A

SURVEY

Of the Summe of

Church-Discipline.

By Thomas Hooker

(1586-1647)

WHEREIN

The Way of the Congregational Churches of Christ in New-England,

is Warranted and Cleared, by Scripture and Argument,

and all Exceptions of weight made

against it by sundry Learned Divines, viz.,

1. Mr. Samuel Rutherford in his Book called The Due Right of Presbyteries.

2. Mr. Samuel Hudson in his Book named The Essence and Unity of the Church Catholic Visible.

3. Mr. Robert Baylie in his Book entitled A Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time.

4. The Author of Vindiciae Clavium, [Keys of the Claim, or Verdict]

are fully answered.

Whereby it will appear to the Judicious Reader that something more must be said than has yet been said,

before their Principles can be shaken, or they can be unsettled in their Practice.

In two Books.

The first by Mr. Thomas Hooker, late pastor of the

Church at Hartford upon Connecticut in New England.

The second by Mr. John Cotton, now Teacher of the

Church at Boston in New England.

[not included]

2Cor. 13.8

For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.

LONDON

Printed by A.M. for John Bellamy at the three Golden Lions

In Cornhill, near the Royal Exchange.

MDCXLVIII

1648

Source scans:

https://archive.org/details/surveyofsummeofc00hook

https://archive.org/details/surveyofsumme00hookrich/page/n11/mode/2up

CONTENTS

Modernization and Overview

A Preface by the Author

TO THE READER

Testimonials

Editor’s Preface

Part I. Ecclesiastical Policy

Chapter 1. Ecclesiastical Policy Defined.

Chapter 2. The Constitution of a Visible Church.

Chapter 3. The Invisible Church as the Subject of the Seals and Privileges.

Chapter 4. The Formal Cause of a Visible Church: the Church Covenant.

Chapter 5. Whether Baptism gives formality, or makes a member of a visible Church?

Chapter 6. Whether Profession makes a member of a Congregation?

Chapter 7. An Answer to Arguments made against the Church Covenant.

Chapter 8. The Precedency of a Church, as a Homogenous Whole.

Chapter 9. The Nature and Being of a Presbyterial Church.

Section 1. The Essence of a Presbyterian Church

Section 2. The Grounds of such a Constitution.

Section 3. Reasoning from such grounds, against it.

Section 4. The Nature of a Church and a Classis.

Section 5. Particular Churches Meeting in One Place.

Chapter 10. Answers to Mr. R.’s Arguments for Confirming a Presbyterial Church.

Chapter 11. The Subject of Ecclesiastical Power – the Keys.

Section I. Its Nature.

Section II. Where this Power is Seated.

Section III. Rutherford’s Arguments for Who Holds the Keys, Book 1.

Section IV. Rutherford’s Arguments for Who Holds the Keys, Book 2.

Propositions

Chapter 12. To Whom the Keys to the Visible Church are Committed.

Rutherford’s Arguments

Chapter 13. The catholic Church as it is a Representative Whole.

Chapter 14. The Universal Church as an Integral Whole.

In Summary

Chapter 15. Answer to Mr. Hudson re: the Visible Church as an Integral Whole.

Section 1. Conclusions

Section 2. A catholic visible Church examined

Section 3. Examining the Alleged Scripture Proofs

In Closing

Chapter 16. Church Communion as a Peculiar Privilege to the Members of a Church.

I. The Sense of Communion.

II. The Things and Manner of Communion.

III. Ordinance, Dispensation, and Hearing of it.

IV. Set, Ordinary, Professed, and Resolved Hearing of it.

Part II. The Church Considered as an Organic Body.

Chapter 1. The Number of Officers in it, and the Nature of it.

Of the Ruling Elder

Of the Pastor’s Office

Of the Teacher’s Office

The Manner of Their Work.

The Reward for Their Work.

Tithing and Maintenance

Of Deacons

The Limits of the Office of Deacon

Chapter 2. The Nature of Ordination, and a Pastor’s Power over other Congregations.

1. Whether Ordination is by nature before Election.

2. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer.

3. What Ordination Is.

4. To whom the right of dispensing the Ordinance pertains.

Chapter 3. The Right Meaning of an Independent Church.

Part III. Church Government

Chapter 1. Of the Government of the Church.

Chapter 2. Of the Dispensation of the Sacraments.

1. The Parties to the Sacraments

2. The Manner of Dispensing the Sacraments

Chapter 3. Of Censures and Excommunication.

Excommunication

Part IV. Concerning Synods.

Chapter 1. The Nature of a Synod and its Power to Bind.

Of Acts 15.

Chapter 2. Alleged Superiority of Classes and Synods above Particular Congregations.

Mr. Rutherford’s 7th and 9th Arguments.

Mr. Rutherford’s 8th Argument.

Mr. Rutherford’s 10th Argument.

Mr. Rutherford’s 11th Argument.

Mr. Rutherford’s 12th Argument.

Chapter 3. An Appendix to the Former Treatise Concerning Synods.

Ques. 1. What is a Synod?

Ques. 2. How are Synods proved to be Scriptural?

Ques. 3. What is the Power of a Synod?

Ques. 4. To whom does the power of calling Synods pertain?

Appendix I.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

Appendix II.

Thomas Hooker: Preacher, Founder, Democrat

Modernization and Overview

Hand-typed, modernized, formatted, corrected, and annotated

by William Gross www.onthewing.org © Mar 2012

Last updated 9/5/2021

Scripture in the footnotes is taken from the New King James version,

Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1982.

Used by permission. All rights reserved.

For readability, and because citations no longer require them, the original page numbers are omitted. The format of the 1648 printing was a jumble of odd fonts, capitalizations, and italicized text. Those have been revised. Headings and bullets were added (breadcrumbs to follow). The invasive marginal notes in Latin and Greek are omitted, but references to external texts are preserved. Marginal Scripture references are superscripted in the text, or footnoted. There are additional verse references; and the verse text is often footnoted for convenience. The extensive Latin and Greek phrases Hooker used, because those languages are largely unknown today, have been translated; the original was moved to footnotes. Please excuse my crude renderings. If you find substantive errors, please contact me at my website above, and I’ll gladly make corrections.

In Part I, Hooker’s arguments were difficult to distinguish from Rutherford’s — like listening to one side of a phone conversation. He was responding to contemporary criticisms made in the four then well-known treatises listed on the title page. So I’ve made it explicit as to who is speaking, and provided some transitional phrases to help connect the dots. Rutherford’s are in quotation marks. I’ve placed abstracts at the top of chapters 2 and 3, to compare and contrast these competing views of Church government. What are the rights and powers of the people of God, and from where does leadership, whether civil or ecclesiastical, derive its authority?

This book is not only about Church Discipline, but Church Government. Is the Church defined by its clergy who hold the power of the Keys to open and shut? Or is it the assembly of God’s people, who elect their elders, and delegate their power to them? Ten years earlier, in 1638, Hooker preached on authority first lying in the free consent of the people. Consider that John Locke, whose ideas inspired the American founders, was only six at the time. Hooker said that God granted the people the right to choose their leaders, and the power to put limitations on the rule of those individuals. The following year, he helped establish the Fundamental Orders that governed the colony at Connecticut River. I’ve included those Orders in Appendix I. Hooker says a comparable covenant must apply to the Church (see Part III). He argues that believers are in a covenantal relationship with each other in a Church, just as they’re in a covenantal relationship with God above. Therefore, the Church ought to have a constitutional form of government.

This didn’t go over well with the Church of England, nor with many fellow Puritans. When this was written, the English Civil Wars had ceased for the time being. The Westminster Assembly had been tasked by the Parliament with developing a fixed set of doctrines and practices for the Church. It would be a bulwark against the papists. Independent churches were not politically expedient nor welcome. Hooker found it necessary to defend them against his fellow Protestants, and prove they were not a threat to the Church of England (see Part II. Ch. 3). Those Puritans who sensed that the Church of England was too political, and couldn’t be reformed, left England for the Netherlands, or for America, to seek a purer form of worship, and of church government.

In his preface to this book, Hooker asks:

1. What does the spiritual rule of Christ’s Kingdom consist in: how is it revealed and dispensed to the souls of his servants inwardly?

2. What is the order and manner of it: how is the government of His kingdom to be managed outwardly in his churches?

Hooker is described as a Puritan, or Nonconformist. Here he argues for “congregational” churches – more specifically, independent local churches. At the same time, he pushes for a community, or consociation of churches. He disagreed with the Brownists, who were radical separatists; they claimed the Church of England was no church at all, because it was formed by the government, and because it lacked church discipline. He weighs Samuel Rutherford’s centralized, Presbyterian, hierarchical view of church government, against the Brownists’ congregational view. Then he provides “a middle way.” Hooker argues that church and state are two different “species;” but he is “not yet persuaded that the chief Magistrate should stand neutral, and tolerate all religions.”

In Appendix II, I’ve provided excerpts from George Walker’s book, Thomas Hooker: Preacher, Founder, Democrat (1891), explaining the context of this treatise, why Hooker was reluctant to write it, and why its style is uncharacteristically cumbersome. You may want to read that first, because Part I is definitely not an easy read. My notes are marked with “– WHG.” Hooker’s are marked with “— Hooker.” Some of the notes are Goodwin’s (the original editor).

Hooker has been described as an ecclesiastical republican. He helped create a framework for spiritual liberty, on which the American ideal of civil liberty would be built — a representative and constitutional form of government, by consent of the governed. This book lays out that American ideal, flowing from a “New England Mind.” Hooker was foremost a pastor, not a political theorist. His book, Poor Doubting Christian, makes that clear.

The first eight chapters are Hooker’s responses to Rutherford’s attacks on the congregational churches. In chapter 9, Hooker articulates his own arguments, to which Mr. Rutherford replies, and in turn is refuted. Read Edmund Morgan’s Visible Saints for a broad historical context.

Many Latin terms are used, with subtle distinctions. I found they obfuscated rather than clarified the arguments. As an aid, here’s a Glossary of Terms to keep handy. The descriptions are my own inferences from Hooker’s use of them:

- Totum essentiale (an Essential Whole) – the whole of the essence of its parts

- Totum organica (an Organic Whole) – the organized sum of its parts

- Corpus organicum (an Organic Body) – an organism acting in its entirety

- Homogeneum (a Homogenous Whole) – the whole is the same substance as its parts

- Totum integrale (an Integral Whole) – the whole is the integration of its parts

- Totum genericum (a Generic Whole) – the traits of the parts apply to the whole [1]

- Totum universale (a Universal Whole) [2] – the whole is everywhere alike, but not identical

- Totum aggregatum (an Aggregate Whole) – the whole is a mere collection of its parts

- integrum (a united whole) – the whole is incomplete without every part

- integrum in membra (the aggregate of its members) – the whole exists in its parts

- Genus (class) – comprised of consenting particular churches

- Species (instance) – a particular visible church ruled by locally elected officers

What then is the difference between a totum aggregatum and an integrum in membra? It’s the difference between a totum, and an integrum. A totum is divisible; an integrum is not. The United States are “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Synopsis — The Church is a society of believers. If the Church is too centralized, those who lead are tempted to lord it over others, as with the Papacy. If the Church is too splintered, there may be unity within a local church, but not between the churches – there is no “Church.” Where then is the proper balance between the one and the other?

Rutherford favors strong central control; Hooker favors decentralization and local control.

Rutherford favors appointing local leaders from above; Hooker favors local election.

Rutherford favors excommunication by a Presbytery; Hooker favors local discipline.

Both men are equally committed to ensuring purity of doctrine and practice. But for Rutherford, it’s ensured by the rule of men, who determine the truth of Scripture for the Church. For Hooker, it’s ensured by the authority of Scripture alone, without intervening human authority, using the teachers God calls to bring about consensus, in a local congregation, as to that one Truth.

This all hinges on the doctrine of Union with Christ. That’s what the two men are debating — how that Union is to be expressed in the Church. It’s the theme of Part I, chap. 4.

For Rutherford, profession alone brings union with Christ, and that union brings membership in the Church. Communion with fellow believers in a local congregation is incidental. Thus, as a member of the Church generally, you may serve as an administrator at a higher level, without being a member of a church locally.

For Hooker too, profession alone brings union with Christ; but it requires membership in a local congregation, by Covenant and mutual consent. Fellowship with Christ and fellowship with His people are inseparable. Administration is meaningful only as it applies to the word, sacraments, and discipline — all of which are necessarily administered locally.

It is valuable for every believer to consider what the church is, and how it ought to operate. I pray this classic is edifying to your Christian walk, and encouraging to your life in the Body.

William H. Gross

July 25, 2020

What then is a Church?

“A band of faithful men

Met for God’s worship in some humble room,

Or, screened from foes by midnight’s star-lit gloom,

On hill side or lone glen,

To hear the counsels of his holy word,

Pledged to each other and their common Lord.

These, few as they may be,

Compose a Church, such as in pristine age

Defied the tyrant’s steel, the bigot’s rage;

For when but two or three,

Whate’er the place in faith’s communion meet,

There, with Christ present, is a Church, complete.”

— by an unknown poet

A Preface by the Author

An introduction to the following discourse, in which the attentive reader may understand the scope, the matter and method of it, and how far there is a joint concurrence of most of the Elders of New-England.

“Truth is the Daughter of time,” was the saying of old, and our daily experience gives evidence and proof of it to every man’s ordinary observation. Only, as in other births, so it is here: the barrenness and fruitfulness of several ages depend merely on God’s good pleasure, who opens and shuts the womb of truth for bearing as He sees fit, according to the counsel of his own will.

Not that there is any change in the truth; but the alteration grows according to men’s apprehensions, to whom it is more or less revealed according to God’s most just judgment, and their own deservings.

Sometimes God makes an eclipse of the truth at midday, so that he might express his wrath from Heaven against the unthankfulness, profaneness, and atheisms of a malignant world.

Hence it was God who let loose those hellish delusions immediately after the Ascension of our Savior — though his life and conversation [3] gave evidence beyond dispute that he was true man. And the miracles and wonders he wrought in his life, death, resurrection, and ascension, were undeniable witnesses that he was true God. And yet there arose a wretched generation of heretics in the first, second, and third centuries. They ventured not only against the express verdict of the Scripture, but against the sense and experience that were fresh in the observation and tradition of living men, with more than satanic impudence, to deny both natures of our blessed Savior.

Some denied the Deity of our Savior and would have him a mere man — such as Ebrion, Cerinthus, Montanus, etc. Others denied he was true man, such as Gnostics, Valentinians, and Marionites.[4]

Sometimes when men entertain the truth in profession, but not in the love of it, and with that endeared affection that is due, the Lord gives men up to the activity of error, as the Apostle puts it.[5] Because they did not love that the truth should be truth, they embraced falsehood instead, so that they might be deluded and damned. This made way for Antichrist, and midwifed that Man of Sin into the world,2Thes 2.3 and little by little advanced him into his throne. For while men verbally acknowledged the nature and offices of our Savior, they began subtly, yet really, to usurp the honor and exercise of all to themselves.[6]

First, they began to encroach upon the Priestly Office of our Savior, and not only to pray for the dead, but to pray to them, and to attribute too much to the martyrs and their worth; and to derogate from the merits and that plentiful and perfect redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus alone. The Spouse of Christ thus, like the unwise virgins, Mat 25.2f was taken aside with the slumber of idolatry, till at last she fell fast asleep, as the times which followed give abundant testimony.

Not long after, these sleeps were attended with suitable dreams. For not being content with the simplicity of the Gospel, and the purity of the worship appointed in it, they set forth a new and large edition of devised and instituted ceremonies, coined merely out of the vanity of men’s carnal minds. Like so many blinds, these were set up by the subtlety of Satan merely to delude men, and mislead them from the truth of God’s worship, under a pretense of directing them more easily in the way of grace. And under a color of kindling, they quenched all true zeal for, and love of the truth.

It was so extensive, Augustine complained that the present condition of the Churches in his time was worse than that of the Jews. They were subject to the burden of legal ceremonies laid on them by the Lord; but we (says this church Father) are pressed with presumptions devised by men. [7]

And thus at once they usurped the Prophetic Office, and also jostled our Savior out of his Regal Office, for so these are linked together by the Prophet.[8] He is our King; he is our Lawgiver; it is in his power and pleasure to provide his own laws, and appoint the ways of his own worship.

Thus the Offices of our Savior were secretly and cunningly undermined, till at last that Man of Sin — seeing his time, and taking his advantage — ventured openly and impudently to challenge the chair of supremacy.[9]

Boniface III obtained for himself and his successors, by policy and treachery at the hand of Phocas,[10], to have the Bishop of Rome be the head and chief Bishop of all Christian Churches.[11]

But the one sword was not sufficient for Hildebrand.[12] He did not rest until, by his hellish contrivances, he had gotten two swords to fill both his hands with, and a triple-crown on his head. And he carried it with mighty violence against the imperial Majesty — so that, though no Pope in former times might be chosen without the confirmation of the Emperor, now no Emperor might be chosen without the confirmation of the Pope — as apparent in the story of Henry the Emperor.[13]

Thus, while the Pope pretended to be the vicar and vicegerent[14] of Christ, to supply his absence here on earth by himself becoming Ministerial head,[15] in effect he jostled Christ out of the place and right of his Headship.

He makes Canons to bind the conscience; and so he assumes the place of the chief Prophet. He gives dispensations, sends out indulgences, sells pardons, retains and remits sins, improves the treasury of the Church to that end; and so he challenges the place of being chief Priest. Lastly, he arrogates[16] the plenitude and supremacy of power in Ecclesiastical and Civil causes. No less than two swords will satisfy him to fill both his hands, and a triple-crown to load his head with; and by this, he arrogates to be head of the Church.

God revenged the contempt of the Authority of his son by delivering up those scorners to the tyranny and slavery of Antichrist for the space of many hundreds of years. So that, by their own experience, they came to know the difference between the service of God and the slavery of men, between the golden scepter of Christ and the iron rod of Antichrist. He tortured their consciences on a continual rack, held their souls smoking over the mouth of the bottomless pit, put them into hell, and plucked them out at his pleasure. This is why men desired to die, rather than live.

They then began to sigh for some deliverance from this spiritual, more than Egyptian bondage. And being thus prepared to lend a listening ear to the truth, God sent them some little reviving in their extremities, a daystar arising in their darkness.

He stirred up the spirit of the Waldenses, Armachanus, Wycliff, Hus, and Jerome of Prague, who openly proclaimed the usurpations of that Man of Sin. They stoutly asserted the fullness and sufficiency of the Scriptures, cleared and maintained its deciding authority in all the ways and worship of God, and so they set up the Lord Jesus as the only Prophet of his Church.

After them succeeded Luther. He made a spoil of the Pope’s treasury, wholly marring his market and the sale of his indulgences. He so wonderfully cooled and quenched the fire of Purgatory and the Pope’s kitchen, that his holiness, and the wretched rabble of all his black-guard, were forced to improve all their power and policy to crush the credit of that champion, and the authority of that doctrine which he taught — but all in vain.

For the virtue of the bloody sacrifice of Christ, offered once for all — that perfect satisfaction, justification, and redemption — came to be strongly received and maintained in many places and persons of note. So that now, all the unbloody sacrifices, masses, and multitudes of that trash which the merit-mongers studiously set out for sale, and by which they set themselves up in the hearts of the people, grew to be abhorred by those who were pious and conscientious, and by all those who would but allow themselves to be led by the principles of right reason. And thus the Priestly office of our Savior came in some measure to be acknowledged and appropriated to him whose peculiar office it was.

Only, the Supremacy of that Kingly Power upon which the Pope had encroached and maintained possession of for so long, was still retained and fortified (as reason would expect) with greatest resolution. Nor could the Pope suffer the appearance of any approach or battery to be erected, that might seem to hazard the safety of that power. Rather, he sets himself fully and fiercely against the Reformation, which resists principally at the head.

Hence for the surprisal of so strong a place, the Lord in his providence provided many means to make approaches to it little by little. The counsels of Constance and Basil jostled the Pope to the wall, and then took the wall from him, made him lower than the Council, but let him enjoy his Headship over all his officers and particular churches.

King Henry VIII further clipped his wings in temporals, shook off and renounced that supremacy that he had arrogated and erected over kings and kingdoms in former ages. Only this is said to be Henry’s mistake: he cut off the head of Popery, but left its body (in the Archbishops, Primates, Metropolitans, and Archdeacons) still established within his realm and the churches there.[17]

This power has a double respect: partly to ministers, partly to churches. The first of these was abated when a parity in the ministry came to be acknowledged and received in the churches of the Reformation. And the sole and princely power which was arrogated and exercised by the bishops and their officers over the faithful pastors of Christ, was cashiered as contrary to the government. And power was bequeathed to each particular officer of his own appointment, who all have stewardship, not dominion [18] — they are stewards, not lords of God’s inheritance.

Whether all ecclesiastical power is impaled,[19] impropriated,[20] and rightly taken to the Presbytery alone; or the people of the particular churches should have a share according to their places and proportions — this is left as the subject of the inquiry of this age, and that which occasions great thoughts of heart by all hands. It occasions great heartfelt thoughts in the Presbytery, as they are loth to part with so chief a privilege, and which they have taken possession of for so many years. It occasions great heartfelt thoughts among the churches, as to how they may clear their right, and claim it in such pious sobriety and moderation as becomes the saints. They are unwilling to lose their cause and comfort merely upon failure to make a claim;[21] or to be forever deprived of so precious a legacy as they conceive this is, even though it has been withheld from them by the tyranny of the Pope, and the prescription of times. Nor can they conceive it to be less than a heedless betraying of their special liberties —not selling, but throwing away their inheritance and right by a careless silence — when the course of providence (as the juncture of things now present themselves) allows them a writ of review.[22]

And it seems that God sets out this disquisition (whichever side the issue falls on) as most suitable and seasonable to these times, which appear fruitful in discoveries. Truth seems to be in travail (in labor), having fulfilled her appointed months, and the instant opportunity of her deliverance drawing on apace (as the Scripture account has it). It may seem to give symptoms to that purpose, and such as will not fail.

For these are the times drawing on, in which prophecies are to attain their performance. And it’s a received rule, and I suppose most safe, that prophecies are best interpreted when fulfilled — their accomplishment is the best commentary.

These are the times when the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters of the seas. And these waters of the sanctuary shall increase from the ankles to the knees, from there to the loins, and then become a river that cannot be passed. Hab. 2.14; Ezek. 47.4-5

These are the times when people shall be fitted for such privileges — I say fit to obtain them, and fit to use them. Fit to obtain them at God’s hands — Dan 12.4, “people shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.” By the strength of their desires, they will improve the most painful exercise of their thoughts in the most serious search for the mystery of godliness. Bloodhound like, bent upon their prey, they will indefatigably trace the truth, and follow the least appearance of its footsteps as presented, until they come to see the formings and framings in the first rise. Learning is to learn the causes.[23] And thus digging for wisdom as for hidden treasures, and seeking the Lord and his will with their whole heart, they shall find him and understand it. Pro 2.2-3

Being fit to use them, the Lord will now write his laws in their hearts, and put it into their inward parts. No longer will every man teach his neighbor, for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. Jer 31.34

And because it has been charged upon the people, that through their ignorance and unskillfulness, they are not able to wield such privileges, they are therefore not fit to share in any such power. The Lord has promised to take away the veil from all faces on the mountain; the weak shall be as David, and David as an Angel of God. The light of the moon shall be as the sun, and the sun seven times brighter. When He has not only informed them, but made them to be ashamed of their abominations and of all that they have done, then he will show them the frame of his house, and the pattern of it, the going out of it, the coming in of it, the whole fashion of it, and all the ordinances of it, all the figures of it, and the laws of it. And He will write them in their sight, that they may keep the whole fashion of it, and all its ordinances, and do them.[24] Observe how often the Lord expresses the enlarged manifestations of Himself in those many universals.

ALL LAWS, ALL ORDINANCES, ALL FIGURES — not only show all, but make them see all, and do all.

The travail of the truth, as I said, thus drawing on, it has pleased the Lord to improve the pens and pains of many of his worthies (midwife-like), to lighten and ease the throes of the truth in this sharp and sore travail, for a safe delivery.

Among these, Mr. Rutherford has deserved much for his indefatigable diligence. A man of eminent abilities, the depth of whose judgment, and sharpness in dispute, is evidenced beyond all exception by that accurate and elaborate piece of his apologetical exercitations, in which he appears to be in the “Mall of the Jesuits,” [25] and of their factors and followers, the Arminians, who receive their errors by wholesale from them, and retail them out again in their particular treatises. And for his pains, I suppose the churches will (and I must profess, I do) owe him much. And therefore it was a pleasing and pleasant providence when I perceived by some books published recently, that he addressed himself to seriously debate about Church Discipline. As it is a subject of special difficulty, so too of special advantage to the truth, and of help to the present times in which we live. These two things seem to be great reserves of inquiry for this last age of the world:

1. What the spiritual rule of Christ’s Kingdom consists in: how is it revealed and dispensed to the souls of his servants inwardly?

2. The order and manner: how is the government of His kingdom managed outwardly in his churches?

The tedious agitations that are stirring in the earth, turn on these two hinges. They either have their first rise from here directly; or else by a secret influence, these aforementioned causes send in and insinuate their special interests indirectly, to make up that great earthquake, [26] to set into motion the shakings of heaven and earth which are to be seen even at this day.

This is the season when all the kingdoms of the world are becoming the Lord’s and His Christ’s. And to this purpose, he is gathering his great might, which till now He seemed to lay aside and in silence (as he says in a similar case, Psa 50.21) to allow wicked men to display their rage according to their own pleasure. But He resolves to dash those earthen vessels to pieces by his iron rod.

The first of these, to wit, the spiritual kingdom of Christ, is most opposed by a generation of enthusiasts and familists [27] who, having refined the loathsome follies of their predecessors, venture to set open their own conceits with greater insolence, to the view of the world. And under the pretense of free grace, they destroy the grace of God in the power and operations of it, in the hearts and lives of men.

The other, which concerns managing the outward kingdom (unless my prospective much deceives me), is coming towards its last trial. This is because there is more liberty now given to each to plead their own interests, when in former times the tyranny of Antichrist and blind obedience to his dictates, turned the tombstone of untimely silence upon all men’s endeavors. It buried all men’s debates in their own bosoms, or else the unreasonable rigor of the prelates[28] labored to destroy the being of the defense as soon as it was birthed.

This present term of God’s patience promises some allowance to his people, the distressed and despised ones of Christ, those in the form of paupers,[29] to lay claim to these privileges which they have conceived to be part of the legacy bequeathed to them by the Lord Jesus, being estated and entitled members of the visible Kingdom of his Church.

To set out the bounds of these interests, worthy Mr. Rutherford has bestowed great labor, which I have again and again attended. And as I freely acknowledge to have received light from it, so I profess that I readily consent with him in many things:

- In the number and nature of officers, such as pastors, teachers, elders, etc. appointed by Christ in his Church.

- That the people have the right to call their own officers, and that none must be imposed on them by Patrons and Prelates.

- That scandalous persons are not fit to be members of a visible church, nor should they be admitted.

- That the faithful congregations in England are true churches; and therefore it is sinful to separate from them as not being churches.

- That the members who come commended from such churches to ours here, so that it appears to the judgment of the church from which they come, that they are approved by them and not scandalous, they should be received to church communion with us, just as members of other churches within New England are likewise so commended and approved.

- To separate from congregations for lack of some ordinances; or to separate from the true worship of God because of the sin of some worshippers, is unlawful.

- The consociation of churches is not only lawful, but in some cases necessary.

- That when causes are difficult, and particular churches want light and help, they should crave the assistance of such a consociation.

- That Churches so meeting have the right to counsel, rebuke, etc. as the case requires.

- In case any particular church walks stubbornly, either in the profession of error, or in sinful practice, and will not hear their counsel, they may and should renounce the right hand of fellowship with them.

- That infants of visible churches, born of wicked parents, being members of the church, ought to be baptized.[30]

In these and several other particulars, we fully accord with Mr. R., and therefore no man can reasonably conceive that I write in opposition to his book. For then I would oppose myself and my own judgment. But for further disquisition and to search into some particulars, which being worthy of peace,[31] crave further and fuller discovery.

And hence, this needs no toleration of religions or estrangement of affection in tolerating the differences of such apprehensions; and in some things, that is until further light brings in further conviction and concurrence. It is confessed by all the casuists I know,[32] that in a rigid dispute, a longer time is to be allowed to two sorts of people from whom consent is expected, than from others:

1. To some who, out of the strength of their judgment, are able to oppose arguments, in case they don’t come so well guarded and appointed as they should.

2. To others, the same indulgence is to be lent, who out of their weakness cannot so easily and readily perceive the valor and validity of an argument, so as to carry the cause, and win their assent to it.

I profess that I am of this latter sort. And therefore I plead for allowance and present forbearance, especially considering that it has been accounted tolerable to modestly inquire into, and for a time to dissent from, the judgment of a General Council.

One who would estrange his affection because of the difference of apprehension in difficult things, must be a stranger to himself at one time or other. If men would be tender, and careful to keep away from offensive expressions, they might keep some distance in their opinion about some things, without risk to truth or love. But when men set up their sheaves (even if it is but in a dream, as Joseph’s was) and fall out with everyone who won’t fall down and adore them, they will bring much trouble into the world, but little advantage to the truth or peace.

Again, the Reader must know for his direction in this inquiry, that my aim was, and is, only to briefly lay down the grounds of our practice according to that measure of light I have received, and to answer such reasons which might seem to weaken the evidence of it. I am purposely declining, for the present, the examination of those answers which are made to the arguments alleged by some of our reverend brethren touching the same subject. This is because I would neither prejudice nor prevent their proper defense which I suppose, in the fittest season, they will so present to the world, that it will be fully satisfactory to those who love and desire the knowledge of the truth.

The sum is this: we don’t doubt what we practice; but it’s beyond all doubt that all men are liars, and we are in the number of these poor feeble men. Either we do, or we may err, even if we don’t know it. What we have learned, we profess; and yet we profess still to live, that we may learn. And therefore the errand upon which this present discourse is sent, is to summarily show these two things to the world:

1. That there must be more said (than it has yet been my happiness to see) before the principles we profess will be shaken; and consequently, it cannot be expected that we should be unsettled in our practice.

2. That I might occasion men eminently gifted to make further search, and to dig deeper, that if there is any vein of reason which lies still lower, it might be brought to light. And we profess and promise not only a ready ear to hear it, but a heart willing to welcome it.

It is the perfection of a man, amidst these many weaknesses we are surrounded with, to come to perfection by many changes. It’s the honor and conquest of a man who is truly wise, to be conquered by the truth. He has attained the greatest liberty, who lets himself be led captive by it.

That the discourse comes out in such a homely dress and coarse habit, it must be desired of the Reader to consider that it comes out of the wilderness, where craftsmanship is not studied. Planters, if they can provide cloth to go about warm, leave the cuts and lace to those who study to go about in finery.

As it is beyond my skill, so I profess it is beyond my care, to please the niceness of men’s palates with any quaintness of language. Those who cover more sauce than meat, must provide cooks for their mind. It was a cavil [33] cast upon Jerome, that in his writings he was a follower of Cicero, not Christ.[34] My lack of refinement frees me wholly from this exception — for being untrained in speech,[35] as the Apostle has it — if I would, I couldn’t be lavish in the looseness of language. And as the case stands, if I could satisfy any man’s desire for that delicacy of speech, I wouldn’t do the matter which is now under my hand, any injury: it requires no ornamentation.[36] The substance and solidity of the frame is what pleases the builder; it’s the painter’s work to provide the varnish.

If the manner of the discourse occasioned any disrelish in the apprehension of the weaker Reader, because it seems too logic-ridden or scholastic in regard to the terms I use, or the way I proceed in the dispute in some places, I have these two things to profess:

1. That plainness and perspicuity, both for the matter and manner of expression, are the things that I have conscientiously endeavored in the whole debate. For I have ever thought writings that come abroad, are not to dazzle, but to direct the apprehension of the least of us. And I have accounted it the chief part of judicious learning, to make a hard point easy and familiar in its explication. He who would not be understood, should be ignored.[37]

2. The nature of the subject that is under my hand is such that I was constrained to accommodate and conform my expressions, more or less, in some kind of suitableness to it. For in some passages of the dispute, the particulars, in their very rise and foundation, border so near upon the principles of logic (such as whether the catholic visible Church,[38] was to be attended as a universal whole, or integral whole [39]) that either I must resolve to say nothing, or to speak (though as sparingly as I could of such things) as the quality of the things required. Let any man try it, and I much mistake myself if he wouldn’t necessarily take the same course, if he speaks to that cause. If the reader demands how far this way of church-proceeding receives approval by any common concurrence among us, I will plainly and punctually express myself in a word of truth, in these following points, namely:

- Visible saints are the only true and fit matter, for which a visible Church should be gathered, and confederation is the form.

- The Church being an essential whole,[40] it does and may exist before its officers.

- There is no Presbyterian church in the New Testament (i.e., a church made up of the elders of many congregations appointed in the way of a Classis,[41] to rule all those congregations).

- A congregational Church is the first subject of the keys.[42]

- Each congregation completely constituted of all officers, has sufficient power in herself, to exercise the power of the keys, and all church discipline, in all its censures.

- Ordination is not before election.

- There ought to be no ordination of a minister at large, namely, such that it would make him a pastor without a people.

- Election by the people has an instrumental, causal virtue under Christ, to give an outward call to an officer.

- Ordination is only a solemn installing of an officer into the office to which he was formerly called.

- Only children of those who are members of congregations, should be baptized. [43]

- The consent of the people gives a causal virtue to the completing of the sentence of excommunication.

- While the Church remains a true Church in Christ, it does not lose this power, nor can it lawfully be taken away.

- Consociation of churches should be used, as occasion requires.

- Such consociations and synods have allowance to counsel and admonish other churches, as the case may require.

- And if one grows obstinate in error or sinful miscarriages, the others should renounce the right hand of fellowship with them.

- But those [other consociated churches] have no power to excommunicate.

- Nor do their constitutions bind formally and judicially. [44]

In all these I have leave to profess the joint judgment of all the elders on the river: of New Haven, Guilford, Milford, Stratford, Fairfield; and of most of the elders of the churches in the bay, to whom I sent this in particular, and received approval from them, under their hands. Of the rest (to whom I could not send) I cannot so affirm; but this I can say, that at a common meeting, I was desired by them all, to publish what I now do.

Lastly, to ease the ordinary reader, who perhaps is not acquainted with discourses of this kind, I will take leave to lend him this little advice.

The treatise being divided into four parts, if he may be entreated to survey the table at the front of the work, by a short and sudden cast of his eye, he will quickly perceive those particulars which, like so many principal pillars, bear up the whole frame.

1. Look at the Church in its first rise and essence: the efficient causes of it, Matter and Form; the qualification of it, in its precedency, power, and privileges; these make up the first part.

2. Look at the Church as completed: with all her officers, the number and nature of them; in her elections and ordinations, where the loathsome title of Independence is opened; these lay out the matter of the second part.

3. The Church thus constituted: the power that she exercises in admissions, dispensations of sacraments, and censures, especially that grand and great censure of excommunication, how it is to be managed, and the power of it resolved at last. The third part is spent in these.

4. The Consociation of Churches in classes, synods, and councils, is briefly discussed in the fourth part.

Let him be entreated to carry these along in his consideration, and he will readily know where to refer anything, and where to find anything; and as readily conceive the method and manner, both of the constitution of the Church as the house of God, and the right managing of all the occasions and affairs of it.

In the handling of all these particulars, so full of difficulty and of obscurity, I am not such a stranger at home. But I am easily sensible of the weight of the matter and my own weakness. And therefore I can profess in a word of truth, that against my own inclination and affection, I was haled [45] by the importunity to so hard a task, to kindle my rush candle,[46] to join with the light of others, at least to occasion them to set up their lamps.

Now may the One who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, pave out all the ways of his people, and make their paths plain before them; lead us all into that truth which will lead us to eternal life; bring us once to that impotency and impossibility — so that we can do nothing against the truth, but only for it — so that our congregations may not only be styled like Ezekiel’s temple, but be in reality what was prophesied that the churches should be in these last days, Jehovah Shammah.[47] In the arms of his everlasting mercy I leave you, but never cease to wish,

Spiritual welfare in him,

THOMAS HOOKER.

TO

THE READER

ESPECIALLY

The Congregation and Church of Jesus Christ

In Hartford upon Connecticut

The eternal blessed Lord has, through the contrivances of his infinite wisdom, reserved many glorious discoveries of the forever-to-be-adored depths and riches of his grace in Jesus Christ, to this last age of the world. His ways of mercy are to his redeemed ones (as his judgments are to others) unsearchable and past finding out. He has fitted instruments for holding forth the mystery of Christ (the hope of glory) in that great plot and work of redemption, and applied it with much evidence and power to gain many souls to himself. So he has, in a special manner, caused the truths concerning his visible government of the saints in this world to break forth in communion and fellowship with himself and with one another according to the order of the Gospel. He has laid hold of the spirits of many, with more glory, and with more power than in former times. So that, not contenting themselves with mixed fellowships and other pollutions in the things of Christ (the abhorred errors and mistakes of their former ways), and not finding encouragement for what they desired according to God in the places of their sojourning then, they were provoked to make many inquiries on earth, and send up many cries to Him in heaven, whom their souls loved, to know where He fed his flock at noon.[48]

The favor and faithfulness of the Lord Jesus (the King and head of his Church) was not lacking toward his people in this. He answered the desires of many in carrying them into this wilderness, where they acknowledge themselves to have received warmth and refreshing under his wings. He sent out his light and his truth, and led them to his holy mountain and his tabernacles.

Among others (dear Brethren) we have been sharers in this rich privilege. A large portion has been carved out to us by the hand of our blessed God in the things of his kingdom and grace. We have for many years lived under his shadow, been fed with the delicacies of his house, enjoyed the full improvement of the large abilities of faithful watchmen and overseers for our good, to whom our comforts and welfare in every kind have been precious.

But the only wise and holy God, for our great unworthiness, has lately made a sad breach upon us by the death of our most dear pastor (the author of the ensuing treatise) for which our glory is much eclipsed, our comforts not a little impaired, and our fears justly multiplied. The stroke is direful and amazing, when such a stake is taken out of the hedge, such a pillar from the house, such a pastor from his flock, in such a time and place as this.

It is not our purpose, nor is it suitable to our condition and relation, to lay out the breadth of the excellencies with which, through the abundant grace of the Lord, he was enriched and fitted for the service of his great name; or if we were willing to improve ourselves in that way, to have our pens receive an anointing for such an employment. What we express is only to put you and ourselves in mind of the invaluable loss we have sustained, so that our hearts being deeply and duly affected under that sad afflicting providence, we may look up to the Holy One of Israel, our Redeemer, who teaches to profit, so that instruction may thereby be sealed unto us.

He was (as you well know) one of a thousand, whose diligence and unweariedness (besides his other endowments) in the work committed to him, was almost beyond compare. He revealed the whole counsel of the Lord to us, kept nothing back, dividing the word aright. His care was of strong and weak, sheep and lambs, to give a portion to each in due season, delighting in holy administrations which were held forth in much beauty and glory by him. His Master found him in this work, and so He called him to enter into his glory. Some of you are not ignorant with what strength of importunity he was drawn to this present service, and with what fear and care he attended it. The weight and difficulty of the work was duly apprehended by him, and he looked upon it as somewhat unsuitable to a pastor whose head and heart and hands were full of the employments of his proper place.

Besides, his spirit mostly delighted in the search of the mystery of Christ, in the unsearchable riches of it, and the work and method of the Spirit in the communication of the same to the soul, for its everlasting welfare. Some discovery of this may hereafter be presented to the world as the Lord gives liberty and opportunity.

Such strength of parts were clothed with humility — with such clear and high apprehensions of the things of God, with a ready cheerful condescending to the infirmities of the weak (which was his daily study and practice). These are not often to be found among the sons of men, nor yet the sons of God in this world.

The present discourse was finished by him in the time of his life, and sent nearly two years ago to be made public. But the Lord, in whose hands are all our works and ways, determined otherwise. That sad providence was entertained by him in reference to the present work, with much contentedness and humble submission to the good pleasure of the Most High. And if he might have enjoyed the liberty of his own judgment and desires, no further revelations of his labors would have been made to the world — they would have been buried in everlasting silence. But at last he was overborn, and condescended to what now is again endeavored — though before the full transcribing, he was translated from us to be ever with the Lord.

The Reader may well conceive, had the judicious author lived to peruse the copy now sent, the work would have been more complete; and perhaps some additions made in some parts of it. But we have not yet had the happiness to find among his papers what was intended of that kind.

We have little more to say at present but to let the Reader know that nothing is added to, or taken from the author’s primitive copy, as to the substance of it; and to assure him that his unwillingness to make his thoughts public did not arise from any doubts in himself concerning the truth of what is held forth in the present disputes; for he was abundantly satisfied in it. As he believed, so he spoke; but other considerations retarded his resolutions to that work.

It has been rightly observed that disputations in religion, though sometimes necessary, are usually dangerous. They commonly draw the best spirits into the head, and away from the heart. If extraordinary care is not taken, they abate pious affections towards God and love towards men. But you (brethren) who knew him, are witnesses of the prevailing lively power of the rich grace of God in the heart and life of this author in all respects, even to his very end. The Lord who taught him from his youth, and enabled him then to declare and hold forth his wondrous works, did not forsake him when he was gray-headed; but he went on in the strength of the Lord God, making mention of His righteousness, even of His alone.

There were some workings in his thoughts, before sending out the first copy, to recommend his labors in an epistle to this church; and thereby he left them (to use his own expression) as his last legacy to us. Though these thoughts of his were not then prosecuted, there being a necessary occasion upon this great turn of providence, to intimate a few words to the Reader at this time, We thought it not amiss to acquaint you, our beloved brethren, with those former purposes of our most dear pastor. His remembrance, we hope, will be forever precious to you all, that you may look upon this work (the result many thoughts and prayers) as the last breathings of this love towards you, for your establishment in these present truths.

