which is more to be thought of, Ainsworth himself expoundeth it so, and further sheweth that it cannot be meant of joyning to the faith and religion of Israel, or entering into the Church in that respect, because (Exodus 12:48, 49; Numbers 15:14, 15) all strangers were upon their circumcision admitted into the Congregation of Israel, to offer sacrifices, and by consequence to enter into the court of the Tabernacle, which also appeareth from (Leviticus 22:18; Numbers 9:14). The point being now cleared from the holy Scriptures, we shall the less need to trouble ourselves in the search of profane Authors; yet Pasor findeth Demosthenes using the word [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] pro concione magnatum.

As for that common expression of divines, that the Elders are the Church representative, we desire not to wrangle about names, so that the thing itself (which is the power and authority of the officers sitting and judging apart from the people) be condescended upon. Yet let us see upon what grounds the name of a representative Church is by this man so superciliously rejected. First, he says that no godly, no nor reasonable man will affirm, that this representation is to be extended to any other acts of religion, than these which are exercised in the governing of the Church. But quo warranto? shall a man be both ungodly and unreasonable, for affirming that the Elders may and ought to represent the Church where they serve, in preferring a petition to the King and the Parliament, for a Reformation, or in bearing witness of the desolate condition of the Parish through the want of a ministry, or in giving counsel to a Sister Church, though these be not acts of governing the Church. Well: be it, as he says, what great absurdity shall follow? Then (forsooth) it appertains to the people primarily and originally (under Christ) to rule and govern the Church, that is, themselves. But who says he will so say of a government not personal, but public, and instituted as the Church's is. Surely, they who think the power to be originally in the people, might here easily reply that this is no more strange than to say, that the power which is primarily and originally in the body of a Kingdom, is exercised by the Parliament, which is the representative thereof. But because many learned men deny the power of Church government to be originally in the people, though others, (and those very learned too) do affirm it: therefore to pass that, I shall serve him with another answer. For as we can defend the authority of Presbyteries and Synods without wrangling about the name of a representative Church, so can we defend the name of a representative Church, without debating the question, whether the people have the power originally or not. May he therefore be pleased to take notice of other grounds and reasons for the name of a representative Church, as namely, First, what the Elders, with the knowledge and tacit consent of the Church, do approve or dislike, that is supposed to be approved or disliked by the whole Church, which imports, that the Church is in some sort represented by the Senate of Elders. Secondly, as we say we have seen a man, when haply we have seen nothing but his head, or his face which makes him known to us, (from where it is that Painters represent men to us oft-times only from their shoulders upward) so do we discern & know a visible political Church, when we see in the Senate, as it were, the head and face thereof, the officers being as eyes, ears, nose, mouth, &c. to the Church, that is, being the most noble and chief members whereby the body is governed. Thirdly, the Senate of Elders is said to represent the Church, because of the affinity and likeness between it and the Senate, which represents a City, or some inferior civil Corporation, affinity, I mean, not every way, but in this, that the government is not in the hands of all, but a few, and that those few were chosen with the consent of the whole Corporation. Fourthly, and if for these reasons the Eldership of a particular Church may be called a representative Church, there is much more reason for giving this name to a classical Presbytery, or to a Synod provincial, or national, for these do result out of many particular Churches being made up of their Commissioners.

His second reason he takes from the nature of representations, alleging that if the Elders in their Consistory represent the Church, then whatever they either decree or do agreeing to the Word of God, that also the Church decrees and does, though absent, though ignorant, both what the thing is, and upon what grounds it is done by the Elders: and this how consonant it is to Papists implicit faith, he leaves it to wise men to consider. This argument is as much against the representations of Kings and States by their Ambassadors and Commissioners, it is against the representation of Churches by the Consistory of Elders, and so all the wisdom of Princes and States in their Embassies shall turn to implicit faith, because according to this ground, what the representing does within the bounds of his Commission, that the represented does implicitly. And now I shall leave to be considered by wise men these vast differences between the Papists implicit faith, and the case of our Churches governed by Elderships. 1. The Church assents not to that which the Consistory of Elders decrees or does, except it be agreeing to the Word of God, as the Reasoner himself says: but there is no such limitation in the Papists implicit faith. 2. The Consistory of Elders does not press any thing upon the Church, imperiously, or by naked will and authority without any reason, as the Church of Rome does with those from whom she requires implicit faith. 3. The Papists know not what those things be which they believe by implicit faith: so that such a faith is rightly called mera articulorum fidei ignorantia, a mere ignorance of the articles of faith: but the decrees of our Elderships whereunto our Churches do consent, are made known to them. 4. Our Churches are by the judgment of Christian discretion to examine all things propounded to them, even the decrees of the Elders, whereas Papists may not examine what the Church propounds or commands. 5. Papists by their implicit faith believe whatever the Church believes, because they think the Church cannot err, but our Churches conceive not only their particular Elderships, but ecumenical councils to be subject to error.

Come we now to his third general reason: whereby he labors to prove that the consistorian course is contrary to the practice of the Apostolic Churches, because the Apostle, (1 Corinthians 5) writes to the whole Church of Corinth to excommunicate the incestuous man. And that by these words (when you are come together) the whole Church is to be understood, he proves by three reasons: the strength of them all, we shall take together in one argument thus. They among whom the fornicator was, who were puffed up when they should have sorrowed, and out of the midst of whom he was to be put, who had done that thing, to whom it appertained to purge out the old leaven, and to whom the Apostle wrote not to be commingled with fornicators or covetous persons, they were to be gathered together into one, and to judge and excommunicate that incestuous person.

But they among whom the fornicator was, &c. were not the Elders alone, but the whole Church, Ergo, &c.

And now what shall this disputer say, if I cleave this his strong argument with a wedge of his own timber, thus, &c.

If they among whom the fornicator was, who were puffed up, when they should have sorrowed, and out of the midst of whom, &c. were to judge and excommunicate that incestuous person, then women were to judge and excommunicate him, and not men only. But the latter is absurd, therefore so is the former. My proposition he must either grant, or else say that the incestuous man was not to be put out of the midst of women, and that the Apostle did not forbid women to be commingled with fornicators. My assumption is his own, Pag. 24. where he tells us from (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35; 1 Timothy 2:12) that women are debarred from liberty or right of voting in public ecclesiastical matters. Then let him see to the conclusion. Another proof of the same point he adds from 2 Corinthians 2. where he writes to these same Corinthians to receive pardon, and comfort the penitent: which I might repel in the same manner. But there is a word in that same chapter which may clear the thing, verse 6: Sufficient to such a man is this punishment (or censure) which was inflicted of many. Which many, if (as he says in the next page) the Apostle had opposed to himself alone, and not to all, then he said but the half of that which he meant to say. He would have the Corinthians to think it enough that the man had been publicly censured by so many as were in their Presbytery. Now if he had been censured by the whole Church, it had been more fit and emphatical to have said censured by all. But there is another sense which well fits the place. Heinsius observes that [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] is one thing, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] another thing: the former noting those that exceed in number: the latter those that are chief in dignity, and that therefore the Apostle when he says [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], means the rulers and Elders of that Church, so that the reading shall be this, Sufficient to such a man, is this censure inflicted of the chief. In the same sense Piscator takes the words: which also he does illustrate from (Matthew 12:41, 42) [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩] a greater than Jonah, [⟨in non-Latin alphabet⟩], a greater than Solomon.

To conclude this case, the Apostle as in other Epistles, so in this, does sometime point at common duties belonging to the whole Church, sometime at the duties of officers. That the whole Church of Corinth should have sorrowed for the incestuous man, and that it was a common duty to them, not to be commingled with fornicators, and to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather to reprove them: in like manner it concerned them all to comfort him being penitent. But as for the judging, and excommunicating of him, that did belong only to the Presbytery of Corinth, and so Calvin, Piscator, Paraeus, and many others expound the Apostle's words.

His digression to prove that the Apostle alone did not give forth sentence judiciary upon the offender, is not against us, but against the prelatical party, therefore I pass it.