It will be our endeavor that, in due season, you may have others of his labors among you, in your daily view for your further comfort and edification; and so you may still hear him speaking to you in this way, whose lively voice you can hear no more. And we will not cease to look up to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and God all consolations, for you and for ourselves, that we may be duly sensible of the price that was in our hands. Thus we may be effectually humbled under any misimprovements, and conscientiously prosecute the advantages yet continued — lest a worse thing happen to us, our candlestick be removed, and we be left wholly desolate in this time of the Lord’s riding circuit over all His churches, and in that hour of temptation which is even now over the face of the whole earth.

Your brethren in the fellowship of the faith

of the Gospel, and deep fellow-sufferers

with you in this great loss,

EDWARD HOPKINS,

WILLIAM GOODWIN [49]

Hartford upon Connecticut, the 28th of October 1647.

Testimonials

In obitum viri Doctissimi Thomae Hookeri

Pastoris Ecclesiae Hertfordiensis,

Novangliae, Collegae fui,[50]

A star of heaven whose beams were very bright,

Who was a burning and a shining light,

Did shine in our horizon fourteen years,

Or thereabout, but now he disappears:

July the seventh sixteen hundred forty seven,

His blessed soul ascended up to heaven.

He was a man exceeding rich in truth;

He stored up rich treasures from his youth.

While he was in the University,

His light did shine, his parts were very high.

When he was fellow of Emmanuel,

Much learning in his solid head did dwell.

His knowledge in Theologie Divine,

In Chelmesford Lectures diverse years did shine.

Dark Scriptures he most clearly did expound,

And that great mystery of Christ profound.

He had a singular clear insight, in

The soul’s conversion unto God from sin:

And in what method men come to inherit,

Both Christ and all his fullness by the Spirit.

He made the truth appear by light of reason,

And spoke most comfortable words in season.

To poor distressed sinners and contrite,

And such as to the Promises had right.

Which did revive their hearts and make them Wonder

And in reproof he was a son of Thunder.

He spoke the Word with such authority,

That many from themselves to Christ did fly.

His preaching was full of the Holy Ghost,

Whose presence in him we admired most.

He did excel in Mercy, Peace and Love,

Was Lion-like in courage, yet a Dove.

He from the largeness of his royal heart,

His treasures was most ready to impart.

To many Ministers he was a father;

Who from his light, much pleasant light did gather.

The principles he held were clear and strong:

He was to truth a mighty pillar long.

I can affirm I know no man more free

From errors in his judgment, than was he.

His holy heart delighted much to act

The will of God, wherein he was exact.

No other way could with his spirit suit;

His conversation was full of fruit.

He was abundant in the Work of God

Until death came, and heaven was his abode.

At his last clause Christ found him doing well,

His blameless life, but few can parallel.

The peace he had fully thirty years ago

At death was firm, not touched by the foe.

Of all his days and times, the last were best:

The end of such is peace, he is at rest.

His lips, they were a spring and tree of life,

Unto his people, family and wife,

In which much wisdom, health, and grace was found,

Are sealed up, and buried under ground.

If any to this Platform can reply

With better reason, let this volume die:

But better argument if none can give,

Then Thomas Hooker’s Policy shall live.

SAM. STONE, Teaching Elder

Of the same church at Hartford with him

On my reverend and dear brother,

MR. THOMAS HOOKER,

late pastor of the church at Hartford on Connecticut.

To see three things was holy Austin’s wish:

Rome in her Flower, Christ Jesus in the Flesh,

And Paul in the pulpit; Lately men might see,

Two first, and more, in Hooker’s Ministry.

Zion in Beauty, is a fairer sight,

Than Rome in Flower, with all her Glory dight: [51]

Yet Zion’s beauty did most clearly shine,

In Hooker’s Rule and Doctrine; both Divine.

Christ in the Spirit, is more than Christ in Flesh,

Our souls to quicken, and our states to bless:

Yet Christ in Spirit broke forth mightily,

In faithful Hooker’s searching ministry.

Paul in the pulpit, Hooker could not reach,

Yet did he Christ in Spirit so lively preach:

That living hearers thought he did inherit

A double portion of Paul’s lively spirit.

Prudent in rule, in argument quick, full:

Fervent in prayer, in preaching powerful:

That well did learned Ame’s record bear,

The like to him he never wont to hear.

‘Twas of Geneva’s Worthies said, with wonder,

(Those Worthies Three:) Farell was wont to thunder;

Viret, like rain, on tender grass to shower,

But Calvin, lively oracles to pour.

All these in Hooker’s spirit did remain:

A Son of Thunder, and a shower of rain,

A pourer-forth of lively oracles,

In saving souls, the sum of miracles.

Now blessed Hooker, thou are set on high,

Above the thankless world, and cloudy sky:

Do thou of all thy labor reap the crown,

While we here reap the seed, which thou hast sown.

J. COTTON

In supulchrum Reverendissimi viri, fratis charissimi [52]

M. Tho. Hookeri.

America, although she does not boast

Of all the gold and silver from this coast,

Lent to her Sister Europe’s need, or pride,

(For that’s repaid her, with much gain beside

In one rich pearl, which Heavens did thence afford,

As pious Herbert gave his honest word)

Yet thinks, SHE in the catalogue may come

With Europe, Africa, Asia, for One tomb.

E. Rogers.

Editor’s Preface

‘My times (says David) are in Your Hand.’ Neither is it fit for us to so much as know the seasons which the Father has put in His own power.[53] This is as conspicuously made good in His appointing the seasons for justifying His own cause, as it is of any other event whatsoever. As He has as great an interest in this treatise — being the principal, indeed, the sole Author of all that is written or spoken for His cause — He himself assumes the prerogative to judge and determine the fittest opportunity for every word that will be uttered, much more published in testimony of it. This I have learned with silence and submission (as I have learned many other lessons) from His strong and all wise disposing providence towards this treatise; and towards some other passages and treatises that have related to, or been intended for, the defense and clearing [54] of this Argument.

This treatise was finished and sent over transcribed, under the eye and exact review of the eminently accomplished author himself, nearly two years ago. He also then followed it (as I have heard) with many prayers and tears, for a blessing upon the publishing. But it was then buried in the rude waves of the vast ocean, with many precious saints, in their passage from here. Most of those who were affected to this cause (and who impetuously called for a model of this way), then judged this to be a loss not recompensable at any other time, in respect to the opportunity and importunity of that season. But God (we see by this strange disaster) thought it best to rather reserve it for such a time as this: in which the noise and tumultuous outcries of many, being somewhat stilled, the words of the wise may be (as Solomon says Ecc 9.17) better heard in quiet.[55] The raging violence of that hot season, which like a fiery oven, devoured all who were cast into it,Hos 7.7 now being a little moderated and allayed, men may be better disposed to hear and consider reason. And this is especially so, coming from this hand whom all men knew and held in esteem as a man of God, and of more than an ordinary spirit. And perhaps some of those reasonings which were then, or would still have been deemed as broken and bruised reeds in the hands of others, may become in his like rods of iron, and prevail to victory; and those rods which have been turned to serpents, may become rods again, now that they are taken up by him.

That forementioned destiny which has attended this book, has at times visited my thoughts with an apprehension of something of similar omen to the cause it pleads for, against the Presbyterian government. It is that, after being overwhelmed with a flood of obloquies, and disadvantages, and misrepresentations, and injurious oppressions that were thrown after it, it might again emerge (in the time which God alone has put in his own power) — indeed, that it might shoot forth out of the same seeds of Truth which have been scattered and buried underground. This is more readily entertained by me, because from our first entrance into this conflict, I took account and looked for it — that this truth, and all that should be said for it, was ordained by Christ (of whom every truth is a ray and beam). That it was to be like a seed of corn which, unless it falls to the ground and dies — and this perhaps together with some of the persons who profess it — it does not bring forth much fruit. All that is His is always at first sown in weakness; but afterwards it rises in power. One age sows, and another reaps. And yet in these latter days, in which the light and sunshine grows hotter and more intense, the same age may perhaps see and enjoy both the seedtime, and the increase.

However, I am certain of this — which may more visibly be read out of this, and a more than usual conjunction of many other occurrences falling out at this juncture of time — that God is evidently proclaiming by a loud and powerful voice of providence, that His design and pleasure is (for whatever ends and results only He himself knows) to renew and hold up this controversy among us, as if it had but newly begun. And this is notwithstanding all that sluggish backwardness in those who have been called upon, indeed cried upon, to maintain it. And those slight and despising thoughts in others are not worth the pains and travail. Mr. Hooker’s humility and modesty to appear in print upon any other subject — considering his abilities in all kinds, both for preaching and disputing — were singular. God has not only stirred up the spirit of this great worthy to undertake the defense of it, but has so ordered it, that it should be accompanied with many other treatises now published, or to be made public, that have long since been prepared, but detained. It is as if to bear it company, but now issuing forth all at once, as it were. Some of these will provoke and occasion others, or necessitate some of those already engaged, to make fresh replies, or in some other way, to vindicate the truth.[56]

Indeed, and what is more eminently observable to this purpose in hand, is that the Assembly of [Westminster] Divines itself should now, and not till now, set to work anew, to assert and convincingly lay out the Divine Justice of Church-government,[57] both in the general principles upon which it is to be made out, and the particularities of it. Providence has so conspired and contrived it. Though upon the Order of the Honorable House, long since issued, a faint attempt was made by them towards an entrance to it. And so this assembly is not only to take a new survey, but go over upon a new woof,[58] the whole piece and platform they had debated and presented before, but under a “there may be,” and “it is lawful and agreeable to the word,” and the like. By all these coincident events, the Lord is calling his saints to a fresh and more serious revival of these controversies that are not as yet determined, nor fully cleared either to the satisfaction of God or man. And moreover, by this last point alone (if there were no other higher and weightier consideration), it puts a sufficient caveat and demur to the sword’s plea, or intermeddling in this quarrel that is pending litigation,[59] the suit as yet depending on another way of trial.

As touching this treatise, and the worthy author of it, I do not intend to preface anything by commendation of either to the Reader. That would indeed be laying paint on burnished marble, or adding light to the sun. The trust of viewing it at the press being committed to my care, out of the honor I bore to him, and love for this cause that my heart is in, I have endeavored to discharge it with my utmost diligence and faithfulness. I have done it all the right I could. And Reader, be assured you have it presented here as it was now transcribed and sent over, without addition or diminution. Neither did I intermeddle so far as to look at the quotations in the authors themselves whom he confutes; but I left them as I found them in the copy. Only, I believe upon some conjectures, that the copy which perished, and was revised throughout — and perhaps added to by the author — was more perfect than this.

I have no more to do, than to commend it and you to the blessing of God.

April 17, 1648

THO. GOODWIN [60]

A

SURVEY

of the Sum of

Church-Discipline

Part I. Ecclesiastical Policy

Chapter 1. Ecclesiastical Policy Defined.

Ecclesiastical Policy [61] is a skill of ordering the affairs of Christ’s house, according to the pattern of His word.

Skill. When we speak of spiritual things, we desire to speak in the words which the wisdom of the Holy Ghost teaches. And so we will compare spiritual words and spiritual things together. And therefore, though the government which we are now to treat, shares its general nature in common with others of like rank, from there it may be (as it is) truly called an Art or Policy, as civil governments are styled. And there is a like parity and proportion of reason, in regard to the nature of the work. Yet we attend the language of the Apostle. When he would instruct Timothy touching the subject now to be treated, and furnish him with directions fitting and sufficient for it, he refers to it by knowledge or skill, how to conduct himself in the house of God, 1Tim 3.15.[62]

It’s the knowledge of the duty of some rule that lies upon him. Thus, knowing how to converse and carry ourselves in church-work as the effect, leads us by the hand to look to the cause from which it comes — namely, the rule by the staple-precepts of which (as by the King’s standard) this knowledge has its being, and is bounded in its operations. The effect is thus expressed, but the cause is only implied.

Ordering. It’s the art of ordering the affairs of the Church. So the Apostle speaks of it in Col 2.5, When I behold your faith and order [63] — as if he would refer the whole work of the Gospel to these two heads: Doctrine and Discipline. So much of religion, as it concerns the nature and work of faith inwardly in the soul, towards God and man, is contained in the first branch he lists, Faith. Order, which is the second and opposite member, includes the exercise of Discipline and the censures of the Church, so far as they are expressed by rule. And these concern the rectifying of the carriage of those who are in confederation with each other.

This word Order, taken in its native and narrow meaning, implies the right posture of things in their proper places and ranks, when they are marshalled by the rule of Method, according to their special precedencies and dependencies, each upon the other. And here, by a metonymy [64] of the adjunct, is implied the managing of all Church-Ordinances according to all its forms; or as Ezekiel puts it, its outgoings and incomings.[65] It is to be with that piety and spiritual prudence that is most suitable to all which time, place, persons, and practices can require — as dispensed by some, and received by others.

So that, when all offices and ordinances are managed in this manner, in a seemly demeanor, the Church is then truly and visibly Militant; it becomes formidable, like a well-ordered army with banners. But when you lose the ranks, and rout the company by disorderly administrations, it is the overthrow of the army, and so of the Church.

House of Christ. It is the expression of the Apostle in the place previously quoted, 1Tim 3.15, That you may know how to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the Church of the Living God. God is the Father of all the family in heaven and earth — Christ the Head and Redeemer, the Holy Ghost the Comforter.

As the Head permits a double consideration, so does the Church, which is his body. Christ is a,

- Mystical Head, by His spiritual influence; and a

- Political Head, by his special guidance in the means and dispensation of his ordinances

The Church too is a Mystical and Political body.

The Mystical Body is the Church of true believers. Being effectually called by His word and spirit, and yielding to that call by faith, they are spiritually united to Christ, from whom, as from a head, all spiritual life and motion is communicated on his part, and received on theirs. And this makes up the Invisible Church, because the union (and so the relation, in the truth of it) is inward, and not to be seen by sense. We won’t inquire about this now; but it is what we believe.

The Political Body or Church Visible, results from that relation between the professors of the faith, when by voluntary consent, they yield outward subjection to that government of Christ which he has prescribed in his word. It is that government which, as an external Head, he exercises by His word, Spirit, and discipline — by his ordinances and the officers over them, who have yielded themselves as subjects to His headship and supreme authority. For Christ having humbled himself to death, even the cursed death upon the cross, God the Father has given him a name above everything that is named. He has given him all things, committed all power into his hand, and delegated to him the immediate dispensation of this power. For the Father judges no man. And by a parity of reason, and in a right sense, He calls, quickens, and rules no man. Rather, he has committed the immediate dispensation of all to the Son. [66] He exercises this power invisibly in their hearts, by the operations of his Spirit. But he exercises it visibly by his ordinances and officers in his Church, and upon his subjects who profess allegiance and homage to him. So the Apostle says in Eph 4.8, 11: When he ascended on high, and led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men, some to be pastors, some to be teachers — all set in his Church, and all for the good of his Church.

And as He has a golden Scepter for the guidance of his servants,[67] so as a Judge, he has an iron rod to break His enemies in pieces like a potter’s vessel. Psa 2.9 Bring here my enemies who will not have me to rule over them, and slay them before my face. Luk 19.27

Hence, observe in passing and by the way, that the root of this power lies first in Christ, as a Head, and is communicated by virtue of that commission received from the Father: All power in heaven and earth is given to me; therefore preach and baptize, Mat 28.18-19.

We now see the proper and adequate subject about which Ecclesiastical Policy is exercised:

The affairs of his house are the things that pertain to the Visible Church, his visible kingdom on earth. And to this pertain the disputes touching the difference between ecclesiastical and civil policy — what kind of influence they have on each other, together with the tyrannical usurpation of that Man of Sin; and the false claim that Antichrist makes to both the swords;[68] with all the pretenses he devises to serve his own turn; and the false colors he puts on his proceedings, when he would allay his cruelty with a far-fetched device, as though he did it all to attain spiritual ends.[69] And by the color of that order, he would disorder and overturn the whole frame of all kingdoms and commonwealths, if they will not stoop to his tyranny and usurpation.

All those controversies take their proper consideration here, as their proper place. But our intent being to comprehend things in brief, we will avoid such tedious disputes which would trouble our work, and weary the reader.

It is certain that Ecclesiastical Policy confines itself within the affairs of the Church, as its proper compass. My Kingdom, says our Savior, is not of this world. And so the weapons of His Kingdom are spiritual weapons, as our Savior fully concludes in the inference: If my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I would not be delivered to the Jews. But his Kingdom is not of this world; and therefore his servants will not fight.

Men sustain a double relation.

As members of the commonwealth, they have civil weapons; and they may and should use them in a civil way of righteousness. But as members of a church, their weapons are spiritual, and the work is spiritual; and the censures of the Church are spiritual — and these reach the souls and consciences of men.

According to the pattern of the Word. This clause points where the laws of this Kingdom are to be found, and from where they are to be fetched. As Moses’ saw his pattern on the Mount, according to which he was to mold all things in the Tabernacle, so we have ours left on record in the Holy Scriptures — to which we must not add anything, and from which we must not take anything. Christ is the King of his Church, and the Master of his House. He alone can reasonably make laws that are authentic for its government.

And here we will take leave to stay a little, and make this ground good before we pass on. This is because we will have special use for it as a main pillar to bear up the building of the following discourse, against the cavils of papists and formalists.

We will first explicate, and then argue.

Church-government, then, is attended in a double respect, either in regard to the Essentials of it, or to the Circumstantials of it.

Essentials required for completing Church-government are partly in the persons who dispense, and partly in the ordinances that are dispensed.

In the persons who dispense, the kinds of officers who are appointed to that work — the nature, bounds, and limits of their offices — all of these are essentials.

The ordinances which they are to dispense — such as preaching, prayer, seals [i.e., sacraments], church censures, etc. — all of these are to be found in the word; and they should be fetched from the word. And now, under the Gospel, they are and ought to be the same in all places, among all people, at all times, in all succeeding generations, until the coming of Christ.

The means of culture are immutable. [70]

It is not left in the power of persons, officers, churches, nor all the states in the world, to add or diminish, or alter anything in the least measure. But God appointed it all in the Old Testament, and those institutions of His have ever endured (as the Scripture says [71]) — i.e. until the coming of Christ, when the same power which appointed them, changed them. So it is in the New Testament. We are to expect no alteration, for only Christ the Lawgiver appoints, and none but he can do so; and he has made known his will, that he will not change them.

The Circumstantials of Discipline include the time, place, and conduct of these dispensations in civil decencies suitable to the quality of the things, and to the Conditions of the Times, such as peace and persecution. The general rules of these are delivered in the word. But their particular application allows for varieties, mutabilities, and alterations as necessities or conveniences appear by emergent occasions.

We are now to prove that there is an immutable rule touching the Essentials of Discipline left in the word, and it is to be fetched from there.

Argument 1. All parts of God’s worship are appointed by God alone, revealed in the word, and they are to be fetched from there.

This is evident from the nature of worship, which only proceeds from God’s will. And the appointment of it is His peculiar prerogative. For if it had come from the will of man, it would be will-worship, Deu 12.32.[72] It’s true here, that what God does not command, God does not accept. It is the charge that He lays against all superstitious and false devices of men: they never came into His mind or heart, and therefore they never have His approval. Who required these things? He alone knows what will best please him, and his own will can make the best choice.[73]

All Offices and Ordinances of Discipline are parts of God’s worship. They are duties required in the second commandment [re: idolatry], and to there they are to be referred, by the grant of all.

Argument 2. The essentials stand either by the necessity of God’s precept, and so they are immutably required; or else they are left to the arbitrary will of man to appoint.

But they are not left arbitrary. The first part of the argument is evident by the fullness of the division. All things spiritual are either Christian duties, or else they are left to Christian liberty.

The second part is thus proved.

Now, if it is not in man to enable an Officer to do his work, nor to enable Offices or Ordinances to attain their end, then it is not in man’s power to appoint either Officer or Ordinance in the Church. For such an appointment would be cross to wisdom in attempting it; and so it would be frustrated in regard to the end, in not attaining it.

But it is not in man to enable the work, or to make the Ordinance attain its end — because the work is spiritual, and the end is supernatural. And in this especially, lies the difference between civil and ecclesiastical power: Dominion and royal sovereignty may be seated in the one, i.e. in the commonwealth, because they can communicate power from themselves to others, and enable others to attain civil ends, and to accomplish civil work. And in that respect, they are called a human creation.[74] But in the Church there is only Ministry, [75] received from Christ alone. And therefore they cannot delegate any Officer from themselves, and by their own institution; they may only attend the institution of Christ.

No man can have a Curate or Vicar as his Vicarius [deputy or proxy], because he is bound in his own particular, to his place of ministry. He can appoint none, because he can give power to none.

Argument 3. That which is a fundamental point of religion, has divine institution; and so it becomes immutable unless Christ himself repeals it. For principles of that nature must have divine authority to appoint and to remove.

Church Discipline is a fundamental point of religion, Heb. 6. Laying on of hands, by a metonymy of the adjunct, is put for Ordination; and Ordination (one particular) is put for the whole of Church Discipline.

Argument 4. If God took this as unique to Himself under the Law — to appoint Offices and Ordinances in his word, according to his will — then it is unlawful now for any man to arrogate it. This is because His sovereignty is as much now as it was then; his word as perfect now as then. And so there is no reason which can tip the balance another way.

But he did take this as peculiarly His, in the Old Testament, 2Chr 29.25.[76]

Hence (by the way), we may lay in a caveat against significant ceremonies [77] that are instituted by man in God’s worship, as superstitious. I mean those which are appointed to stir up the dull and dead mind of man to remember his duty towards God, using some special signification [78] by which he might be edified. These are superstitious,

1. Because under this institution, these are means of culture.[79] And so they are more efficacious to carry the mind and heart to God as the papists require, but which all Orthodox Divines condemn —indeed, if it is by teaching and stirring members towards these supernatural works, as spiritual worship of God. This is what the Lord condemns in images which tell lies. It is that which the Lord threatens to punish, That His fear is taught by the precepts of men. Isa 29.13

2. Because such ceremonies are of the same kind and homogeneous with the significant part of the actions of the sacrament. And on that basis, they may be said to have a real and true efficacy in teaching, which is properly part of worship — since that part of the sacrament which is placed in signification is also part of it. Does baptism consecrate the child to God? So does the cross. Does baptism signify the Covenant between Christ and the child? So does the cross. For it’s openly said by its patrons, to be a token of the engagement between Christ and the child: that he shall be Christ’s servant and soldier, to follow His colors and fight under His banner to his dying day. And this image, though it has no tongue to speak on its own, yet it speaks by this instituted signification which is put upon it, and pressed by the power of the Prelates.

3. Because those ceremonies, in regard to their end and use, are set in the same rank as God’s own ceremonies, which are truly religious, because God is their appointer. But those others must be superstitious, because man’s will is their institutor. The parity and proportion of reason holds on both sides.

Significant ceremonies, thus instituted, are of the same nature as some of God’s own rites. Take the instance of the phylacteries, Exo 13.16. They were appointed for this end by the Lord: to be remembrances and admonishers of the law, for those who used them. And these ceremonies supply the same place, and are ordained for the same purpose.

The Circumstantials of Discipline — such as time, place, outward decency, and seemliness in managing God’s ordinances. These allow for varieties and mutabilities according to emergent occasions, which alter with the conditions of the Church. There is a seemliness and convenience of time and places of meeting, and the manner of their meeting when the churches are under persecution, that will be greatly altered when the churches enjoy peace and prosperity; and when they have Christian Kings and Queens for their nursing fathers and nursing mothers. Yet in carrying on these Circumstantials according to the mind of Christ, these rules lend a common influence, and are of special consequence and consideration. Among many others, are these:

1. There are not, nor in truth can there be, particular precepts expressed in the Word that meet with all the special varieties of occurrences of this kind. Yet there are general rules under the reach of which all the particulars will come, and by which they may be regulated; and that is without fail. All must be done decently and in order, without rudeness or confusion, For God is not the God of confusion, as in all the churches, 1Cor 14.33. All must be done to edification, 1Cor 14.26. All to God’s glory, 1Cor. 10:31.

2. All these Circumstantials of time, place, and decency, are common to civil as well as sacred things. And they serve indifferently and equally to further the useful administration of both. And therefore, they cannot be conceived to be any part of religious worship; nor can they be ranked within its compass by any show of reason. The ancient maxim applies here: the later art uses the work of the former.[80] Both civil and sacred administrations use these Circumstantials, as issuing from precedent arts. And so they display their own actions to the best advantage for attaining their own ends. Each man may easily find many instances of this.

There must be a right understanding of the meaning of the words — grammatical analysis of the phrase where the promises or commands are expressed — before either our faith can believe the one, or a gracious, humble heart can rightly choose the other and obey it. Both believing and obeying are religious actions; and both suppose the use and work of grammar and of logic also, about the promises and commands. And yet no man who can exercise reason, will say that either grammar or logical analysis are religious actions, much less worship.

3. The will of no man, whether a Magistrate in the Commonwealth, or officers in the churches, is the rule either of commanding or forbidding things indifferent.[81] For if their wills were the rule, they could not err — they need not give an account for their commands, nor could they be punished for any miscarriage in them. Then also, the will of the inferior would be absolutely bound to yield obedience to it, and to do so without questioning or examining the nature of it. Yes, blind obedience would not only be allowed by this, but of necessity enjoined by it. Nor could the Inferior sin in whatever he did in subjecting himself to the directions of the Superior in such indifferent things — all of which are contrary to common sense.

4. The determination of indifferent things — either to be absolutely attended to, or absolutely laid aside, when there’s no preponderance or necessity to tip the balance either way — is beyond warrant. This is because it thwarts the nature of the things, merely out of the pleasure of the imposer. And this is not a rule to go by, since God has by rule left these either to be done or not done, as occasions are presented.

5. Appointment and injunctions of things indifferent, which are either unprofitable and have no good in their use, or are so far prejudicial that they occasion a stop in a Christian course on any just ground — such appointments are to be repealed as unlawful.

(1) For if God’s own ceremonies were to be removed because they were unprofitable, then much more should ours be, Heb. 7.18.[82]

(2) If we must answer for idle words, Mat 12.36 then also for idle ceremonies.

(3) The use of things indifferent is unlawful, when they are not used in subordination to help forward moral duties. For their use and good lie in this: that they may be a way to lend a lift to a higher end. But when they are unprofitable or prejudicial in the sense expressed before, then they are not in subordination to help forward the moral. Ergo,

(4) Whatever crosses [83] the place and office of the governor, is what he must not do or maintain. But to enjoin [require] anything that is unprofitable, is against his place; for his office is to rule for their good, Rom. 13.4. But unprofitable things are not for their good.

Chapter 2. The Constitution of a Visible Church.

In the Causes of it: the Efficient and Material Causes.

Abstract: HOOKER’S view is that the Church as a whole, in its essence, is instituted by God, not man, with Christ as its Head. And yet it is organized in local assemblies of those who profess faith in Christ, and choose their officers. Someone does not belong to that local body merely by living in the area and attending; the civil right of residence does not convey an ecclesiastical right of membership or fellowship. Nor does a profession of faith give a right of fellowship, because excommunication can terminate it. It is therefore initiated by a credible profession of faith in Christ; but fellowship (membership) is established and maintained by visible godliness. Others can charitably observe a reformed life — understanding that the presence of sin remains among the people of God, even though its power has been broken by the grace of God. These are visible saints, and they comprise the Visible Church. Whether they are elect in the Invisible of Church of God, is left in God’s hands; the Church can only judge what is visible. Thus the sacraments, dispensed by the Visible Church, are for visible saints and no others. Whatever corruption is evident among them, is to be corrected by Church discipline, leading either to their repentance, or excommunication.

RUTHERFORD’S view is that the Visible Church is comprised of all those who profess faith in Christ, and others who attend as “ordinary hearers of the Word.” Whether any are visibly saints, is no cause to keep them from being considered part of the Visible Church, and remaining hearers of the Word. Their presence does not keep that church from being a true church. Sacraments, however, belong by right only to the invisible Church. – WHG

This Visible Church, the subject that is adequate for our inquiry, is to be attended in a double regard: either in respect to its Constitution, or its Governance. The Church, in her Constitution, is considered two ways: as an essential whole; or as an integral whole.[84]

As an Essential whole, or a Homogeneous whole,[85] look at it in the first causes out of which she exists and comes to be gathered; this is called the Primary Church.[86] This Church has the right of electing and choosing officers. And once these are set in it, it becomes an organic whole.[87] The Corporation [here, an incorporated town] is a true body, when it has no Mayor, nor other officers, which perhaps she chooses yearly.

We now come to inquire about the Visible Church in her first constitution and gathering. And in handling this, we will take into consideration those special questions in which there appears any difference between us and our Reverend and very learned Brethren. They may desire to propound things in which difficulties yet appear to us, hoping some further evidence may be given for the manifestation of the truth, which we will only seek if we know what we’re seeking. And therefore, we would live and learn. Only while we thus believe, may we thus speak.

The causes of a visible Church, which will make most for clearing the subject we have in hand, are the Efficient causes, as well as the Material and Formal causes of the Efficient.[88] Concerning the Principal cause and Institutor of a visible Church, all sides concur, so far as I can read. And therefore I will relieve the reader of any large discourse in that behalf.

It will be enough to point out the truth as it is expressed in Scripture: namely, the institution of the Church issues from the special appointment of God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ as its head, by the Holy Ghost, sent and set to work for that end. So the Apostle speaks most pregnantly and plainly in Heb 3.3, For this man (meaning Christ) was counted worthy of more honor than Moses, inasmuch as he that has built the house, has more honor than the house. He is the master-builder; Moses was an inferior and under-workman. And ver. 4, For every house is built by some man; but he that builds all things is God. This all refers to all the things that went before; namely, the things of the house.

Whatever belongs to the Church, has God in Christ as its Author. And hence, in the Old Testament Moses was given charge, that as he saw all presented before him on the Mount, in a lively manner, so he must be cautious and conscientious to hold himself to that pattern — not to swerve a hair’s breadth from it, or to add anything of his own devising. And hence our Savior claims this as his royal prerogative, Mat 16.18, Upon this rock I will build my Church. It is His house, and he knows his own mind; and therefore only he will fashion it into a house. And it is from here, as Mr. R. acknowledges, that Ezekiel foreshadows [89] the life, the Temple that was to be erected in the time of the New Testament. He lays out there all the particulars by God’s special appointment: the outgoings and incomings, forms, fashions, its laws, and its ordinances. [90]

Touching the inferior helping cause, namely, the Civil Magistrate — how far he may be said to have a hand in erecting churches — this is what has exercised the heads and pens of the most judicious. And it being too large for this place, and our purpose, we willingly pass it by, not yet being persuaded that the chief Magistrate should stand neutral, and tolerate all religions.

Of The Matter

Of Whom the Visible Church is Comprised

Though it doesn’t have much art in it, yet because it has more art, and indeed more evidence in regard to all those to whom we address this inquiry, we will proceed to make an inquiry of the Matter. First, it concerns all those who seek the good of Church-fellowship — because all need it if they are to be worthy to share in it. Our first conclusion is negative, who it is not comprised of.

Conclusion 1.

Parish precincts, or the abode and dwelling within the bounds and liberties of such a place, do not give a man a right, nor make him matter fit for a visible congregation.

Reason 1. No civil rule can properly convey an ecclesiastical right. The rules are distinct in specie, and their works and ends are also distinct; and therefore they cannot be confounded.

Civil power has a nourishing and preserving faculty for ecclesiastical orders, officers, and their several operations. Kings shall be nursing Fathers, etc. Isa 49.23 But they cannot meet in their proper constitutions. Imperare (ruling) and praedicare (preaching) are not compatible, which has been a ruled case, admitting no contradiction in an ordinary way. One is complete, and has all the causes outside the other. And therefore one does not receive its constitution in whole or in part from the other. Civil power may compel ecclesiastical persons to do what they ought to do in their offices, but it does not confer their office upon them. The Kingdom of Christ is spiritual and not of this world. Joh 18.36 That proposition, then, is beyond control. The second is open to experience.

Taking up an abode or dwelling in such a place or precinct, is by political and civil rule. A man may have it by inheritance from his parents, or he purchases it with his money, or receives it by gift or exchange. Ergo, this can give him no ecclesiastical right to Church-fellowship.

Reason 2. Excommunication from a Church can — no, it does — take away that right which any man has in Church-fellowship. For excommunication, according to the intent of the Word, is cutting off from all Church communion. And whatever right he had before, in his admission to the church, is now disannulled by his excommunication. Let him be as a heathen, Mat. 18.17.

But excommunication does not, nor can it, take away a man’s civil right to the house and land, or the civil privileges he possesses, or remove him from the right of his habitation, civil office, or the authority he is invested in.

Ergo, That [civil right] is not an ecclesiastical right.

Reason 3. If parish precincts had a right to Church-fellowship, then atheists, Papists, Turks,[91] and profane ones, who are enemies to the truth and the Church — yes, men of strange nations and languages, who neither know, nor are able to do the duties of church members — would be fit matter for a church, because they have abided in such places. Indeed, they would have a right to whom Christ has denied a right, Rev 21.27.[92]

Much more might be added here, but the tent is so large, that I suppose any who are seriously judicious, will see the error of it. We will come nearer home then, and to our second conclusion.

Conclusion 2.

Only visible saints are fit matter, appointed by God, to make up a visible Church of Christ.

1. The Terms will be explained;

2. The Question stated; and

3. The Conclusion proved.

1. Saints, as they are understood in this controversy, and in the current expressions of Scripture which speak to this subject (Saints at Corinth, at Philippi, at Rome, in Caesar’s house) were members of the churches. The term comprehends the infants of confederate believers under their parents’ covenant, according to 1Cor 7.14.[93] And such constant expressions of saintship intimate that either they were indeed Saints, or at least they were conceived to be such in view and in appearance. I say in appearance, for when the Scripture so terms and styles men, we must know that saints come under a double apprehension: some are such according to Charity; some are such according to Truth.

Saints according to charity are those who, in their practice and profession — if we look at them in their course, according to what we see by experience, or receive by report and testimony from others, or lastly, if we look at their expressions — they savor so much of Jesus, as though they had been with Him. From all these, so far as rational charity is directed by rule from the Word, a man cannot but conclude that there may be some seeds of the spiritual Work of God in their soul.

In our view, we may call these visible Saints (leaving secret things to God), according to the reach of rational charity which can go no further than to hopeful fruits. We say and we hope, and so we are bound to conceive they are Saints; though such are the secret conveyances and hidden passages of hypocrisy, that they may be gilded, and not gold; seemingly such, but not savingly; known to God and their own hearts, but not to others. So were Judas, Demas, Simon Magus, Ananias, etc. And therefore our Savior proceeds with them, not as God who knows the heart, but in a Church-way, as those who judge the tree by its fruit. What the Church does not see, it cannot censure.[94] Some men’s sins go before, and some come after, 1Tim 5.24.

2. The state of the question is this: Though some are hypocrites inwardly, if their outward behaviors and expressions are blameless and inoffensive, according to reason as directed by the Word, then we can only conclude in charity, that there may be, and is, some special spiritual good in them. They are fit matter for a visible Church, appointed and allowed by Christ.

3. And that is for the following reasons.

Reason 1. From the nature of a visible Church, rightly constituted.

A Church is truly styled, and truly judged by Scripture light, to be the visible body of Christ over whom He is Head, by the Political Government and guidance which he lends to it, 1Cor 12.12.[95] And that it is a visible political body, appears throughout the whole chapter, but especially verses 27, and 28; because in that Church, God sets Orders and Officers: some apostles, teachers, helpers, governments. It is alike to Eph 4.11-12.[96] Where these Officers are set, it is supposed that there are visible concurrences of many saints consenting both to choose them, and to be subject to those being chosen. From this, proceeds this argument:

The members of Christ’s body alone are fit to be members of a true Church, because that is the body of Christ, ex concessis.[97] But only visible saints, who according to the rules of reasonable charity, may be conceived to have some special good in them, are members of Christ’s body.

For, to have a member who does not, nor ever did receive any power, or any virtual [98] imprint, or any operation of its kind from the Head, is not only against reason, but against that reference and correspondence which the members have to the Head.[99] Now, according to the former explication, only visible saints can be said by the rules of reasonable charity, to have virtual influence by some spiritual operation from Christ as a Head.

Therefore, only such are members of a Church.

Reason 2. Those are fit to be members of Christ’s Church, who are subjects in Christ’s Kingdom.

The Church is the visible kingdom in which Christ reigns by the scepter of his word, by ordinances, and by the execution of discipline. To whomever he is a Head, he will be King over them. He is our King; He is our Lawgiver (Isa 33.22). The Church is his House, and he is the Master and Ruler of it. Those who carry themselves in professed rebellion, are Traitors, not subjects. The members of the Body are under the motion and guidance of the Head. Wolves and Cancers are contrary to it. Members are in subordination; Wolves and Cancers are in opposition to the Head.

Thus, visible Saints (as formerly described) are the only subjects in this kingdom.

Christ is the King of Saints (not of drunkards, whoremongers, atheists, etc.).1Cor 6.9-10 They alone proclaim subjection in their practice. They alone attend to knowing and doing the will and command of God. Or in case they swerve aside, and are carried unawares and unwittingly into conspiracy, they are willing to see it, ready to yield and come in again. But those who cry, Hail Master, kiss Christ, and betray him Mat 26.49 — those who profess the truth in words, but deny it in deeds; those who are reprobate to every good work, sons of Belial, who can bear no yoke,2Sam 23.6 but break all cords and cast all commands behind their backs Psa 2.3 — these are convicted rebels, not subjects of Christ’s kingdom.

As a General in the field, Christ will overpower these and destroy them as His enemies. He will not govern them as liege people. Therefore He professes to those who sent a delegation to him, saying that they would not have Him to rule over them, and that they were His enemies: Bring my enemies here, and slay them before my eyes. (Luk 19.14, 27)

Reason 3. If those who are visible Saints, are not the only ones who are fit to be members, then those who are not visible Saints may be members. That is, those who in the judgment of rational charity, are graceless persons for the present, and give themselves up to the swing of their distempers, may also be members. The consequence is beyond dispute, for contradictories divide the breadth of its being.

If visible Saints only be not.

Then non-visible may be.

This draws many absurdities with it. For then those who in the judgment of charity are members of the devil, may be conceived to be members of Christ. Those who to the eye of reason, are servants to sin, may be servants of righteousness and of Christ. And those who are under the kingdom of darkness by the rule of reasonable charity, by that same rule and at the same time, may be judged to be under the kingdom of light. Those who are strangers from the covenant, and without God in the world, may be counted fit to share in the covenant and its privileges — such as sacraments and church society. All of which are absurdities, that common sense will not allow.

If it is replied that all these may be true of cunning hypocrites who are not yet discovered, I will answer that this argument leaves no place for the appearance of such an objection. For the terms in clear expressions, are pointed directly against those who, in the judgment of charity, were not saints; and then the difference is exceedingly wide. Those who are darkness, and the servants of sin inwardly, may to the view of charity seem to be light, and servants of Christ outwardly, and in charity, seem to be led by light. But to say that someone who in outward practice is obviously a slave to sin, and subject to the kingdom of darkness, should yet be conceived to be a servant to God and subject to his kingdom — surely charity must not only pluck out her eyes to see by another’s spectacles, but lose her eyes and spectacles and all, and cease to be charity; indeed, be turned into folly and madness!

Reason 4. Those who are excluded by God from His Covenant and any engagement [100] with it, as being unfit, are not fit to have communion with the Church. For all the holy things of God pertain to that in an especial manner.

It is God’s house, and there is where all God’s treasury lies: the keys of the kingdom are given to the saints. To them belong all the oracles, ordinances, and privileges, etc. But those who hate to be reformed, and cast away His commands, God professes they have no right to take His covenant into their mouth, Psa 50.16-17.[101]

To this, Mr. Rutherford (l.i. p. 116),[102] answers two things. First:

“That the wicked are forbidden for so long as they hate to be reformed, but not simply for that. It does not keep them from being ordinary hearers, and so members of a visible church.”

To this I crave leave to reply several things.

The answer, in its first branch, concedes the cause, and it grants all that was desired or intended — namely: while they hate to be reformed, they have no title. This is all that I have striven for. For if they come to see their sin, and to reform their evil ways, and give evidence of their godly sorrow and repentance, then they are no longer haters of reformation, but true reformers and repentants in the judgment of charity. And then they are visible Saints, and fit to be made materials in the temple — when the rubbish and remains of their distempers are taken away. But while they remain haters, they have no title, as conceded.[103] Therefore, they are not visible Saints for that while; which is all the argument required, and it is now conceded.

Whereas it is added by Mr. R., that “it does not follow from this, that they should not be ordinary hearers of the Word.”

I answer. It is true, it was never intended nor implied; therefore the argument is untouched. For we say, as you do, that it does not follow, nor is it required, to help either the reason or the question. For let it be supposed they may do so [i.e., hear the Word]; indeed, for all we know, they should do so; and yet we will still have what we would.

It is still further added, “being ordinary hearers, and so members of a Church.” I will not inquire now, how near such an expression comes to the cause. I can only conceive it is far from the truth.

1. If ordinary hearing makes a man a member, then excommunicates who are cut off from membership, are still members, for they may ordinarily hear; as conceded.

2. Then Turks, Papists, and all sorts of contemners of the truth, Indians, Infidels, would be members; for they may be, and in many places they are, ordinary hearers.

3. Then in public cities, where several congregations meet at several different hours, one and the same man may be an ordinary hearer in them all; and so a man may be a member of three or four congregations.

Secondly, Mr. Rutherford answers this:

“That this argument concludes nothing against them, because those adulterers and slanderers who are forbidden to take God’s law into their mouths, are to be cast out. But the question is, if they are not cast out, whether the church, for that reason, is not a true church.”

To which I say,

The first part concedes the cause again. For if they were cast out, there is no reason they should be received or taken in; nor do they have a right to it; nor are they fit matter for that work.

The second clause wholly misses the mark again. For the question is, touching the constitution of a church, what matter should it be made of? It doesn’t touch separation from a church. The error is taking in those who are not fit.[104] So that, the argument is still unanswered; indeed, it is further confirmed by these answers. This much may serve to confirm the conclusion for the present; more will be added at an opportune place.