What he alleges from Acts 1. & 6. & 14. for the churches' right of suffrage in the election of officers, we do most heartily assent to it, with this distinction, that when the case is such, as it was in the examples alleged, that is, when visible political churches are to be erected, not having been before, then the right of suffrage in elections does indeed belong to the whole body. And though this way of election were ordinary, it cannot prove that the people have the power of that authority in them, to which they elect the officers: no more than the Electors of the Emperor have in them power of the imperial dignity, says Baynes. But now it is not ordinary, for when there is already a settled ecclesiastical republic, or a Church with officers, the officers for the time being ought by their suffrages to elect the officers that are wanting, with the knowledge and consent of the Church.

Somewhat he demurs upon Acts 15. for the vindication of which place, I refer my reader to the second part of the former Treatise, chapters 1 & 8. Neither shall I stay to examine, by what method either this discourse or the other about elections, falls into the proof of his proposition, concerning that part of the Elders' office, which stands in the censuring of offenders.

He falls at last into his own channel, concluding it to be a thing most equal, that the whole Church should clearly and undoubtedly take knowledge of the contumacy of the person that is to be excommunicated, and of the crime for which, and this we also say with him.

One word I desire to have cleared before we proceed. One of his grounds in his discourse about elections, is that the Church officers, as they are the servants of Christ Jesus, so also her servants for Jesus' sake (2 Corinthians 4:5). The professors of Leyden say well, that they are not properly the servants of the Church, but of God, and of Christ: they are not lords of the Church neither, but rulers, guides, bishops, and pastors of the Church: yet not servants of the Church except objective, that is, the servants of God in the Church, or for the Church's good. If this be his meaning, it is well. But I doubt he has another meaning, and that is, that the Church does give the power (which is hers) to her officers, as her servants to exercise it in her name. If this be the matter, then let us mark with Baynes, that the Church does not virtually and out of power make an officer, but she does it in steward-like manner, ministering to the sole Lord and master of the house, so that he who is taken in does not his office in her name, but in his master's name: as a butler taken in by the steward of the house, does not execute his office in the steward's name, but in his master's, who only out of power did confer it on him.

But now lest any should conceive of him and those of his side, that they either exercise among themselves, or would thrust upon others any popular or democratical Church government: therefore he desires the reader to make estimate, both of their judgment and practice in this point, according to these three declarations.

First he says they believe, that the external Church government under Christ, is plainly aristocratical and to be administered by some choice men, although the state be after a sort popular and democratical. In respect of the latter, he says it appertains to the people freely, to vote in elections and judgements of the Church; in respect of the former, that the Elders ought to govern the people, even in their voting in just liberty, by propounding and ordering all things, and (after the voting of the Church) solemnly executing, either ordination or excommunication. Behold how he runs upon the rock of popular government, even while he pretends to have his course another way: God send us better pilots. I remember I have read in sundry places of Bodin de repub. that the state is oft times different from the government. But sure I am, this anti-consistorian makes not only the state, but the government of the Church to be democratical, and that in the superlative degree, for the government is democratical, at least composed of a mixture of aristocracy, and democracy (which is the most that he dare say of the Church government) where the people have the liberty of electing their own officers and rulers, and where the Senate so far observes the people, that they may not pass the final act, in any matter of importance, without the knowledge and tacit consent of the people, though the people do not vote in the Senate, no though the Senate do not vote in the hearing of the people. Now this seems not enough to those with whom we have now to do. They will have the people freely to vote in all judgements of the Church. And what is that, but the very exercise of jurisdiction by the people, which is the democracy of Movel[illegible]s condemned by Parker himself, who makes the exercise of ecclesiastical power proper to the Rulers of the Church, though he places the power itself originally in the whole Church. Let it further be observed, what difference these men make between the Elders and the people in the government of the Church: that which they make proper to the Elders is only the propounding and ordering of matters, and the executing of some solemn act in name of the Church. This is no more than belongs to the moderator or Praeses in any consistory, but they will have the matter to be determined according to the most voices of the people. And so the new form of Church government which is here laid before us, is a mere democracy with many moderators, which is the most monstrous government that ever was heard of.

His second declaration is, that the Elders may and ought at times to meet apart from the body of the Church, for deliberation. This if he mean only of that which he specifies, the preparing of things so as publicly, and before the people, they may be prosecuted with most conveniency, it is no more than what many require in moderators of Synods, to whom they think fit, that some Assessors, or Coadjutors be adjoined for deliberating in private, upon the most orderly and convenient prosecuting of purposes in public: which as it hinders not the government of Synods to be aristocratical; so neither does the deliberation of the Elders in private, hinder the government now in question to be democratical. But if he mean generally, that the Elders may deliberate apart upon everything whatever, which is to be voiced by the people, then I ask by what reason does he seclude from the deliberations those who are to voice? For to give being and force to an ecclesiastical decree by voicing, is more than to deliberate upon it, from where it is that Papists give to Presbyters a deliberative voice in Councils, but not a decisive voice, and we also permit any understanding godly man to propound a matter to a Synod, or to reason upon it, though none have power of suffrage but the Commissioners of Churches; so that he had greater reason to seclude the people from the voices, than from the deliberations.

His third declaration comes last, and that is that by the people whose right in voting they thus stand for, they understand not women and children, but only men, and them grown, and of discretion. Before he did object to us that neither in Scripture nor in Greek Authors, the name Church is used for the assembly of sole Governors: and to this I suppose I did give a satisfactory answer. But good Sir be pleased mutually to resolve us where you have read in Scripture, or in Greek Authors the name Church (setting aside all representatives of Churches and Assemblies of sole Governors) used for men alone, and them grown and of discretion, secluding women and children: for now I see your reserved gloss upon those words Tell the Church: Tell all the men in the Parish that are grown and of discretion, you must not take so much upon you, as to expound that text by a Synecdoche, which none that ever wrote upon it before yourselves did imagine, and yet challenge us for expounding it by another Synecdoche, following Chrysostome, Euthymius, Faber Stapulensis, and many late Interpreters, who understand by Church in that place, the Rulers of the Church, which are the noblest part of the Church. I shall shut up this point with the words of Hyperius, who says that we must not understand by the Church the whole multitude, Sed potius delectos &c. But rather certain choice Elders, noted for their learning and godliness, in whose power the Church will have to be the judgement in such like causes, which is proved from that, that (Matthew 18) after it was said, Tell the Church, it is added; where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. And (2 Corinthians 2) he says, Sufficient is this censure inflicted by many.

We have now done with the Elderships of particular Churches, but there is another blow which I perceive is intended against classicall Presbyteries and Synods provincial and national, for the due power by which my opposite would have the Church to be governed, hee layeth before us in this Assertion, that every particular visible Church has from Christ absolute and intire power to exercise in and of her selfe, every ordinance of God, and so is an independent body, not standing under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of it selfe. And this he will prove by ten Arguments: but I shall not need to multiply answers, as hee does arguments, because many of them are coincident. The first, third, fourth, and sixth, doe all hit upon the same string. The first is thus: If those Churches, planted by the Apostolique institution, had power fully in themselves immediatly from Christ to practise all his ordinances: Then have all Churches the like power now. But the first is true. Ergo. The third thus; Whatever was commanded by the seven Churches to be practised by each of them, apart, in and for themselves, that no Church of God must now omit. But Ecclesiasticall government was commanded to the seven Churches to bee practised by each of them, &c. The fourth thus; If the Church of Corinth had power and authority within her selfe to exercise Ecclesiasticall Government; then ought not particular Congregations now to stand under any other Ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. But the first is true, Ergo. The sixth thus. If the Apostle gave commandement to the Eldership of Ephesus for the whole administration of all ordinances in that Church: then may the Eldership of every particular congregation, administer among themselves all Gods ordinances. But the first is true, Ergo.