But before we leave the conclusion, we will make some inferences from it, which may further help us in our proceedings and purpose in hand. Something may be collected from this, to reveal the sundry mistakes in the Separatists,[105] in which they depart from the truth — something observed for clearing their way, in which they go along with it.

Inference 1. If visible Saints are fit matter to make up a church, then church fellowship presupposes them to be saints; but properly, it does not make them saints.

Inference 2. Hence, such mistakes in judgment or practice that do not hinder men from being visible saints, do not unfit men from being members of a church either.

Inference 3. Hence, even if the visible churches in England were not true churches (though they are), that would not hinder men from being fit matter for a visible Church.

Inference 4. Hence lastly, not being in a church does not hinder private Christian communion.

The last two inferences are the tenets of those of the Separation; they are not only extremely rigid, but very unreasonable. For if such men are fit matter for public communion, then they are much more fit for private. But men are (or should be) visible Christians before coming into Church fellowship; they are thereby fitted for it; and therefore much more fitted for private communion.

Something else may be observed to clear the way where they align with the truth. Namely, those who hold that visible saints, in the judgment of charity, are fit matter, even though they are not inwardly sanctified, cannot reasonably be thought to maintain that only those who are effectually called, justified, and sanctified, are the sole matter of a rightly constituted Church.

And therefore I could heartily have wished Mr. Rutherford would not have argued against what they freely and professedly grant, which is that,

“Hypocrites, because of their falseness, are colored and covered over with appearances of piety. And so they cannot be censured (not being discovered); and they may be received into Church communion without the breach of any rule, because the Church goes according to their rule of charity in this, being bound to hope all are good (upon grounds which will be laid afterwards) — and which reason, enlightened by rule, cannot prove to be bad.”

This is conceded, and therefore it need not have been proved. But the pinch of the difference lies in this: whether those who walk in a way of profaneness, or remain stubbornly obstinate in some wickedness — though otherwise professing and practicing the things of the Gospel — have any allowance from Christ to constitute a Church, or may be counted fit matter for it, according to the terms of the Gospel.

This is what is controverted, and should have been evicted by argument. There is no color for such a consequence as this: If hypocrites are received into the Church, according to the rule of rational charity and allowance from God, then profane persons may also be received.

It is true, the expressions of some of our brethren, such as those of the Separation, are somewhat narrow at first sight, and seem to require exactness in the highest strain. Yet, if they were but candidly interpreted by the receiving principles, according to which they are known to proceed, then they would carry a fair construction by any brotherly conception. I speak of this, because I observe (and I cannot help but profess that I observe it with trouble and grief) that Mr. R. — a man of such learning and sharp judgment, and of pious moderation in other things and at other times— should yet so commonly and frequently (if I’m not mistaken), and many times without occasion being offered, load the expressions of those against whom he writes, with such a sense that their own grounds, to his own knowledge, directly oppose. And yet, their own words, by an easy interpretation, may allow for a contrary meaning.

I will therefore constrain myself upon so just an occasion, to endeavor to clear this coast, that if it is the will of God, I may forever silence misconceptions, or misinterpretations in this case. And therefore, I will labor toward the following:

1. To lay out the meaning of those of the Separation, out of their own words.

2. To punctually express how far rational charity will go, rectified by the Word, in giving allowance to the visibility of Saints.

3. I hope I will make it apparent that we require no more Saintship to make men fit matter for a visible Church, than Mr. Rutherford’s own grounds will allow us.

The mind and meaning of those of our brethren of the Separation, is written in such great characters, that he who runs may read it, if he will; nor can he readily mistake it, unless he will. Mr. Ainsworth says against Mr. Bernard, p. 174: Saints by calling are the only matter of a visible Church; yet with that, we hold that many are called, but few chosen.

Hence, he cannot hold that they are all true believers, nor truly converted, nor truly sanctified. For then they would all have been chosen and elected, which he peremptorily denies in open words. The sense, then, can be none other than this: that Saints, by external and outward calling, are fit matter for a Church; for if they had been inwardly called, they would also have been elected.

This being the meaning of their tenet, if Mr. R. is pleased to look into his first book, ch. 9, p. 100, he will find that there he gives his readers to understand that he and Mr. Ainsworth are of the same mind. For he lays as a firm cornerstone, the first conclusion that he propounds for the true understanding of the true constitution of a Church: “Saints by external calling are the true members of a visible Church.” These are his words, and Mr. Ainsworth’s are the very same; except that he says the true matter of a Church, and Mr. Ainsworth says the only matter. There can be no odds in these, regarding the substance of the thing intended. For true matter is that which now is inquired after. And if all other matter beside them is false, then in truth, they are the only matter of the Church.

We hear Mr. Robinson,[106] a pious and prudent man, express his own opinion, in his own words. In Justification for Separation, page 112, he propounds the question, and the state of it between him and Mr. Bernard:

“Before I come to the point in controversy, I will lay down two cautions for preventing error in the simple-minded, and cavilling in those who desire to contend. It must be considered that here the question is about the visible and external Church, which is discernable by men. It is not that Church which is internal and invisible, which only the Lord knows. We speak here of visible and external holiness only, of which men may judge — not that which is within and hidden from men’s eyes. For we have no doubt that the purest Church on earth may consist of good and bad in God’s eye — of those who are truly sanctified and faithful, and those who have only for a time put on the outer mask of sanctity, which the Lord will in due time pluck off; though in the meantime, man’s dim sight cannot pierce through it.” [107]

Thus we have full expressions. The Church consists of some who are faithful and sincere-hearted; some counterfeit and false-hearted; some really good, some really bad. Only those who are visibly so bad and vile, should not be accepted. And doesn’t Mr. R. say the same?

In the same place, Mr. Robinson adds,

“I desire it may be remembered that the question between Mr. Bern and me, is about the true and natural members of which the Church is orderly gathered and planted; and not about the decayed and degenerate state of the Church and its members. For we know that natural children may become rebellious, the faithful city may become a harlot, the silver become dross, and the wine become corrupt with water. The vine that was planted wholesome, whose plants were all natural, may degenerate into the plants of a strange vine.”

These expressions are so plain, they need no explication, nor can a man who deals candidly, mistake them, unless one were to set himself on purpose to pervert a writer’s meaning. The one who holds that those may be received into the Church, who may degenerate from subjection and obedience, to rebellion — from faithfulness to falseness; from a pure and sincere profession in its appearance and the approval of men, to a rotten, profane, and unsavory carriage — he must then hold that false, counterfeit, and hollow-hearted hypocrites may be members of a congregation.

Therefore, when we meet with such printed and recorded phrases as this: only the Saints, faithful, called, and sanctified, are to be members of a congregation, etc. – one must be exceedingly weak, or exceedingly willful, not to easily and readily give it such a construction as this: persons who are visibly and externally such, to the judgment of charity, though not always really and internally such by the powerful imprint of God’s grace. Therefore, let such mistakes be forever silenced in the minds and mouths of those who are wise-hearted and moderate. We have thus cleared the expressions of our Brethren of the Separation.

We will now punctually express our own apprehensions, with as much openness and simplicity as our shallowness can attain, listing points and contraries.[108]

1. It’s not the eminency of holiness that we look for in receiving members, but the uprightness of heart. It’s not the strength and growth of grace, but the truth that we attend. Rom 14.1; Heb 5.13.[109]

2. This truth that we know is, and may be accompanied with many failings and infirmities, which may more or less break out and appear to the apprehension of the judicious.

3. The judgment about this truth of grace (as clouded and covered with failings) is not certain and infallible, either to Church or Christian. Philip was deceived by Simon Magus; Paul misjudged Demas; all the disciples thought of Judas as of themselves, though he was a thief (and bore the bag); indeed, even though he was a devil in God’s righteous sentence which He passed upon him (Joh 6.70). The sum is this: The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it? The Lord himself takes that as His role: I the Lord try the heart, and search the mind. (Jer 17.9-10).

4. This judgment of others’ sincerity, then, is opinion only, not knowledge;[110] and therefore, the most discerning may be deceived in it. They may proceed according to the rules of charity, and yet not pass a sentence according to the reality of truth.

5. Charity is not critical,[111] yet she is judicious (she lacks neither eyes nor watchfulness); charity hopes all things, and believes all things that are hopeful or believable (1Cor 13.6); she ever yields and inclines to the better part (unless evidence comes to the contrary), when she hasn’t sufficient ground to prove an evil. She conceives herself bound to tip the balance the other way, and to believe there is some good (what we’re speaking of, is the capacity in a subject).[112] As in the eye there must be either sight or blindness, so in the soul there must be either some measure of grace, or else habitual wickedness — or what we call a graceless condition.

If Love, directed by the rules of reason and religion, doesn’t have sufficient evidence of the one, she believes the other. And in probabilities, wherever the weight of the argument falls, love falls that way. And she has warrant to do so; and by that means her persuasion comes to be poised.

6. The grounds of probabilities by which charity is poised according to the rule, are either taken from the practice, or from the knowledge of the party. The way and ground of our proceeding according to both, may be expressed in this proposition:

One who professes the faith, doesn’t live in the neglect of any known duty, or in the commission of any known evil, and has such a measure of knowledge, that it may reasonably let Christ into the soul, and carry the soul to Him.

These are grounds of probabilities by which charity, poised according to rule, may and ought to conceive that there are some beginnings of spiritual good.

I will explicate both in a word.

(1) He must not live in sin. It’s not having sin, but living in sin; it is not to be surprised and taken aside by a distemper, but to trade in it; that is what we have to attend to here. And it must be known sin also, that of which a man is informed and convinced by the power of the Word, and the evidence of reason. Otherwise, sincerity may stand with a continued course in an unknown corruption, just as the Fathers continued in polygamy. But one who commits some gross evil, and expresses no repentance for it — or after conviction, persists in the practice of known wickedness — rational charity accounts them workers of iniquity, evil doers, those who are of the world, and lie in wickedness. By this the children of the devil are known from the children of God: he who hates his brother, and does unrighteousness.[113] In a word, if they were under the discipline of Christ, they would be counted stubbornly persistent, and should be cast out of a congregation — and therefore, they should not be received into it.

(2) There must be sufficient knowledge to let Christ into the soul, and lead the soul to Him. For there’s such a breadth of ignorance in some, like a dark and loathsome dungeon, that reasonable charity will readily conclude there can be no grace. Isa 27.11, It is a people who have no understanding. Therefore, He that made them will not save them. Without understanding, the mind is not good.

And in this sense and according to this explication, we directly deny the proposition of Mr. R., lib. 2, page 259, who says:

“This proposition is false. We are to admit to the Visible Church only those whom we conceive to be Saints, and in the judgment of charity, are persuaded they are such.”

We say this proposition is true (proposition 6 above), in the meaning formerly mentioned; we require no more Saintship to make persons members of a visible Church, than Mr. R.’s own grounds will give us leave and allowance to do.

Now, it is one principle maintained by Mr. R., that profession and baptism constitute a member of a visible Church, lib. 2, p. 25.

From this I reason that whatever is required of a man of years,[114] to fit him for baptism in the judgment of the Church, that and only that, is required to make him a member. And visible holiness (as above) is required to fit a man of years to be baptized. [115]

The consequence cannot be denied, because to be baptized, and to be admitted as a member, imply each other. The assumption is proved by the constant and received practice of John the Baptist, Mat 3.5-6.[116] When in Jerusalem and Judea, scribes, people, and soldiers came to be baptized, they confessed their sins, verse 6. It was a confession that amounted to repentance; for so the Baptist interprets it: Bring forth fruits worthy of repentance and amendment of life, verses 7, 8. And their own words evidence as much, Luk 3.5-6, What shall we do? The advice of the Apostle requires as much, Repent and be baptized, Act 2.38; and the works of this repentance, and the aim of baptism, import as much. For the remission of sin calls for such a competent knowledge of Christ, and of remission of sins in Him, that they make way for the sight of the need of a Savior, and also of going to Him.

Again (2), when Mr. R. thus writes, lib. 2, p. 99,

“The ignorant and simple ones among the papists have not rejected the Gospel obstinately, for it was never revealed to them; yet the simple ignorance of points that are principally fundamental, makes them a non-church.”

From which I reason thus:

That ignorance which makes persons not to be a Church, will hinder a person from being a true member of a Church.

But there is simple ignorance of fundamental points, that makes people a non-Church.

This by is Mr. R.’s own confession. Therefore, by his grant, there is an ignorance that will keep a man from being a member of a true Church; and there is no point more fundamental than for Christ to be the foundation stone, laid by God, on which our faith and we must be built.

(3) A third ground we take from Mr. R. is l.2. p. 196, where he has these words:

“To speak properly, faith gives us a right to the seals; and to speak accurately, a visible profession of the faith does not give a man a right to the seals; it only notifies and declares to the Church, first, that the man has a right to the seals because he believes, and secondly, that the Church may lawfully give them to him.”

From this I reason,

That profession which notifies the Church that a person is a true believer, must also notify the Church that he has true grace. And the profession that Mr. R. requires, must likewise notify the Church that a person is a true believer.

And if it thus notifies the Church of true faith, it must present such grounds of probability to charity, rectified by the rules of reason and religion, that they will tip and carry the scales of a man’s judgment that way. The evidences of grace, to a charitable and reasonable consideration, will outweigh all the evidences that come in competition or comparison with them. Otherwise they cannot denote that a party is a believer, but sway judicious charity to the contrary side.

Conclusion 3.

Churches constituted of fit matter may yet be corrupted by scandals breaking out, and pestered with scandalous persons. These may be tolerated only so far, until in a judicial way, the censures of the Church are exercised upon them according to the rule of Christ. And thereby they are reformed, or else removed and cut off from the body.

There are three branches in the conclusion, which present evidence of truth at first sight, and therefore we won’t stay long upon the proof.

1. Churches rightly constituted may soon be corrupted. The Scriptures are pregnant which testify of this; and experience is so plain that it is past questioning — at Corinth, Galatia, Sardis, Laodicea, etc. And above all, this is to be seen in the Church of the Jews. The canker of falseness in doctrine, and corruption in manners, had so far eaten into the very essence of the Church, that the Lord threatened to give her a bill of divorce, and to cast her out of His sight as not being His wife, Hos 2.2.

2. Yet, in such declining times, when diseases grow deadly, toleration is allowed; and of necessity it must be so far granted, until by a judicial proceeding, the evil is examined, the parties convicted, and censures applied for reformation. For the Ordinances of Christ and the rules of the Gospel serve not only for the constitution of a Church, but for the preservation of it. That is the main scope of our Savior’s government: first, to gain a sinner if it may be, for he did not come to condemn the world (men can condemn themselves fast enough), but to save it. And the censures of the Church are sufficient to recover the sick and diseased, as well as to nourish the found.

Hence our Savior requires a time of trial, to see if they may be healed. And until that is over, they must be tolerated. Cutting off is only used when things come to extremity. If he will not hear, let him be as a heathen, etc. (Mat 18.16). Therefore, had he heard and submitted to the censure of the Church, and thereby been gained to repentance and reformation, no further proceeding would have been needed. But in case they prove incorrigible and irrecoverable by the medicine used, they are then to be abandoned. Purge out the old leaven, 1Cor 5.7; cast out such a person.

And hence it is evident that the corrupting of a constituted Church gives no allowance to bring in corrupt members to the constitution of a Church, but the contrary is shown. If a pertinacious member should be removed by the rule of the Gospel, then such a person should not be admitted.

These conclusions being premised, the arguments of Mr. Rutherford against the visibility of Saints being the right matter of a Church, will allow for an easy answer. His arguments follow.

Argument 1: “This is taken from the manner of receiving members in the Apostles’ Church, where there was nothing but a professed willingness to receive the Gospel, even if they did not receive it from the heart.”

Answer. There was not only a professed willingness to receive the Gospel, but a practical reformation that, in the judgment of charity, gives a ground for hoping there is something real, before the contrary appears. And therefore Peter received Simon Magus upon his approval of the truth and outward conformity to it in the course of his life. But when his practice proclaimed the contrary, the Apostle rejected him as someone in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity; someone who had no share in Christ. And therefore Peter certainly would not allow him to share in the privileges of communion, so long as he persisted without repentance.

Argument 2. “If the Visible Church is a draw-net, where there are fish and filth; a house where there are vessels of silver and gold, and baser vessels of brass and wood; then in a Church rightly constituted, there may be believers and hypocrites.”

Answer. The argument is wholly conceded, and the cause is not touched much less concluded, as may appear by the state of the question taken in its right meaning.

The same may be answered to his third argument, touching the man who came to the wedding not having on a wedding garment.[117] For it seems by the text, that he carried it so cunningly in appearance, that only the Master of the feast perceived it; others did not discover it before his coming in.

The three last arguments having one and the same bottom to bear them up, allow for one and the same answer. Rutherford writes,

Argument 3. “If the Churches of Israel, Judah, Galatia, Sardis, Laodicea, were truly constituted Churches, then visible saints are not only fit matter allowed by Christ to make up a visible Church, but they were Churches truly constituted; and yet they had clean and unclean mixed among them.”

Answer. The consequence is denied, and the cause is given in the third conclusion (above). This is because, by rule, such persons are only to be tolerated for a time, until the censures are tried upon them. If they still prove incorrigible, they are to be removed and excommunicated. So that, the edge of the argument may be turned most truly against the cause that it would prove:

If in all these Churches, the unclean and profane were to be excommunicated, then persons such as those were not to be admitted. And indeed, by God’s command they were to be excommunicated. Therefore, persons such as those were not to be admitted.

It is certain that Christ allows the toleration of some in the Church, for a time [after admission], whom He does not allow to be taken in as fit matter to make up a Church.

The rest of his arguments propounded in his second book, p. 251, labor from the same mistake; and the same answer relieves the reader without the least trouble. For let him carry along with him in his consideration, the conclusions formerly propounded, and refresh his memory with the caveat and caution that was put in by Mr. Robinson when I cleared the opinion of our Brethren of the Separation. Our question is not whether members now received, and visible Christians in the eye of charity, may so degenerate and break out into scandalous courses and apostasies that they may be scandalous, and grossly so. Rather, the question is whether in the orderly gathering of the Church, such persons can and ought to be received, according to the way and warrant of Christ.

And therefore to argue, that because the Church now gathered has wicked and ungodly in it, and they are not visible Saints, the Church may therefore be gathered of such wicked persons — is so broad a non-consequence, and it makes the Church door so wide, that Mr. R.’s own principles will proclaim it to be the broad way that leads cross to the tenor of the Gospel. For I would make a collection that carries a parity of reasoning with Mr. R.’s inference, but which cannot stand with his own grounds. [It proceeds thus]:

1. Such were in the Church of Israel in Deu 29.

2. Such were the false apostles, Nicolaitans, followers of Balaam and Jezebel’s doctrine, who were members of the Churches of Asia (Rev 2.6, 14).

3. Such were schismatics, railers, and partakers of the devil’s table (1Cor 6.10; 10.21)

Prem. 1. Such may be received as members according to the order of Christ.

Prem. 2. Such as these are openly scandalous.

Conseq. Therefore, those who are openly scandalous may be received into the Visible Church.

His argument not only opens the Church door, but it pulls down the Church sides. It’s that which Mr. R. himself questions, and professed in such terms, lib. 2, p. 251. Let him but defend his own opinion, and that same defense will maintain our cause from the force of these arguments.

Argument 4. His fourth argument, taken from the three thousand converts in Acts 2, was answered before [see Conclusion 2, above].

Argument 5. His fifth argument is on p. 253: “If we are to bear one another’s burden, and so fulfill the Law of Christ, and if grace may exist beside many sins — yes, if Simon Magus’ profession was deemed sufficient to give him baptism — then it is not required that all the members of the Visible Church be visible Saints, as explicated before.”

Answer. The consequence fails. For all this may be so, namely, there may be many weaknesses, and yet to reasonable charity, also visible expressions of repentance; and it is certain, there were such in Simon Magus. For what Peter exacted from those in Act 2.38, Repent and be baptized, was following the same rule of Christ which he had received and delivered to others; and therefore he required as much from Simon Magus.

The example of Asa and Solomon — the one breaking out into open persecution, the other into toleration of gross idolatry — are not pertinent here. They are prejudicial to Mr. R.’s own defense and confession. For if such as these may be received, then openly scandalous persons may be received, which he denies, as said earlier.

Argument 6. “If only visible Saints should be received, then we are not only to try ourselves, but to examine and judge one another carefully; and everyone must labor to be satisfied in conscience about the regeneration of one another.”

Answer. Mr. R. maintains that we should be satisfied in the judgment of charity, that persons are regenerated. For he holds,

1. That we must beware they are not scandalous.

2. They must be such as may be baptized by the order of Christ; and these must repent and profess their faith in the Lord Jesus.

3. They must be such that, by their profession, they denote that they are true believers, as above, lib. 2, page 196.

Therefore, they must try and examine them, that they are regenerated, and these grounds give warrant to it.

Argument 7. “If many are brought and called to the Visible Church on purpose — both in God’s revealed intention in His word to convert them; and also in the Churches, so that they may be converted — then the Church does not consist only of those who are professed converts.”

Answer. The proposition fails. Those who are converts in the judgment of charity, may yet in God’s intention, be brought into the Church, that they may be truly converted. But if he means that the Church purposely receives them into the Church to be converted, then it is cross to his own tenet; and it means a person may be received to the seals of the Covenant, who does not notify the Church that he has faith. Indeed, the Church may receive those to the seals, whom she knows have no right to the seals. For she knows they are not invisible members, which alone, in Mr. R.’s judgment, gives them the right.

*****

Having thus cleared our way, we will take leave in a few words, to take into further consideration and examination, some expressions of Mr. Rutherford, found in chap. 9, page 99, l.i., where near the end he has these words:

Assertion 1. “We say that there is nothing more required, touching the essential property and nature of being members of a visible Church, except that they profess the faith before men; desire the seals of the Covenant; and crave fellowship with the Visible Church.”

Assertion 2. “Preaching the Gospel denotes a true Church.”

We will take these into consideration, in the order they are propounded.

Regarding Assertion 1 — 2Tim 3.5, Those who have a show of godliness and deny the power of it. The Apostle’s charge, I say, is that we should turn away from such persons, i.e., renounce all voluntary and unnecessary familiarity with them. For the condition to which we are called by God, may perhaps necessitate a man or woman to hold constant and intimate familiarity with them, in point of conscience, by virtue of their calling. A godly and pious wife must do the duties of a wife in the most inward and intimate manner of familiarity with her husband, even if he is profane and wicked. The bond of relation necessitates it. But if she were free, she would be conscience-bound neither to marry, nor to maintain any special familiarity with him — because being free, she has a choice, and her society is voluntary; thus it is to be avoided. From this, the argument grows:

Argument 1. If I must not enter into a voluntary or unnecessary familiarity with those who have only a show of godliness, and who deny the power of it, then I am bound much more not to enter into a special and spiritual society and fellowship of the faith.

Because this is much more than ordinary and civil familiarity, there is much more danger. This first part is the charge of the Apostle; therefore the second is undeniable.

Argument 2. Again the Apostle’s advice is plain and peremptory. If a brother is an idolater, or covetous, etc. do not eat with such a man, 1Cor 5.11.

If he is unfit for civil society, then much more so for spiritual society and communion; and therefore both are to be avoided as far as it is in my power, and I am able on my part. For it happens sometimes that I cannot remove a wicked person from my spiritual communion, because it is not in my power to cast someone out, whom a congregation would keep in. And yet I must, by virtue of the Apostle’s charge, ever oppose and protest the admission of such a person. And the rest of the brethren should, according to God, keep that person who is not fit for civil familiarity, out of communion, as being wholly unfit for spiritual fellowship.

Argument 3. Those who should be cast out of a congregation by the rule of Christ, are unfit to be received into it.

But men may have all three of those properties, i.e., they may profess the faith, be eager for the seals, and most desirous of society with the Church. Suppose it is a common drunkard. If not admitted to the Sacrament, he would consider it a disparagement not to be borne. And yet, such a person should be cast out, and therefore also kept out.

Regarding Assertion 2 — Mr. R. says, “It is vain to say the preaching of the word is not an essential mark of the church. This is made good by distinguishing three things:

1. Single and occasional preaching.

2. Settled preaching, or the settling of the lampstand.

3. The preached word with the seals.

From which the answer in sum is this: It is not the single, but the settled preaching of the word, established and remaining in the Church, which is a mark of a true Church.”

Answer. However vain the tenet may seem to be, it will not vanish so easily. “Settled preaching of the word” means a constant opening and applying of the Scriptures, in one place, to one people. But “mark” does not mean any common accident or adjunct which indifferently agrees to other things, as well as to the Church, in that it may denote many things besides. Rather, it must be a differentiating and distinguishing mark; and therefore it must be in its nature,[118] and inseparable from it. These things being confessed, which the received rules of reason evince, I will argue from these as follows:

That which is separable from the Church, and common to something beside that, cannot be a mark of the Church. This is evident from the right explication of the terms.

Settled preaching of the word, and constant opening and applying of the Scriptures to one people, in one place, is separable from the Church [as a whole].

Suppose a minister were to preach for many years to a company of infidels in one place. Or suppose a lecturer spoke constantly to a company of people who have resorted from several churches, to the same Auditory. Here is settled preaching, and yet here is no Church. And therefore, this is a separable adjunct, and no mark.

If it is replied that you must consider settled preaching, as established and remaining in the Church, then here is the answer to that: this plea is still too narrow to cover the nakedness and weakness of this assertion. For on this grant, the argument must follow one of these two ways:

(1) The settled preaching of the word taken with the Church, is a mark of the Church — and this is irrational, to make the Church a mark of itself. Or,

(2) The meaning must be this: settled preaching, while it remains in the Church, is a mark of the Church. But this doesn’t help anything, for the inference remains as feeble as before. For if such a settled preaching is but a common adjunct or separable incidental in its nature, then wherever it may be found, it will never, and can never be a proper mark of that thing — just as the senses of a man are not the mark of a man, even though they are found in a man. [119]

Chapter 3. The Invisible Church as the Subject

of the Seals and Privileges.

Whether the Invisible Church is the principal, prime, and only proper subject to whom all the seals and privileges of special note belong?

Abstract: RUTHERFORD defines the Invisible Church as the elect of God. But he goes on to claim that it is the primary and sole subject to whom the seals (sacraments) and privileges of Christians belong as a right. Others in attendance, as part of the Visible Church, may presumably participate in them, but can derive no benefit from them. He ties membership in the Invisible Church, to those who are “within the Covenant.” Not to hold this view, is tantamount to universalism. But to address the practical aspects of dispensing the sacraments, he agrees that dispensing belongs to the Visible Church, but they are effectively received from that Church, only by the Invisible Church. The Visible church, then, is comprised of both real and apparent believers.

HOOKER denies that the Invisible Church is the primary and sole subject of the seals and privileges, but rather, the Visible Church. He says the Covenant is external and visible regarding a local church body; but it’s internal and invisible regarding our relationship to God as His children. An external covenant is signified by profession, repentance, and visible godliness, even if imperfect (see chap. 4). He denies that the result is universalism. The internal covenant is by grace alone, through faith alone, in which the true elect are known only to God; and yet others, like Ishmael, may reside in the household. The Visible church, then, is comprised of both real and apparent believers. And so it goes. – WHG

Master Rutherford, lib. 2, p. 242, distinct. 3, is pleased to suggest a serious advertisement to us, which being well-considered, many of our erroneous mistakes (he says), may seasonably be recovered, and we may thereby be brought to a right understanding of the things of Christ.

Among others of my brethren, I profess that my scope in this inquiry is only this: to see the way of truth, and to walk in it. And therefore I will gladly lend a willing ear to his direction and advice, so that our errors being revealed thereby, we may see and shun them for the time to come. That particular truth, which will be like a sea-marker to teach us how to steer our course and compass rightly, is thus expressed by him:

“The catholic Invisible Church [i.e., universal], is the principal, prime, and native subject of all the privileges of Christians, etc. And the Visible Church, as she is visible, is in no way such a subject. The non-consideration of which we take to be the ground of many errors in our reverend brethren in this matter.”

This is his seasonable warning, to which I readily attend. And because I would not create uneasiness and sow dispute without cause,[120] I crave leave to make inquiry into two things at which I stick most — so that, being convinced and satisfied in them, I will readily sit down in silence, and submit to the evidence of better reason than my own.

1. Whether the Invisible Church is the principal, prime, and only subject of the seals of the Covenant?

2. Whether holding this conclusion necessarily makes us forsake our doctrine touching that power we give to the people, and our affections for Independency and congregational Churches?

I choose to restrict the proposition to that particular one mentioned, because there appears to be the greatest difficulty for my dim and shallow apprehension. And also because the thorough explication of this, which is most familiar, will of necessity force and draw in with it, a real consideration of the rest. That I may be plain and punctual in our proceeding, I take leave (I hope without offense) to set down the contrary:

The catholic Invisible Church is not the prime and only subject of the seals, and therefore it is not the subject of all the privileges of Christians. I’ll set down this contrary by any argument that Mr. R. has alleged here for the proof or confirmation of it.

When I say the prime and only subject, I understand the meaning of kaq a<uto< (kata auto), of itself. [121] Though his own exposition of the rule is neither safe nor sound, yet it is safe ground in a dispute, to take principles in that sense and meaning which is confessed by the one with whom we dispute. [122] To come to the matter in hand, I will endeavor to do two things:

1. I will consider what he has said for the confirmation of it, and then show what reason I yet have to persuade me not to yield to his proof.

2. I will propound those arguments I have, which wholly hinder me for the time being, from entertaining this opinion.

Argument 1. The first argument that Mr. R. alleges to prove that the Visible Church, as such, does not have a right to the seals, but only the Invisible Church (lib. 2, p. 248), is this:

“Only those who are within the covenant have a right to the seals.” This is Peter’s argument in Act 2.39,[123] to prove the baptizing of infants. “And only the invisible Church has a right to the covenant.”

I answer, people may be said to be within the covenant in two ways: either externally, in the judgment of charity, or internally and spiritually, according the judgment of verity and truth.

Externally are those within the covenant, who expressing their repentance, with their profession of the truth, engage themselves to walk in the ways of God, and in the truth of His worship — even if for the present they don’t have that sound work of Faith in their hearts [internally], and maybe will never have it wrought by God’s Spirit in them.

It is of persons who are thus in covenant, that the Apostle speaks in Acts 2.38-39. And that speaks to Mr. R.’s apprehensions elsewhere, as it will easily appear to anyone who weighs the context.

Being in Covenant is what is understood here (I say), which was visible and intelligible to the Apostle, according to the grounds of judicious charity. Otherwise, the Apostle’s counsel would not have been warranted to carry them to the practice of baptism — not if he had given them direction on a misconceived ground. Nor would they have any reason to follow his direction; for the reply had been easy.

Mr. R. says only invisible Christians have the right to the seals. But for the present, we don’t know whether we are such. And it’s certain that you can neither see nor know it, for the truth of grace is invisible to man. But being externally in Covenant is intelligible by the Apostle; and therefore, that is what is attended here.

Thus the first way (externally) is proved, and the second is just as plain.

The invisible works of grace which make the Church Invisible, it is believed, cannot be seen, nor come within any certainty of human knowledge. And this is not only generally confessed, but also acknowledged as what is meant in this passage. Three thousand were added to the Church, who could not all be proved to the consciences of one another, to be true converts.

It is clear, then, from the scope of the place, the ground of the Apostle’s counsel, and the nature of the promise expressed here,

1. That being externally in covenant is intended here.

2. That being thus in covenant, gives a right to the Seals.

Otherwise the frame of the Apostle’s reason and counsel would have fallen to the ground.

The proposition is thus cleared; the minor proposition is denied as false; and the contrary tenet, — that only the Invisible Church has a right to the Seals — will draw unavoidable difficulties with it, and give such advantages to the adversaries of God’s grace and the dispensation of His ordinances, that they will hardly be regained.

We are compassed about by Mr. Rutherford, in chap l.2, p. 247, with a crowd of accusations that we hold one of the grossest of the Arminian, Popish, and Socinian doctrines. And on all occasions, we hear ad nauseum about our soldering with the errors of Socinus, Catch, Cracov, Nicolaitans, etc. How justly we have in part touched on this; and we will add something about it in due time.

But I would be loath that any of our tenets — ones professedly maintained by us, and not foisted upon us injuriously — should lay such a cornerstone to build up the wretched doctrine of the Anabaptists,[124] as this tenet of his does.

For let Mr. R. help us to answer the Anabaptists upon his grounds, by reasoning thus:

I cannot give the seals of the Covenant in faith, as the Apostle calls faith, to those I cannot know have any right to the Seals.

And I cannot know that infants are of the Invisible Church, which alone gives them a right to the seals.

Therefore, I cannot of faith give the seals to them.

If Mr. R. grants them this proposition — that they may give the seals to those whom they cannot know have any right to them — then the Anabaptists will go away triumphing, as well they may. For they will have such a hold that all the battery of the strongest arguments would not be able to drive them from it.

Mr. R. helps the minor proposition with a distinction he uses in l.2. sec. 5, in the variation, p. 185:

“Faith in Christ truly gives a right to the seals of the covenant; and in God’s intention and decree, called voluntas beneplaciti, they belong only to the Invisible Church.

But the orderly way of the churches giving the seal, is because such a society is a professing or visible Church.

And the orderly giving of the Seals, according to God’s approving will, called voluntas signi & revelata, belongs to the Visible Church.” [125]

This salve is too narrow for the sore. For the distinction will either make God order giving the Seals to those who have no right to them, and so impeach His wisdom (to appoint giving the seals to those whom He gives no right to receive them); or else it implicates plainly (and the several expressions contain) apparent contradictions. For this voluntas signi (God’s will of sign), which allows the Visible Church to give the Seals, either gives another right besides that which the invisible members have, or else it gives no right at all. If it gives another right, then the invisible Church does not have the only right, which is affirmed here. If it gives no right, then the Visible Church gives the Seals orderly to those who have no right to them, not so far as we can see — which was denied before in the grant of the proposition.

Additionally, I must confess that such is my feebleness, I cannot see how this can be avoided. For we ask: How do hypocritical professors come to have a right to the Seals? As members of the Visible Church, they can have no right. These are the very words of Mr. Rutherford, p. 249,

“The Visible Church, as the Visible Church, has no right to the Seals; therefore they, as visible members, have no right to them.”

And they are not invisible members; therefore they can have no right that way. So then, either the Church must give them no seals; or else give seals when she cannot know that they have any right to them. For indeed, they have none, since they are not the invisible Church by which they may claim a right. And being only of the Visible Church, she can give no right. And so, she administers Seals orderly to those who in no way have a right to them. And this is an order without order.

It is for these reasons now expressed, that I cannot see weight enough in Mr. R.’s arguments to persuade my judgment to be satisfied in the proof.

*****

Having then gained this much — that in a true sense, it is a truth that the Visible Church is within the Covenant, and it has a right to the Seals according to the warrant which God has left in His word — let us briefly inquire,

Whether allowance is given to us in the Word, to give to the Visible Church, titles of special note. [126]

And this, too, is a special privilege which is denied by Mr. R. to the Visible Church.

1. It is called the flock, or Church, redeemed by the blood of God.

2. It is styled the body of Christ.

All this is safe and true, in a savory sense (according to the former and familiar explication, still speaking of “visible” according to the judgment of charity, which is the only line according to which our conceptions are to be led).

1. It is called the Flock. This is expressed (and to my apprehension) with as much evidence as can be desired: Act 20.28, “Attend to the whole flock, to feed the Church of God, which He has purchased with his blood.” The Church here, according to us, is Congregational; to Mr. R., it is Presbyterial. But take it either way, it must be visible.

Those over whom Elders and Officers are set to attend, and to be fed by doctrine and discipline, must be a visible Church. For unless they could see them and know them, how could they execute censures upon them? These are called “the Church redeemed with the blood of God;” Rev 5.9 none can be more gloriously styled than this. If any man says that only the elect and invisible are intended by that description, then I answer that such a concept is cross to the very grain of the words, and scope of the text; for they must attend to the whole flock. The charge puts no difference between persons, nor must their care be different. Indeed, on this ground (that it is the elect only), the elders wouldn’t know what their care was, nor upon whom they should bestow it. For they might reply, “Lord we cannot search into your secrets to perceive who are elect and invisible saints; we cannot discern them, and therefore we cannot tell how to feed them.” By contrast, the current and common sense of the Scriptures, taking redeemed and sanctified as visibly such, even if not really such, the stream of the text runs pleasantly, without the least appearance of a doubt.

2. It is called the Body of Christ, 1Cor 12.27-28.

Once these evidences of truth are taken in and entertained, a way is readily made to the right understanding of all Mr. Rutherford’s arguments, so far as they seem to cross any opinion and practice of ours.

And secondly, those heavy indictments which are laid and pleaded against us, will be wiped away with a wet finger. For it follows from this,

- A Church may be visibly in Covenant, which does not have an infallible assistance, but it may err in fundamentals; it may fall away and not endure as the days of heaven. And those are his first and fifth arguments.

- A Church may be visibly redeemed by the blood of God, and be called the Body of Christ, be styled by the name of sons and daughters of God, and yet not be really and inwardly such. This is his second argument. The third was answered before [re: the wedding garment].

- A Church may be visibly redeemed and taught outwardly by the Spirit of Christ (as he is the Political Head of His Church) what was never taught inwardly, nor effectually brought home to Christ; which is Mr. R.’s last argument.

Hence, again, all those heavy indictments which are charged against us, are wiped away. Indeed, before the explication of this holy truth of God, they melt away of themselves, like snow melts in the heat of the Sun.

Those who hold that a visible Church is externally within the Covenant, and that the redeemed ones of God, his sons and daughters, are His Body and House, of which Christ is the Head and husband in a visible manner — these cannot be said, by the inference of any right reason, to maintain that in God’s intention, Christ died for all of them; or that all of them are chosen to glory; or that God intends to save all of them. There is no color of any consequence from such a ground, to make good such a conclusion.[127]

*****

We are done with the first thing which we propounded at the start of this chapter. Namely, I have shown the reason why Mr. Rutherford’s proof does not evince the cause for which it is brought.

As to the second thing, I will now propound those arguments which still hinder me from wholly conceding to the opinion. And that I may narrowly express my naked thoughts, I thus propound the Conclusion I am to prove:

The catholic Invisible Church is not the prime and principal subject of the Seals of the Covenant. They do not kaq a<uto (kata auto), belong to it — which, according to Mr. R.’s mind, means they do not belong to all of them, and only to them.

Argument 1. If those who were graceless, and had no interest in Christ, yet had a command from God to receive the Seals, and had warrant from His word to require them, then they had a right from God (i.e., an outward or visible right in the Church,[128] for that is what we speak of) to partake of them. This admits no denial. For there can be no better right than God’s command to enjoin us, and His word to warrant us, to challenge any privilege.

But those who were graceless and without any interest in Christ (and thus not Invisible members), have God’s command to enjoin them, and His word to warrant them, to receive the Seals. Just as Ishmael, Esau, and all the males were enjoined to be circumcised. All the families of the Jews were commanded to eat the Passover, many of whom, without question, were not Invisible and believing members of Christ.

Argument 2. If many believers who were sincerely so, had no warrant or allowance because of that, to partake of the Seals of the Covenant, then the Seals do not of right belong to all invisible members, as the prime and principal subject of them.

The nature of the terms evidence the truth of the proposition. For warrant and right carry a parity of reason with them. The assumption is made good by this instance: Job and his godly friends were invisible members of Christ; and yet, being strangers from Israel, they are expressly forbidden to eat of the Passover, Exo 12.48.[129]

Argument 3. If the Invisible Church is the prime subject to whom the Seals pertain, then they belong immediately to them, and to all others by their means; this is what the rule of kaq a<uto< (kata auto) undeniably implies. Therefore, in an orderly way they must first be dispensed to them, and communicated from them to others — just as heat is first in the fire, and then communicated from the fire to other things.

But Mr. R. plainly denies this elsewhere, p. 182 — overborne it seems, with the beauty of the truth:

“The orderly giving of the Seals belongs to the Visible Church; and by this device, the Visible Church must have them first, and the invisible have them from her.”

This is professedly cross to the rule formerly mentioned, as all men grant.

Argument 4. Rom 11.17, The true Olive is the Church of the Jews; its fatness is all such privileges that pertain to it. [130] The way and means of how the Gentiles come to partake of it, is by their ingrafting into the Visible Church. This is the received interpretation of the most judicious Beza, Pareus, Willet, etc.; and the context will constrain as much, if it were denied.

From this, I reason thus:

The Olive is the prime subject of that fatness which issues from it, and pertains to it.

And the Visible Church is the Olive.

The Seals (and the other privileges) are part of that fatness which pertains to it.

Therefore, the Visible Church is the prime subject of them.

Before I leave this place, I will commend to Mr. R. his own review, and consideration by the judicious reader of what is written by Mr. R., lib. 2, p. 260:

“If any, after they are received, are found not to be added by God, because they are not regenerated, we are not to cast them out for non-regeneration, even if known.”

If you are bound to keep them in a complete Church state, I suppose you will not deny them the seals, and then they will partake. And so you give the seals to those whom you know have no right to them, because they are known not to be of the invisible Church — that is, because they are known to be non-regenerate persons.

*****

We have now finished the Main Query, and given our reasons why we cannot yield to Mr. R.’s advertisement. We will add one word touching the other particular propounded for debate, which was this:

Whether holding this conclusion will necessarily make us forsake our doctrine of Independency and popular government, so far as we give power to people [congregants or laymen] to act in Church affairs.

For an answer, I yet conceive that holding the former error will neither help us out of an error if we’re in it; nor yet help Mr. R. to confute that opinion, or bring us out of it. For holding to one error will not help a person see, much less recover himself out of another. And by what I have answered, this appears to us to be an error. Therefore, this is enough for the time being, to cause me to waive the inference. But that which carries greatest weight with me is this:

That conclusion which overturns Mr. R.’s main principles touching the government of a Visible Church, will confirm our proceedings, rather than weaken them. And this conclusion, now in debate, does so.

As it may thus appear:

That which puts all offices and the exercise of them, and the seals and the dispensation of them, into the hands of believers

That same thing overthrows the pillar principles of Mr. R. concerning the government of the Visible Church.