Now for answer to these: First, I simply deny the connexion of the proposition of the fourth argument, because it argueth à genere ad speciem affirmative, from the exercising of ecclesiastical Government, to the exercising of it independently. Neither has hee said any thing for proofe hereof. Next, the Reader will easily perceive, that both in the first and sixth Argument his citations in proofe both of the propositions and assumptions, have not so much as the least color of pertinency, and farre lesse of proofe. In both these arguments, when he would prove the proposition, he speaketh to the assumption, & contrariwise. But these things I delight not to insist upon: only I shall give two Distinctions, any one of which, much more both of them shall make these arguments wholly improfitable to him. First, I distinguish his propositions. That power & authority which the Church of Corinth, the seven Churches of Asia, and other Apostolicall Churches had to exercise Ecclesiastical government in and for themselves, the like have all Churches now which are of the like frame and condition: but the most part of particular Churches now are of a different frame and condition from the Apostolique Churches, and so have not such fulnesse of power as they had. Put the case that the Apostolick Churches were no greater then might and did ordinarily assemble together into one place for the worship of God, yet since by reason of the troubles of those times (which suffered not the Christians to spread themselves abroad all the countrey over, but confined them within Cities and safe places) those Churches were not planted so thick and neare together, as that they might have the conveniency of Synodical consociation: hence it appeareth that they might do many things in and by themselves, which particular Congregations now having the conveniency of consociation with neighbor Churches, ought not to do in and by themselves. But this I have said gratis, having in my former Treatise at length declared that the Apostolick Churches (at least the most and principall of them) were greater then could assemble ordinarily in one place of worship, and that they were served with sundry both Pastors and Elders, & that therefore our Parochiall Churches ought not to be (in respect of the points in question) compared with their Churches, nor our Parochiall Presbyteries with their Presbyteries.

The second distinction which I have to propound is concerning the assumptions of the arguments now in hand. The Apostolick Churches did indeed ordinarily exercise Ecclesiasticall government and all the ordinances of Christ, in and for themselves, yet so that when the occasion of a Synode did occurre for determining a question which was too hard for particular Churches, and was also common to many Churches, in that case they did submit themselves to the authority of the Synod. Which has also before beene made plaine from (Acts 15). To practise all the ordinances of God in a Church is one thing, and to practise them independantly so as never to be subject to the authority of a Synod, is another thing. My antagonist does after take it for granted & says, that all learned men have granted that the Churches of the Apostolick constitution were independant bodies. But from where are you Sir that would make your Reader beleeve there are no learned men in the Churches of Scotland, France, the low-countries, and the other reformed Churches which have the governement of Presbyteries and Synods, conceiving it to be most agreeable to the Apostolicall patterne? Have you put out of the category of learned men all Protestant writers who in the controversies about Councels dispute against Papists from (Acts 15:2)? Why did you not among all your impertinent allegations, cite some few of those learned men who grant the Apostolick Churches to have been independant bodies? But we must heare what more you have to say.

Your first eight and tenne arguments are in like manner coincident. The first you frame thus. Such actions the Church may lawfully do wherein no law of God is broken. But there is no law of God broken, when particular Churches do in and among themselves exercise all Gods ordinances. Ergo. The eight thus. Whatever governement cannot be found commanded in the written Word of God, ought not to have any place in the Church of God. But the Government of Presbyteries and Synods over many particular congregations cannot be found commanded, &c. The tenth thus. It is a sinne against God to adde any thing to that forme and manner of ordering Churches which Christ has set forth in the new Testament. But to subject particular congregations under any other Ecclesiasticall authority out of themselves, is to adde, &c.

Now the word independantly must be added to the assumption of the first argument, else it cannot conclude what he affirmes and we deny: for there is no question but particular Churches may exercise in and among them selves all Gods ordinances in those cases and with those distinctions which I have spoken of before, part 2. chap. 2. This being cleared I deny the assumption in all these three arguments. I expected proofe for it, but he has given none, except that it cannot for shame be denied. I had thought it rather a shamefull thing for a writer to trouble his Reader with arguments which he cannot make good. But what says he to the professors of Leyden who hold the institution of Synods not to be humane, but divine, which they prove from Matthew 18 & Acts 15. Nay what is more ordinary in Protestant writers then the applying of those words, Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them, to Synods and Councels; and hence they condemne the popish Councels, in so much that Bellarmin, Salmeron, and other Jesuits have in this contradicted all our writers, telling us (as these men doe) that our Savior meaneth not of Councels in these words. Moreover that commandement whereby we stand obliged to follow the example both of the Jewish Church in the Old Testament, and of the Apostolicall Churches in the New Testament, in such things as they had not for any speciall reason which does not concerne us, is transgressed by the withdrawing of Congregations from subjection to Synods. Of which things I have said enough before. It is now but a poore begging of that which is in question, to object that the governement of Presbyteries and Synods has no warrant from the Word of God.

Come we then to examine his other Arguments. His second he composeth thus. If Christ in (Matthew 18:17), where he says, Tell the Church, does mean a particular Congregation: then has every particular Congregation an intire power in and of it selfe to exercise Eclesiasticall governement, and all other Gods spirituall ordinances. But the first is true. Ergo, for the proposition he citeth some Writers who do not speak of such a connexion as he had to prove. The assumption he proveth thus. That Church which Christ intendeth in Matthew 18 has absolute power in and of it selfe to perform all Gods ordinances. But Christ intendeth in Matthew 18 a particular Congregation. Therefore every particular Congregation has absolute power, &c. How bravely does he conclude the point? Spectatum admissi risum teneatis amici. We will not examine our examinators logick: we know what he would say: and we would have him to know againe that Christ in Matthew 18 meaneth indeed some sort of a particular Congregation, but neither only nor independantly. Nay he meaneth all the Consistories of the Church higher and lower respectively, as Parker conceiveth, whose words I have before set down: and to this sense the threed of the text does leade us, for as in the preceding words there is a gradation from one to two or three more, then to the Church, so is there a gradation (by the like order and reason) in the Consistories of the Church. Tostatus upon this place acknowledgeth that Diae Ecclesiae reacheth as far as to an oecumenicall Councell, when particular Churches erre in their determinations, or when the cause is common to all the Churches, for example, when the Pope is to be condemned.

His seventh argument followes in my order, and it runneth after this manner. Such offices and callings without which the Church of God is compleat and perfect for government, are superfluous and humane. But the Church of God may be compleat & perfect for government, without Presbyteriall and Synodicall offices and callings. Ergo. I answer by a distinction. Such offices and callings without which the Church of God are according to the course of Gods ordinary providence, or at all times and in all cases, perfect and compleat for government, are indeed superfluous and humane. But that such offices and callings without which the Church by the absolute power of God or at some times & in some cases is perfect & compleat, are superfluous & humane, we utterly deny. Now for the point of Synods I shall produce no other witnesses then those which this Disputer here taketh to be for him. Whittaker acknowledgeth of Councels that Secundum ordinariam providentiam necessaria sunt ad bonam ecclesiae gubernationem: according to ordinary providence they are necessary for the well governing of the Church. Parker acknowledgeth Synods to be sometime necessary in the Church, and he giveth example of the Councell of Nice, without which the evils of the Church in the daies of Constantine could not have bin remedied.

The ninth Argument remaineth, which is this. That government which meerly tendeth to the taking away from particular Congregations, their due power is unlawfull. But the government of Presbyteries and Synods (as they now are) does meerly tend to the taking away from particular Congregations their due power. Ergo. I did expect some strong proofe for the assumption of this argument, but we must take it as it is. He tels us out of Master Barlow that no man under the degree of a Prophet or an Apostle may prescribe Gods Church and children patternes. Our Synods are further from prescribing patterns either of worship or Church government than himselfe is. The patterne and whole manner of Church government is set down in the Scripture, those circumstances excepted which are common to the Church with the Common-wealth, and are therefore determinable by natures light. Synods may not prescribe new patterns, no more may particular Churches: but Synods may in common causes, and extraordinarily prescribe to particular churches, such things as particular churches may in particular causes and ordinarily prescribe to their owne members. If he will beleeve Parker (whom he thinks his owne) the authority which particular Churches have severally is not lost, but augmented when they are joyned together in Synods. But we have before abundantly declared how Presbyteriall & Synodical government does not at all prejudge the rights of congregations. As for that which here he addeth by way of supposition, putting the case that Presbyteries & Synods will not permit a congregation to reject some convinced hereticks, nor to chuse any, except unfit Ministers, this is just as if one should object against Parliaments, that (as they are now) they do meerly tend to the taking away of the right and liberty of the subject, and then for proofe should put the case, that Parliaments will protect and maintaine Monopolists, Projectorers, &c.

Now in this drove of arguments, the drover has set some like the weake of the flock to follow up behind. The first two are blind, and see not where they are going: for it maketh nothing against us, either that the Eldership of one congregation, has not authority over the Eldership of another congregation, or that a minister should not undertake the care of more Churches then one.