And this opinion — which makes the Invisible Church, the prime and principal subject of all Christian privileges, and so of all offices, officers, and their dispensation (for that’s what these are) — puts all offices and officers, the seals and dispensations of them, into their hands.

This part alone can be questioned. And it is thus confirmed:

Because this conclusion or opinion puts the formal reason [131] for all these offices and ordinances into the hands of invisible believers. And that too is evident, because it equates the invisible church with those believers.[132]

If Mr. Rutherford rids his hands of this argument with any reality of truth, he must show some essential cause of offices and officers, of the right of seals and the dispensation of them, besides the Invisible Church; and then he must show that his conclusion and the interpretation which he has settled on, will not suffer by it.

I will only suggest this to him, to give him an occasion to clear this coast [133] to his purpose:

Those terms or things which contain all the essential causes of each other, can have no formal or essential cause added to them. For then, all the essentials would not be there. But those which agree with each other, these contain the essentials of each other.

For this is the nature of those things which are convertible or reciprocal, according to all the rules of right reason — unless a new logic is made, which has never yet seen the light.

Man is a rational creature.[134] He is a living creature endued with a reasonable soul; and every living creature endued with a reasonable soul, is a man. An entire man consists of a soul and body so organized; and whatever consists of such parts, is an entire man. The one takes up as much as the other; all the essential causes of the one, are comprehended in the other. Otherwise they would not have been of equal breadth or capacity, which a reciprocation requires.

The catholic Invisible Church, and all Christian privileges, are of this kind — they thus agree reciprocally

Whatever has these privileges, is the catholic Invisible Church; and the catholic Invisible Church has all these privileges.

And therefore, all the essentials of these privileges are included in it.

And therefore, beside or without this, none can be added upon Mr. Rutherford’s grounds.

Chapter 4. The Formal Cause of a Visible Church: the Church Covenant.

We are done with the Material Cause of a visible Church. And we have seen that it is made up of those who are visible Saints. We have now come to consider the Formal Cause: that which makes the Church to be what it is, and gives it its special nature (as we used to say).

For take all the faithful, whether seemingly or sincerely such, scattered up and down the face of the whole earth. These are like scattered stones in the street, or timber felled in the woods: as yet there is neither a wall made up, nor a frame erected of them.

Those who are sincere, are truly said to be the Mystical Body of Christ, built upon Him by a saving faith. And so they enjoy union to, and communion with the Head. But they cannot (to common sense) be thought to make up a visible communion when they are not only severed from one another, but as it may happen (as in times of persecution), they are wholly unknown to each other.

This invisible communion by faith, makes up the Church Militant, taken mystically; and there is but one in all the world. But the local church we are to attend, must be visible. However many may decently meet together in one place, as they have the right to all ordinances, so they may enjoy the use of them in Christ’s order. And so they must be, and accordingly are, styled as many churches: the churches of Judea, of Galatia, etc.

We are now to inquire about that which gives formality to these churches,. And the conclusion we maintain is this:

Mutual covenanting and confederating of the Saints, in the fellowship of the faith, according to the order of the Gospel, is that which gives constitution and being to a visible Church.

We will consider:

1. What this confederating is.

2. How it is expressed.

3. The reasons for this conclusion.

1. This confederating and covenanting implies two things:

(1) The Act performed between some men for a time; and so it passes away in its expression.[135]

(2) The State arising from the Act of obligation, which is nothing else but that relation of these persons who are thus obliged to one another.

The sum in short is this:

By mutual agreement, each to the other, such persons stand bound in such a state and condition as to answer its terms, and to walk in those ways which may attain its ends.

And the right conception of the nature of the thing — I mean, incorporating men together — will constrain their judgment, so as to yield this. For, consider these several things:

Consideration 1. It is free for any man to offer to join with another who is fit for fellowship, or else to refuse. It is as free for another to reject or to receive those who offer it. And therefore, if they join, it is by their own free consent and mutual engagement on both sides. This being past, that mutual relation of engagement is, as it were, the cement which solders the whole together; or like the mortaring or brazing of the building, which gives fashion and firmness to the whole.

From this it is evident first, that it is not every relation, but only such an engagement which issues from free consent, that makes the covenant. Secondly, this engagement gives each power over the other, and maintains and holds up communion with each other, which cannot be attended except according to the terms of the agreement. And lastly, it is comprised of persons who were wholly free from each other. There can be no necessary tie of mutual accord and fellowship that comes except by free engagement — free (I say) in regard to any human constraint.

Consideration 2. This covenant being taken up in a Church way, and for spiritual ends, it should therefore reasonably be comprised of those who are fitted to it; namely, visible Saints. There is a great cause why those who are to thus engage themselves, and enter upon such a society, should be careful and watchful to search sedulously, and labor to be acquainted with each other’s fitness and sufficiency in judgment, and spiritual discerning to such a service. Because the work is also of so great a weight, it reasonably calls for serious humiliation, and seeking unto God to go along with them, and to grant His blessing and presence to them when they enter upon it.

And hence, it is the manner of our Churches, that there is both a more thorough observation of it attended to by such persons, touching their estate and condition, and seeking God by solemn fasting and prayer when such a work is first entered upon. And then it is attended to afterwards when taking in or receiving all the members who desire to join themselves to the fellowship of the Church.

2. How the Covenant may be expressed.

This Covenant is dispensed or enacted in a double manner: either explicitly, or implicitly.

An Explicit Covenant is when there is an open expression and profession of this engagement in the face of the Assembly, which persons by mutual consent undertake in the ways of Christ.

An Implicit Covenant is when in their practice, they engage themselves to walk in such a society, according to such rules of government which are exercised among them; and so they submit themselves to it, but they don’t make any verbal profession of it.

Thus the people in the parishes in England, when there is a Minister put upon them by the Patron or Bishop, they constantly hold them to the fellowship of the people in such a place, attend all the ordinances used there, and the dispensations of the Minister so imposed upon them, submit to it, and perform all services that may give countenance or encouragement to the person in this work of his Ministry. By such actions, and a fixed attendance upon all such services and duties, they declare by their practices, that which others express by public profession.

Mr. Rutherford cannot be ignorant of this being our opinion and professed apprehension. And I would entreat the Reader to observe once for all, that if he meets with such accusations — that we nullify all Churches besides our own; that if our grounds were accepted, there would be no Churches in the world except in New England, or some few recently set up in Old England; that we are rigid Separatists, etc. — a wise and meek spirit would look past such bitter clamors, as an unworthy and ungrounded aspersion. But the wise-hearted and conscientious Reader will reserve an ear for the innocent, and listen to the other side.[136]

Quest.: It may be inquired here, How far is the covenant required, of necessity?

Ans. According to the foregoing expressions, the answer may cast into the following conclusions.

1. An Implicit Covenant preserves the true nature of the true Church, because it carries the formal reason of confederation in it, by which a Church is constituted. For Implicit and Explicit are but adjuncts, and these are separable from the essence [the essential cause]. Therefore, the essence and being of the Covenant may consist with either type.

2. An Implicit Covenant may be fully sufficient in some cases. Suppose a whole congregation consisted of those who were children to the parents now deceased, who were confederated. Their children were true members according to the rule of the Gospel, by the profession of their fathers’ covenant, even if they hadn’t made any personal and vocal expression of their own engagement, as their fathers did.

3. It most accords with the completeness of the rule, and for the better being of the Church, that there be an Explicit Covenant. For,

(1) Thereby the judgment of the members comes to be informed and convinced of their duty more fully.

(2) Thereby they are kept from cavilling and sidestepping the tenor and terms of the covenant which they have professed and acknowledged before the Lord and so many witnesses.

(3) Thereby their hearts stand under a stronger tie, and are more quickened and provoked to do what they have engaged themselves to do before God and the congregation.

Hence, also, that question receives its explication and answer by another question, namely:

Quest. How far does this covenant require cohabitation? [137]

Ans. Here, several cases which have great variety, of necessity call for various considerations, as revealed by the following directions.

1. Such cohabitation is required for the dispensation of God’s ordinances, and the administration of Church censures.[138] For otherwise, the end of the covenant would be frustrated, and the benefit of the whole be prejudiced. Hence, there must be such a cohabitation of officers, and a convenient company of members, that they may decently and conveniently meet together to exercise all God’s ordinances (Act 14.27; 1Cor 11.26; 14.23).

2. Cohabitation in the same strictness is not required, nor can it be attended by all, in the same manner. But if the special calling in some, or in the public behalf of the Church in others, call for some exceptions, without prejudicing the exercise of public ordinances (as above), then such exceptions may (in truth, they should) be granted.

For instance, merchants whose employments are in far countries, and as in Psa 107.23, occupy their business in the great ocean. So then, their business and employments lie there; and their absence is usually for many months, sometimes for years. They may be allowed to attend their course of business. But others should not (indeed, others cannot) be so dispensed with. And yet these are said to cohabit, because their place of abode is there in the issue.

Hence, and on the same ground, the Church may send out some, either to plant a church in case the body requires it, or to help others who lack able guides to succor them in their beginnings, before such nursling churches can attain a Church-state of their own. And it suffices that they have those under their care, and in their power, to recall them, or take an account of them, as they see fit.

Solomon sent ships to Ophir, which did not return for some years. All states may be compelled to send some men to sea for traffic; sometimes for a just war; and yet no prejudice is done to any rule of Christ, or to Church order in that case.

3. The Reasons for the Covenant.

Argument 1. The first is taken from the resemblance which this policy has with all other bodies politic:

Every spiritual or ecclesiastical corporation receives its being from a spiritual combination.

The visible churches of Christ are ecclesiastical corporations.

Therefore, the first part of the argument has reason and common sense enough to put it beyond question.

Each whole or entire body is made up of its members; for by mutual reference and dependence, they are joined to each other. Thus corporations in towns and cities, as they have their charter granted from the King of State — which gives them warrant and allowance to unite themselves to carry on such works, for such ends, with such advantages — so their mutual engagements to each other, to attend such terms, to walk in such orders, which are suitable to such a condition, gives being to such a body.

It’s that cement which solders them all, that soul as it were, that activates all the parts and particular persons who are so interested in such a way. For no man is constrained to enter into such a condition, unless he wills it. And one who willingly enters it, must also willingly bind and engage himself to each member of that society, to promote the good of the whole, or else he is not actually a member.

The polished and hewn stones prepared with great loveliness and convenience, give no being to a house unless they are conjoined and compacted together; and from there, the whole frame comes to be constituted and built up.

It is so with every particular Church that is rightly gathered. It is a City (Heb 12.22); a house (1Tim 3.15), the body of Christ (1Cor 12.12, 27, 28). And all these passages speak of particular visible churches. For where pastors and teachers are set, and exercise their work, where members are knit and compact, and effectually edify one another, there must be a particular church, not the catholic church. And Mr. Rutherford speaks to this purpose in l.2. p. 302, “A Church on an island is a little city, a little kingdom of Jesus Christ.” Being, then, spiritual cities and corporations, the members must contain in them all the essentials which make up the whole. Visible Saints being the Matter, their union and combination must make up the Form.

Argument 2.

Those who have mutual power over each other, both to command and to constrain in this case, who were of themselves free from each other — done in such a way by all rules appointed by God in providence — must by mutual agreement and engagement, be made partakers of that power.

The Church of believers have mutual power over each other, to command and constrain in this case, those who before were free from each other.

Therefore, they must by mutual agreement and engagement, be made partakers of that power.

The second part or assumption is evident by the course of process and proceeding which our Savior prescribes in Mat 18.15, If your brother offends you, etc. There we have a legal and orderly way laid out by our Savior, in which only brethren of the same Church ought to deal with one another. They cannot exercise it with infidels, nor with other Christian [bodies], as our own experience will give undeniable evidence if we take a taste.

As a Christian, meeting with an offensive carriage in another, I may rebuke him for it. But if he will not hear me, I will call in another one or two; he leaves the church, and refuses to come. Let me go tell the congregation; they send for him; he refuses to come, because one congregation has no power over another, one Classis [139] over another: but each has power over their own, as Mr. R. grants. Each member has power over another, each over Archippus, not only to tell him by entreaty, but to convince him in a legal way;Col 4.17 and in case of stubborn resistance, to bring him to the Church, and to complain of him there. For he is a Brother as well as any of the rest; and therefore, the process of our Savior lies as fairly against him, as against another.

Besides, all these are degrees of binding; each makes way for the other. But gaining and forgiving a brother is a degree of loosening. Indeed, in case he is detected and brought to the Church for heretical doctrine, or some heinous villainy, take Mr. R.’s principles. In case the Classis won’t censure him, he will grant that the congregation may reject such a person, and remove him as their pastor. And I suppose that will prove a power which can take away from him the chief power an officer has. The learned Whitaker has disputed this. He concluded and affirms, that if therefore the pastor, the teacher — if Peter, if Archippus — is a brother, then each brother has as good a law against Archippus, as Archippus has against him, and the proceeding must be the same.[140] For Archippus must remit him to the Church, even if he were the lowliest brother.

Obj. But perhaps it will be replied, Whitaker is disputing about a General Council, what power that council has over the Pope, not of a particular Church.[141]

Ans. Truly, he does so. But it is as true that he gives a proportional power to a particular Church. Hear his words and let the impartial reader then weigh them. [142] I add once more, take it of a General Council, and this will still lend no relief to the answer in the least measure.

Every member of the General Council has power in the censuring of a delinquent (In Mr. R.’s judgment); that is, in passing a censure or sentence in the Council.

Brethren, or laymen (as they are termed) are members of a General Council.

Therefore, each brother has power to censure a brother in case of delinquency.

The Assumption of this second argument, then, is sound and firm.

The Proposition is proved by instance and experience.

If others had no Church-power over this or that party, and if he could have refused to come into their fellowship and joined with them, then it was his voluntary subjection and engagement that gave them all the power or interest they have.

Let any man use his own experience, and it will evince as much. Several Christian men come from far, into places where Churches are planted. By what right or power can this Church charge or challenge any one of them to sit down in that society? Or by what duty is he bound to close with them in that way? As it was in his liberty to come into that place, and among that people, so it is in his liberty to choose to be a member of another congregation.

In a word, if they have no power over him without this, then if they have any, it is by this.[143] Thus we read in Act 5.13, the rest dared not join. Luk 7.30, when the publicans were baptized, the Scribes are said to reject the counsel of God, not being baptized. And neither John nor anyone else had power to constrain them to undertake such a service.

Argument 3. If voluntarily combining Churches makes them a Classical or Presbyterian Church, [144] as Mr. Rutherford confesses, l.2. p. 320:

“If a convenient number of Churches, having ordinary converse with one another, voluntarily combine themselves into one society, it gives the formality of Classical membership.”

“When God has made him a combined member, now by institution of one Presbyterian Church and not of another — though it is by ordinary converse with other Churches — then in case of scandal, where his example may prove prejudicial and infectious to others, this Presbytery must proceed in excommunication against him, because he is combined only with them.” [145]

If a voluntary combining thus makes a man a member of a Classical Church, then a voluntary combination will make him a member of a Congregational Church. For there is the same reason as to the substance of the work, especially upon Mr. R.’s principles — because he would force the institution of a Classis and Synod, from the same place of Scripture, Mat. 18 (l.i. p. 320). If there is one and the same institution, then there is one and the same ground and cause of constitution.

Argument 4.

That society of men who enjoy such spiritual and ecclesiastical privileges, to which none can be admitted without approval and allowance by the whole, must be in a special combination, as members making up the whole.

Because such an act argues for a combined power which the whole has, and not any member alone, they cannot have it except by agreement.

But a particular congregation is such a society that enjoys such spiritual privileges, to which none can be admitted without approval by the whole.

Those who have power to choose their ministers and rulers, have power to admit or reject those who offer themselves to be members.

That last Argument is taken from Induction.[146]

If the inventory of all other respects is brought in, and none can constitute a visible Church, then this alone must:

It is not Christian affection that can make it. For such are so united, who never saw each other, and will never enjoy the society of each other.

It is not cohabitation. For this falls within that dispute about civil precincts, which we formerly proved would give no being to an Ecclesiastical society.

Meeting in one Assembly does not unite persons together. For Infidels and Turks (1Cor 14) may come into Church assemblies to hear the word (as confessed by all hands), and yet they are not made members for that reason.

It is therefore in the House of God, as it is in other houses: we must become covenanting servants if we are to have any interest there, or if we think to claim any privilege there.

To this, Mr. R. answers, lib. 2. p. 125:

“The enumeration is sufficient: for the Seal of Baptism, and a Profession of the Truth, are what make one a member of the Visible Church. 1Cor 12.13, We are all baptized by one Spirit into one body. And can you deny the covenant that is sealed in baptism, and that by this we are all the citizens and domestics churched and received into the Visible Church?”

Of this, we will inquire at large.

Chapter 5. Whether Baptism gives formality,

or makes a member of a visible Church?

Answer. Negative – [Baptism does not make a member of a visible Church.]

Reason 1. If there is a Church, and so there are members, before a baptism, then baptism cannot give the formality —because forming is causal; and so by nature, it is before formation.

The Church, now considered as an essential whole, is before baptism.

And Ministers are before baptism. Otherwise baptism may be administered lawfully by those who are not rulers, pastors, or teachers — which is denied by all orthodox divines; and I have no doubt, by Mr. Rutherford as well.

And there must be a Church of believers to choose a Minister lawfully. For none but a Church can give him a call; and without a call, he cannot administer.

To this, Mr. R. answers, l.2. p. 219,

“It is false that the Church as ministerial, which alone can baptize, is before the Officers, for they would then be before themselves, which is absurd.”

To which the reply is easy:

We are not now speaking of the Church as Ministerial, or as an Organic Whole, but as an Essential Whole, which precedes the Organic [i.e., the organization]. Therefore the argument is wholly untouched. Nor does the answer reach the reason at all. It secretly confutes itself, and confirms the cause. For if baptism cannot precede a Ministerial Church, nor precede that Congregational Church which must first choose the ministers, then such a Church exists much before baptism.

Besides, let it be supposed that some godly zealous Christian and scholar comes into the country, and a company of many Pagans are converted to the faith; I ask whether these may not join a Church fellowship, and choose that man as their pastor, and whether that choice would not be lawful according to God? Therefore, here is a Church before a Minister, and he is a minister before there is a Baptism.

Reason 2. If Baptism gives form to visible membership, then while that remains valid, the party is a visible member. For where the form is, the formation must be, if the principles of reason are in place.

But there is true Baptism resting in the party who has no visible membership; as in one who is excommunicated; in someone who renounces the fellowship of the Church; or when the Church is utterly dissolved — then all Church membership ceases.[147] Yet their baptism is valid.

Answer 1. Mr. Rutherford, p. 220:

“This is against yourselves, and it proves as well that baptism is not a seal of the Covenant of Grace. For an excommunicate may remain externally outside the Visible Church, when baptism remains a seal; and it may be a seal of grace or privilege, which though interrupted or removed in act, remains in habit. Just as being the eldest son of a king may be a seal of the son’s heirship, yet he may be disinherited for a fault, and cast out.” [148]

Reply. The first part of the Answer is not a whit satisfactory, nor does it remove the force of the Argument. For let it be granted that an excommunicate may indeed remain externally outside the covenant, to the judgment of the Visible Church. And yet, Baptism is a seal of it, because Baptism is but a separable adjunct to the Covenant, whose efficacy may be hindered (and thus the spiritual good of it) by the unworthiness of the receiver. Though in its own nature, it is the end of baptism to do that, and as much as it lies in it, it does and would do it, yet the act of it is hindered by the wickedness and unworthiness of the receiver.[149]

But the reason is far otherwise when Baptism is made the form of membership; and therefore the inference will be far otherwise. Namely, though a separable adjunct may be severed from its subject, or the effect of it may be hindered (which it often is), yet it’s never heard that the form of a thing could remain in its full vigor, and not the formation. If to be the eldest son of a King had given the formality of possessing his inheritance, that could never have been taken away; he would have stood possessed of it. But this is not the case when some notorious fault disinherits him; that alone makes him capable of being removed as the subject;[150] but that which gives him the formality of possession, makes him an heir well-deserving.

Answer 2. Mr. R. adds,

“The Church and Church membership are related according to their essence, not just words, or teachings.[151] But baptism and Church membership are not so perfectly related: baptism remains, and Church-membership may be dissolved. The Burgess ticket,[152] by which a man has a right to all the City privileges, may remain when the man — for some crime committed against the City — has lost all his City privileges, and is not now a free citizen. In which case, his Burgess ticket seals nothing to him.

Reply. The reply is that this answer, which should maintain the cause, fully concedes it. For if Church and Church-membership are related according to their essence, and yet baptism doesn’t come within that compass, then certainly it doesn’t give formality to Church-membership; and that is upon a double proof.

1. If Church and Church-membership are perfectly related, without baptism, then they are mutual causes, one of the other, and they receive no constitution or essential causes elsewhere. For they are related out of mutual affection.[153]

2. If Baptism makes membership formal, then it stands in the same kind of relation as Church-membership does, as it gives the specific and proper being to membership.

But Mr. R. says it does not do that, and therefore it cannot lend formality to it.

Lastly, let it be conceded that Baptism and Church-membership are not such perfect relatives; we don’t question that, but only (which is granted) that it is the form, and then form and formation are mutually established and upheld. [154]

As to the Burgess ticket, it if seals nothing of his city-privileges to him, then it remains a writing, but not an authoritative means of freedom, and therefore not a formality of his freedom. For if it had given him his Burgess-ship, then the corporation would have provided for taking it away at the start, as well as taking away his liberty — just as the King sends for the broad Seal when he would oust the Lord Keeper of his power and place.[155]

Mr. R. says, “Further the grant that Baptism seals other things, and it is valid to that end, but does not seal membership — This, I say, destroys the cause which it is brought to defend — to wit, that it cannot be the form, for the form remaining, the formation will certainly continue.”

Reason 3. This tenet necessarily evidences that the Church of Rome is a true Church, which is gathered from this:

Where all the members are true members, the Church is a true Church.

All the members in the congregations in Rome are true members.

Assumption proof:

Those who have the true form of a Church member, are true members.

All the members of the Church of Rome have received true baptism, and so they have received the formality of true members.

Therefore that Church is a true Church.

But this last statement is false; and therefore the first statement is false also.

Reason 4. That which is a Seal of the Covenant, and of our incorporation into the Visible Church, cannot be the form of it.

The first is true, and therefore... [156]

The Proposition is proved, because the Seal, by nature, comes after the thing that is sealed; but the form goes before it.

Mr. Rutherford, l.2. p. 213-216, is very large to lay out the nature and efficacy of Seals and Sacraments. His argument is to good purpose, and it edifies the Reader in that point. I willingly yield to it in all its several points, for the sum and substance of the expressions — namely, that the Sacraments are signs and seals, and exhibitive instruments of the increase of grace. Nor do I know any of us who ever spoke or wrote otherwise.

And what he grants in this, gives testimony to the truth of the Argument and confirms it strongly. Only, let the right sense of some words be weighed as they should be, and not racked beyond the intent of the Author’s mind. For when it is said that Sacraments are not appointed to make a thing that was not, but to confirm and establish a thing that was, this is the easy and ordinary sense of such phrases. To wit: A Sacrament does not give grace where it was not, but confirms grace where it was.[157] It does not begin grace in those who don’t have it, but increases and confirms it in those who do. This is the same thing he devotes so many pages to, and takes so many pains to prove, which is confessed without any further trouble. And so all that labor might have been spared. We crave no more than what is thus acknowledged by all.

For if the Seals do not work grace where it was not, but suppose the grace first wrought, then the Sacrament sealing our incorporation into the Church, likewise supposes this covenant first being made, and only adds a further confirmation to it.

Reason 5. The Church was visible when there was no seal, neither circumcision nor Baptism. Therefore these do not constitute it, nor any member of it. Gen 17.10-11. [158]

Chapter 6. Whether Profession makes a member of a Congregation?

Answer.

1. We will first inquire about the meaning of the question, and the intent of Mr. Rutherford, and so lay down the state of it in its several parts.

2. Then we will give our arguments as to why we cannot give our consent to this tenet.

1. The meaning of the question will best be discovered by our inquiry about the nature of a profession of faith — what it implies, and how it is understood in this discourse.

(1) Profession in the most frequent and familiar apprehension of it, signifies the public manifestation of our assent to the doctrine of Faith, as in the word delivered and received by us, and our resolution to persist in the maintenance of it. And then it is commonly distinguished from practice. Thus we say many may profess fairly, but their practice doesn’t reflect their profession. And in this sense, I suppose Mr. Rutherford does not, nor indeed can he take this sort of profession as serving his purpose.

For an excommunicate cast out of the Church for his sinful carriage, may notwithstanding, in his own judgment, avouch all the truths of Scripture and outwardly desire to enjoy all God’s ordinances. And yet this gives him no formality of membership, because he may have all these and still be cut off from membership.

(2) Profession is yet larger; it also includes a suitable carriage in the life, so far as the profession which is made is void of scandalous courses.[159]

(3) Just as Profession must not be too narrow, so we must be careful not to make it too broad, so as to exact more than is compatible to it in truth. Such a profession of the faith and assent to the doctrine of truth is not exacted here, that a person would be considered not to hold a valid profession of faith (perhaps through ignorance and mistake) just because he holds to something differing from the truth and apprehensions of many other persons or Churches which profess the same faith.[160]

Suppose a Christian maintains justification by Christ’s passive obedience only,[161] whether children have only habitual, or also actual faith [or grace].[162] Such mistakes which may fall in some particulars, in which pious and prudent men have a different judgment, does not mean that such a person has not professed the faith savingly; and so it makes way for membership in a visible Church, warrantably.

Profession, as conceived according to the compass of the former explication, makes a member of the Visible Church, and so a member of all the visible congregations on earth (i.e., it adds a causal power to baptism).

The expressions of Mr. Rutherford which lead me to thus conceive his meaning, are diverse in diverse passages of his books:

Lib.1. ch.9, p. 116, “This does not hinder, but they may yet hear, and so be members of a Church. l.2. p. 125, last 3 lines, “when a person moves from one congregation to another, he makes a tacit covenant with that new society, to serve God in all His ordinances; but he is not therefore made a member of the Visible Church, for he was that before.” l.2. p. 95, “A called pastor is a member of the Visible Church before he is called to be pastor, even if he is not a member of any particular congregation.

These expressions carry a kind of mysterious difficulty with them. We will take the liberty to look further into them in the discourse which follows.

Lastly, l.2. p. 194, the last 2 lines, he has these words:

“Whoever is a member of one visible congregation is, by his Baptism and sincere profession, and his professed standing in covenant with God, a member of all visible congregations on earth, and baptized into all congregations on earth.”

Hence, we then have two things to discuss:

1. That this profession does not make a member.

2. That being made and standing in his professed Covenant with God, is not being made a member of every particular congregation on earth.

As to the first thing to discuss:

Argument 1. Whatever opposes and hinders the work of Baptism, and so hinders the constitution or formality of membership, does not help it forwards, because baptism [Mr. R. says] is the most special [the primary] ingredient in the constitution of that relation.

But a lawful and warrantable profession may help it forwards.

Suppose a man professes the whole truth of God; he differs or mistakes only in this: that all the Churches on earth are wrongly gathered. And therefore he dares not be a member of any; and so he refuses to be baptized. This profession is a warrantable profession (as it was formerly explicated in the third conclusion); and yet this hinders the work and dispensation of baptism in the sense specified there. Therefore it hinders, and does not help, the constitution of membership.

Argument 2. That which gives membership to a party who did not have it before, can restore membership when he has lost it.

But baptism cannot restore lost membership.

That power which judicially cast him out, must judicially or regularly receive him in.

The power of the Church, by virtue of the party’s consociation (in that he falsified it), cast him out; therefore, it must also receive him in upon his humiliation and subjection to the covenant again.

If profession and baptism were sufficient to do the deed, then his baptism remaining the same as it was before his excommunication, and his profession now being renewed, we have the whole formality needed for membership — but our experience evidences this to be false.

Argument 3. Whatever gives actual existence to a member, must give an interest to the whole that actually exists, and therefore to some particular congregation.

For only individuals exist;[163] and since such a person is an individual member, he must have respect or reference to the whole that actually exists.

And the general nature of the catholic Church does this only in particular congregations.

Besides, if he is a particular member, he must be comprehended within the compass of members. And all the members of the catholic Church (take it as complete, an integrum) are comprehended within particular congregations. Therefore, he must be a member of some of them, or else he does not come within the compass or number of those who are members.

Lastly, to be a member of the catholic Church, is first to be a member of the whole – which a man never saw, nor could see, nor do any homage to, nor receive any direction or influence of government from. This, I say, is such a sublimated imagination, that I must confess, it is beyond my shallowness to conceive — and I believe, beyond the breadth of any man’s brain to express.

That which is said afterwards — that a member is cast out of the catholic Church antecedently — will prove an apparent paralogism,[164] and we will test the truth and strength of it when we come to that place.

The Proposition then has a free pass. But (I assume) this profession grants no interest in any particular congregation. That which equally and indifferently belongs to all, can make no particular appropriation to any single one. Why to this one, rather than to any other?

But this profession is indeed equal and indifferent to all, as well as to any one. Therefore, it can give no appropriation to any particular one — no more than saying a woman who loves all Christian men with Christian affection, is therefore a wife to this or that man. So it is here. It is not a general profession that will serve the turn; but there must be a peculiar engagement and appropriation to this or that particular body.

Argument 4. If a party were to become a member of a Church by this profession, then that Church has authority over him. For so she has over her members, and can proceed against them in case of defect.

But by this profession [as Mr. R. defines it], no man has authority over a party; for if they have any, let them claim it, and their own experience will easily evidence their mistake.

Secondly, how can, or why should one Church claim it more than another?

Argument 5. If this profession would give membership, then a man might make himself a member of this or that congregation, whether they would have him or not — indeed, without the participation of the congregation.

Say a baptized man goes into Africa, or to the utmost parts of the earth, and comes to where there are many Churches of Christ. He has been baptized, and professes, and this is enough to make him a member of any Church; and therefore he has rights among them, as a member, whether they will have him or not.

We are done with the first thing to discuss.

The second now comes into consideration. Namely:

Question: Whether a person who is a member of one visible congregation, by his baptism and sincere profession, and his professed standing in covenant with God, is a member of all the congregations on earth.

Answer. Negative. I cannot see how this tenet can stand with the principles of truth, or with Mr. Rutherford’s own grounds.

It cannot stand with the principles of truth, because it draws many inconveniences with it — why take seriously anything he says? [165]

1. If he is a member of all the congregations on earth, then he can perform the duty of a member to all. But that is impossible.

2. Look what liberty or power a man has, as a member in one particular congregation; he has the same in all, because he is a member everywhere. If so, he has as much power in choosing all the officers of all particular congregations, and in maintaining them all. And then he cannot be cast out of one congregation, unless all the officers of all the others cast him out as well.

Indeed, no officers of one congregation will proceed against him, for he will depart to another, because he has as much right there as here. And the officers of those congregations are his pastors and teachers — whose judgment, presence, and concurrence he may justly require, and none can justly deny, before any admonition or Church censure may pass against him.

3. Hence, I can only see that, of necessity, it must follow that one particular congregation must also be another: Ephesus must be Smyrna, and Smyrna must Thyatira. For I reason thus,

Where there are the same individual members, of necessity there must be the same individual whole (integrum). And the ground is undeniable from the received rules of reason: the sum is a whole, to which the parties are essential.[166] Therefore, the same members carry the same essence which they give to the whole.

I assume then from the former grant, that there are the same individual members of all the particular congregations. For if one professor is a member of every particular congregation, then by a parity of reason, all particular professors must be so. And so, all of them being members of one particular congregation, they are members of every congregation. Hence, there being the same members of every particular congregation, every particular congregation is the same; and from that it follows that Ephesus is Smyrna, and Smyrna is Thyatira. Hence, when Smyrna is destroyed, yet Smyrna remains because it is the same with Thyatira, and that yet stands, etc.

Secondly, again, this cannot stand with those principles of Mr. Rutherford’s that are granted and maintained as maxims, which admit no denial, l.1.c.7, p. 72: “We deny that Christ has given the power of jurisdiction to one particular congregation over another.”

Every member has a right to engage with the congregation of which he is a member. But if a man, by professing and being baptized into one, becomes a member of every particular congregation on earth, he is therefore a member in every province and nation. And therefore, the members of this province may send messengers to the Synod of another province. For the members of the congregations of that province, may send messengers to the Provincial Synod. And the members of the congregations in this province, are members of the congregations of that province, because they are members of all the congregations on earth. Therefore, they may send messengers to the Synod of that Province. This is a ready way to turn all into chaos and confusion. And therefore it is certainly not the way of God, who is the God of order, not of confusion. 1Cor 14.33 Hence that expression of Mr. R. (which he lays as a peremptory conclusion) will prove not to have so much certainty and solidity to it as might appear at first sight:

“It is folly to seek differences in particular congregations, for a Church-covenant does not make the difference — for a Church-covenant is common to them all.”

Reply. It is true that particular congregations and Church-covenants do not differ in their general nature or essence, and it is confessed by all hands, as that which is suitable to common sense. For things that are common or general, do not differentiate particulars, because they all agree in them.

But there is a specifying form, or to speak more narrowly, an individual formality, which makes a real difference in the particular nature of this church, from that church.

1. The rule of old was, the family is formed of its constituents.[167]

2. If this and that particular combination of Churches gives a peculiar being to this Classis, [168] as distinct from another, then the same may be true in particular congregations.

3. This congregation really differs from another, having their own wineskins and properties;[169] therefore, there must be corresponding grounds from which this reality of a difference must proceed.

4. If they differ only in incidentals, those must be either common or proper. If common, then they bring agreement and not difference. If proper, then they arise from some property, and peculiar formality of the being of each Church. Indeed,

5. How is it that this Church has power over this person, which another Church does not; but that he has a peculiar interest in that Church, and they have one in him, by special engagement?

6. Lastly, in all voluntary covenants which arise from the free consent of party and party, there is no difference to be found in those covenants, except in the peculiar and individual formalities of those special engagements which pass between party and party. And therefore, the difference is to be sought there alone, and there alone can it be found.

Suppose a man comes to a servant and tells him, ‘I am a master of servants, and it is folly to look for differences in a household covenant or a servant’s covenant — it makes no difference, for servants’ covenants are common to all. There is only a difference in number, and some incidentals, just as there is between many servants in my family. Therefore, you are my servant, and must do the work of my family.’

Suppose the people of one congregation come to the pastor of another, and they tell him, ‘Come and bestow your pains constantly with us, for it’s the same as if you did it with your own people. It’s folly to look for differences in covenant between pastor and people, for that makes no difference, since the covenant is common to all. There’s only a difference in number and incidentals, just as there is between the elders which we have in our congregations. Therefore, you are our pastor, and must do the work of our congregation.’

Saying a man should be a general husband to all women, or a woman be a general wife to all men, just because the marriage-covenant is common to all marriages, seems strange even at first sight. And therefore, it’s counted folly on our part to seek any difference here; but we are content to bear the charge of folly for it.

Chapter 7. An Answer to Arguments made against the Church Covenant.

We have thus positively set down what we yet conceive to be the mind of God touching that which formally constitutes a Church. I perceive Mr. Rutherford’s spirit is carried with a marvellous distaste against this way. We will as we are able, labor to remove all mistakes and misconceptions, so that the mind of the Reader may not be misled with the multitude and throng of expressions — many of which do not address the point in hand.

To level the path in our proceeding, we will lay the following considerations to fill the uneven ditches that the devices of men have made in this highway of holiness.

Conclusion 1. Relation, as such, is not the foundation of a free covenant (which we now speak of). This is because there are some relations founded in the acts of nature, which in putting them forward, neither the observation nor the consideration of the parties is required. As when twins are born together, or one is born within twelve months of another — they have the relation of brothers and sisters, and yet it is without the apprehension of either. The relative tie, and the duties issuing from it, have their rise and power from the imprint of the rule of nature.

And hence, when the Reader meets with the term covenant, which proceeds from such a root, let him know that it contributes nothing to this cause. Hence, it also follows that such relations and duties proceeding from it, may be multiplied without any covenant at all, much less needing the multiplication of any covenant, according to the specialties which attend them.

Conclusion 2. Covenants are attended either in the rise of them by those who first make them, or else in the communication of them, or in the bonds they lay upon others after they are entered into. Thus the covenant once made by the mutual and free agreement of the parties, may be communicated to others without their consent. For instance, to their children, because they are, as the Scriptures say, “in their loins.” They are under their parents’ power and disposal, and therefore the parents can make such an agreement and engagement for them. So it was in Israel, Deu 29.9-11;[170] and the same course is commendable in the times of the Gospel. Thus a Minister is minister to the children born of the parents who have chosen him; and the children of covenanting parents are in covenant with the Church by virtue of their parents’ covenant.

Conclusion 3. Among those who have power over each other by no imprint of nature, no rule of providence or appointment from God, or reason, there must of necessity be a mutual engagement with each other, by their free consent, before they have any right or power, or can exercise either towards each other, by any rule of God.

This appears in all covenants between Prince and People, husband and wife, master and servant; and what is most palpable is the expression of this in all confederations and corporations. From mutual acts of consenting and engaging, each with the other, an imprint of an engagement results. It is a relative bond between the contractors and confederates, in which the reason for the form,[171] or the specific nature of the covenant lies. This is true in all the former instances, but especially in that of corporations. So that, however it is true, the rule binds them to the duties of their places and relations. And yet it is certain that it requires them first to freely engage themselves in such covenants, and then be careful to fulfill such duties. A man is allowed to freely make a choice of his wife, and she of her husband, before they need, or should perform the duties of husband and wife towards one another.

Conclusion 4. Once this covenant is made, if any relations are inferred, they were virtually included in it, or will result from it. If there are none, no new covenant is needed to make them up, or to require the exercise of any duties toward them. Just as someone who binds himself to be a covenant-servant, also binds himself to walk with his fellow servants in the family, according to the order of it. These follow from the first covenant, and are included in it, and inferred from it.

Conclusion 5. If you take the covenant of the Gospel in so full a breadth that it would include whatever is warranted by the Gospel, then this Church-covenant may truly be said to be included in it.

But if it is taken in the narrowest acceptance [believe and live], then it is not in the Covenant of the Gospel. For that covenant is inward and invisible in its own nature, between God and the soul only. But this Church-covenant is visible between those who profess the Faith. That covenant concerns all, and at all times, to do the duties of it, i.e., to believe and to live. But this covenant concerns only those who are in this Church estate. So that, in case the Churches are dissolved, or scattered through persecution, they are not then bound to the duties of this confederacy.

It is then an ordinance of the Gospel, and warranted by the Gospel; but properly speaking, it is not the covenant of the Gospel.

And this is also to be considered here, so that we may discern things that differ. Making a confederation belongs to the Gospel; but being made, it also has a confirmation from the law. As the appointing of Baptism and the Eucharist belongs to the Gospel, they are thus Ordinances of the Gospel. But being instituted, they stand by virtue of the Second Commandment [re: idolatry], and must be observed by virtue of that commandment. A man may be within the covenant of the moral law, and yet not be bound to the duties of a husband, unless he makes a particular covenant with such a woman to be her husband.

And hence there is a broad difference between duties, depending on how large a difference there is in the respects upon which they arise. Many duties flow from the general and necessary duties of morality, which reach a man as a creature — either with reference to God as Creator, or else to his fellow creatures. And hence this relation being from a rule of nature, it has nothing to do with a free covenant that must come between the persons and their duties. But being creatures, they must do homage to their Creator, and duty to their fellow creatures. If a neighbor preserves their honor, lives, goods, good names, even being merciful to their beasts, because such are creatures, a new covenant must yet intervene between parties and parties by mutual and free consent, before they either should, or can take up another sort of duties. People must by mutual consent grow into an engagement with one another, into a corporation, before doing the duties of a corporation. A servant must covenant with his Master, before he needs or ought to serve him as a Master.

And here, these two things are obviously distinct: for a servant to swear to do the duties of a servant when he is one, doesn’t make him servant. But to engage himself and enter into covenant — that makes him a servant. Similarly, we may say regarding the choosing of pastors, teachers, elders, and deacons, that these are ordinances of the Gospel. And there is a peculiar covenant between those who choose, and those who are chosen, which is not the covenant of the Gospel in precise consideration.

The substance of this was in the time of the Law. And it seems, that covenanting among them issued from the Gospel. They were a called and select people unto God. Amos 3.2, You only have I known, of all the nations of the world. And therefore they were received into a visible covenant, to walk in the ways of God, and the truth of His worship. And God engaged Himself, that he would bless those privileges and their use, to their good and to the good of their children, reserving secret things to Himself.

*****

These grounds being laid, we will attend to Mr. Rutherford’s arguments against this covenant.

Rutherford’s Argument 1.

“All will-worship, laying a bond upon the Conscience where God laid none, is damnable.”

“To tie men to enter into a Church estate by Covenant, so that without such an oath or covenant, persons would have no right to the Seals of God’s grace, is will-worship, and binding where God has not bound,” l.2. p. 88.

Assumption proof:

“That a minister swears the oath of fidelity to his flock is lawful; that a father swears to perform the duties of a father, or a master the duties of a master, is lawful. But to tie an oath or covenant to his ministry, to lay a bond of covenant upon a master, etc., unless he swears to perform the said duties, is to lay a bond where Christ has laid none.”

Answer. That example of a father, because it results upon a rule in nature, without any free consent required, does not reach our cause. See above, conclusion 1. [172]

The other two instances are either obviously misapplied, or else they undoubtedly confirm the cause they would seem to confute. For I will ask any man living, who won’t lay aside human consideration, whether any man can charge another to be his master, unless there is a mutual covenant and engagement passed between them? The one is to pay and provide for him during his time; the other ties himself to do him honest and faithful service for a time, for set wages. Don’t men’s own words proclaim as much? He is such a man’s covenant servant.