His third, that presbyterial power is never mentioned in the Scripture, is a begging of the thing in question, and is answered before; yet I must put him again in mind of Parker, who speaking of churches says: Legitur in Scripturis de conjuncta earum auctoritate, quando in Synodis congregantur. We read in their Scriptures of their joint authority, when they are gathered together into Synods. But there is a speech of Zuinglius against representative Churches, which he may not omit. Zuinglius does indeed justly ask of the antichristian prelates, who had given them the name of a representative Church, and who had given them power to make Canons etc.; yet he adds, de his duntaxat etc. I speak of them only that are such, others who put themselves under not above the Scriptures, my writings shall nothing prejudge.

In the fourth place he objects, that whoever shall deny their assertion, must hold two distinct forms of Church government to be lawful, one where particular congregations do in and of themselves exercise all God's ordinances; the other where they stand under another ecclesiastical authority out of themselves. I answer it is most lawful for particular congregations in and of themselves to exercise all God's ordinances, according to the distinctions and rules above mentioned: but this is not repugnant to their standing, under the authority of presbyteries and Synods, for which let us again hear a tender friend of congregations. Major quidem potestas est Synodi quam unius alicujus Ecclesiae primea, and parochialis; but go we along.

His first argument is, that for this reason, among others the learned say the Pope is Antichrist, namely because he will have men to appeal from their own Churches to him, and to stand to his sentence and decree: and do not the presbyterial assemblies and Synods, take upon them an authority much like to it. Soft my master, soft. Can no less serve you, then to match our Church government with the papal usurpations. I shall beseech you to remember: 1. The Pope is one and receives appellations monarchically: a Synod consists of many, and receives appellations aristocratically; 2. The Pope receives appellations from other nations beyond sea: presbyteries and Synods not so; 3. The Pope will have his sentence received as infallible: presbyteries and Synods acknowledge themselves subject to error; 4. The Pope acknowledges neither the Elders, nor the Elderships of congregations: which Presbyteries and Synods do; 5. The Pope acknowledges no power ecclesiastical on earth, except what is subject to him, yes derived from him: and who will say so of Presbyteries and Synods; 6. The Pope receives appellations in other causes than ecclesiastical: Presbyteries and Synods not so; 7. Synods are made up of the Commissioners of Churches: The Pope neither has any commission himself from the Churches, nor will admit the Commissioners of Churches, to sit in judgment with him; 8. Synods when they receive appellations, are tied to certain rules of proceeding and judging, especially the Scripture. The Pope makes his power boundless, and exalts himself, above the very Scripture. There shall be no end, except I stop in time. And what need I to make so many differences between light and darkness.

A sixth argument we shall now have, what more meet and reasonable says he, than that every man's case be there heard and determined, where the fault was committed. If this rule hold then the Parliament or Privy Council, ought to go to every remote county and corner of the kingdom, to judge of such faults there committed, as are proper for them to judge. His 7, 8, 10, 11 arguments must be gone with silence, for they run upon the robbing of congregations of their right, the exercising of ecclesiastical government, in all the apostolic Churches, and our according with Papists and the Hierarchy. All which objections have been before repelled; and it is somewhat strange, that the disputer does so often repeat the same arguments, to make up the greater number. A pretty art indeed: like that of the young logician who would needs prove, that the four eggs upon the table were five, because two and three make five.

In this second clause of arguments there is only one behind, and that is, that by the titles given to all particular congregations, namely a kingdom, a family, a body, a Queen etc., it appears that all ecclesiastical authority, ought to be in every one of them distinctly, wholly, entirely. Where let the reader observe, that he makes the meaning of that place (Matthew 3:2), the kingdom of God is at hand, to be this, a particular congregation is at hand; also that he expounds (Ephesians 2:19) and (Psalms 45) of a particular congregation, which are meant of the holy Catholic Church. But say that every particular congregation is a kingdom, a family, a body, a Queen, how proves he that these names do agree to every congregation in respect of her external policy, or ecclesiastical government. No, say they, do agree in this respect, yet in a thousand examples it is to be seen, that one and the same thing is both totum and pars, the whole, and the part, in different respects. Whereof we have also spoken in the former treatise.

He concludes, that by this time he does suppose the reader perceives, that the Scriptures are every way for them, and against the Presbyterial government, you shall do well Sir to think better upon it; you have it yet to prove. Therefore go to your second thoughts, and examine with me your not unexaminable examination. Farewell.

FINIS.