It is so here in a Church way. The person engages himself by solemn promise, to walk with this society in the ways and worship of Christ. The society receives him, and they engage themselves to so walk with him and towards him, as it is in the covenant of any civil corporation. The same may be said touching a minister and his people. That which makes him a pastor to this people, is the choice of the people: freely taking the person to be their shepherd and guide, and engaging themselves to submit to him in the dispensation of his office, according to God. The acceptance of the call, and the engagement of himself to take that office and charge, according to God’s appointment and their choice, makes them his flock. And without this covenanting, there neither is, nor ever was, nor ever will be, Pastor and Flock.

So that, these instances brought in for proof, cut the throat of Mr. R’s cause.

As master and servant, minister and people, come to stand in such estates and relation to one another, so come the Church and a person who is received to be a member, to stand in their respects.

A covenant gives formality of being to the former, and therefore to the latter.

These phrases of Mr. R.’s, to swear to perform such duties, p. 89, to tie by an Apostolic law and practice, the oath of God to such duties — these are either misprinted, or else they miss the conclusion wholly, which they should prove. For we do not make swearing to do a duty to be our covenant, for that is almost as far different from our question, as heaven is from earth.

A witness comes into the court, ties himself by oath to swear the truth — there is no covenant between man and man at all. These things are to be seriously distinguished and differentiated:

1. An agreement of persons, one to another, and with one another, to combine and consociate in the ways and worship of Christ.

2. Doing these duties.

3. Swearing they will do them, when they are combined.

The first of these is the form of a corporation. The other two may be done once they are incorporated. Thus,

1. Man and woman engage themselves to each other by way of contract.

2. Being contracted, they do the duties.

3. They may swear and bind themselves to God, that they will do them: I have sworn and will perform it, that I will keep your righteous judgments. Psa 119.106

Rutherford’s Argument 2.

“The way members are to be churched and enter into Church-fellowship, is the way members were entered into the Apostolic Churches.”

“But members were not entered into an Apostolic Church by such a covenant; they only believed, professed belief, and were baptized. When the incestuous person is restored, it is only said in 2Cor 2.7, 8, that he was grieved and testified to it, and they forgave him, and confirmed their love to him.”

“There is no Church-covenant here. Act 8.12, Samaria received the word gladly, believed, and was baptized; Simon Magus was baptized, Act 8; Cornelius and his household, Act 10; The Church of Ephesus was planted, Act 14; of Corinth, Act 18; of Berea, 17.10; of Philippi, Act 16; of Thessalonica, Act 17; of Rome, Act 28. We have no express vocal covenant.”

Answer. The proofs alleged here as precedential, are of three sorts.

Proof 1. Touching the receiving back of the incestuous Corinthian after his repentance. That does not overthrow the covenant, but confirms it. For their forgiving and confirming their love again to him, was cross to his excommunication. And therefore it was reinstating the person into that corporation and communion which he formerly enjoyed — by subjecting himself in so solemn a manner to the rule of Christ in the congregation and Church; craving acceptance at their hands; being entertained into the same privileges of communion of which he was deprived because of his sin; their ready receiving and entertaining him into that relation and state; and confirming their love to him in that behalf. It is a full engagement of the church to him, and of him again to the Church.

Whereas, had his profession at large made him a member, he would have been a member whether the Church received him or not. Or if his baptism had made him a member, as long as his baptism remained, his membership would have continued; for while the form remains, the formation must remain also. This example will appear most pregnant if we but parallel it with a similar one in a civil corporation. Say a person who is a member of the corporation and in combination with them, through his bad behavior is disenfranchised and put out of his place and privilege. If he expresses that sorrow and reformation which suits the quality of his sin, and gives satisfaction to the Company, then his subjecting himself to the Company, and the power of the combination — and their receiving and entertaining him on such terms — is an express recovery and renewal of the Covenant. And by that, it is reinstating the party in the same condition and relation in which he was formerly.

The rest of the proofs carry no concluding force with them. For if there is any force in the argument, it must lie here.

Proof 2. If no Church-covenant is expressed there, then there was none. The feebleness of this consequence appears at first sight. For to reason from one or some places, against the expression in any place, is to deny the genus from an imperfect enumeration of some species, which is a logical fallacy. It was not expressed in one or two Evangelists, therefore in none. It is not said in three or four of the Prophets, therefore in none of them. We know it was the rule which the Apostle prescribed before baptism, Repent and be baptized, Act 2.38; so the Baptist trained his disciples. To therefore reason that this profession of repentance is not mentioned in these places, and that therefore it was either not done here, or that it is not required in other places, carries no force of reason with it.

Proof 3. That example, lastly, of Act 2.41. As many as received the word gladly, “were baptized, and there were added three thousand. But these were not gathered as you gather.” Mr. R. takes this place as being wronged by us, and therefore he resolves to deliver it out of our hands with this:

1. Because these did not first meet frequently for prayer and special conference, until they were satisfied touching the good estate of one another.

2. They could not set apart and celebrate a day of fasting and prayer, and also dispatch the confessions of three thousand in such a short time.”

Answer. If we cast an eye to the foregoing conclusions, it will appear that such fasting and prayer is only required at the erecting and laying of the foundation of a Church. And there is also such frequent meeting before they enter into so solemn an engagement, and setting up a holy Church unto Christ.

But these solemnities are not expected in taking in several members, or indeed, in the addition of all the ordinary members to the body. Besides, these were members of the Jewish Church before. The stroke that fell upon their spirits by the ministry of the Apostles (for I don’t think that only Peter preached) was so extraordinary, and carried such an apparent revelation of the presence and power of Christ, that without any miraculous power of discerning, their speeches might make way for members of the Jewish Church to find acceptance with this Apostolic and Christian Church that was now beginning.

It is added by the Apology of the Church-covenant,

1. That they professed their glad receiving of the word, and renouncing that froward generation.

2. Being baptized, they continued in fellowship, which was Church fellowship, for it was not the exercise of the Sacrament, as the Syriac [173] conceives it was.

Objection 1. To this, Mr. Rutherford replies,

“They could not continue in the Apostles’ fellowship and doctrine before they were added to the Church. For steadfastness in doctrine, and saving themselves from the froward generation, could only be habitual holiness, not perfected in six hours. Now, the same day, verse 41, in which they gladly heard the word, they were both baptized and added. And therefore their steadfast continuing in a Church state, can in no way make them members in that Church state.”

Answer. True; nor is the argument urged in that manner. But the dispute lies from the effect to the cause in that particular of it. In giving their constant attendance to the ordinances of Christ, and in that fellowship, they were making themselves bound to it. It argues they took themselves to it by that subjection expressed in renouncing their former society, and desiring and receiving acceptance from the Apostles and the Church; such conduct carries the reality of a Covenant.

Objection 2. Whereas it is said by Mr. R., “If they had returned to Pontus again, they would have returned added to the Church.”

Answer. It is easily replied,

Had they returned with a purpose not to have walked in that fellowship, it is sure they would not have been of that Church by their baptism. For then all Jerusalem, and Judea, and the coast about the Jordan, would have been members of the Church by the baptism of John.

Objection 3. “But here is no word of a Church-covenant, which it was necessary to intimate if there had been any such thing.”

Answer. “If it is not mentioned, therefore it was not...” is a non sequitur.[174] If the thing is there, we need not trouble ourselves for the word.[175] And if Calvin’s judgment may be taken — who expounded it “to listen to their conversation” [176] — he thus writes, “Christ’s followers, adjunct to or in the same body, eventually persevered in learning.” [177]

And I will offer for Mr. R.’s consideration, that when there is a solemn baptizing into a Church, it ever implies that the person is made a disciple of Christ, Mat 28.19. For upon that ground, their commission warrants the administration of baptism. And so, to be a disciple of Christ, is to be ingrafted into the body of the Church, and to be (as the Apostle has it) fellow-heirs, and of the same body, Eph 3.6, which is spoken of the Visible Church. And therefore, though many believed in Christ, Joh 12.40, yet they would not confess him or become his disciples, because they feared they would be cast out of the Synagogue. And hence it is that this embracing of the word, this being made a disciple, is expressed by the Greek word προσετίθει (prostithemi), added to, or incorporated, as it is in Act 2.47 and 5.14.

Whereas all the people were then said to magnify them, and therefore to approve of their doctrine, and so confess the truth and goodness of it — yet there was more required for this Church-work, and to become a disciple. And therefore it’s added that, the believers were added; i.e., they confessed their sins, and became disciples and followers of that doctrine. And so they engaged themselves, and also covenanted for their children, to follow that truth of the Gospel (Act 2.39). And if being a disciple does not include this much, then how can our Divines use this as so strong a testimony against the Anabaptists — to make good the inference that if the converted father was baptized, therefore his children were also — unless they engaged themselves in Church-covenant for their children as well?

Follow this order of the Apostle: Let them be members of congregations. Let them express the work of repentance with that power upon their souls, as these did, and receive the Word with gladness. Our principles formerly propounded, will make way for their admittance.

The place thus expounded, finds there is much liberty and content in our hands; and it will not be delivered by all the reasons alleged by Mr. Rutherford, so as to go away from us.

Rutherford’s Argument 3.

“If baptism is the seal of our entry into the Church, 1Cor 12.13,[178] as circumcision was the seal of the members of the Jews’ visible Church, then such a Covenant is not the formal reason of our Church membership. The former is true (as I will prove afterward). Ergo, so is the latter.

“The proposition stands, because all baptized are members of the Visible Church, before they can swear this Covenant, even when they are infants.”

Answer. The proposition fails; indeed, it fights against itself. For if baptism seals up our membership and Covenant with the Visible Church, then it is after membership. And therefore it is not the formal cause of it, for then it would come before it.

Again, if it seals up our membership, as circumcision sealed up membership in the Jewish visible Church, then certainly it presumes the Covenant, for so it did in Gen 17.10, 13.[179] He that is born shall be circumcised. So that, he was in Covenant, and was called a holy seed, before he could make a Covenant in his own person; but he was included in the Covenant of his parent.

And if Mr. R. is of another mind, we desire that he would tell us how children of believers are said to be holy,1Cor 7.14 if not by a federal holiness? And if so, then it is by the visible covenant of their parent. For many children are thus holy, who have parents that are not spiritually and invisibly within that Covenant. Ergo...

Lastly, the proof also is false — namely, children are members before they are in this Covenant, because though they do not covenant personally by themselves, yet they are included virtually in the Covenant of their parents, Deu 29.9-13.[180]

Rutherford’s Argument 4.

“The Church-covenant is either the same as the Covenant of Grace, or it is a covenant diverse from the Covenant of Grace. But neither way can it be the essential form of a visible Church. Ergo, the Covenant of Grace cannot be the form of a visible Church, because then all those baptized would be in Covenant with God, which our brethren deny. If it is a Covenant diverse from it, then it must be of another nature, and lay another obligatory tie than either the Covenant of Works, or the Covenant of Grace. And so it must tie to other duties than either the Law or the Gospel require of us. And so it is beside that Gospel which Paul taught, and makes the teacher (though an Angel from heaven) accursed.” Lib. 2, p. 93. “Good words.” [181]

Answer. The Covenant of Grace is to be considered either according to the benefits of saving grace given in it, or according to the means of grace offered. It is not the Covenant of the Gospel in the first sense; but it is within the verge, and contained within the compass of the Covenant in the second sense. And hence the consequence upon which the stress of the cause lies (as it is urged by Mr. R.), vanishes wholly.

If it is distinct from the Covenant of Grace, then indeed it obliges us to some other duties than the ordinances of the Gospel require. For it has appeared before, that a man may be in the Covenant of Grace, and share in its benefits, who is not in a Church state; and a man may be in a Church state, who is not really in the Covenant of Grace. And therefore, a Church state, and the Covenant of the Gospel, in the former sense expressed, are different. Indeed, it has been proved that all are bound to come within the Covenant of the Gospel, who are not at that time bound to come into the Church estate, nor yet to do the duties of that estate.

Mr. R., when he responds to this difference, l.2. p. 93 above, he grants that an excommunicate person may be in the Covenant of Grace, and yet be cut off from the Visible Church. And yet he denies the consequence of that, and gives no reason for his denial. He only speaks of another thing which doesn’t touch the pinch of the question in hand.

“A believer (he says) in the Covenant of Grace, may not do a duty to a father, brother, or master, and yet it is a weak consequence that there is a covenant or oath between them — brother and brother, Son and Father, Master and Servant — commanded by a divine law of perpetual equity, to make them be in such a relation.”

We confess this is indeed a weak consequence, and it is of his own making. And therefore it may as easily be confuted as it is propounded, but this is our consequence:

A man may be within the Covenant of Grace, and not be within the covenant of the Church, and therefore the one is not the other. For if two things are the same in themselves, they are so far the same in the third; and where the one is, the other will be also. So that the Answer stands in its full vigor, wholly untouched.

Mr. R. speaks only of other things, some not touching the cause in hand, some that will not stand by the rule of truth. Those expressions don’t touch the cause in hand, as when he writes thus:

“The Covenant of Grace teaches us to confess Christ, to walk before God, to join myself to a visible Church. But none can conclude in right reason, that it is a divine law that necessitates me to swear a covenant other than the Covenant of Grace, in relation to these duties.”

Reply 1. It is true; no law binds us to enter into a covenant other than the Covenant of the Gospel. This is because these duties result out of relations which arise from the nature of the creature in reference to God. But they don’t come within the free and voluntary covenant which is made by the voluntary consent of the parties. Just take the same expressions when looking at a covenant which issues from the willing consent between men — such as master and servant, man and wife — and it will be evident at the very first sight, that this argument is false.

For saying there is no divine law that necessitates entering into another covenant for marriage beside the Covenant of Grace, before a man can do the duty of a husband, is to go against the experience of all ages, and the common sense of all men. It’s as though a person might venture to take the place and do the duties of a husband to a woman, who never made a covenant of marriage with her. He tells her that he has been in the Covenant of Grace for many years, and there is no need of another — there is no law that necessitates him or her to make a marriage covenant together. I suppose a person might suspect the man had not only lost his honesty, but also his prudence.

Say some Nimrod of the world comes upon a poor solitary people, and tells them that the Covenant of Grace and the Gospel, teaches the people to pay tribute to their Prince, and the Prince to exact it. They both profess this Gospel. There is no divine law to bind them to make another covenant of King and Subject; and therefore they must now pay tribute, and he must exact it at their hand. I suppose the poor people, out of their own sense, will tell him that there is indeed a covenant required between God and man to make men Christians. But there must be another covenant between Prince and people to make them Ruler and Ruled; otherwise he could expect no homage from them, nor could they expect any protection from him.

Hence the author [182] of the Apology suggests to Mr. R. that it is not the word alone that gives power to the husband over the wife, but the covenanting of the wife with the husband.

Mr. R. answers, “This is all which can be said with any color of reason,” and therefore he labors to minimize the force of the argument,[183] because it carried such a troop of inconveniences with it. He affirms,

“Those places of Scripture were not brought to prove the Pastor’s calling to the people, or their relative case of subjection to him; but they only prove that the Covenant of Grace and the Gospel lay a tie of many duties upon us, which obliges us without coming under the tie of an express, vocal, public oath.”

And I wonder who ever denied this? Let the man be brought forth and bear his blame and shame, that he should be so devoid of sense. Only, let it also be remembered here, that this is also wrested by a strong hand, and confessed that in some conditions, there is a Covenant that comes between persons, such as between man and wife, Master and Servant, before they can come under these relations — this was denied on page 93, immediately preceding. Such is the brightness of the truth, that it cannot be overborn.

What is added next, partly begs the question; and yet the proof is still insufficient to make it good. Mr. R. writes,

“Because I profess the Faith, and am baptized, I am a member of the Visible Church without such an oath; this is because the Covenant of Grace ties me, to join myself to some particular congregation, etc.”

Reply 2. My reply to Baptism is already answered. The ground of what is added, is a mistake — to wit, if the Covenant of the Gospel ties me to join myself to a visible congregation, there is therefore no [additional] covenant required to do that.

If this is a good consequence, then take similar premises: If the Gospel requires me to seek the help of a godly Pastor who may rule and teach me. If it requires me to marry and not to burn. No Covenant is therefore required to make me a husband to a woman that I must marry; nor to make me a sheep of that Shepherd who must guide and rule me in the Lord. If these are false, then the former is also feeble and weak; for they both carry the same parity and proportion of reason.

Some expressions which fall here from the pen of Mr. R., are to my apprehension, new paradoxes. Such as,

“A called Pastor who has gifts, and a calling from the Church, is a member of the Visible Church before he is called to be their Pastor, though he is a member of no particular congregation.”

The difficulties are these:

1. That a Pastor may have a calling from the Church, before he is elected by a particular congregation. And so he is a vague Individual (Indivuum vagum) — a Pastor of all people, and yet of no particular people.

2. That a person may be a member of the Visible Church, and yet not be a member of it; and I will infer that from his own words:

“Someone who is no member of a particular congregation, is no member of a visible Church. But a Pastor may be a member of a visible Church, and yet be no member of a particular congregation. Therefore he may be a member of the Visible Church, and yet no member.”

Mr. R. affirms the second part. I will prove the proposition:

If all particular congregations are all the members that the Visible Church has, then he that is not a member of a particular congregation, is no member of a visible Church. For that which doesn’t come within the number and compass of members, is not a member.

But all particular congregations (combined) are all the members that the Visible Church has.

Therefore, one who is not a member of a particular congregation, is no member of a visible Church.

But we will treat these much more fully when we come to the place of the calling of ministers.

Mr. R. professes at the end of page 95 in this book, that when one enters as a member to such a congregation, under the ministry of A.B., he comes under a new relative estate by an implicit and virtual Covenant. This is cross to what was affirmed earlier, on page 92. The rest of the examples either confute his own assertion, or else they don’t reach the question in hand. For we have shown before, that when excommunicates come to be restored, they renew the Covenant with the Church, and the Church with them. Now for that which is added,

“Touching a Church that is newly erected, she then becomes a sister church with others, yet she does not need a new Covenant to accomplish it.”

Answer. No, certainly not. The reason is from the third conclusion, above. Our covenant, once entered upon, all the relations that depend on it, or may be inferred from it, are included in that Covenant; and therefore, nothing more is needed. It’s like a woman being in covenant with her husband; all the duties to his kindred are required by that covenant, and flow from it; no other is needed.

Especially this inference of Mr. R.’s is a wide mistake:

“If I must have a new covenant to bring me into an estate, which issues only from free and voluntary consent, then I must not honor men in several relations, such as Physicians, Lawyers, learned Philosophers, etc., unless I take up a particular covenant with each.”

I say, such a consequence has no shadow of reason in it, nor the least appearance of any approach to the cause. This is because the honor we owe to each man, as a neighbor, in his place and condition, is founded in a natural relation we have as fellow-servants to the great God and Creator of all mankind. Therefore we must love God, and all the things of God in our neighbor, which concern us. And therefore we must preserve the honor, life, goods, and good name of all, whether Lawyers, or Philosophers, or Physicians.

Let me now infer from these things, that I should therefore do the duty of a servant to someone who is not my master — of a husband to a woman who is not my wife. This is a very weak inference, and it carries no proportion of reason with it.

Mr. R. adds on p. 97,

“Though there is a tacit covenant between a new member of a congregation, and A.B. Pastor, and they come under a new relation, Covenant-wife (which I grant), this is not the point in question. But this new Covenant is that which, by necessity of a divine Commandment, of perpetual equity, makes the new adjoiner, a member.”

Answer. We have now then, at the last, almost come to ourselves, for we have come to this: that there must be a new relation, Covenant-wife, between parties in estates and conditions, which issue from free consent between them, before they can be tied to the duties of that estate by being in the Covenant of the Gospel. The contrary of this was affirmed on page 93, near the end, and page 94, lines 1-9.

Hence, that which the Apology expressed, that “It’s not the rules of the Word touching man and wife, Magistrate and subject, that make people be in such an estate, but the Covenant that is made between them to those ends.” I say, this was to be answered by him on page 94, but it still stands in its full force, not weakened — indeed, not even touched, but rather in truth, confirmed by this grant.

Lastly, that is made the great hinge of our debate, which never came into our thoughts, waking or sleeping. Namely,

“That this new Covenant between a person, and A.B. Pastor, made such the new Adjoiner — a member of a new congregation.”

Answer. I would gladly have one of ours produced who either in writing or printing, ever said any such thing, or anything that carries a shadow of any such concept. Especially when it is well known to all who know our principles and practice, that we profess the Church is a true Church, as Totum essentiale (an Essential Whole), before her officers and the choice of them. The particular persons are members before this choice, and therefore they are not made such by this choice, or by a new Covenant.

Rutherford’s Argument 5.

“If this Church-covenant is the essence and form of a visible Church, which differentiates between the visible and invisible, then there have been no visible Churches since the Apostles’ day, nor are there any in the Christian world this day, except in New England and some other places.”

Answer. The answer is open, and has been previously intimated in the opening of the nature of the Covenant, and the manner of expressing it. It is either implicit or explicit. The covenant is preserved as to its substance, whichever ways it comes to be enacted. And all the Churches that ever were, or now are, true Churches, whether in England, Holland, France, etc., have at least an implicit Covenant in them, which is abundantly evidenced by the constant practice which is performed, and is also required at the hands of all who are members in it.

Rutherford’s Argument 6, and last.

“A multitude of unwarrantable ways, partly go before, and partly convey this Church-covenant.”

Answer. If the ways were unwarrantable that conveyed the Covenant, or went before it — if they do not touch the nature of the Covenant, it may yet be lawful when the ways are unlawful. As it is in the Covenant of marriage, a man may upon wrong grounds, and wrong ends, undertake such a work, even proceeding in a disorderly manner; and yet, if the substance of the Covenant is right and good, the marriage is lawful in itself and in its substance.

But let us hear the ways that are so unwarrantable.

1. “It is a dream that all are converted by the means of private Christians, without the ministry of sent Pastors.” l.2. p. 120.

Answer. I confess it is a dream to say so, or think so. And if any do dream of such a device in the night, let him own it, and defend it in the day. We do not own it. Is it likely that any man is so forsaken of reason as to say that the Apostles, when they came to plant Churches, that private Christians, not they, converted the people? And if they converted all those first Churches, where is the man who will affirm that all (all) are converted by private Christians? Though it is possible that private Christians may convert some, Act 11.19.[184] Beside, materials of new gathered churches with us,[185] are such that they have been converted by ministers in their several Congregations.

2. “It’s an unwarrantable way, to say that Pastors, as Pastors, are not sent to Indians.”

Answer. There is warrant enough to affirm it, and evidence enough to prove it, as it will become apparent in the handling of the ordination and power of a Pastor [Part II. chap. 2].

3. Absurdity. “That men must be satisfied in their consciences, touching one another’s conversion.

Answer. The members of Churches should be visible Saints, and that is to reasonable charity, as we have formerly proved; and they should so profess, that the soundness and truth of their faith may be notified to the Church. This is granted by Mr. R., and this is as much as we desire. And so we do not doubt that Ananias, Simon Magus, etc. appeared such to the judgment of charity, which always judges the best, unless it can prove the contrary.

4. Unwarrantable way. “By what warrant of the Word are private Christians, not in office, made the ordinary and only converters of souls?”

Answer. There is no word that warrants it; and I know of none of us who affirms that all are converted by private citizens. The sound of such an absurdity is so continually in the ear and mind of Mr. R. (though where it comes from, I don’t know), that I see it finds such a welcome that he is willing to repeat it twice, rather than miss the remembrance and mention of it. And therefore he repeats it as a double absurdity, this fourth being the same as the first. And in this way, he may easily fill the number of unwarrantable ways.

If by ordinary, he means that which is frequent in the course of common providence, which is neither miraculous nor wondrous for the experience of it, I suppose each man’s experience will evidence this truth: That the endeavor of persons outside of an office, has been blessed, and is blessed, to the conversion of diverse persons. And that is without prejudice to the office and ordinance of Christ. But if all this were granted to be unwarrantable, what is such a conceit as to overthrow the Covenant? That may yet be a truth, though such apprehensions may be false. But the Proverb is true: He that counts a man his enemy, is content to go far out of his way, that he may land him a blow. If any blemish may be cast upon the Covenant, it makes no difference what coast it comes from.

5. “What warrant do the sister churches have, to give the right hand of fellowship to a newly erected Church? For to give the right hand of fellowship is an authoritative and Pastoral act, as in Gal 2.9, when James and Cephas and John perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.”

Answer. Suppose the sister churches had no warrant to give the right hand of fellowship; yet the Covenant, for all that, may still be warrantable. Yet from this the quarrel must be maintained against the innocent Covenant — as the lion quarrelled with the lamb for muddying the water, when she drank many miles below his watering.[186]

But let us see the heinous unwarrantableness of this course of giving the right hand of fellowship to sister churches. [187]

The First Cause is, he says, “because it is an Authoritative Act, as Pareus, Beza, etc. have it.”

Ans. The authors give no evidence for this. For the words of Pareus in the margin, lib. 2., p. 161, show the contrary. It is made an intimate symbol of union,[188] not authority. Intimate love, friendship, and familiarity do not imply authority. But Beza’s words put it beyond question: “He stretched out his hand, as that symbol of our life in the Gospels being of the highest consensus of doctrine.” [189] Why Mr. R. should construe symbol of consensus, as symbol of authority, is beyond my understanding. But if Interpreters don’t help, yet his Argument, it may be, will settle the cause. Therefore he repeats this again, and adds this reason,

“By no authority can they receive them as members of the catholic Church, for this receiving is a Church act, and they have no Church power.”

The frame of his argument stands thus:

Arg. 1.Those who have no Church-power, can exercise no Church-act.

Ans. The Proposition is obviously weak. The Church can exercise an act of counsel, of approval, of love, of conjunction, as well as an act of power.

Mr. Rutherford grants that one single congregation has no power over another, one Classis over another, one Provincial Synod over another. Yet I suppose he will not deny that these may counsel, reprove, approve, reject, or convince one another.

One Church, or many congregations, may meet with the heathen, may teach them occasionally, convince them, encourage them, and yet have no power over them. Many Churches being sent to the Parliament to declare their judgment touching anything in agitation, may approve of their counsel and determinations if holy, or disallow or confute them if otherwise — and yet I believe he will not say they have authority over them.

Arg. 2. “They cannot, upon two or three hours sight, hearing none of them speak, be satisfied in their consciences about their regeneration.”

Ans. If they hear positive testimony of experienced and approved witnesses about their constant and conscientious walking without any scandal — if they hear the expressions and professions of repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus — then this is a sufficient argument to the judgment of charity, to hope that they are visible Saints, when nothing to the contrary is given, based upon knowledge or proof.

Arg. 3. The greatest weight lies in is this: “What meeting is this, of diverse sister-churches, to receive a new sister-church? It is a Church, I believe, meeting together (and yet it is not a congregation); and it is an ordinary visible Church. For this meeting must be at the admitting of all converts to the Church order. Surely here our brethren acknowledge that there is a Church in the New Testament made up of many congregations, which has the power to receive into it, whole Churches. This is a Visible, Provincial, or National Church, which they otherwise deny. If many Churches meet together to approve of the way and proceeding of a Church gathering by our judgment, then we acknowledge a Provincial and National Church.

Ans. The consequence has no color of truth in it. Did any of us ever deny the consociation of Churches in a way of counsel and advice? And yet consociation is one thing, and the constitution of a new species or kind of Church is another.

Suppose two congregations, newly erected and gathered, which have no power over one another, were to meet together to consider and consult, touching the sin and offense of some Classical Church.[190] Is this then a Provincial or National Church? Suppose two congregations of two separate and distinct Classis, should be sent by either of the Classes to concur with a Church on an island, which is now to be gathered. This is done in order to see and consider their way, and to lend them direction and approval; and it is done ordinarily. Here is a Church-meeting. It cannot be a Classis, because they are only two congregations of the Classis. And it is not Provincial, nor yet National. Therefore, there is now a new Church made up of many churches, which is neither Classical nor Provincial. When will there be an end of such inferences?

6. “We see no warrant why one who is not yet a Pastor or Elder, should take it upon himself to speak to a congregation, even if they all consent that he speak.”

Answer. If Mr. R. would look into the practice of the Church of Scotland, or to his first book, he will find that there are those who must have their gifts of teaching tested. And therefore, they may and do teach before they are chosen. Here is preaching, and Church preaching and praying, and yet there is no Pastor. And yet this will abide the measure of the golden reed.[191]

7. He adds, “We desire to see such a Church action as there is in Acts 2, where 3000 were added in one day.”

Answer. We also join our desires with his, and would be glad to see such a day, for we see no unwarrantableness then, nor would there be now, if all circumstances concurred.

8. The eighth is answered in the third.

9. “Which tells us of an encouragement to be good stewards of the manifold graces of God. We see it warrantable to provoke each man to traffic with his talent.”

Answer. But that all who enter are sworn to attend public prophesying, may perhaps be found in Mr. Rathbone’s curranto, which he picked out of some man’s letter, who wrote he could not tell what; nor perhaps could he rightly read what he wrote. For I know of no such custom of the Churches of Christ among us.

10. “Here are Church acts, and the power of the keys exercised in preaching, praying, & discipline, and yet there are no stewards or officers of the house who have received the keys.” Mat 16.19

Answer. The point about preaching and praying has been answered in the sixth above. And if an act of discipline, means any act of the power the keys, then it is plain that there may be an act of that power exercised without any officer. For an officer and other members, may be admitted, and in some cases rejected and excommunicated by the Church.

Chapter 8. The Precedency of a Church, as a Homogenous Whole. [192]

When we look at the Church as an Essential Whole (see chap. 5),[193] we attend two things in it:

1. How it is constituted in the causes of it; and

2. How it is qualified and adorned.

The first has been dispatched in the foregoing chapters, in which we endeavored to prove that visible Saints are the only true Matter, and Confederation the only true Form of a visible Church.

We will now inquire after the second, namely, those qualifications which are of special weight, and in a special manner belong to the Church under this consideration.

QUALIFICATION, then, is either in regard to the order or precedency of it, before any officers [are chosen], or a presbyterial style is established; or else in regard to the excellency of it in power and privileges.[194]

Touching this Congregational Church, if we look at the Order and Precedency of it, we have two questions that offer themselves to our consideration:

1. Whether a company of believers, thus visibly consociating themselves, are truly called, and are in truth and indeed, a Church, as that term is used in Scripture, before for they have officers?

The trumpet gives an uncertain sound here. Therefore, we cannot tell very well, where to fasten, because Mr. R.’s expressions are so full of variety. Sometimes he seems to speak the same as us; sometimes to be of a differing mind. One time he lays the weight upon a ministerial Church, as including officers in it. Another time he seems not only to deny that the Church thus confederated, is an organic whole,[195] but also to deny that the Church can be a church, without officers.

Therefore, to avoid all offensive mistakes, we will in short, set down what we conceive to be the truth in this case. And so we will occasion Mr. Rutherford to explicate his mind more fully.

When the Church is called Ministerial, that word may be attended in a double consideration.

1. Generally, Ministerial implies any delegated power, in the exercise of any Church-acts, in a way of subordination under Christ, and by power and appointment from Him. Thus a number of believers or visible Saints now consociated, have the power of admission of new members, and election of Officers, according to the order of Christ. And in case the officer chosen proves to be heretical and obstinately wicked, they have power to reject him, and make him no officer to them.

All these are granted by Mr. R. But there are acts of Church discipline, taken largely, and then there are acts of power. For, to give a key of power, and to take away a key of power, argues there is power in doing so, according to the institution of Christ. How far the Church may, upon just grounds, and for just cause, proceed to excommunicate, we will afterwards inquire.

2. Taken strictly, Ministerial is as it seems Mr. R. would have us conceive of it by his expressions. Then it implies an Officer-power, or power of Officers; and so it calls for Ministers, i.e., Officers. And in this sense, it would be senseless to affirm that the Church could be an Organic Whole without organs; that the Church should consist of Ruling officers, and Ruled people, when it is without any officers.

These things being premised, our apprehensions of it are laid down thus: the Church of Visible Saints confederating together to walk in the fellowship of the Faith, as such, is an Essential Whole, and it is before all Officers. [196]

Argument 1.

God has set Officers in the Church, 1Cor 12.28.

Therefore the Church is before the Officers.

Setting a candle in the candlestick presupposes the candlestick. The Church is the candlestick, Rev 1.20. The Officers are the candles.

Mr. Rutherford answers,

“God has put and breathed into man a living soul. Therefore he is a living man before the soul was breathed into him. Friend, the logic is nothing.”

Reply. A friendly warning is good. But the logic may be good also, for anything that is said here. For it is said, God made man of the earth, i.e., the body of man was made of the earth; and He breathed into the nostrils of that body, or into that body so made by that means, the breath of life. And I suppose, to affirm, the body was made before the soul was infused; the body, which is the subject to receive the soul, must by nature exist before the soul. This is very good logic. And thus the comparison holds between the Church, as the Essential Whole, and the Officers.

But to take man in a proper sense, as somehow an effect consisting of body and soul, and to say with any propriety of speech, that God breathed life into an effect that already had life — that God put a form into an effect that already had a form — no law of language will allow such an expression, much less will the rules of reason bear it. For the form is put into the matter, and by nature, it is there before the effect exists. It neither is, nor can it be said to be put into the effect.

Besides, here is yet a further advantage to the cause in hand, in that the Church is not only the subject in which these Officers exist, as an Essential Whole; but by virtue of her choice of them, she is the cause of the Officers’ call. And therefore in reason she must be before them.

Mr. R. answers, secondly,

“The Church is the Candlestick, not simply without candles and lamps. The Church Ministerial is the Candlestick, and the Ministers are the candles. And by the candles’ being set in the Church, the Church becomes a ministerial governing Church.”

Reply. It’s cross to all men’s apprehensions and expressions, that the Candlestick should no longer be a Candlestick, if the candle is not in it. Why do workmen sell them as Candlesticks, and other men consider them so, and buy them for such, before they put any candles in them? Isn’t it affected [197] to argue for a separable adjunct, and call it truly a subject, even though this adjunct isn’t there, and is actually disposed with it? Let the Reader who has any logical judgment in him, judge what kind of logic this is.

It is as if one said, It is not a Corporation of Aldermen, or Freemen, before the Mayor is chosen. It is true, it is not a complete corporation of Mayor and Freemen unless there are both. But that doesn’t hinder them from being a corporation of Freemen united among themselves, even if there is no Mayor. Indeed, they must be a corporation before they can choose a Mayor. And therefore they must in reason and nature be before him. A man cannot be a husband before he has a wife; yet he may and must be a man wooing a woman, before he can make her a wife.

Argument 2.

If the Church were not a Church without Officers, then as often as the Officers die, the Church would die also.

Indeed, when the Church has just occasion (as such it possibly may) to reject her Officers for heresies or gross villainies, when they reject them, do they therefore destroy the Church and themselves in so doing — when they labor to preserve themselves, and use the appointed means for their preservation?

Does a Corporation, when it puts a wicked Mayor out of his place and privileges, do they thereby destroy their own liberties, and nullify their Corporation by that means which is the especial way and mean of their safety and comfort?

One would think that such arguments were sufficient to make someone pause, carrying such sensible evidence with them. And yet Mr. R.’s strength can turn it all aside.

He answers,

1. “When the shepherds are removed, the tents cannot be called the shepherds’ tents. And persecution often defaces the visible face of a ministerial Church. To remove the Candlestick, is to remove the Ministry; just as taking away eyes, and ears, and hands from the body, is to hurt the integrity of it.”

2. “All ministerial communion, by which we are a visible body (1Cor 10.16), eating one bread, may well be lost when Pastors are removed.”

Reply. When shepherds are removed, the tents cannot be called the tents where the shepherds are; yet they may be called the tents fit to receive them. And in point of fitness, they are the same as they were before they were chosen, and they remain the same.

It’s true, to remove the Candlestick is to remove the Ministry; because the Ministry and Ministers have their dependence upon the Church. Destroy the man, the whole, you destroy the parts. But the contrary does not hold true. In a Ministerial, i.e., in an Organic Whole, when you take away any part, you lame the integrity of it; but you do not destroy the essence and nature of it, as an Essential Whole. Socrates may lose a limb, an eye, a hand; and so he is not an entire man who consists of such remaining members. Yet he still has his entire nature, and his definition as a man,[198] in regard to his essential causes.

That which is added, is still more beside the cause. For it is granted by all hands, that where there are no Officers, there is no communion in the Sacraments. Is there then no Church communion? Such consequences do not come within the compass of our cause.

We are now done with the first query, and we have made it clear that, This Church is before all Officers, and may exist without them.[199]

Chapter 9. The Nature and Being of a Presbyterial Church.

The Qualification of the Church as an Essential Whole, consisted in the Order and Precedency of it, in regard to her true Officers. And we have now dispatched that, in the answer to the former question.

The Second Question now comes into view: Whether there are any Presbyterian Churches in the New Testament, by Christ’s appointment and institution, or only Congregational?

Consider it now, as it stands in comparison and competition with that which our Brethren call a Presbyterian Church; and here we will take in the second question. However much lower it falls, if we look at its proper place, and also because it fits our purpose in hand to lay open the nature of it in this place, it will give light to what follows. We will use this crypsis [200] of method to make our next inquiry about it. This inquiry may be referred to four heads or sections.

1. What the Essence of a Presbyterian Church consists in, and how it is made up.

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

3. Reason from such grounds against it.

4. Answer those examples which carry some semblance, at first appearance, of touching it.

Section 1. The Essence of a Presbyterian Church

A Presbyterian Church results from and arises on three main principles, which are like the pillars of its special constitution.

1. There must be several congregations, made entirely of such members as Christ has appointed, to make up an integral body of Officers who rule, and people who are led and ruled by them.

2. These congregations neighboring together — so that their communion may be accommodated with more ease and encouraging convenience — and that the scandals which may prejudice and taint by their infectious example, may be more easily cured and removed. And such a number of them should enter into combination with each other in the concurrence of common government, which may relieve the common good of all.

3. These, so combined, are to send their Rulers, according to mutual agreement, to manage the great censures of Christ, and determine the emergent doubts and difficulties that may arise among the combined congregations. And all the several churches combined are to submit to such dispensations and determinations, as to acts of jurisdiction proceeding from those who are set over them in the Lord for that end.

The Elders and Presbyters of these combined churches thus assembled, are called A Presbyterian Church, because this Representative Body is made up only of Presbyters and Elders.

And now we are to inquire about this, and lay down those grounds which may clear the inquiry and discovery of such a constitution. These are as follows.

Section 2. The Grounds of such a Constitution.

Ground 1. There is no power of jurisdiction [201] except that which arises from the power of Order, which stands by the appointment and institution of Christ.

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

And I understand jurisdiction to be the exercising of that rule, as the fit object and matter of things and persons are presented. For the very nature of the terms gives testimony to this truth: right Execution or right Decree; [202] the authoritative proclaiming or executing of this kind of power being jurisdiction. This act presumes a Ruler, and that presumes an Office, and a Call to a place of power that is fit for that end and purpose.

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

Scotus and Thomas,[203] and with them their followers,[204] define the power of the keys by binding and loosing; and in the binding and loosing, all jurisdiction [205] (in their sense of it) is contained. And this presumes a key, a place, and an office to which the person must be called — a power with which he must be invested, before he can execute those acts.[206]

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

They want the inferior priests to have the power of the keys, and to have this power of order extend itself (as much as it is in itself) [207] to absolve all. And therefore Christ says indefinitely, whosoever sins, etc. [208] But the use of this power must be supposed according to that commission granted to Peter, and so to the Pope ordinarily, that he may extend it or restrain it as he will. [209]

Thus men are forced to turn the edge of their reason against an acknowledged truth, and turn that against the ordinance of Christ, in order to maintain the Ecclesiastical order and the tyranny of the Pope. [210]

But whatever they conceive, the evidence of the truth is so undeniable, that it will constrain the understanding to yield to what is required here. For this Jurisdiction (in the sense I take it), in the exercise of it, either requires one called or authorized by office; otherwise anyone may do it without this authority. But none is Steward unless set over the Family. Governments are not in the Church, unless they are appointed by Christ, 1Cor 12.27, 28. Indeed, the blind Pharisees could grope at this in the darkness of their delusions, as appears by the question they put to our Savior, “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this Authority?” (Mat 21.23)

So that, putting this Jurisdiction and Rule, i.e., the Authoritative or Office-jurisdiction (of which we now speak) into the hands of any who are not appointed to the Office of rule, is merely the usurpation of that Man of Sin, or a preparation to bring him in; or a remainder of him, not fully cast out — but not the native and natural institution of our Savior, the Lawgiver of His Church.

And therefore you shall observe,

Whatever may promote the plenitude of the Pope’s power, and bring there the last resolution of all, it is so given to some of His creatures in eminent places, that in issue, it may be confined within the compass of his Triple-crown. Hence the Bishop, which is the Pope’s Vicegerent, will dispense his power to his poor underlings by such pittances and allowances, that the poor snakes may be trained up by their daily experience to acknowledge where the treasury of this power is stored up, and where they must go to fetch it.

Hence, he must be first made a Deacon, and allowed to read, but not to preach; to administer Baptism, but not the Supper — not that one sacrament is of greater eminence than the other, but that the servant must know he has no power further than he has the Bishop’s allowance.

At the next turn he is made a Priest, and to that end he has fresh writings, and a fresh seal, and a fresh ordination. And when that is attained, he still cannot preach in any Assembly besides his own, without having a license and allowance for that. And all this is by written agreement.[211]

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

But (as I said) this is the Pope’s usurpation, not Christ’s institution.

Ground 2. Hence the second ground I lay down is this:

There is no Office in the Church, except those which are appointed by Christ. And therefore there is no Jurisdiction or rule that can be exercised, except by the Officers of Christ.

The first part of the conclusion has been cleared before.

1. Officers and Offices are Coronation mercies — gifts which proceed only from the Ascension of Christ. Eph 4.11-12, When he ascended on high, he gave gifts to men, some teachers, some pastors... It is Christ’s royal prerogative to bestow such gifts.

2. They are proper means of His worship, and therefore it is only proper for Him to enjoin them.

3. It is in His hand alone to bless and succeed them in their spiritual dispensations, to attain those supernatural ends, Mat 28.20; and therefore it pertains to Him alone to appoint.

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

All jurisdiction must issue from an Order or Officer.

There is none but Officers of Christ allowed in the Church.

Therefore, no jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, can be exercised except by an Officer of Christ.

And therefore, Surrogates, Chancellors, Archdeacons, Deans, Officials, Vicars-general, Abbots, Monks, Friars, Cardinals, Jesuits, etc., which are hatched and spawned by the pride and luxury, ambition and tyranny of that Man of sin, like vermin and strange creatures out of the slimy Nile; none are of the Orders or Officers of Christ. And therefore, they have no authority by any right from him to exercise any jurisdiction in His Churches, or among His people.

Ground 3. Hence, the one who is now called and appointed an Officer according to God, and the rules of the Gospel, as he needs no other power but that of his office to authorize him to execute it, so there is no power that can by rule and right hinder him in the due execution of it.

For it is in Christ alone, to appoint the calling and Office; to so lay out the bounds and limits as to specify the several actions and operations that are required in it; and to exact the performance of it. Therefore, they must attend to teaching and exhortation, Rom 12.7-8. They must rule with diligence, take heed to themselves and to the flock, Act 20.28. They must bind up the broken, recall the straying, and tender the weak, Eze 34.4.

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

Hence, these two — Order or Office, and Jurisdiction — are not members or species of power, put in a way of opposition to one another, but are in subordination to one another.

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

Therefore, where there is no office, there is no right, or rule, or jurisdiction as such, of which we speak here.

Hence, those who have the same or equal Offices, have the same and equal Office-rule or jurisdiction.

Hence, whatever is added beside office, adds no jurisdiction or ecclesiastical rule at all, to any.

From these grounds thus laid, I will take leave to make my arguments.

Hooker’s Argument 1.

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

Indeed, they have no more power after their combination than before.

Therefore, they have no Presbyterian jurisdiction; and so they are not Presbyterian churches.

The Assumption, where alone the doubt lies, is thus made good:

Those who have no more offices nor officers than they had before, have no more jurisdiction, as in the first ground.

Indeed, they have no more officers, because each sends their own [to the Presbytery].

Therefore, they have no more power.

Hooker’s Argument 2.

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

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

Therefore they must have jurisdiction over all particular churches; it may be ten or sixteen more or less in the combination.

But they do not have this jurisdiction.

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

But to say that they are Pastors of them all, is to make a road and a ready way for pluralities,[212] tot-quotes,[213] non-residencies,[214] etc.

Mr. R. denies the proof of the minor — namely, if they have jurisdiction over all, then they are Pastors and Teachers, etc.

“Though they rule many congregations, yet they don’t bear that relation of Watchmen and proper Pastors to every one of these congregations, that a Pastor of a particular church bears to his particular flock,” l.2. p. 325-326.

Thus Mr. R. becomes like Naphtali: he gives us pleasant words, but I fear they are but words. Let us then see how they accord (I.) with himself, and (II.) with truth.

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

“We think the relation of the Eldership to a whole Classical Church, is not founded on an office different from the offices of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are clothed with in relation to their particular congregations; rather, they are authoritative acts of the same office.

From this I would reason,

If the relation of the Eldership to a Classical Church is founded on the same office that a Pastor has to his particular congregation, then the Elders bear that relation of watchmen to a Classical Church, which a pastor does to his particular flock. For where there is the same office of Pastor, there is the same relation of Watchman and Pastor, the one issuing from the other.

But Mr. R. affirms the first, that the relation of the Eldership to a Classical Church (Presbytery), derives from the same office which Elders had in relation to their own. Therefore, they are proper Pastors to the one, as well as to the other.

Again, those who execute authoritative acts which issue only from proper Pastors, are proper Pastors to those upon whom they exercise such acts, in that relation, and in regard to that office. Otherwise they would have no warrant to execute them.

But that, Mr. R. also affirms.

II. We will secondly inquire how it suits with the truth.

These authoritative acts which are executed, issue from him either as a Pastor, or as no Pastor, Ruler or no Ruler.

If not as a Pastor, then acts of jurisdiction — those being authoritative and supreme — may also be expressed and exercised by someone who is not a Ruler.

And this, Mr. R. and all men grant.

If these acts proceed from him as a Pastor, it is either as a Pastor of his particular congregation, or as a Pastor of another congregation.

It is not as a Pastor of another church beside his own, for then one man may have two pastoral offices, and two churches, which is contrary to Scriptures, and all sound Divines.

Therefore, they must proceed from him as he is Pastor to his own particular flock.[215]

Again,

If he executes such acts as a Pastor, then those upon whom he acts, are either his flock, or they are not his flock.

They must be his flock, if he is a Pastor and Shepherd to them; for that is what the nature of the relation requires.

If it is his flock, then it is either the same flock he first had, his congregation, or it is another.

The churches combined cannot be his congregation, because these are many and distinct.

Therefore, he must be a Pastor of many flocks — namely, of his particular flock, and these also.

And so, there is a ready way and road for Pluralities and Tot-quotes.

Let the Reader compare these expressions of Mr. Rutherford:

“It is true, they are called the Elders of the Presbyterial Church of Pergamus, but there is a general and different relation from that which each Pastor carries toward his own flock.” Lib. 2. p. 326, lines 4, 6.

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

“The relation of an Eldership to a whole Classical Church is founded, not upon a different office from the office of Pastors and Elders, which they have and are clothed with in relation to their particular work.”

How these will suit, we cannot see without some help from Mr. R.

Differences: Presbyterian vs. Congregational Elders

We now consider the differing acts that are in the Eldership of a Presbyterian Church, from a Congregational Church, as Mr. R. lays them down.

Difference 1.

“The Presbytery are Elders to the Classical Church, not in things proper to each congregation, but in things common to all, or in that which is the proper object of government — to wit, those things which concern the consociation of the thirty churches, rather than the thirty churches in particular.” Lib. 2., p. 326.

Answer. The practice of the Classis conflicts with this description. For take a private offense: admonish then the offending party; 2. Upon not hearing, take one or two witnesses. 3. The offending party persisting, let him bring it to “the Church.”

This is proper to the congregation. Yet by Classical principles, the particular congregation must not admonish. For that church which must speak to the Offender in case he will not hear it, that church may cast him out. So are the words of Mat 18.17, If he will not hear the Church, let him be as a Heathen. But the Classis does not allow this.

Again, suppose the party is admonished by the particular congregation for his private fault thus persisted in, and yet he continues to be obstinate. This obstinacy, properly speaking, is toward this church. Why may she not cast him out without a Classis? For this pertained and was known only to this Church.

If it is said, “When he is cast out, the neighboring churches must shun and avoid him upon being given the knowledge;” then I answer, so must the churches of another Classis or Province. And therefore, there is no more need for the one to have a hand in the censure than the other.

Difference 2. The second difference Mr. R. adds (p. 326), is this:

“The Presbytery takes care of regulating the acts of governing all these churches [combined], rather than the governed churches [individually].”

Answer. They express their care in these judicial acts, and they do that directly and immediately upon scandals and scandalous persons in any congregation under the Presbytery — both censures of Admonition and Excommunication. As in the direct decision, so in the removing of a member, or at least stopping any error of any member arising, so that they fall directly upon the church to be governed.

Difference 3. He says,

“The Elders of the Classical Presbytery are Elders to all these churches, as they are in a Collegial Presbytery, and properly speaking, as they are in a Court.

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

That these differences do not, in the least measure, show a different relation from that which each Pastor has to his own flock, appears from this:

Those acts which a Pastor executes in his proper place, to his proper flock, cannot show any different relation in that office.

But a Pastor in fact executes all these specified actions to his proper flock, when he acts as such a Pastor.

Take for instance, a Pastor on an island alone; he cannot, teach, admonish, and excommunicate as a Pastor. But in a Congregational company, not severed from his church (as we say), or in his Consistory,[216] or Collegial Presbytery (as they say), this does not hinder him from executing these acts in relation to his proper flock. Therefore, if an Elder in a Classical Presbytery executes similar actions, then these do not prove, nor can they hinder; but he may still be to them as a Pastor is to a proper flock in those regards.

Difference 4. Mr. Rutherford says,

“The Presbytery has a church relation to all these thirty churches not taken distributively, but collectively, as they are united in one Classical Church, under one external government.”

Answer 1. If the Presbytery executed acts of jurisdiction on those churches distributively [and not collectively], as they are severed, then they have a Church relation to them distributively considered. For jurisdiction issues from Church-relation, and indeed from Church-office, otherwise it could never be exercised.

And their practice evidences that it is indeed distributive; for they admonish and censure several persons of several churches.

Answer 2. These churches taken collectively, are nothing but a Classis, or so many Presbyters meeting together. And to say they are Elders over Elders, and that they exercise jurisdiction over them, has been conceived by Mr. Rutherford to be absurd, in a similar case.

What Mr. R. adds in the next place, p. 327, is this:

“Elders of an independent congregation are not Elders of their single congregations, being separated from their Court and extra Collegial Presbytery.

This assertion at first sight seems to be a paradox. For if their office remains the same, when they are separated as well as when assembled, when in the Court and Congregation, as well as out, then their relation holds, and also their jurisdiction.

But it’s true for the first.[217] It’s true that they never execute public acts of jurisdiction except in the Court, nor an act of pastoral teaching and administration of sacraments, except in the assembled Church. Does anyone therefore conclude that they are not teachers, nor do they have both the right and the power to teach when they are separated from the assemblies?

Difference 5.

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

Answer. If this jurisdiction issues from the same office of Pastor, then they have power of order, and power to preach. And it has been shown and is also granted that it so issues in this power.

Mr. R. adds,

“The Elders of a particular congregation have power of order, and power of jurisdiction outside the Court. But they do not have power of Church-Jurisdiction, except in the Court. For there is a difference between power of jurisdiction, which Elders have as watchmen, and a power of Church-Jurisdiction which Elders do not have, except within the jurisdiction of the Church.” [218]

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

It’s true, they cannot exercise some acts of jurisdiction, except in Court; no more can they execute the acts of public preaching and administering Sacraments, except within the jurisdiction of the Church. Yet I never heard any man affirm that they had no power to do these when they were not within the jurisdiction of the Church, as though entering into the Assembly added this power.

The example of the Great Sanhedrin doesn’t touch this cause; or else it destroys it if it is paralleled in all its particulars. I will suit it with a pattern more sensible in every way alike. A Justice of the Peace in the country, or a Burgess in a Corporation, are chosen to be members in Parliament — the one is a Burgess, the other a Knight of the Shire.[219] Here now are two special or distinct offices, and here we can see a plain and open difference. And if Mr. R. will grant that when a Ruler of a Congregation is appointed a member of a Classis, he has a new office distinct from the office he had in the Congregation, then we will know where to find this classical mystery, and discover the crossness of it to Christ’s Government.

Mr. R. adds lastly,

“I distinguish the proposition: If they are Elders in these common affairs which concern government in general, then they are Elders in feeding by the word of knowledge, and in governing in all the particulars which concern the government of each congregation. And that I deny.”

Hooker’s Answer.

1. It’s obvious to each man’s apprehensions, that every Elder and particular governor in his congregation, as he has the nature of an Elder in general, so out of that power he can and does execute general actions that are common to other Elders. And so these actions also meet with those general things which concern government in general. For where the act is, the object must be in its proportion; and all this he does without any Classis in his particular station. For the species determines the act of the genus, as Socrates confines the acts of human nature to himself.

2. It is well known that the Classis meddles with the particular offenses of particular persons in all particular congregations — even those which are as special as any Elder on an island would meddle with in his own place.

3. If all acts of jurisdiction — whether authoritative preaching, or authoritative governing, in particular or in general — issue from one and the same office, then no word warrants why there should be the office over all, and towards all, and it not be the same act.

4. It is just as undeniable that there are general acts in preaching and watching, which are common to all Congregations, which the Classis cannot do, nor can it dispense conscientiously, because they cannot attend them. Nor will it suffice to say that he was Pastor to the catholic Church before; for then, before this combination, he had as good a power to exercise jurisdiction, as any who are in the combination. But Mr. R.’s own principles will not permit such an assertion. For he affirms that,

“One congregation does not have power over another, nor one Classis over another. And therefore these Pastors and teachers are Officers by a special appropriation, which others outside of the circuit are not.”

Hooker’s Argument 3.

That course which divides the things which God has joined together, and should forever go together — that is unlawful.

And to sever jurisdiction and teaching, is to part the things that God has joined together. For both issue from the Office of Pastor and Teacher; and so, if one is required, then by the same reasoning, the other may be exacted.

And yet the Presbyterian combination severs these.

The first part [i.e., what God has joined should not be severed], is past denial.

The second part, I will thus make good:

Whatever acts and duties the office of a Pastor requires to a flock, those acts and duties an officer or Pastor is bound to execute.

Ruling and Teaching belong to the office of a Pastor and Teacher, because they have the power of the keys; and to them it pertains to use all these in binding and loosing as the flock requires.

These cannot be fully used in binding and loosing, except by Teaching and Ruling, Act 20.18; 1Pet 5.1-2.

Again,

Those actions of their office, which are of necessity required to procure the end and good of the flock, must be executed.

And both these actions of Teaching and Ruling are of necessity required to attain the end of their office; and that end is the gathering and perfecting of the Saints, Eph 4.12.

This will not be attained except by the use of all these to their best advantage.

Both Teaching and Ruling are serviceable, according to God, for quickening the soul in the ways of grace, and for preventing and purging out all that leaven of sin which may be prejudicial or hurtful to that work of the Lord.

Reply. To this, Mr. Rutherford answers many things, l.2. p. 329.

“If they have such relations to their flocks, as Grandfathers and Fathers, then as a Grandfather cannot be a father, or a father be a Grandfather to the same child, so an Elder cannot be a proper Elder, and a Classical Elder to the same congregation.”

“These relations of Grandfather and Father come from several grounds, from which the relative respects issue. But classical and proper Elders issue from one and the same office, which they have and are clothed with, in relation to their proper flock.” l.2. p. 333.

Indeed, his words are express,

“Elders proper and classical, do not have two offices, but they only perform two acts of one and the same office.” l.2. p. 334.

Lastly he answers,

“The judicatures of Classis and Congregation do not differ formally or specifically, but only in more or less of an extension of power.” l.2. p. 338.

From which, to my understanding, such collections as these seem fair, and to follow undeniably:

If there is one office in the constitution of a church, then there is the same definition of an office belonging to the Elder of a Classis and a Congregation.

Then there are the same causes, the same election and choice.

Then what the Elder does to the one by virtue of his office, he is bound to do to the other.

Then whatever operations he executes in the one, he can execute in the other.

Again,

If they differ only in extension, then intrinsically and intensively, it is the same in the Elders of a Congregation, as of a Classis.

Therefore, there is no special act the one executes, that the other cannot execute as occasion requires; for the gradations do not vary the species.[220]

Therefore, in case there is objective matter presented for Ordination or Excommunication in a Congregation, Elders can execute such operations. For they have the same intrinsic and intensive powers;[221] and in that are seen all the causes of these operations, when a fit object is presented.

Mr. R. answers with the expressions used in the Court of Assembly at Jerusalem, Act 15,

“They are Elders in relation to the Whole of the Churches of Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, and the Gentiles, collectively taken, in those dogmatical points. And the same Elders were in a special manner, Elders to the congregations of Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, taken distributively.”

Reply. The Elders did the one as Counselors; while they governed the others as Rulers, as we hope will be apparent in its proper place.

But as to Mr. R.’s other answer, to wit, l.2. p. 330,

“By that same official power that a Pastor teaches his own flock, viva voce, by vocal preaching as a Doctor [i.e., as a teacher]; he teaches other churches by writing.”

Reply. This is an invention that, I confess, I never heard nor saw before; and whether it ever saw light or not, I cannot tell. Only, I suppose it will not be offensive to make some inquiry about it, if it is but for my own information.

It’s clear then, “He teaches other churches by writing.” But thus teaching other Churches, comes from the same official power by which he teaches his own flock viva voce. And it is questioned on these grounds:

1. It runs cross to the nature of the office.

2. It misses the right ground of power.

3. What another may do with as much authority, cannot belong to the power of an office.

1. It runs cross to the nature of the office.

First, that official power by which he preaches to his proper flock, he received by election from the people, stands bound to them, and may be rejected by them in case of notorious delinquency.

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

Thirdly, in case they dispute offensively, he has the power to censure.

If his writing proceeds out of that power, then by virtue of that, he could challenge and require them to read it, and censure them for not reading it. Indeed, on this ground he should not only have power over the Churches within the Presbytery or Classis, but over those who are under other Classes, indeed, other Provinces, Nations, etc. The case may be made that he may then have official power over all the Churches in the world, for they all may be taught by his books and writing. Yes, those who are infidels, and have but a knowledge of the language, may be taught by this. And why may he not also be Pastor, to perform acts from his office to them all?

2. It misses that right ground of power. For if this power proceeds from his Office, it is somewhere required that each man should print as well as preach. For to preach viva voce is required of every Pastor, as part of his office. But if printing issues from the same office (as Mr. R. says), then the one should as necessarily be required as the other. And hence, what he preaches, he must print. For he is bound to teach his people viva voce, by virtue of his office; and if his office calls for this, then he is bound to this as well as to that. But we find that written in no Gospel that I know of.

3. That which another may do with as much authority and more — I mean with the authority of truth, as being more able than the one in office, and yet being outside of that office — that cannot belong to the power of an office.

When it was asked whether the Classical Elders are Ruling Elders, or Teaching Elders to the Classical Church, Mr. R. answers, p. 330,

“They are both, and they are neither, under diverse considerations. They are Teaching Elders in all the Congregations distributively taken. They are Ruling Elders in all those collectively taken. They are Teachers in some reserved acts, not constant teachers. It is true that someone who is a Ruling Pastor, is also a Teaching Pastor, but not always to that same flock.”

Reply. When we inquire what kind of Elder a Classical Elder is, we are told they are Elders who teach in all congregations distributively; i.e., take Classical Elders, as Congregational Elders, and that is all one; as if to say, if not Classical Elders, then they are Teaching Elders. For so far as they have reference to their proper flocks, they were Teaching Elders before the combination.

And so, all that is gained is this: A Classical Elder, as he is no Classical Elder, is a Teaching Elder. Thus there is no distinction or diverse consideration of a Classical Elder (which should have been the term distinguished), but a non-consideration of him, as such.

Further, it has often been said that these acts of the Elders issue from one and the same office. Now, where there is one and the same Office, there is one and the same Officer, and so there is the same power of Teaching and Ruling, and the same duty.

Lastly, We have granted here, what we concluded before: that a person may have many flocks. He may be Teaching Pastor in one, a Ruling Pastor in two, or three, or thirty. For it is affirmed that a Ruling Pastor is also a Teaching Pastor, but not always to that same flock. Therefore he may have many flocks. And so the Lord Bishop may be a Teaching Pastor in the Cathedral at Canterbury, but a ruling Pastor in all the Province, collectively taken.

Mr. R.’s Obj. He arrogates this alone as one.[222]

Hooker’s Answer. But show a rule of Christ, why the Elders may not give that to him, and the liberty to take many to help him, as well as you may join many to concur with him in that work.

I believe he has no power to take many with himself to rule a Province of 30 churches besides his own. And I believe you have no rule of Christ to join many, or to rule many churches besides their own particular charges. A shepherd ought to have but one flock. One is as much as he can rule; one is as much he has authority to rule. He is related to one, and only one.[223]

Mr. R. adds lastly, p. 330:

“Neither is this true, that because power of jurisdiction is founded upon power of order, teaching should therefore be in every way commensurate with ruling. For the Eldership that is convened in Court, and only formally within the bounds of the Church,[224] have Church power of jurisdiction in a Congregation; and in this Court they govern. But the Eldership in this Court neither does preach, nor can preach.”

Hooker’s Reply.

1. Ruling and Teaching pertain to the Pastor in his custom,[225] and as his peculiar properties. And therefore they are made a description of them, Rom 12.7-8; 1Tim 3.5.[226]

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

3. Without both, he cannot fulfill his Ministry and attain his end in procuring the good of his flock commended to his care. Therefore, the reason alleged here, and propounded formerly, has no evicting [227] force in it.

For the Elders, if Pastors, and they are still in Office when they are away from the Court, then they have Church jurisdiction outside of the Court.

But the first part is true [that they remain in Office].

Add to this also, that all public censures ought to be dispensed in the Congregation. Mat 18.17 And there, I suppose, it’s not only possible that the Elders may preach, but they must preach.

Hooker’s Argument 4.

That which lays a burden on teaching Elders, which God never laid on them, nor are they ever able to discharge it, is not suitable to God’s Will and Word.

And this Classical course does such a thing.

The Assumption, which alone can be questioned, is proved by Mr. R.’s own words, who imposes an Office-care upon an Elder who is over many flocks, when one is sufficient to test all the abilities of the most able Minister on earth. And therefore, the Apostle appointed Elders in every Church, and charged them to attend the flock, not flocks. (Act 14.23, 1Pet 5.3)

Besides, I thought the loathsomeness of Pluralities had been not only hissed out of the world, but abhorred by all conscientious men.

Mr. Rutherford, that he might remove the loathsome distaste with which this reason loads the cause, labors to drive one nail.[228] And therefore he would bear the world in hand, that the way of watching over sister-Churches, and other Christians of other congregations (which we and all the world allow, as that which piety and Christianity, the law of Religion and Reason require), is as “dreadful for its onerous, careful, laborious Watchfulness in the way of conscience, as to be bound to it by way of Office.”

To which I say, God forbid!

His reasons are mainly two.

1. “We have a divine command that we be our brother’s keeper, and this Watch calls for the same onerous, laborious care, as if we were in Office.”

2. “We make the ground and foundation of governing a Classical Church, to be that bond of love and union of one body of Christ. And this bond of lovely and brotherly consociation commands and ties us to do no more in governing and helping other sister-Churches, than if we had no further warrant to promote their edification than the sole relation of brotherly consociation.”

The sentence is somewhat imperfect. And that it may fit his purpose, I think it must be expressed this way: “The bond of brotherly consociation ties us to do no more in governing sister-churches, than brotherly consociation can do.” This is true, but it’s wholly impertinent, and of no proof to the point in hand. And it wholly misses Mr. R.’s scope, which is to compare the bond and burden between brotherly consociation, and office-imposition — as if that were a parity between them.

Reply. For a reply, we’ll examine,

1. The truth of the Assertion, and

2. Answer the reasons alleged for it.

1. Touching the Assertion itself, we will oppose one that is professedly contradictory to it.

Mr. R.’s Assertion is that there is not the same care, onerousness, and labor required in duties of Christian Watchfulness, in a brotherly way, as to do the duties to others, to whom we are bound by an Office-relation.

And this imparity appears partly in the preparations required for the services, and partly in their execution.

(1) For preparation to the work of teaching, which the Pastor and Teacher are to attend by their places, laboring in word and doctrine (so that as good stewards they may lay in provision old and new, and be able to divide the word of truth rightly) — they are to bestow their whole time and strength constantly to this end. Therefore, they are enjoined to attend to exhortation and teaching; the main bent of their daily studies must go that way. 1Tim 4.13, 16 They must search to know the state of their flock, Search the Scripture, and study those pleasant words which may with most plainness and profit and power, convey the truth to the understanding of the least in their charge. Ecc 12.10 And therefore they must not be entangled in the affairs of this life. 2Tim 2.4 They must lay aside attending tables, and give themselves to the word and prayer. Act 6.2-4 The Apostles professed to take this course (though extraordinarily gifted and assisted), as occasion required.

If the Apostles laid aside the care of the poor in dispensing the treasury, because that would hinder the work of the Ministry; if there had been any work of similar care and onerousness, then why should they not have laid this aside also? I cannot see it; and therefore they didn’t judge exercising the acts of Christian helpfulness to be of this nature.

In a word, to make preparation for the work of the Sabbath, and the public dispensation and administration of Christ’s holy things; if the improvement of time and strength is constantly required; if brotherly consociation required the same care, and laid a like onerousness on a Pastor in his Christian duties of love — then they were no more able to discharge both of these, than to be Pastors of two or three Congregations, which all men confess to be cross to God’s command. But blessed be God, it is far otherwise. His ways are full of mercy, wisdom, piety, and goodness; and He exacts no more from His people than they’re able to perform in an evangelical way.

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

(2) If we look again into the dispensation and execution of these services, the imparity will also plainly appear.

If an officer hears of a scandalous course of those who are his sheep, he is bound to make diligent search touching the truth of it, and upon that proof being made, he is bound to convince and admonish. If he will not hear, then he is to take one or two; if he will not hear them, then he is to complain to the Church of such a delinquent.

But I am not thus bound to bestow my time, and employ my care with all Christians with whom I meet in the compass of the same Classis, or the same Province. For it is impossible for me to do so. If I hear of many scandals that many have caused in several Congregations, Countries — indeed, as many as the occasion of travelling and merchandizing may require; a man is forced to see many scandals in many places. Must the traveller or merchant now lay aside all his business to deal with all these? Or in case he returns home, the pressures of his employments calling him there, must he then go into France, Germany, or Holland to proceed against such delinquents? I suppose each man sees the absurdity of this, without spectacles. It is impossible for any man to attend such a proceeding.

And therefore, blessed be our Savior, who never required it, and who never laid such a burden on anyone to practice in this manner. But in His infinite wisdom, he has provided a nearer course which may be followed with comfort and convenience. He has appointed guides in every church, i.e., Ruling Elders, who are eyed wings [229] to the people over whom they are placed. They are at hand; they are appointed by their office to deal with such case; and they live and converse with one another, have charge over them, and authority put upon them to that purpose. They are set apart from other entanglements, to attend to the improvement of all ordinances, for the good of those under their charge, so that their evils may be seen, searched, and reformed.

Nor let any man think to ease this inconvenience by saying that a person is a proper Pastor to the one, and a Pastor removed to the other. For this device, like a warm hand, strokes the forehead, but it won’t cure the fever. For by this it is granted that in some sense, Pastoral care is far more onerous and laborious than Christian and brotherly care — which is the question now before us.

(3) It is affirmed in this place, and often expressed by Mr. R., that there is but one and the same office from which all this Watchfulness issues towards all. Therefore it has the same bond, and it requires the same service. And therefore all such conceits are merely coined to deceive men’s consciences, and so to keep them quiet; but they will never stand at the Great Day of Account.

For the question will be, Did you have the same pastoral relation to the one as to the other, as your sheep? If you stood bound to them as your sheep by the same Office and Call — then you were bound to supply the needs of both; and you were in like manner bound to promote the good of both, Eph 4.13-14.[230]

(4) But lastly, Mr. R.’s own expression will not allow any such consideration as this. For he applies the comparison between brotherly care and pastoral care, to a man’s proper flock. For his words are these:

“I clear it in this: namely, that as great a care and onerousness lies upon a brother in the Court of God,[231] as upon a Pastor in watching for the good of a brother. A man is a gifted preacher in a congregation on an island; there is no other gifted by God to preach the Gospel but him alone. I would think, as a brother, he would be under as great an obligation of care, and laborious onerousness of conscience, to bestow his talent for gaining souls by preaching, though he were not called to be their Pastor, as if he were called to be their Pastor.

The case is evident here, that Mr. R.’s intent is to compare a Pastor’s care over his proper flock, and his brotherly care over Christians together.

And here also, I must crave leave to differ wholly from Mr. R.’s opinion. For it is granted that this gifted person is not called to preach, nor will the people on the island so acknowledge him. Therefore they are not bound to maintain him. Hence, I would rather think of it this way:

One who uses his general calling, such that he destroys his particular calling, uses it in a disorderly way. For these are to be in subordination, not in opposition.

And to so preach (being gifted, as in the example given) is indeed to use his general calling (for he does it out of Christian charity) such that he destroys his particular calling.

For he must of necessity lay aside attending tables — i.e., his worldly occasions that would and did take his time and strength — if he comes to bestow himself in his preparations and dispensations in a Pastor-like manner, i.e., as Pastors used to do.

Besides, to do as much in a general way of charity, as that which amounts to the work of a particular calling, is to confound general and particular callings, which God and rule have distinguished.[232]

Mr. R. says, “I desire to know what the naked relation of authority or jurisdiction is, that is added to this care and onerousness in point of labor, by preaching the Gospel.”

It’s easy to respond that Jurisdiction implies an Office. An office not only adds a special bond, but it requires more service with a greater increase of time, and strength, and constancy in it, as it has been made apparent before.

2. The Two Reasons which Mr. Rutherford propounds for proof of the conclusion, don’t have enough solidity to settle the understanding of a man who is seriously judicious.

Reason 1. The frame of the First Reason of Mr. R. is this:

“If we have a divine command to be our brothers’ keepers, then our Watch in that regard carries and requires as much care and onerousness as an Office-watch.”

Answer. The consequence is to be denied as in no way suitable to the rule of truth as it appeared at large in the former inquiry. And this one thing is also enough to make it palpable: I am then bound by that divine command to keep many brethren from danger, with whom I occasionally meet, perhaps once or twice in my life. And therefore I can relieve them no more than that. Am I therefore bound by my office to watch no more, nor lend any further relief to those who are committed to my care? Will it go for good pay at our appearance before Christ, to say that I am bound by my office to watch no more over the people left to my care and custody, than I am bound as a Christian to be my brother’s keeper, in a Classis or Province?

Many of them I could never see, or very seldom lend any succor to in all my life. Therefore I am bound to do no more for those who are under my charge, if I occasionally meet with them to do them occasional good — but never to bestow my time and strength to constantly attend to their comfort, to bind up the broken, to recall those who go astray, and to heal and help the feeble.

The Second Reason comes out of the same mint, and it is thus in form:

Reason 2.

“If the foundation of governing a Classical Church is the love and union of the members of one body of Christ, there is as much care, onerousness and labor required in brotherly consociation to help them, as the care and onerousness required in Office-help, or that which is required in the jurisdiction which comes from being Officers.

“The first part is true; therefore...”

Answer. The proposition deserves a denial, as not having a semblance of truth in it. Because I love all those who are consociated with me under one National Synod — those whom I never had a sight of, never came to speak with, with whom I could never meet to do good to them, or receive any good from them in converse — that therefore I should stand bound to exert the same onerous, laborious care for their spiritual good, as for a person who stands charged with their care by way of his Office. One would certainly conclude, and readily so, that either those officers do too little, or else I’m bound to do too much, more than I can possibly attain to.

The officers must do too little, if they discharged an office towards those whom they never saw, nor knew; never did any good to them, nor received any good from them.

Or else I would be bound to do too much (more than I can possibly attain to), if I stood engaged to comfort, counsel, direct, reform, and proceed against in censure for their evils — which officers must do by Christ’s appointment, being sent to gather and perfect the saints — when I will never converse with thousands in the nation, nor they with me, until my dying day.

Hooker’s Argument 5.

If they are Pastors over all the Congregations in the circuit, then either they were newly chosen by the several Congregations, or not.

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

If they were chosen by them all, then each of them is as bound to all, as to the first people, and therefore as bound to preach and perform pastoral acts to the one, as to the other.

Here is where non-residency is really brought in by Mr. R.:

Nor will it satisfy that they are accordingly Pastors, for if they stand in the same relation of a Pastor’s Office to a Classis, as a Pastor does to his own flock, then they must be chosen to it, and are proper Pastors, for so Pastors are to their own flock.

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

Both propositions are Mr. Rutherford’s. The major is in l.1. p;. 56; l.2. p. 201, 102.

The Assumption, or second part, is in lib. 2., pp. 329, 333, 338.

Mr. R. tells us, l.2. p. 344,

“They are called Elders at Ephesus, i.e., of every church in that combination, in that sense that kings are called kings of the nations; not because every king was king of every nation; for the King of Edom was not the King of Babylon; yet in cumulo (cumulatively), they did fulfill that name, to be the kings of the nations. So Elders of Jerusalem are called in cumulo; Elders of all the churches of Jerusalem taken collectively. And as it doesn’t follow that the King of Edom (because he is one of the kings of the nations) is elected to the Crown of Chaldea by the voice of Nobles, so it is not a good consequence that such a number are called the Elders of the Church of Jerusalem. Therefore, the several churches should choose them, and submit to them.”

Reply. It is true. These are good words. But it is just as true that they don’t touch the cause in hand, much less confute it, if they are rightly considered.

The kings of the nations are so styled by way of distinction, because the special rule they have, is distinct from the rule which is erected in the Church. And the fair and familiar meaning is that this King is Ruler over those people who are within the compass of his nation or territory; another is over his own people; and so each one is over his own particular subjects and has no kingly rule at all in another’s kingdom. So here, the Elders of the Church are and may be so called, because they feed and rule within their particular congregations, but they exercise no rule in another’s Church, any more than the King of Edom rules in the Kingdom of Chaldea. And therefore, the members of one Church, as they did not choose, so they should not submit to the rule of the Elders of another congregation — no more than a subject in Chaldea, as he did not choose the King of Edom, so he should not submit to him. By this expression, our cause is confirmed, not confuted.

Mr. R. adds,

“If all the kings of the nations met in one Court, and in that Court they governed the nations with common royal authority and counsel in those things which concern all the kingdoms in common, then all the nations were bound to obey them in that Court. And when they consent to the power of the common Court, they tacitly consent that every one of those kings will be a chosen King of such and such a kingdom.”

Reply. These are words which darken, and by mistake, mislead the Reader from the mark. But rightly discerned and searched into, they do nothing for the cause. For when it is said that they meet in Court, and govern the nations with common royal authority, this authority was a new superadded authority, which did not come from the King of Edom, nor from that royal office (let me so speak), from the regal power he had there. For then it would have belonged to none but him. But this was a common royal authority; and it was another authority with which not only he, but all the rest of the confederate Princes were invested as well. And that was wholly distinct from that kingly power that each king had in his own kingdom. And it was received when, by the choice of the people, or by the Parliaments in all the kingdoms, they set up all those confederate Princes.

Suppose instead that the King of Edom, and Babylon, Emperor of Persia, Prince of Transylvania, Duke of Florence, etc. — had this one, joint power of confederate Princes, to act in such a manner, in such things, with such limitation, as distinct from that particular princely power they had in their own territories. This would be the truth in the example. And let Mr. R. parallel this in the case in hand, and we will soon come to an agreement.

Namely, that the Elders had a special office, and the power of it in their proper charges. Yet, when by the combination of all the Churches, they are to meet in a Classis, and have the power put upon them to act in such things, and in such a manner, which they never had before — this is not now an Office of a Pastor, but the power of a Commissioner, wholly distinct from it. And that is a human creation of man’s devising. The churches dealing in it, as the civil states do, are allowed, and take allowance, to add and institute new places and new powers in the Church. So that, they were all chosen Commissioners; but not one of them was ever a Pastor — which is what Mr. R. will not allow; and yet this frame is not able to question it.

The issue then is this: had they been Pastors, they must have been chosen and maintained (paid), which was the consequence of the reasoning; and it stands untouched on that supposition. But they are Commissioners. And so, what his words intimate, and the nature of the thing forces us to conclude, is that the people tacitly promised obedience and subjection to every one of the Kings of the nations, not simply as they are kings in relation to such a kingdom. And so, by parity and proportion of reason, the people are promising subjection to Elders — not as they are Pastors, but as they are Commissioners, which are human creations of man’s own devising.

Hooker’s Argument 6.

The Classical Church consists of so many Elders in a representative Church, meeting together to exercise jurisdiction by joint concurrence. Therefore, the acting and issuing of determinations and censures must either be carried on by the joint agreement of all, or else by the majority. For if the fewer or lesser number might tip the balance in propounded cases, then the weaker would overcome the stronger (for they all have equal power in their commission to the work). Some few go to one side, and many to the other side; and if the fewer had the deciding voice, then the lesser weight would tip the scales against the greater, which is irrational. Again, on this ground the part would not only overrule, but destroy the whole, which is absurd. From this, then, it is plain that the greater part has power in their hand to pass sentence by way of decision; and when that is past, to put that decision into execution.

But what if most have the worst cause, and err in their judgment and practice? The answer is, while the fewer protest against their proceedings, they quit their hands of sin, and that is all they can do. But the sentence must take place. Only, if there is a way of appeal left, they may take the benefit of it as they have opportunity.

These being premised, which cannot be denied, I reason thus:

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

But this course does so; for instance:

The greater part of the Classis may excommunicate a member of a particular Church, when the Elders and all the people judge it truly not to be worthy of that censure.

Here the power of the Elders and people who act in a way of Christ, is wholly hindered.

To this Mr. R. answers,

“Dejure (by law), the power of the greater Presbytery in this case ought to be swallowed up by the two voices of the Elders of the Congregation.”

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

Reply 2. This lays open a gap to endless dissension. For on this ground, a few will say, “We have the truth on our side; and therefore your votes and expressions, though the apprehensions of so many, should give way and are to be swallowed up by our argument, and must therefore never again appear in sight.”

Lastly, who must judge which party has the better end of the staff — whether the fewer or the greater number is in the right? Either the majority must judge, or else no judgment may pass at all. And so it will be in the power of the few to disturb, indeed, to disannul all public proceedings, and bring quick confusion upon the whole.

Hooker’s Argument 8.

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

It is not from the place and power they had before the combination, for Mr. R. maintains it as a principle, that “One Congregation does not have power over another.” And reason evidences as much. For why should they, or how can they, claim any power over one, without claiming power, on the same ground, over all?

If this jurisdiction issues from some new power, it must proceed from some new order or office received from their combination. For jurisdiction issues from order, as in the first ground. And no jurisdiction in the Church can be exercised without an Office appointed by Christ, as it appears by the second ground.

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

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

Some Considerations

Before I leave this place, I will offer some considerations collected from the former arguments, for the Reader’s judgment, that he may relieve me and himself, in his most serious thoughts in secret.

1. A Pastor of one congregation doesn’t have power over another, for one church doesn’t have power over another. Therefore the power he receives must not come from the office of a Pastor, for he had that before; and yet in lib. 2., p. 133, Mr. R. says, “This power issues from one and the same office in the Congregation and in the Classis.”

2. “A Pastor, as he stands in relation to his congregation, and in reference to the Classis, does not have two, but only one Office,” pp. 32, 333. “And yet they are elected to the Office of a Pastor in the Congregation,” l.1. and lib. 2., p. 201. “But he is not elected to the Office of a Pastor in reference to the Classis,” lib. 2. p. 345.

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

3. “The powers of a Congregation and of a Presbytery are not formally or essentially different,” lib. 1., p. 332. “Where powers don’t differ formally, I say, their operations don’t differ formally. And yet the Pastor does not, needs not, and cannot watch over the Classical Church. He cannot preach to them constantly; and they are not constant teachers to watch for the souls of them all, lib. 2. 330. Archippus is not an elder so as to answer to God for their souls. Lib. 2. 326. They are denied to be Elders in feeding by the word of knowledge,” lib. 2. p. 327.

But this, I say — to preach, watch, and feed — Elders do and must do, by virtue of the essence of their office. Therefore, they have acts that are formally different [between Congregation and Classis]. And therefore they do have powers that are formally different.

4. “There is one and the same office which Elders act by in a Classical and Congregational way,” lib. 2. 329. “If there is (he says) one and the same Office, then it relates in one and the same manner; and then to the Classical and Congregational Church in one and the same manner. If the Congregational church is their proper flock, then the Classical Church also is their proper flock. [233] And if it is one and the same Office, then it’s received at one and the same time.” But these are denied in this dispute. “The Classical Church cannot bear relation to one man, as their proper Elder,” lib. 2. 344, 345.

5. “Power of jurisdiction proceeds from the power of order,” l.2. 329, 330.

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

And indeed, the combination of churches gives no office to Elders, who were in office before they combined.

Therefore they could give no power.

And yet the argument says it does; and the doctrine of a Classical Church must of necessity maintain that principle. Either these are mazes and mysterious twistings, or I confess that I am much mistaken.

Lastly, I would entreat the serious Reader to observe what depths lie hidden in this device.

1. A Pastor may be a Pastor in relation to a Church, and yet never be chosen. For a Classical Elder is so; and why may not a Bishop be so?

2. Would you see a person who has the formal essence of a Pastor, and yet never did, nor is bound to preach? So a Classical Elder is to his “Classical Church,” and why may not a Bishop also have the same?

3. Would you see a person who has the Office of a Pastor teach, but have no power to rule in chief acts of jurisdiction? Behold, this is the poor Pastor of a Congregation; he may preach, and he may administer the Sacraments in his own congregation; but the Classis keeps the key of Jurisdiction, and they must send in his censures and excommunications. And why may not a Bishop do so, if you will?

4. Would you see a person exercise Jurisdiction over Churches, and yet not be bound to preach to them? Behold, the Classical Pastor does so. And therefore, why may not a Bishop rule a Diocese, and preach only at his Cathedral?

It is all that can be said, and it is true, that many are joined with that one in joint power to do this. But what if the Elders who met in the Classis, were to give that power to one man to take many to himself, and to exercise all the Jurisdiction without them — not only as a Moderator, to order the actions of the Assembly, but as having the power of a Judge. He is then a perfect Bishop.

The Root and Fruit of this Jurisdictional Error

I desire a Rule of Christ from the Churches in combination, to convince the Elders meeting, of an error in choosing one from among themselves, and putting upon him the Jurisdiction of a Judge, that will not as well condemn them for choosing many Elders of other Churches, and investing them with the jurisdiction of Judge-like authority over many other Churches besides their own.

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

For it is affirmed and confessed that one Congregation has no power over another. And therefore, if they receive this power over other Congregations, it is not the Office of a Pastor or Teacher that gives that power, for they had that completely when they were officers of but one congregation.

Therefore, the power they receive from the combination must not be an Office-power.

Therefore, it must be some other power beside that.

Therefore, the Combination gives some power to many, beside the power of Office, that Christ has not appointed — and that is a human invention.

And why may they not give the same power to one man? And let him take Surrogates, Deans, Archdeacons, and Chancellors to himself? This is but a human invention, like the other.

In a word, let Mr. Rutherford give me but one place in Scripture, or one sound reason [234] for it:

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

2. That he may be a Pastor (as the Office of a Pastor is appointed by Christ) to those to whom he neither can, nor should preach constantly.

3. That he is bound to exercise Jurisdiction of censure, and make decisions about doubts, toward those he neither needs, nor indeed is bound to feed by the word.

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

I profess that I will willingly concede the cause. But they must either make good the first three, or else prove the last; otherwise, the pillars of the Presbyterial Church will fall.

Section 3. Reasoning from such grounds, against it.

We’re now done with one sort of grounds by which the constitution of a Presbyterial Church may be discerned. We will add another; and from this ground, we will also argue against it. It is confessed by all hands, and often granted by Mr. Rutherford, that,

“A Church on an island may dispense all the Ordinances of God, those of Ordination and excommunication, because it is a Church, properly so called:

“1. In that it is a little City, and a little kingdom of Jesus Christ, having within itself the power of the word and sacraments.

“2. And also that it is a Church, and has the essence of a Church, to which the essential marks of a visible Church agree.

“Now, preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments, are essential marks of a visible Church.”

From this ground, I would reason thus:

(1) If a Church on an island may dispense all the censures and all the ordinances, then

(2) Every particular Congregation may.

The first part is granted.

Therefore the second part cannot be denied.

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

This second part admits no denial, because sense and experience give their testimony:

All the Officers which Christ has appointed in the one, are in the other.

All are enjoined to execute all their operations, and to fulfill the work of their ministry, and the duties of their calling, in the one as in the other.

And the end is the same in both: the gathering and perfecting of the Saints.

The Proposition is proved from that principle of reason, that the operation corresponds to the constitution.[235]

The third ground formerly laid, confirms the same.

Where there is an Office or power appointed by God, no other power besides Office-power is needed to authorize the work, and require its performance.

And lastly, if the power is the same, and the end is the same, then the power must be frustrated and in vain, if it were not executed to that end. The power would be wronged, and the institution of Christ also, if it were hindered in attaining that end.

Let any man show any power, right, or ability that a Church on an island has to dispense any ordinance, and it will clearly appear that every particular Congregation has them as much. For,

1. All the dispensation of such a Church issue from the intrinsic power of the Rulers called by Christ to the work; and so it issues in all other congregations.

2. If the neighborhood of other Churches is but a separable adjunct, then it can add nothing to the constitution of a Church; for the nature of such adjuncts doesn’t touch the essence or constitution of the thing in any measure. And indeed, neighborhood is but a separable adjunct, as experience and common sense can testify — because either death or dissension may remove some Churches, and nullify them; and yet some particular churches are preserved.

3. Suppose a Church is gathered and erected on a continent in the wilderness, and is there alone. If this Church could execute all these censures, and dispense all Ordinances, before any other Church was planted by them; and if those Churches that come after, abridge them of that liberty, they have power over them. And indeed, they have no such power over them; for one Congregation does not have power over another [as Mr. R. concedes].

4. Besides, those operations which a Congregation executes out of the authority of the Office and Officers, which they have received from Christ and for which they are called, should not be abridged.

5. Indeed, if the Officers and Offices remain the same, then they should not, and they cannot be abridged. Where the same intrinsic power of constitution, according to God, remains unaltered, the operations remain the same.

Objection. It may be said, they should submit to a combination of Churches, as well as combine as members of a particular Congregation.

Ans. 1. This is begging the question.[236]

Ans. 2. Suppose they will not; then the other Churches cannot exact or command that Church, any more than a particular Congregation can command me to be a member.

Ans. 3. They should not so combine as to prejudice the operations of that power which they have received from Christ, and which they are enjoined to execute accordingly. Let there be any warrant shown out of the Word, that any person or Church has power to hinder the operation of a Pastor or ruling Elder, in any one act of his office, more than in another.

Ans. 4. And lastly, it has been proved that the addition of anything besides an Office, adds no power or right of Jurisdiction. See the third ground, above.

6. If the ground of the Combination has no force, and no validity with it, then the Combination falls, and the Classis with it. And indeed, the ground which is given is mere fallacy; it has no validity in it — namely, “Preventing or curing the taint and pollution that a scandal will bring by the nearness of cohabitation.”

This is no ground at all. That will appear if the scandal in an ordinary course, may and will occur among those who are nearer [geographically], than many in the Combination. If so, then this nearness is not sufficiently the cause of the scandal. For example,

(1) If members trade among people of another Classis, and give a scandalous example there.

(2) If those who live outside of the Combination are nearer the Congregation of another Classis than their own.

(3) If the scandal that occurs, goes far and wide into the provinces and nations also.

Besides, the righteous proceeding according to the Rule of Christ in a particular Congregation, is the cure appointed to remove the polluting and infecting power of the scandal, however far off, or however near.

Section 4. The Nature of a Church and a Classis.

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

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

2. A definition cannot be given that agrees both to a Congregational and a Presbyterial Church.

3. If the Congregations are specific species [237] of a true Church, then there can be no lower species resulting or arising from them, as this does.

4. If every congregation has all the integral parts of a Church, then it is an entire and complete Church. And indeed it has all sorts of Officers as Rulers, and a People who are ruled.

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

6. Every integrum [238] is made up of its members; therefore, by nature they exist before the whole.

Therefore, particular Churches exist before the combined Classis.

Therefore, what each Classis has, it receives from the Churches.

Therefore Classes have no Officers, except from particular Churches.

Therefore, both Ordination and Jurisdiction come from the particular Churches.

Section 5. Particular Churches Meeting in One Place.

How far is a particular Congregation bound to meet in one place? Our practice here will be the best exposition of our opinion, and that is usually as follows.

In case the Congregation grows too big, and therefore is forced to swarm out; or in case they transplant themselves from one place to another, so that part is forced to go on ahead to make preparation for those who follow — we then send one Officer with a smaller party, and most remain behind with the rest. And yet, all are but one Church in our account, and under one Presbytery of Elders, chosen Rulers of the Congregation.

But when the Congregations are fixed, and established in peace, and settled with support about them, there should be no more than may decently and comfortably meet together, to partake of all Ordinances, and the use and benefit of the labor of their Officers.

Hence an Answer may be easily accommodated to the examples Mr. R. brings for evidencing a Presbyterian Church.

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

But there were no Elders appropriated to their several charges and Churches, which had power only over them. And the Apostles could not be such Elders, because though they had all power in them, no power was limited, for that would implicate and contradict their Apostolic commission.

The rest of the examples of Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, etc., even if it were granted that upon their greater growth and increase, and so for lack of Elders, they might meet in various places for a while — these might still be under one Presbytery, with their officers attending upon them in a distinct manner. And therefore Gerson Bucerus’ answer is suitable here: that because they met in diverse places, they were under diverse Presbyteries or Elders.[239]

2. It doesn’t appear from any text, nor any evicting argument gathered from there, that they needed to meet in several places (setting aside the Church of Jerusalem).

3. Let it be considered whether “Church” intended many churches, as Saul made havoc of the Church, Act 8.3 i.e., of all the faithful members of all Congregations.

Chapter 10. Answers to Mr. R.’s Arguments

for Confirming a Presbyterial Church.

Having discovered the constitution of this Presbyterial Church, we are now to consider and answer those arguments Mr. Rutherford alleges to confirm a Presbyterial Church.

Argument 1. We will quickly dispatch these, because we have held the Reader somewhat with the longest in this debate. His first argument is taken from the Church mentioned in Matthew 18, and his reason is this:

“If Christ alludes here to the Synod and Consistory of the Jews,[240] with which his hearers were well acquainted, then a Presbyterial Church of Elders, collected and combined from many congregations, is understood here.

And our Savior indeed alludes here to the Synod and Consistory of the Jews.

Therefore, a Presbyterial Church is understood.”

Answer. Both propositions may safely be denied. Nor is there any evidence that can evince [241] their certainty. For as Mr. Robinson says well, “The manner of our Savior’s proceeding is so plain and obvious to an ordinary apprehension, that it may easily and familiarly be perceived.”

1. Alluding to the Jewish Synagogue would add little light to the process now propounded. If our Savior meant a particular Synagogue, they didn’t have the power of excommunication in their hands. For the Church of the Jews was a national Church, and all the males were bound to go to Jerusalem three times a year. And if they were not cast out from there, no excommunication could be complete. For they had their liberty there to appeal in the weightiest matters; and delivering a man to the Devil was a matter of greatest consequence, the greatest that could befall him. And therefore he would in reason see a thorough trial. And to say that our Savior alluded to the national Church of the Jews, is to confound the government of the Gospel, with that of the Law.

2. This would be like sending a man to a General Council, not to a Classis — indeed, to send him to a place where he was not likely to find relief. For the plaintiff might be dead and buried before the Council could be gathered.

3. The direction of our Savior apparently points out some standing Tribunal, and that was at hand. It was such a Church of which both parties were members, so that when two witnesses could not set down the offender, the Lord Christ raised a whole Church, like the body of an army, to overcome his obstinacy. I would willingly see how a Church on an island, a solitary Church on a continent, or perhaps two Congregations sitting down together — or the first Church at Jerusalem, Act 1.23 — could take any warrant to exercise any act of discipline against an offender from this passage; or from any word of the Gospel upon this ground.

4. Lastly, it doesn’t follow that the allusion had been to a Classis (for there was none but a national Church), but rather to a Consistory suitable to the Synagogue.

The Proposition also allows a just denial — for an allusion is only a similitude; and the similitude may lie in some particular beside the quality of the Judge. Such as, an offender who would not hear the supreme Judge, was cut off. So you must look at the particular congregation as the chief Tribunal. And therefore, the one who will not hear her speak, let him be cast out, and accounted no member of the Church.

And that the resemblance could lie in the Judge, seems evident because the judgment in the Sanhedrin was mixed (as the word intimates, Deu 17.12; 2Chr 19).[242] It was partly comprised of Ecclesiastics, and partly of civil judges. As the case required, they had their hands and voices in the verdict, which carries no resemblance in our Church-work.

Argument 2.

“The Church of believers that is convened together, is still a Church that has met together for hearing the Word and receiving Sacraments. But this is a Church that has assembled not for prophesying or praying, but for rebuking and judicial censuring.”

Answer. The Church meeting together, though the scope is mainly for prayer and prophesying, yet it is not only for that. For they may be jointly attended — the administration of all Christ’s holy things may, indeed they most properly should then be attended. As when preaching the Word is ended, the censures too may be administered. Indeed, unless some peculiar circumstance requires the contrary, they should be so.

Argument 3.

“The Church spoken of here is such a superior and judicial seat, as ought to be obeyed in the Lord, under pain of excommunication. But a multitude of believers are not such a judicial seat.”

Answer. The Minor point is the question in hand; and indeed it is part of the conclusion to be proved: namely, whether a particular Congregation is the highest tribunal, or a Classical Church? And Mr. R. takes one part of the conclusion to prove the other part.

If the Congregational Church is not the highest, then the Classical Church is. The Minor should have been proved, not nakedly propounded.

Argument 4.

“Whatever Church may excommunicate a member, every member of it who is convened with the Church, may inflict all inferior punishments.

But all the members convened cannot inflict lesser punishments, just as women and children cannot rebuke openly.

Answer. The consequence is feeble, as appears from the nature of delegated public power, which is committed by Christ to persons capable of it, which women and children are not — the women being excluded for their sex, children for lack of exercise of their understanding.

Does any man reason thus: because people have power to choose their officers, therefore women may add their voice in the election? If the body of a corporation may remove a Mayor upon just desert, may women and children therefore do so? No; the wise God provides that the votes and judgments of these should be included [i.e., represented] in the male and chief of them, and be satisfied in them; and therefore the wife is appointed to ask her husband at home.

Argument 5.

“Those to whom the essence and definition of a Ministerial Church necessarily belongs — having power to excommunicate — these and these only are understood under the name of the Church. So it is that the essence and definition of a Ministerial Church, having power to excommunicate, does not necessarily agree to a great Company of believers assembled Church-wise.” [243]

Answer. Both propositions, with a fair interpretation, may be denied as being clearly false.

1. The proposition is false, because a Church neither as an Essential Whole alone, nor as it arises to be an Integral Whole, [244] is alone to be understood here. But the second sense and signification is what is first to be attended here, because both people and elders have their power, parts, and places in this work, in a right order and manner. When there are elders, they must lead. But when there are none, the Church can exercise many acts without them, or it can elect them, and then with them exercise all the rest.

So that, when it is said, a Ministerial Church is understood here, the word “Ministerial” allows for several significations: either Ministers exclusively without the body, and that is false; or the Ministers inclusively with the body. Now, a Ministerial Church in the fairest sense, aims at both. In the first sense, the Proposition is false; in the second, it doesn’t conclude to whom the essence and definition of Ministerial Church necessarily belongs — i.e., a Church of Ministers without the body, still having the power to excommunicate. He says these and only these are understood here. This is false; and Mr. R. himself refutes it, lib. 1. p. 226.

2. The Minor proposition involves many things in it, and therefore it only troubles. For it is said, “The essence of a Ministerial Church, to whom the power of excommunication pertains, does not necessarily agree to a company of believers.” Here there are three things: (1) a Ministerial Church; (2) It has power to excommunicate; (3) It does not equate to believers.

(1) It is confessed, and has been largely proved, that by “believers of a visible Church,” we mean those who are visibly so to the view of charity, even if they are not such in truth. And therefore, I wonder that Mr. R. should again trouble himself to prove that which no man denies.

(2) We hold that these combined believers are a Church before they have guides, and also have power to excommunicate. But they do not have a ministerial power taken in the narrowest and strictest sense, as here. They do not formally have the power of Office (potestatem Offici), yet they have the power of judgment (potestatem judici), as it will appear later.

Argument 6. The sixth argument refers to former proofs, and so we also refer to former answers.

Argument 7. The seventh argument is taken from Paraeus’ authority,[245] that there can be no complaint made to a multitude. This needs no answer, being evidently and experientially false. How often, and how ordinarily are complaints made to Parliament?

Argument 8.

“If the house of Chloe complained of an open fault to the holy Apostle Paul (1Cor 1.11), to crave his directions and help by way of reformation, which would have authority in all Churches, then complaints must be made to Elders only, and excommunication must be enacted only by them. Secondly, the Holy Ghost gives direction and rules about receiving complaints to the Eldership, Tit 1.7-13.”

Answer.

1. The consequence is denied. For Chloe might have made her complaint to any one of the members of Corinth; but she chose rather to make it to the Apostle, because his Apostolical power would be helpful in that case.

2. When there are elders in a Church, all the complaints must be made to them, and the causes prepared and cleared; and then by means of the elders, they must be complained of to the Church. Thus Paul advises Titus to hear complaints with the Elders, and then by the Elders, to complain to the Church. Now, to reason that complaints must be made by him and Elders to the church, and therefore they must be made only to them, and not to the Church, is a very weak conclusion.

3. It is granted by Divines that there can be no proceeding to excommunication, without the tacit consent of the people; and therefore the complaints of the evils must be made to the people by the Elders.

4. I would like to know, in case many Brethren have a just occasion given by the elders in a Church on an island, where and to whom they may complain, if it is not to the body of the people; and yet the body must know the complaints before they can give their consent to the censure.

5. Suppose there is gross and heretical doctrine preached by Officers, for which the people may justly reject their Pastors, in case they won’t recant and be humbled, as all confess may be done. Must the people reject their Pastors for such evils, and never speak to them? Or if the evil must be required, and a trial called for, may not a complaint be made to these people before they come to examine and try the case?

Indeed, suppose all the elders but one in a Congregation were delinquent, dwelling only near one other Church. Should the complaints be carried to the one Elder, and not be carried by him to the whole body once it is prepared? [246]

Argument 9.

“That Church is here understood as those to whom the keys were given in Mat 16.19. And they were given only to a Classical Church there.” [247]

Answer. The Minor proposition is barely affirmed [asserted without basis]; therefore it suffices for the time being, to deny it. The proof will be given in the proper place.

Argument 10.

“The only apparent argument against this interpretation is weak, and therefore this sense [of Mr. Hooker’s] must have no strength against it.”

Answer. Both parts fail, for:

1. That is not “the only apparent argument” that is remembered here, which either is or has been given by persons of a contrary judgment.

2. If that was weak, it still doesn’t follow that the different sense is clear, and the interpretation is strong. There may be many better reasons rendered perhaps, than have yet been alleged.

But let us attend the evidence by which it is proved, that the word “Church” in the New Testament is sometimes taken for Officers only. Mr. Ball,[248] seeing the strength of the reasoning coming down the hill upon him, which at least might, and indeed does cast such a strong suspicion upon the cause propounded here, that it leaves it alone, desolate, destitute of the least loving look of the allowance of any text that might be a second in the field. The good man, according to that sagacity and sharpness of dispute in which he excelled, stirs himself and musters all his forces, seeking far and wide to win some consent. But at last it all comes to this: that a man may suppose some such thing here, but he cannot get one passage of Scripture to speak professedly for him.

And to tell the truth, if the word Ecclesia were rarely used, and the thing itself had been out of an ordinary consideration, it would have been a fair plea to have said that the Scripture is very silent touching on this subject, and that the word is seldom used. But when it is so often used, and so ordinarily handled in all the Evangelists and Epistles — the very word commonly and constantly treating the same subject — and yet that it should never be taken in the New Testament in this sense that Mr. R. proposes, it gives a shrewd suspicion (such as cannot be wiped away nor comfortably borne) that this sense is fathered and forced upon the passage. But it is not the natural and native meaning of it; rather, some changeling has been put in its place.

Addendum. Let us hear, then, what Mr. R. adds, Rev. 2:

“The Angel of the Church of Ephesus, etc. Here the word Angel stands for the whole Church, and the whole Church is written to under the name of the Angel of such a Church. This may thus be demonstrated: because not only the Ministers, but the people who have ears to hear, are commanded to hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.”

Answer 2. The thing now questioned and to be proved, is whether the word Church is put for Elders. Now, I would like to know whether Mr. R. or any man can say that the name Church here is taken for Elders only — for all the passages of text, all the quotations, tell us the contrary. And therefore, there is not a syllable or a show of anything to evince it.

When the whole Church is written to, and the Epistle is superscribed to the Angel, this intimates something touching the signification of the name Angel, but nothing at all touching the name Church; so that the thing is wholly mistaken.

Besides, what Mr. R. would argue touching the Angel, will hardly go down with any discerning man. It’s true that by Angel, many angels may be intimated — the word being taken collectively, such as The Angel of the Lord pitches his tents about the righteous. Psa 34.7 This sense has good authors, and good reason. But that the whole Church should be understood in that word, will hardly stand with the context. For see how strangely and harshly the words will sound: To the Angel of the Church of Ephesus, i.e., To the Church of the Church of Ephesus. I suppose a man will find little reason in such rhetoric.

A second place is Act 18.22. Paul called in at Jerusalem, and saluted (greeted) the Church. It cannot reasonably be thought that only the Elders there were saluted; nor was it intended by that word, because it appears by the next verse, that the Apostle’s scope was to confirm the hearts of the Disciples in this entire voyage of his. And therefore he had an eye to the weakest, and those who lacked his sweet refreshing. And in all probability, the Church upon hearing of his arrival, assembled to give comforting entertainment, and so to be comforted by him.

The rest of the answer is not only that which we grant, but the most rigid of the Separation prove: that in the Old Testament, the Hebrew and Greek word used by the Septuagint is so understood. And therefore it is granted, without any loss to the one, or gain to the other.

Argument 11.

“The Church that the plaintiff must tell, that Church is to admonish the offender publicly. But that is the Church of Elders, 1The 5.12-13; 1Tim 5.20; Luk 10.16.[249] For only they are to receive public complaints, and to rebuke publicly, such as Tit 1.13; 1Tim 5.19; 2Tim 4.2.” [250]

Answer. This has been fully answered in the eighth argument, to which I refer the Reader. Only, he may remember that by the order of Christ, the Elders are to receive the complaints, and to prepare them for the Congregation. And then they are to report them to the people, who are to hear and receive them. And they are to pass a Judicial sentence, the Elders leading the action in an orderly manner, and taking their consent to it. Therefore, the incestuous Corinthian was said to be rebuked by many, and to be judged by them also. And that was not only by the judgment of discretion — for so they might judge those who were outside the church. Indeed, they are required legally to forgive him; and therefore, they as legally and judicially bound him.

Lastly, what will Mr. R. say of his expectants,[251] who preach publicly, and therefore instruct and reprove publicly, as in 1The 5.12; 2Tim 4.2?

Argument 12. The twelfth argument has received its answer before, arising out of a mistake which has been often spoken to, because neither women alone, nor children, will make a Church. Nor do they have any public power put into their hands for that purpose.

Argument 13. The thirteenth argument is propounded as though there was no great weight laid upon it; and therefore I thought to wholly pass by it at first. Yet, upon second consideration, I conceived it is not amiss to intimate a word to remove a stone out of the way, however small, so that any man who could move his foot, need not stumble over it. The probability presented is this:

“That Christ could not well mean a visible Congregation of people and Elders convened, because if they did convene to worship God in spirit and truth, they would meet in Christ’s name. But there is some other thing required, that the excommunicating Church may meet for the actual exercise of discipline. For besides meeting in Christ’s name, it is required that they meet with Paul’s spirit and the rod of discipline. So that Paul’s spirit, as an Elder, is required, who has the power of excommunication as requisite to this meeting.”

Answer 1. Whenever the Church meets in Christ’s name, she has Christ’s power to execute all acts of discipline as well as doctrine, having her right constitution.

Answer 2. It’s clear in the text, that the Church might and should have cast out the incestuous Corinthian without Paul’s provocation — indeed, without his knowledge, or consent by sending [a letter]; and therefore the Church is blamed in that she did not do so.

Answer 3. The holy Apostle, for their provocation to the work and encouragement in it, expresses his consent, that his spirit concurred with them, and gave full approval to their proceeding.

Answer 4. His spirit doesn’t dispense the excommunication, nor give them power to do what they could not do before. But he encouraged them to go on in the work which they had formerly neglected, and was so necessary to be performed.

Chapter 11. The Subject of Ecclesiastical Power – the Keys.

Touching the first subject of Ecclesiastical power, where the Nature of it is revealed, and the Arguments brought against it are answered.

Section I. Its Nature.

Before we can propound the state of the controversy in which the stress lies, and add those proofs which may be suitable to settle what we conceive to be the truth, we must of necessity crave leave to preface something touching the nature of Ecclesiastical power in general. And we must lay out the several parts and branches of it, in which that power is expressed, and may best be perceived by an understanding Reader. This is because it will give light to what follows, and will daily help to reveal the mistakes of those arguments which are brought to darken this truth.

Ecclesiastical power is usually made known to us in Scripture under the name of Keys [252] — the sign or adjunct being put for the thing signified, the ensign of authority for authority itself. This power is double: (1) Supreme and Monarchical; and (2) Delegated and Ministerial.

1. The Supreme and Monarchical power resides only in our Savior, and can only be given and attributed to Him, and to none other.[253] He is the King and Lawgiver of his Church, the Head of his Body, and the Savior of it. Eph 5.23 He alone has the keys of David, who opens and no man shuts; shuts and no man opens. Isa 22.22 He must have all power both in Heaven and earth, Mat 28.18 who must possess that place of Headship, and execute the office and operations of it. And none but Christ has that, and therefore none but He can have the privilege, whatever is pretended to be the contrary. And of this, we do not inquire here.

2. There is also a subordinate and delegated power, which is proper to our present disquisition; and it is nothing else, but this: A right given by commission from Christ to fit persons, to act in His house, according to His order.

By “right” is meant a jus or exousia (exousia),[254] which according to God, certain persons possess in their external administration. It issues from that special relation which attends them in their condition [or office] to which they are called; and it pertains to no other, unless they are in a like estate; and this is given by Christ. So that, they have no right except by allowance from our Savior; they have no more, it goes no further, it is no other, than what He appoints. He gives laws, and sets limits to bound it; and they may go no further than their commission will carry them.

We add that it is given “to fit persons,” because those are intended here, who alone are capable of it, according to God — to wit, those persons who are made able to receive this power, and to execute its power. And hence women, because of their sex, and Children because of their weakness [i.e., lacking capacity], Joh 9.21 and madmen because of their distempers, are disenabled; and so they are excluded from this privilege.

And upon this ground it appears how all those conclusions with which we meet so often, conclude just nothing. If power is in the Church of believers, then Women and Children might exercise it. So say Mr. Ball and Mr. Rutherford. This inference comes from a false supposition, and so the conclusion falls to the ground. For that is taken for granted, which ever was, and forever ought to be denied: that Women and Children were fit persons appointed by Christ to manage this power, which is cross to the letter of the text,1Tim 3.2 and contrary to the opinion and profession of us all. And therefore I mention it here, so that the Reader may look at it as not worthy of consideration whenever he meets with it hereafter.

It is lastly said by me that “they must act according to Christ’s order;” for God is not the God of confusion, but of order. 1Cor 14.33 And therefore, as all power is committed to the Church from Christ, so it is both received and exercised in that order which Christ himself has ordained. The whole Church is a fearsome Army with banners. The whole Army is in a daily fight; but all the parts don’t fight in the same manner; rather, each person keeps his place and position. The power is in the whole firstly; but each part knows his rank, and acts according to his own order and manner — the Officers in theirs, and the members in theirs. The whole does some things directly, some things mediately, but all is enacted by the whole, or by power received from the whole.

This power, for explication sake, is distinguished in two ways. It is either a power in many, when they are combined; this is either a power of Judgment, or a power of Giving (donating).[255] Or it is a power in one person, when it is given to him; this is a power of Office.[256]

I. The power of Judgment is exercised when the whole may and does act in admissions, and in excommunications. For the reason is alike in both: to invest with privileges, or to cut off from privileges. [257] The Apostle says all, as an act of all: 1Cor 5.12-13, Yes, judge those who are within, cast out therefore from among you [258] — i.e., from among the Body and Members of the Church. They are bid to cast him out. The words carry a causal power with them, v. 13, cast out from among you.[259] And this is called judgment by the Holy Ghost (v. 12), which is the ground for why we keep that expression.

II. The power of Gift (or election) is that which the People have, just as the corporation has power to choose a Mayor, and to give him authority to do what they themselves cannot do. So it is with the Body of a congregation, who elect and leave the imprint of an Office upon gifted men, though they are not such formally themselves, nor can they be said to labor in word and doctrine, to be rulers, or to dispense Sacraments. Only, what this giving is, is to be understood with a grain of salt, and it requires a wise and wary explication. Therefore this power may be addressed (1) in the rise and reason for it; (2) in the manner of how it is communicated; and (3) in the first subject in which this power of the keys is received.[260]

(1) The rise of this power, and the reason why it is necessary to be attended in a constituted Church, will specially appear if we eye the end of it, which always steers the action among those who are Agents by counsel. [261]

In all combination, there is and will be some common end. That end must have the means to attain it. Each man must bind himself to attend to these means and rules; and in case he doesn’t, to submit to another in order to be directed and reformed; or else to yield to the whole, so that he may be censured and removed from it. Otherwise, the end cannot be attained, nor the means attended with profit, or any powerful success in reason.

For if each man may do what is good in his own eyes, and proceed according to his own pleasure, so that none may cross or control him by any power, there must of necessity follow the distraction and desolation of the whole. Each man would have liberty to follow his own imagination and inclinations, and seek his particular good, but they would oppose one another, and all would prejudice the public good.

In a building, if the parts are neither mortified nor braced, just as there will be little beauty, so there can be no strength. This is so in setting up the frames of societies among men. When their minds and hearts are not mortified by mutual consent of subjection to one another, there is no expectation of any successful proceeding with an advantage to the public. To this pertains that saying of the Apostle, Every one submit to another. 1Pet 5.5

Mutual subjection is, as it were, the sinews of society, by which it is sustained and supported.

Hence every man is above another, while he walks according to rule; and when he departs from it, he must be subject to another.

Hence every part is subject to the whole, and must be serviceable to the good of the whole, and must be ordered by the power of the whole.

It is the highest law in all Policy, Civil or Spiritual, to preserve the good of the whole; all must aim at this; and all must be subordinate to this.[262] This power to judge pertains to all, as in the correction (ἔλεγξον elegcho) in Mat 18.15; or judging (κρίνειν krino) in 1Cor 5.12, both of which express acts of proceeding in a judicial manner.

Hence, each man and member of the society, in a just way, may be directed, censured, reformed, or removed by the power of the whole; and each may and should judge with the consent of the whole. This belongs to all the Members, and therefore to any in Office, if they are Members. They are superior as Officers, when they keep the rule; but they are inferior as Members, and in subjection to any, when they break the Rule. So it is in any corporation; so it is in the Parliament. The whole can censure any part.

This ground being laid, that objection in which many place so much confidence, is easily answered and the mistake of it is made manifest.

Objection. If the people were to censure the Pastor, then there would be Pastors of Pastors, and the sheep would be the Shepherd, not sheep.

Answer 1. The conclusion is feeble, as appears from the former ground, because the People judge not as Officers, but as Members of the whole. By virtue of the common laws of combination, they have subjected themselves in case of delinquency, to be ordered for the Common Good.[263]

The feebleness of this Objection will more fully appear if we compare its likeness. Take a Classis; suppose that several Pastors or many of them offend, and the rest admonish and proceed in censure against them. The Objection applies just as strongly, that here are “Pastors of Pastors.”

Let’s go still further. Suppose (which is possible) that all or most of the Pastors offend. And the Ruling-Elders with the rest, according to the allowance of Christ, proceed against them (whether for heresy or an error that is broached and maintained). Here the inferior censure the superior; those of one order judge those who are of a superior order.[264]

Answer 2. The rise of this power appears from a principle laid in nature. It’s a staple rule, which has a claim to be entertained without question:

No man by nature has Ecclesiastical power over another. It cannot be imposed regularly by constraint, as we formerly heard in part. For coactive power that is expressed by outward constraint and force, is wholly cross to the Government of Christ in His Church (whose kingdom is not of this world).

And therefore from His own inference, he wholly rejects worldly power, and worldly weapons, and none of his Churches are to use them: these swords are to be put away. The arms of the Church are holy and spiritual ordinances, they look at spiritual ends, and reach the spiritual man, the conscience, by spiritual censures (and therefore are so far moral censure).

As nature does not give this power, so a Civil Ruler should not impose it. Whatever is done here in the constitution of Churches, is done by an Ecclesiastical rule, not by a rule of policy. Whatever is dispensed by an Ecclesiastical rule, a Civil power cannot dispense it, because that is his sphere in which he moves, and he acts only within that compass, his end being political.

If then, nature does not give this power, nor may Civil authority impose it, then it does not come by constraint; and therefore it must come by mutual and free consent.

The very nature of the practice says as much. Why does this or that man combine with such, in such a place, and not with others on another coast? It’s merely out of mutual and free consent on both parts. For as I have no power to press upon them further than they will allow me, neither do they have any Ecclesiastical power over me unless I freely submit and subject myself to it.

If a Christian convert should come from China into a country or city where there are multitudes of Churches set up according to the rules of the Gospel, none of them have power to compel him to join with any one, more than another. But he may freely choose the one that is most suitable to his own heart and affection, and may be most serviceable to promote his spiritual edification.

From all of these premises, the inference is undeniable: so far as their combination goes by free consent, so far and no further reaches the power they have over one another. Because this is the foundation upon which it is built, and the root from which it grows, this is what I desire may be attended, because we will be forced to have recourse to this principle in our future proceeding.

(2) The second thing to be inquired about is how this power is communicated. Those who thus meet together, having power dispersed among themselves, they voluntarily consent to unite their power, and to devolve it upon someone to whom they will submit, walking by the rules of Christ, and confirming himself within its compass. So that this right of rule, thus united and devolved upon someone, is Officium, or the right of Office properly so called. Christ gave some to be Pastors, some to be Teachers (Eph 4.11-12; 1Cor 12.28). He alone, out of His supreme and Regal power, furnishes them with graces and abilities, appoints the work, lays out the compass of it, the manner of dispensing it, and the order and bounds of their dispensation.

The Church, by voluntary subjection, gives them this united right of rule to be exercised over them. And this is their outward calling by which they are warranted to act, and to exercise their abilities and Ministerial authority over such a people.

And hence, again, it is more than plain that men may give a call and power to those who are to be Pastors, and yet not be Pastors themselves.

The inference is undeniable: a divided right which is in many, is not a united right that is yielded by many, and devolved upon one. A divided power is not a united power. A Pastor’s power, or the power of his Office, is a united power from many. The people’s power is a divided power, lying in many who are combined; and therefore it is not the same.

Hence, the power of Judgment is not the power of Office, and therefore the Fraternity [i.e., the members] may have the one power, when they don’t have the other.

Hence, the Elders are superior to the Fraternity in regard to the Office, Rule, Act, and Exercise which is proper to them only, and not to the Fraternity. The People, or Church, are superior to the Elders in point of censure; each have their full scope in their own sphere and compass, without prejudicing the other.

— No man conceives that the place and office of the Mayor is prejudiced because the corporation can for just causes censure him, though not any or all of them can exercise his office.

— No man conceives the place and power of a King is prejudiced because a Parliament for just reasons can proceed against him.

— No man thinks that the honor and supreme privilege of an Emperor is impeached because the Princes and States can depose him in case he falsifies and breaks the fundamental laws of their consociation and agreement.

Hence, the censure of excommunication, as to the act of it, is common to Elders and Fraternity. It is only for the manner of managing it, that it is peculiar to the Elders to be leaders in that action. And this is why they are called ἡγουμένοις (hegeomai, rulers), Heb 13.17.

These things are now laid down by way of explication. The probation and proof will be brought in the proper place for it shortly.

Hence, again, they do not give away the power which they formerly had, and cease to be what they were, as in civil offices, and as it usually falls out among civil persons. A man sells his office and ceases to be what he was before he sold it. It is not so here; but by voluntary subjection, they give a united right to another, which none nor all of them ever had in a formal way, but virtually only. And therefore, they still keep the power of Judgment over each other, and can proceed by that against anyone who goes astray, even though he was an officer.

It’s true, the Officer may by a superior united right, call them together, and they cannot refuse. He may enjoin them to hear, and they may not withdraw. He may enjoin them to silence, if they speak in a disorderly and impertinent manner. He may dissolve the congregation, and they must give way while he delivers the mind of Christ out of the Gospel, and acts out all the affairs of His Kingdom, according to His rule and as it suits with His mind. He is thus above the whole Church. But in case he errs and transgresses a rule, and becomes a Delinquent, he is then liable to censure. And they may proceed against him, though not by any power of Office, for they are not officers; but by the power of Judgment which they possess.

Section II. Where this Power is Seated.

(3) The third thing to be inquired about is where this power is seated, as the first subject. And there, Mr. Rutherford’s arguments expressed in Lib. 1., chap. 1 of his Discipline, are weighed and answered.

This controversy touching the first subject of the power of the Keys, of all others, is of the greatest worth and weight. And therefore it both needs and deserves most serious search and trial so that, if it is the good pleasure of the Lord, we might come to a right understanding of it. And thereby a ready and certain way might appear to clear and settle our proceeding in most of the things that follow. To this purpose, we crave leave to say something for explication — something to confirm what we conceive to be the truth, which namely is this:

The power of the Keys is committed to the Church of confederate Saints, as the first and proper subject of it.

To remove the distaste with which the minds and hearts of most have been taken aside, touching the truth which is propounded, it would not be unseasonable or unprofitable, by some plain and short explication — as by some purging pill — to remove that malignant feeling of prejudice which has eaten so deeply into the apprehensions of men, that they are not willing to give any welcome entertainment to this part of Christ’s counsel. We will endeavor to scatter such fogs which would keep the Reader from the full sight and assent to this way, by the following propositions.

Proposition I.

That the power of the Keys is seated in the Church as its proper subject, is no novel opinion; nor is it a newly coined device of recent days. Rather, it has been professed and maintained of old, by men of able judgments in all ages. So that, it has antiquity and authority to honor it, as far as that honor will reach.

I don’t propound this as though placing any evicting or convicting power in this evidence. For a cause is no less true just because it is recently discovered. But I do it only to settle the stomachs of those whose expectations are not answered in any opinion, unless it is moldy with age. We would suffer years to say a little in this behalf.

The Keys were given to those whom Peter represented in Mat 16.19. That Peter speaks in the name, and stood in the place of the Church, is made plain by the testimonies and authorities of several of the ancient Fathers, and those of great esteem — such as Origen, Hilary, and Augustine — who frequently, expressly, and pregnantly, together with troops of our Divines, give approval to it with one consent. Any may read this in Parker de poli Eccles. Lib. 3. C. 2, 3, so that I may save my own labor, and allow every man to receive the praise of his own pains.

Indeed, Mr. Rutherford concedes as much, Lib. 1. Cap. 2. p. 21, “We oppose Fathers to Fathers,” he says. So that the Fathers, by his own confession, write in support of this. Again, Master Rutherford touching excommunication, writes thus, Lib.1, p. 49, “Here grave Beza, our Divines (Calvin, Bucer, Bullinger, Melanchthon, Bucan, Paraeus, Rivetus, Sibrandus, Junius, Trelcatius[265]); the Fathers (Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, and Theophilact),” require all to be done by consent of the people.[266]

And why should their consent be required, if it was merely a matter of complement, if the Elders were to do it, or indeed could do it without them? For if it is in the people’s power to keep the excommunication from taking place, then the Elders alone do not have a power given to them by Christ to manage this. Not unless we lay that imputation upon the wisdom of Christ, that he will appoint a means of Reformation and purging the Church, that in an ordinary course cannot attain its end. This would be deeply prejudicial to His faithfulness, wisdom, and power. And therefore Peter Martyr is peremptory and definitive in his expressions touching this point: “Therefore, we conclude that none is permitted to excommunicate without the consent of the church.” [267] (Loc. Com. de excommunicat. sect. 9.)

Proposition II.

The Keys of the Kingdom, by way of metaphor, signify all that Ministerial power dispensed by Christ, and received from Christ, by which all the affairs of His house may be enacted and ordered according to His mind, for attaining His ends, purposed and appointed by Himself.

All that power — and therefore all such means which are sufficient to open the Kingdom of Heaven to those who stoop to it, or to shut the Kingdom of Heaven against those who will not come under the authority of it — is called the Keys.

— The Key of Royalty is in the hand of Christ, who is the Head and King of his Church.

— The Key of Charity, as it is sometimes called (though very improperly) is in the hand of all believers, when out of Christian love, they lend some help to those with whom they meet, to further them in the ways of life; but they have no power in a Judicial way to proceed against them in case they refuse, because they are not in a visible Church.

— The Key of Subordinate Power which only those, and all those have, who are combined in a special Corporation, and come under the external government of the Scepter of Christ in the Gospel. They have good law (as we used to say) to proceed against any who will not stoop to the rules, and be ordered by the laws of His Kingdom.

Proposition III.

Where the Keys of Subordinate power are seated, as they are in the first subject, these are communicated by means of that subordinate power, to all others who partake of it.

Firstly in the Church, and by virtue of the Church, they are communicated to anyone who in any measure or manner, shares in it. Heat is in the fire at first, as its proper subject; and therefore if it is found in any other thing, it is by reason and because of fire. The iron or water is hot because they have “fire” in them that heats in them. The faculties of sense belong first to the sensory soul; and they are never found in any subject, nor act by it, except where the sensory soul is found.[268] So it is with this delegated and subordinate power. It is first in the Church, and communicated to none except by means of her. From this, it is clear that:

1. It doesn’t suit the rules of reason to cast some part of the power upon the people first, and some part of the power upon the Rulers; as though there were two first subjects of this power, which the letter of the text challenges: To you I will give, not to them, but to you, as representing one state or condition of men. To you bearing the place of Elders, or representing the person of believers. And therefore, to answer the scope of the question, we must lay out what is meant by Keys in general, and then show to whom that power belongs, and by their means is communicated to others, in the order and manner that Christ has appointed.

2. That conceit is wider from the mark, if anyone makes but one person the first subject of this power, and yet has others share in this power, and it is not by means of that first subject. For this indeed is to speak daggers and contradictions. It’s as if all power could be said to be in one firstly, and yet as soon be in another, as in that one.

Proposition IV.

The power of the Keys, taken in the complete nature of it, is in the Church of believers, as the first subject. But every part of it is not to be attended in the same manner and order for its ruling (its administration) in the Church, but only in the order and manner which Christ has appointed.

That power is in the Church radically and originally, as the subordinate cause under Christ. And there it may be enacted by the Church immediately (directly), as the power of Judgment,[269] in admitting members in the absence of Ministers, and in censuring by admonition; for each man is a judge of his brother. And there is a judicial way of admonition when the parties are in such an estate that externally,[270] they can provide for a judicial process against each other. So also, there is a delegated power,[271] as in all elections; they are done by the joint approval of the people.

Or else it’s communicated from her to some particular and special members, and exercised by them — having received it from Christ by her means, as all the Officers of the Church have their call, and receive the external right of their administration from her. Sensory faculties originate in animals; but they are acted and communicated in their proper specifications, according to the order and method of nature’s proceeding. The soul, which doesn’t see except by an eye, makes an eye and sees by it. So the Church makes a Minister and dispenses Word and Sacraments by him.

And because the name Minister has in common use, been especially applied to Rulers, therefore Ministerial power is put for power of Office; and so Ministerial power is only in Rulers. But as it comprehends all power delegated from Christ, and subordinate to Him, then it is as large as the power of the Keys in general.

From this it is evident, according to the double acceptance of the word, there may be a Ministerial power in the Church of believers, generally taken, and yet a Ministerial power only in Rulers, taken in the narrower sense. Namely, the power of Office is only in the Rulers formally, but in the Church radically and causatively.

The power of Judgment is in the Church formally, and in Rulers directively. Theirs is out of an Office-power leading the whole proceeding in it. And that is for the following reasons.

Arg. 1. This is taken from that received principle which is confessed and conceded on all hands, that the same was instituted and abandoned.[272] From this I would reason thus:

Those who have the power to censure and depose their Officers in case of heresy or other iniquity that is persisted in, have the power of Judgment formally seated in them over such persons.

This proposition admits no denial. Those who can take power from another, must of necessity have a power above that other in that regard.

The Fraternity have power to censure and so to depose an Officer in case of heresy or iniquity that is persisted in. For they gave power to their Rulers by election.

Therefore, in case of delinquency, they may and can take it from the Rulers upon the principle formerly received; and therefore they have Power of Judgment seated in themselves.

Arg. 2. If it is in the power of the Church and Fraternity to admit members, then it is in their power to cast them out (which is an act of judgment) when just cause is given, and they justly deserve it. For admitting and casting out carry a like parity and proportion of reason; they are of the same and equal extent; and they issue from the same ground.

And it is indeed in the power of the Fraternity to admit members, as it appears in the admission of Officers, before any of them can be received into the Church.

Arg. 3. Either the people have power to exercise a causal virtue in passing judgment and censure upon the delinquent, or else it belongs to the elder’s place, and it is their duty only to consent.

But this latter part cannot be granted. To consent to evil, and say Amen to an unjust censure, is sinful; and so it is not their duty. And the sentence given by the Elders may indeed be unjust.[273]

To say they may and should dissent [from the Elders], would bring as great a difficulty to the cause on their grounds. For if they may and should dissent from the unjust sentence passed, then according to rule and reason, they may hinder the execution of the sentence of excommunication. For if they jointly keep communion with the person whom they cast out, the Elders cannot attain their end in the sentence. Therefore Elders are not appointed by Christ to execute the sentence alone — unless we say that Christ appoints means which cannot attain their end, and that is in an ordinary course (for this may ordinarily happen). This would blemish the wisdom and faithfulness of our Savior in managing the affairs of the house of God.

Arg. 4. That Church is meant in Matthew 18, which has chief power in censuring any who are refractory,[274] as the letter of the text gives in evidence.

But the Church there does not mean the Presbytery alone.

Assumption proved:

That which crosses the rule of righteous proceeding appointed by Christ, is not Christ’s meaning in the text.

To understand it as meaning the Presbytery alone, crosses the rule of the righteous proceeding appointed by our Savior.

That which stops and disannuls the last part and degree of the process appointed by our Savior, crosses His appointed proceeding in the censure.

And this does so, as will appear by a double instance.

Instance 1. Suppose there are three Elders in the Church, and all of them, under offense, have been convicted in private. One or two witnesses have been taken to them. And yet they will not hear. What can now be done? The Brethren who are offended must tell the Church, i.e., the Elders [if Church means Elders], that the Elders have offended, which was done before. To do this is irrational; it makes the guilty party a Judge in his own cause.

Instance 2. Again, suppose two of the three are offenders, and these two will not hear the first or second admonition, then the aggrieved party must complain to the Church, i.e., to the third Elder; and so, one Elder would be the Church. Or else this last degree of process would be wholly disannulled. Both of these would be contrary to reason and the wisdom of Christ.

Arg. 5. If the power of judgment is in the Rulers only, then it is either in some of them, and derived by them to others; or else it belongs to all equally by the same commission; no third way can be devised.

But neither of these can be granted as true.

To have the rule given to one, and delegated by him to all others, is like having one chief (namely, Peter), and to have all others repair (turn) to him, and derive their power from him, which is obvious Popery.

And it cannot be delegated to all equally by the same commission, because those who are equal in commission are equal in power — for those two keep pace with one another, and are of equal extent.

But it’s confessed that all the Rulers who dispense the Keys, do not have equal power. The Teaching Elders, in degree and office, differ from the Ruling Elders, and also are superior to them.[275]

Arg. 6. Let me add this as a sixth reason:

The Church mentioned in Matthew 18 has power to proceed in excommunication against that brother or brethren who will not hear it. If he will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen.

But the Rulers alone do not have this power.

For instance, suppose that one of the Rulers were to complain about the body of the Fraternity [i.e., the congregation], touching error in doctrine and wickedness in life. In case they will not hear the Rulers, the Rulers may, and indeed should excommunicate them. That is, three or four Rulers of 400 or 500 brethren, excommunicate all of them. If this is granted, it follows that these Rulers would not only censure the Church of the fraternity, but destroy themselves also, as Pastors and Rulers. For, where there is no flock, there is no Shepherd. And being lawfully excommunicated, the consensus is, there is no Flock; all are scattered. Therefore, their office as Shepherds is destroyed.

Besides this, it is observed by Ames,[276] that a Church or body of people combining, cannot be excommunicated, because then a Body, having and retaining its essence, would be cast out of itself, which is impossible.

Section III. Rutherford’s Arguments for Who Holds the Keys, Book 1.

Let’s see what the Arguments are which Master Rutherford propounds to confirm his tenet that,

“The Officers, not of one Congregation but of many, have the power of the Keys conferred upon them, as the first subject.

“That is not to be held, which is not written.

“And it is not written, either expressly or by good consequence, that all the faithful lay hands on men for Ministry, such as Titus, Paul, and the Presbytery do, 1Tim 4.14.

“Or where all the faithful bind and loose and receive witnesses judicially against Elders, as Timothy and Peter have authority to do.”

Answer. This first, and his second and third arguments, don’t touch the Question as it is stated, and may, in a right sense, be granted without any prejudice to the cause. For the sum of all three arguments amounts to this much: that Office-power is formally in some select person, who has ministerial spirit and gifts; and this we all grant. Nor can Master Rutherford show any sober and judicious professor or writer of the Reformation who maintains the contrary — Parker,[277] Ames, Robinson. This last, in his most rigid times of sharpest Separation, professes that,

“The government of the Church before the Law, under the Law, and in the Apostles’ times, was and so it still is, not in the multitude, but in the chief.”

And then he adds,

“It never came into their hearts to deny this. Only, it is one thing to govern the Church, and another thing to be the Church. It’s confessed by all, that Office-power is in the hands of some select persons. But it does not follow from this, that the power of the Keys is firstly in them.” [278]

This general answer was enough to put to rest what is said in these three arguments. But for fuller satisfaction, we’ll take a more special survey of them.

1. Office-power is but a little part of the power of the Keys, like the nibble of the Key.[279] And therefore that may well be in Officers; and yet the power of the Keys is not to be firstly in them, but in those who gave that power, and gave that office to them. And those therefore had a power beforehand; theirs gave what the Officers have, and can take away what they have given.

2. Not only the Officers, but the Offices also, are included in the Keys, as being of that ministerial power by which that Kingdom of Heaven is opened, and the Gospel dispensed. And both Offices and Officers, as with all ordinances, are Christ’s gift to his Church. Eph 4.11, He gave some to be Pastors and Teachers. And they were given not only for His Church, but to His Church, as Master Rutherford confesses with Chrysostom, and as will be more fully argued afterwards. So that, these suppose the Church is before both Offices and Officers, and has the power of both.

3. Indeed, I confess that I cannot conceive (if any man would but give way to what reason readily leads to) that Mr. Rutherford would not be constrained to acknowledge that those to whom the Keys are promised, cannot be attended under the respect and relation of Officers; for these are Mr. Rutherford’s words:

“These Offices that essentially include both the power and the exercise of the Keys, are given to some select persons.”

Therefore, they are given to some who are not Officers; therefore, those to whom these keys are promised cannot undergo the respect or relation of Officers. For how unpleasant, and I suspect also untrue, is such a construction of our Savior’s words: To you, who bear the place and person of an Office, I will give an Office. You who are an Officer, will be made an Officer. You who have an Office, to you I will give an Office. Yet this must be the sense of the text if it is, Peter, to you I will sustain the place of Officers, and not the place of the Church of believers. For it is given to them to invest fit persons with such a power of office, that they may from Christ, and then by delegation from them, execute that power according to the limits laid out by Christ.

4. If this complete power of binding and loosing is given to the Officers firstly, then it is either as Teaching or Ruling Elders in the special work, or else as Officers sharing in the general nature of rule, which is affirmed of them both.

If this power belongs to Teaching as such,[280] then to infer from Master Rutherford’s own ground, — they do not belong to all of them as such;[281] so then, only to the Teachers, or only to Rulers. But that is a confessed falsehood.

If it belongs only to them as Rulers, in regard to that common or general nature of Ruling, then there is the equal and same power in both Teachers and Rulers. For the general nature is the same and equal in both. But that also is untrue.

Obj. 1. These things being premised, let’s take a taste of the particulars. Mr. R. says,

“If all the faithful may not lay on hands (as Titus and Paul can), nor receive witnesses judicially (as Peter and Timothy can), then they are not the first subject of the power of the Keys.”

Answer. The consequence (conclusion) is false, even from his own grounds. For the Ruling Elders cannot so lay on hands. Nor may they so receive witnesses judicially, as the Teaching Elders do; and yet they have the power of the Keys.

Obj. 2.

“To whomever Christ gives the power of the Keys, he gives a Ministerial spirit by way of Preaching, and a special embassage to address sin.”

Answer. This is also unsound upon received principles. For the Ruling Elders to whom the power of the Keys is given, yet do not have the Ministerial gift, by way of special embassage to bind and loose.

Nor does the answer which is suggested here, satisfy page 9, where it is affirmed that, The power of Preaching is not given formally to Ruling Elders, yet it is effectually in the fruit given to them.

1. For those who receive the power of that same Commission, and consequently the same and equal power, must have it formally as well as others. If the first part is true, it has been proved.

2. The power of Preaching effectually, cannot be said to be given to someone who has no causal hand in that. But so it is here: this power effectually has no causal hand in it. For the explication evidences as much, in that it is said, “There is a Judicial and authoritative application of it in the external Court of Christ.” For this application of the Word thus dispensed, implies that the preaching is issued and ended.

3. There is a Judicial power in making application of the word preached by any of the Members who have power to admonish and reprove judicially.

Argument 4. Master Rutherford’s fourth Argument:

“The Church is complete in its Government, supposing there is no power of the Keys in the community of believers. And therefore it is superfluous to place them there.” (page 10)

Answer. This was the Assumption to be proved; but the proof is wholly mistaken, and the contrary to what is expressed, to wit:

“In case believers have power to excommunicate, etc. then the Eldership is void and a fixed finger,[282] and there is no necessity to exercise the Keys as Elders.

But to answer his words when they don’t come home to the proof of the proposition that is denied, Though the people have power of Judgment, there is still a necessity that the Elders have power of Office. [283]

Argument 5.

“The multitude of believers must have this power either from heaven or from man. If from heaven, then it is from the Law of Nature, or some divine Positive Law.” [284]

Answer. It appeared before in Matthew 16 and Matthew 18, that there is a positive institution and appointment of our Savior to this purpose. But it is added by Mr. R. that “it is not found in the New Testament that Christ has made all Rulers, and has left none over others in the Lord.”

It has often been said, and fully opened before, that to have the power of the Keys is one thing, and to be Rulers and guides is another. This is so far differing as to say, the Court of Aldermen, or a Common Council, can proceed against the Mayor, being a Delinquent, and yet none of them are in the place and office of a Mayor.

And hence, this doesn’t overturn the order established by Christ, just because the member and body have this power, and execute the act — not as Officers and leaders,[285] but as members of a Corporation mutually covenanted to submit to each other in case of delinquency, and to mutually judge each other — though in the manner of dispensing the censure, touching leading the action, as guides, according to their place and Office — that is proper to the Officers; which is the Answer to the seventh argument.

Hence also, there is a peculiar authority of Office-power which is not in the flock. And yet there is a power of Judging, which is in the whole, and that is part of the power of the Keys. And these two powers do not thwart one another; which is the Answer to the eighth argument.

Arguments 6 & 11. These two turn much upon the same hinge, and may receive an answer upon one and the same ground, being rightly opened.

Argument 6, page 12. “If the power of the Keys is given to believers, as such, under this reduplication, then all believing women and children have authority over the Congregation. For to the extent that all of the consequent is valid,[286] all would be Pastors.”

Argument 11.

“If the power of the Keys is given to believers, as believers, then all and only believers have the power of the Keys.[287] But this is false, because many believers may be excommunicated and justly so, in which case they remain believers, and yet they have no share in the Keys.

“Also, many have the power of the Keys, even Pastors, yet have no faith” Joh 6.70; Mat 7.21.

Answer. It is strange to me that Mr. Rutherford, confessing that those against whom he writes, constantly acknowledge that nothing more than a credible profession of Faith is required to interest a man [288] so as to be charitably accepted as a visible Saint and a member of a Congregation. And yet he so usually and frequently supposes they required sincerity, or else it would follow that their membership is nullified.

I will briefly recall what has been recorded upon proof, and so expedite an easy answer to all that is said. Such visible Saints who combine in a holy Covenant with one another, and are counted by Christ as fit to receive delegated power by way of commission from Him, are the first subject of this power. For believers who are scattered stones, and are not seated in a visible Church or Corporation (settled in its walls, as it were), these do not have any Ecclesiastical power by which they can be proceeded against, or can proceed with others in a like condition with themselves. Besides, these believers who come into visible combination are such in charity, and not such in reality, from those grounds which were formerly proved and now repeated.

The Answer is evident. This power is given to those believers who are counted fit by Christ, and capable — which women and children, deaf and dumb, and the [mentally] distracted, are not. And therefore, the consequence of the sixth Argument fails in the first branch: the power of the Keys does not make someone a Pastor; and therefore, it is false in the second branch.

Again, the rule of Master Rutherford — that all and only believers have them — greatly fails according to the fundamental laws of logic. He will easily find this upon second thoughts; and so the bottom of his Argument wholly breaks under him. Notwithstanding, I will let that pass and speak to the matter in which there is a worse mistake, because the question is wholly missed.

Visible Saints and believers so accounted, according to the rules of Charity, are the subject matter of the Church. And therefore, they may be justly excommunicated, even though in God’s account and by virtue of that secret seed of Grace, they may be saints inwardly. Before they are recovered, they are not visible Saints to the rational eye of Charity.

Again, close hypocrites such as Judas, may be unbelievers really, and yet they seemingly appear to be Saints. “Is it me Master?” ask all the disciples, fearing themselves as much as suspecting Judas. And therefore, the profession is sufficient to keep them in their Office, and to evidence that all their actions are valid which they ministerially perform.

Argument 9.

“If Christ gives his Keys, he gives corresponding gifts to use the Keys. But He does not give such gifts to all believers.”

Answer. Only those are members of the Visible Church, who are, in charitable judgment, visible Saints. And those who are such, have received the anointing in some measure, such that they will hear and can discern the voice of Christ, and will follow him, and submit to him. Such are able to discern false doctrine and false teachers; such are able to choose Pastors for themselves, being able to relish the favor of spiritual administrations, and to feel what Key will best open their lock. They can see and discern which courses are sinful and scandalous — persons who are obstinate and pertinacious in these things. If such visible saints have power to reject false and erroneous teachers, as well as choose them, then they reasonably have power and skill to discern scandalous offenders, and to reject them. This is not an Office-calling, but a calling to be a member of a spiritual corporation, which is Mr. Rutherford’s demand. And therefore, there doesn’t need to be the tongue of the learned for this work; nor a spirit to come upon them in more than an ordinary manner, in order to discharge this judgment. Their carelessness in not watching, not purging, is reproved by Paul in 1Cor 5.2-3. [289] So Master Rutherford has all his demands satisfied in so many words.

That which is further added by way of inquiry, is this:

“God never calls those to a place, without leaving rules and directions to order and guide them in it correspondingly. But the Word has no canons for how the people should order the Keys.”

Answer. The places are express, the directions plain, as in Mat 18.17. If your brother, etc. in which the Lord, as it were, puts the finger to the fescue, [290] and points out all the several passages touching their proceeding, even from the first to the last. And as one peculiar duty of admonition, in which both the greatest danger and difficulty lay, the Lord is pleased to point out the way, and to put it almost past question. The same proportion should be held, and constantly attended in the other duties of brotherly love, to build each other up in their most holy faith: 1The 5.11-13; 2The 3.14; Heb 13.17; Rom 16.17.[291] Observe those who cause dissensions among you, etc. [292]

This last Argument of Master Rutherford issues from what is so ordinarily and often mistaken, in not differentiating the power of Judgment from the power of Office, and confining the power of the Keys to too narrow a compass. It’s as though the authority of Office was to be attended only there, when it is apparent that it is of far larger extent. Thus, this conclusion is very feeble:

“If God requires such abilities and qualifications in Officers, which He doesn’t require in all believers, then the power of the Keys is not in the Church.”

I say, this conclusion has no color in it, because the power of the Keys is of larger extent than the power of Office. And therefore it exists where the other does not, and it doesn’t require such great abilities to manage it as the other does, which is of greatest eminence.

Argument 10. His tenth argument would blemish this opinion because it makes the government of God’s house democratic. This is reserved to another place, where our answer will address it.

Only, for the present we will record this as our staple rule:

The Government of the Church, in regard to the Body of the people, is Democratic; in regard to the Elders, it is Aristocratic; in regard to Christ, it is truly Monarchical. It is such a compound of all three of these, that a parallel example of like perfection, is not to be found on earth.

Section IV. Rutherford’s Arguments for Who Holds the Keys, Book 2.

We have now finished with these Arguments which we find in Mr. Rutherford’s first Book. There are four more mentioned in lib. 2. pages 9-14, which we will endeavor to address an answer to; and they are taken from Mat 16.19. Touching this passage, let these two things be attended in the entrance once for all, because we’ll be constrained to have recourse to them in considering the Arguments which follow.

1. It is affirmed by Mr. Rutherford on page 9,

“The Keys are given to Peter, as representing Church-Guides especially, though not excluding believers, giving popular consent to them; but not to believers as united in a company of persons in a Church-Covenant, excluding the Elders.”

These are his own words which, if we compare them with our former explications of the first subject of Ecclesiastical power, it will be apparent to any who will lay aside prejudice, that we so give Ecclesiastical power to the Church of believers radically, that by means of them, we communicate the power of Office to the Elders; and so we seat Office-rule in the Elders. So that, Elders are not excluded from having power, but they don’t have it first; rather, they receive it from the Church. Under Christ, and according to His appointment, the Church conveys that power by an outward call to the Elders.

2. Let it also be remembered here, what is conceded on all hands, that Keys in this place, is to be understood not as some, but all delegated power. This power is appointed by Christ, as sufficient to attain his end of binding and loosing, opening and shutting heaven.

These things being premised, Mr. Rutherford’s Objections, lying in the order propounded by him in l.2. p. 9, are these.

Obj. 1. “The Keys are given to that Church which is built on a rock, as a house, the house of Wisdom Pro 9.1, the House of God, 1Tim 3.15; Heb 3.4; by the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles, by Doctors and Teachers whom Christ has given for building His house, Eph 4.11.

“But this house is not a company of professing believers united by a Church-Covenant, and destitute of Pastors and Teachers.

“Therefore, such a Church is not to be understood here.”

He proves the assumption thus:

“The Church of believers combining in Church-Covenant but lacking their Pastors and Teachers, is not a house of wisdom, nor built by Pastors and Doctors given to edify and gather the body. But they are only the materials of the house. Indeed, lacking the Pastors, they lack ministerial power for pastoral preaching and administering the seals.”

Answer. The assumption fails, and all the proofs are not able to prop it up from falling to the ground. For they are but bare affirmations of many particulars which either are so many untruths, or mistakes about things that have some truth in them. Such as,

1. It is untrue that combined believers in Church-Covenant, lacking Pastors, are not wisdom’s House, since we have formerly proved that such a Church, take as an Essential Whole, is before officers, and may be without them. What can be more plain, when the Scripture affirms, Act 14.23, That the Church by lifting up of hands, [293] made and chose them Elders? In reason, they must be before their elders. When Paul charges the elders to watch over the flock, over whom the Lord had made them overseers, Act 20.28 he implies there is a flock distinct from their overseers. When the Church rejects her officers as heretical, does she then destroy herself, and cease to be a Church because they cease to be officers?

2. It is untrue that believers thus covenanting are only the materials of the house. We formerly proved that such a confederating company has the materials and formalities required for the constitution of a house. If combination can make a Presbyterial Church, why not a Congregational Church also?

3. It is a mistake, and not a full explication of that which has a truth in it, i.e., that lacking Pastors, they lack the power to edify the body of Christ, which is required in a visible Church. For the answer is, when they lack Pastors, they lack that power that an Organic Whole has to edify. But they do not lack that power which a Church taken as an Essential Whole should have to edify itself.[294] Rather, they have power to choose officers, and so to provide for pastoral preaching and the administration of the seals by their means.

4. Lastly, let Mr. Rutherford tell us how God set Teachers in the Church, if Teachers are before the Church?

Obj. 2. “The keys are here promised to these, who are stewards of the mysteries of God, 1Cor 4.1; servants of His house, 2Cor 4.5; who are to behave themselves well in God’s house, 1Tim 3.15; who are to cut the word rightly, 2Tim 2.15.

But a company of believers in Church Covenant, and destitute of officers, are not stewards by office; therefore the Keys are not given to such a company.

The proposition is proved by the allegation of several testimonies of Scripture and the consent of interpreters. The clavis, a key, signifies Office-power. Isa 22.22; 9.6; Rev 3.7; 1.18; 9.1.[295]

Ans. 1. If we must understand stewards to mean those who are described and intended in the places quoted, 1Cor 4.1; 1Tim 3.15, etc., then it’s certain the Ruling Elder has no key of binding and loosing, opening or shutting, for all those places properly intimate the Teacher’s and Pastor’s Office.

Ans. 2. The proofs brought here for confirmation of the proposition, don’t at all touch the thing for which they are brought; or else they don’t reach the conclusion in the right and full meaning which they should have confirmed. Most of them say nothing to the purpose, such as Isa 9.6, or Rev 3.7 and 1.18. All of these speak of the supreme and Monarchical power of Christ. Therefore they don’t in the least measure look at that Stewardly and delegated power of which we speak, and the texts speak, and the proposition speaks in express terms, and for which these proofs were brought.

So that there remains but one more to be considered (Isa 22.22). That also doesn’t come home to the conclusion which was to be settled. It only proves what no man ever denied (I think), that “key” in the phrases of Scripture, sometimes signifies a power given to a Steward.

But what has this to do with Mat 16.19, or to our purpose? For this may be granted: that “key” sometimes signifies a power given to an office. And yet here, Keys does not mean that power only, much less a power firstly delegated to them. And if the Reader is pleased to recall some things formerly propounded, this will readily appear. The “Keys” here means all power which serves for shutting and opening the doors of the house (as above). So, besides a stewardly power, there is requisite for this end, a power of the spouse and wife of the family. The Lord Christ, as her husband, has given her the power to admit into the family, and to reject, as just occasion requires. And in such cases, and for such ends, she has the power to judge also, because such acts cannot be done without judgment. It pertains to her to call the Steward to his place, and to put him into his place, and so by election to put a key of office into his hand.

Hence, the issue is this:

The keys here are promised first to those to whom all power belongs firstly and originally, though not formally.

All power originally belongs to the Spouse of Christ, the Church of Covenanting Believers; for she can admit, reject, and judge; she can call to office, and put in office.

And therefore, though all power is not formally in her, yet it all comes originally from her.

And this has been the opinion and apprehension of the most judicious in all ages. That makes me wonder why Mr. Rutherford should write,

“I think while of late, no Interpreter ever dreamed that in the text of Matthew 16, the Keys of the Kingdom were given to all believers, understanding believers to mean the Church.”

I say, I wonder that he should speak this way, when a man of such large and multifarious reading as Mr. Rutherford, cannot help but know otherwise, if he will but recall what he knows — indeed, let him recall and remember what he himself writes, l.1. p. 21, “we oppose fathers to fathers,” speaking about this point; and therefore he confesses that the church fathers spoke and wrote so.

Obj. 3. “Christ gives the Keys to those in this text, to whom he gives warrant and official authority for the actual exercise, to wit, of opening and shutting.

And this warrant and official authority of binding and loosing, Christ gives to Peter only as representing Teachers and Elders.

Therefore, he gives only to Peter this official power. “I will give you the Keys, etc.” There is his power and authority granted. [296]

“And whatever is bound on earth, shall be bound,” etc. There is his warrant for the exercise of the act of his power.

Ans. 1. This argument labors from the same disease as the former, and the conclusion, in a fair sense, may be conceded without any prejudice to our cause, or hazard to the question controverted between us — namely, that the official authority of the Keys is given only to Peter, as representing the place of Teachers (as will appear in the things premised at the entrance). Officers may have this official power formally, and yet the power of the Keys is in the Church originally, and this Office-power proceed from them virtually.

Ans. 2. The Proposition is apparently false; to wit, that the power is given firstly to those to whom warrant and official authority for the actual exercise of the Keys is given. I say this is false, because (1) the power of the Keys is far larger than Office-power, such as admitting, rejecting, etc. (2) There is a power before Office-power, which virtually communicates and conveys that power to the officers who are made partakers of it.

Mr. Rutherford adds,

“Now, if by this place the Keys are not given to Peter, as to a Pastor, then Peter and Pastors, as Pastors, have neither the Keys nor an official warrant to preach, nor to remit and retain sins. And if by this place they don’t have it, then we desire to see a warrant from Christ for Pastoral Preaching, before he went to heaven.”

Ans. Though the keys are not firstly given to them there, yet here they may have good warrant for their Office-power, because the Church, which has received power to admit, reject, judge, choose, and refuse, by Christ’s allowance and warrant, calls Pastors to that place, and invests them with that office. Again, that Commission in Mat 28.19, Go preach and baptize, and Joh 20.23, Whose sins you remit, they are remitted, gives warrant abundantly to that work of preaching.

Mr. Rutherford lastly adds, p. 12,

“To bind and loose are acts of official power, and of Pastors, Rulers, and Feeders. I prove the Antecedent because to bind and loose, by all Interpreters, such as Augustine, Cyril, etc., and by the evidence of Scripture, is by public and pastoral Preaching to remit and retain sin. But pastoral preaching does not belong to believers.”

Ans. Binding and loosing, looking at them as they are in this place, and in their largest sense, comprehend the exercise of all the acts of the Keys, or Church-power, which may attain this end. And those acts are not only by public preaching (for then the Ruling-Elder would have no key to bind or loose), but also by admonitions, excommunications, and admissions, which as we have formerly proved, issue from a power of Judging, common both to the people and the Pastor, and is not appropriate to the Pastors only.

Lastly, we so give the Keys to the Church, that yet she does not exercise any act of Office-rule without Officers, whom she calls to that end.

Obj. 4. “If Christ neither in Mat 16.19 nor Mat 18.18, says that the Keys, for the act of the Keys (to wit, binding and loosing) are given to the Church of believers without their Officers, then neither verse proves it.

“But indeed, Christ says it.

“Therefore the text does not bear it.

“And that Christ does not say it, he proves, because speaking of the Church in the first part of the verse, he changes his proof:

“I will give to you, not to the Church.”

Ans. But to this it is answered, The promise is made to Peter, because he gave a confession of Christ, in the name of believers.

Reply. To this Mr. Rutherford replies,

“If the Keys are given to believers so covenanting, I ask whether they are given to them, a true or a false profession intervening, as the nearest cause of the gift of these Keys.”

Ans. We answer, if what is meant by a false profession is that which may apply to hypocrites who are covertly such, yet who outwardly appear unblameable (credible), then we grant it.

Reply. To this Master Rutherford replies,

“1. Then the Keys are not given to believers because they are believers and united to Christ as His Spouse.

2. This author says amiss that the Church instituted by Christ is a company of godly men, of which Peter was one.

3. Our brethren prove that the Keys are part of the liberty of the redeemed ones; but counterfeit professors are not such.”

Ans. All these consequences issue from what is so often and ordinarily mistaken about visible Saints. And if the Reader will remember how to rectify his judgment in the right understanding of it, the answer will be easy and familiar. Namely, visible Saints, who are members of the Church, are externally united to Christ, and not always internally. They are faithful and godly to the judgment of Charity, but may not be such in reality and truth. They are redeemed visibly, but perhaps not inwardly and efficaciously.

Obj. 1. It is lastly added by Master Rutherford, that

“It’s clear that Christ speaks to Peter as one representing the Apostles, not as one representing all believers: first, because by the confession of our brethren, binding and loosing are denied to many who make Peter’s confession, ‘You are Jesus, the son of the living God,’ — such as believing women and children, and many outside the Church-estate.”

Ans. When Master Rutherford says that the conclusion he would refute, is that Christ is not speaking to all believers in the person of Peter, we affirm the same. And he knows that, and in many places expresses it. And therefore, it would be sufficient to lay aside the consideration of all his proofs. Yet, that we may not leave the place void, we will speak briefly to the particulars.

Let it be remembered that Peter speaks in the name of a community of Disciples believing and professing the faith with one joint consent and agreement. For the words are plain and distinct in Mat 16.15, “But whom do you (plural) say that I am?” Indeed, by way of difference and distinction between “some,” and “others” mentioned in the foregoing verses: “Some said he was John the Baptist, some Isaiah, others Jeremiah, or one of the Prophets.” These some and others, reasonably speaking, were not only unbelievers, but many believers also. And yet our Savior adds in a differentiating way, “Whom do you my Disciples say, who have walked in the profession of the Faith?” Peter, in the name of these who have thus confessed the Faith, and upon that joint-confession have now instituted a Church by Christ, in his next words Peter answers in the name of these, I say. And therefore it is not in the name of women and children, which is Master Rutherford’s first Argument.[297]

Obj.2. Rutherford adds,

“If believers, by giving Peter’s confession, and being built upon the Rock Christ, by this place are made a Ministerial Church by Christ, and gifted with the power of the Keys — then the official power of preaching, and of binding and loosing, would be made as stable and firm from defection, as the Church of elect believers.”

Ans. The Assumption is denied. For as it has been often said, the Church here, to whom the Keys are firstly given, though they have virtual power to call men to their Office in a right order, according to Christ, yet they do not formally have Official power. Nor is the Official power of like stability with the Church. For the Church may exist without them, and also in case they fail — as they may, in great apostasies and universal declining of the Churches. And yet the Visible Church never did, nor can it so totally fail, as all our Orthodox writers and Master Rutherford confess.

Obj. 3.

“Those to whom Christ gives the Keys, represent the person of Christ. Whoever despises them, despises Christ; and whoever honors them, honors Christ, which is evidently spoken to the Ministers of Christ, Mat 10.40, etc. Now, the Scriptures never make all believers Ambassadors in Christ’s place, etc.”

Ans. The representation of Christ as his Stewards and Ambassadors belongs only to those who have Office-power, and are Rulers in His house; Mat 24.45 and this power is but part of the power of the Keys mentioned here. And therefore the Church may be the subject of the Keys firstly and originally, and virtually communicate Office-power to her Ministers whom she calls — though she doesn’t have that power formally, nor does she so dispense it.[298] And therefore the Proposition is to be denied as obviously false: namely, that those to whom Christ gives the Keys here in Mat 16.19, represent His person, as Ambassadors, because the Spouse had a power in the family before the Steward was introduced to the family by her.

Obj. 4.

“Those to whom the Keys are given, authoritatively forgive and retain sins, Joh 20.23 and their acts are valid in Heaven. But the Church or company of believers, lacking their Officers, cannot by any Scripture, authoritatively forgive.”

When it was answered that believers outside of the Office may forgive, 2Cor 2.10, He replies,

“The passage in the Corinthians is controverted, and we do not doubt (he says) it is of the same nature as the power of excommunicating, 1Cor 5.4-5.”

Ans. That phrase “authoritatively forgive” if it is cleared a little, then the stress of the Objection will readily be removed. The word authority in ordinary speech is sometimes taken for power, and lies in equal latitude with it. But in its proper signification, as in this place, it’s used for Ruling and Office-power.

Retaining this sense of it must be intended, and the expressions of Master Rutherford in this place intimate no less. The proposition then admits a ready answer, by a rational denial. There is a power of Judgment which the Fraternity have, and they forgive Judicially. There is a power of rule and office, and the Officers forgive Authoritatively, as Rulers. The passage in Corinthians is understood of the first, forgiving Judicially. For any others, of other Churches, or those who were of no Church, might and indeed should have forgiven the incestuous person charitably, out of charity as Christians. But it is spoken of here in reference to his former censure; and so it is for his being received into fellowship again. And only those in a Church may, and indeed can do this.

Obj. 5. The same answer suits the 5th Objection, merely issuing from the same mistake; namely, when he says,

“The Keys are given only to those who, having Paul’s spirit (which is an Official spirit to preach and excommunicate), may convene and deliver to Satan.”

Ans. The distinction of Judicial and Official power fully reveals the falseness of the proposition, and preserves the power in his first and proper subject, according to the former explication.

Propositions

We are now done with all the objections which we meet with in Mr. Rutherford’s second book, touching the first subject of Church-power; unless it is those which align with a fresh disquisition[299] of the catholic visible Church, where we will address them.[300] Only, before I pass from here, I crave leave to offer some things to consider touching this 16th chapter of Matthew. It is a place upon which all sorts have pressed in, first or last, to claim some privilege for themselves. The Pope would have all power belong to him as Peter’s Successor. The Prelates claim the next place for preeminence, as unique to them. The Elders and Officers of Churches conceive it best suits their ministerial condition. And now at last, the Fraternity lays in for some allowance to themselves, and that they were the ones looked at in the first intent of Christ. My purpose is only to propound some things that may occasion some who are wise-hearted, to settle the meaning of the text by undeniable evidence. We will therefore make our approaches on the sense of the passage, by the following propositions.

Proposition I.

Key, being an ensign of power, and Keys being in the plural, it means here all delegated power for ordering the affairs of the Church — as the use of the Keys expressed in the words fully evidences. For all power that the Lord Christ has entrusted his church with, aims at this end: to open and shut, bind and loose.

Proposition II.

These Keys and power must be given to a single society (as Mr. Rutherford is prone to say); i.e., to a sort or condition of men under some special relation. To you as a single society, not to them.

Proposition III.

This single society under such a relation and respect, share alike in equality of this power that is promised to them. The reason is this: those who have the same commission, share alike in the same and equal power, because the power they possess and partake of, issues only from their commission; and there is but one and the same commission given to all. I will give to you, etc.

Proposition IV.

This single society related to here, cannot be the condition of Rulers, because all power is given to the persons intended here. And all power is not given to the Rulers firstly. For there is a power before the power of Rulers, to wit, the power of election, and so, of admission into their places. And it is thus made plain that both these acts imply a power.

1. An office is a key, and consequently it comes under the power of the Keys; and to give that key implies a power.

2. If excommunication argues for a power, then admission does the same, in that there is a parity of reason on both sides: one gives that which another takes away.

Again, if the condition of an Officer or an Elder were related to [this power], it must either be the Teaching-elder alone, and the Ruling-elder’s power is then excluded; or if the Ruling-elder alone is meant, then the power of the Teaching-elder must be denied. How then can All power be meant here by these Keys? Nor can the general nature of a Ruler, as belonging to both teaching and ruling, be intended. For then both teaching and ruling would have the same equal power, having one and the same commission. But the Word and all wise hearers deny that.

Proposition V.

Hence this power of the Keys cannot be given to one single society of men formally in all its kinds, because it requires several kinds of subjects who are formally different. Such as, some Ruling, some Teaching, some electing. Hence it follows undeniably, that these Keys, and the power signified by them, must be given to those who have some of this power firstly, and formally, and originally, and can give the rest of the power virtually. So given, this power may be fully exercised in all the acts of binding and loosing, according to all the necessities of the Church, and the intent of our Savior Christ. And this may be readily accomplished, and easily apprehended to be done by a Church of believers. They can admit and elect; this formally belongs to them. And officers being elected by them, the whole government of the Church will then go on in all its operations, and be fit to attain the ends intended by our Savior. The first thing which was difficult to explicate, is thus dispatched.

*****

The second thing in which the greatest stress lies in this inquiry, is Whether the Church mentioned in that text,[301] is the Visible or Invisible Church.

After many thoughts were floating in my mind, as to what might be the meaning of our Savior, one expression of Mr. Rutherford’s, l.2. pp. 9-10, made me recall former considerations. His words are these:

“The building of this Church on the Rock, Christ, may well be thought to be the inward building of the catholic and Invisible Church in the faith of Christ. Yet, as it is promised to the Church, to which Christ promises the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, it can be no other besides the external and ministerial building by a public Ministry.”

These expressions occasioned me to recall many of those debates which before had been stirring in my bosom: Whether the Church in that verse, might not in a safe sense be conceived to be the Visible Church. And all things weighed, my apprehensions came to be inclined and biased that way; and that was for this reason, until a better reason appears:

That Church is meant here, which is built upon the rock Christ by the visible confession of Peter, as explicated immediately before.

But the Invisible Church is not built by a visible profession such as Peter’s.

This second part or Assumption will find ready acceptance, because of the opposition between visibility and invisibility. For the Proposition is made good by the meaning of these words: “You have made a confession of Myself being a Rock;[302] and therefore you are called Petros (Peter).[303] And upon Myself being so confessed, I will build my Church.”

The main argument against that interpretation is this:

The Church is understood to be the one against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.

But the gates of hell have prevailed against the Visible Church. Therefore...

Ans. The visible Church is attended in a double respect: either as this or that particular congregation; or else as a universal Church, existing in the particular ones. And in this passage, it is taken in this latter sense [i.e., universal]. And then it is a sure and confessed truth that the Visible Church does not fail; and this is the judgment of all the orthodox, as Mr. Rutherford grants, l.2. p. 107.

And saving the better judgment,[304] this place is to be understood in that sense: 1Tim 3.15, That you might know how to behave yourself in the House of God. This house is the Visible Church. For,

1. Timothy is instructed how to conduct and carry himself in it; therefore he must be acquainted with the house, and the occasions of it; and to conduct himself suitably to it, which is inconsistent with invisibility.

2. This direction was to continue to all succeeding officers, even to the end; and that was in all their particular charges. Therefore it must be a pattern of a Church, or a Church as existing in its particulars, which Christ will have while the world continues. For in Eph 4.12-13, there must be Pastors and Teachers until all the faithful are gathered into the unity of the Faith, and there is an acknowledgement of the Son of God. Dr. Ames, Medull. l.1.c. 31, 37.

Chapter 12. To Whom the Keys to the Visible Church are Committed.

Touching the catholic and visible Church. The Lord has committed the Keys to the ministry and guides of the catholic visible Church, as the first subject.

Before we come to review this great controversy which has exercised the hearts and pens of the most learned in this age, we must of necessity clear the terms of the question, in a word or two, so that the breadth and scope of it may be laid out in its full bounds and limits. Otherwise we will be at a loss when we come to apply ourselves to special difficulties which will appear in the particular arguments which come into consideration.

1. By Key, as we have heard, we are to understand a power delegated from Christ, to dispense and administer the holy things of his house, according to his own will, prescribing an order to that end. The Keys are an ensign of this power, and put by a metonymy for the subject, the power itself.

2. What is meant by the catholic and visible Church.

When I had read over Mr. Rutherford once and again, I was at a standstill in my own thought, to determine certainly what his proper intent was. I profess in a word of truth, I would not willingly misconceive his meaning, and so wrong him and the truth. But the variety of his expressions forced my apprehensions also to vary. Sometimes his words seem to cast this catholic visible Church upon the general nature of a Church, or a Congregation taken in the common nature of it; and this I could willingly embrace. Thus many of his phrases seem to sound. “To what principal subject has the Lord given reason and a faculty of discoursing? Is it to Peter or John? No, no: it is for and to the race of mankind.” The case is so here, l.2. p. 291. So too, speaking again of the same matter, l.2. p. 293. “So he gives by order of nature to his Church in general.”

Sometimes, again, his expressions seem to intimate an Ecumenical Council, the “catholic Church representative.” l.2. p. 304. “It doesn’t follow that the catholic, representative, visible Church is the first subject of the Keys,” etc.

3. Lastly, sometimes his expressions seem to point out a catholic visible Church in its integral nature, as an integrum [a united whole] arising out of all the particular congregations that are its members. His words intimate this kind of difference, l.2. p. 311. “General Councils are neither necessary to the being, nor the well-being, but only the best-being of the catholic Church.” Here he apparently distinguishes a General Council from the catholic Church in this debate. The same phrase is found in l.2. p. 304.

Which of these most suits his meaning, I cannot (to speak ingenuously) peremptorily define. The law was old, and with the good above all.[305] I confess, my thoughts have inclined me most to the second, that he intended an Ecumenical Council. This is because, when he comes to apply himself to some of the objections which are made, his usual discourse runs that way in the full current. Though, if I might have had my secret desire, I could have wished he had intended the first; because we would have come near to an accord in that one.

That I may deal sincerely in regard to the truth, and inoffensively in regard to so worthy and learned a man as :Mr. Rutherford, I will take leave to set down my apprehensions, such as they are, touching all these senses thus explained. Let the truth prevail, and the Reader judge.

Taking the catholic Church in the first sense, as eyeing the nature of the Church in general, it is that which in great part suits with our opinion and apprehensions. We will therefore gather in upon the right explication of this truth, by the following conclusions.

Conclusion 1. When we say that a congregation of visible Saints covenanting to walk in the ordinances of the Gospel, is the prime and original subject of the power of the Keys, I suppose it is obvious to common sense that as we do not, so we cannot understand it to mean this or that individual congregation. It’s not as though only they had the power, or none but them had it, or as though they had it firstly, and all others derive it from them. This, I say, is obvious even to envy itself. For what do those clamors of Independency mean, which are cast upon our persons and opinions, if we were to hold that one particular Church depended on another? And, in that we maintain this as a truth — that every particular congregation has equal power with another, and complete power, taken with all its officers, to exercise all ordinances — by such an assertion, we profess that this power is common to them all. And therefore it cannot be proper to any, except in the individual and special determination of it.

The issue is this then: That the power of the Keys belongs firstly to a congregation of covenanting believers, not as this congregation, but because it is a congregation of such believers. And thus I conceive (saving the better judgment) that the saying of our Savior, I will build my Church, is to be interpreted as taking a visible congregation of visible covenanting believers, to be a pattern and exemplar (if I may so speak), which leaves an imprint upon all the particulars, as common to all, and preserved in all. And it will never happen that there won’t be some particular church or other in which it will be preserved, as we will speak about afterward when we come to the special review of the passage. And in this sense, the Lord Jesus will never lack a visible Church on earth, though this or that visible one may, does, and will fail. We see this by plentiful experience and by proof out of the word, in those famous congregations of Corinth, Galatia, etc.

Conclusion 2. A congregation of covenanting visible Saints, being a genus [a general kind] of all the particular congregations which are homogenous parts or species of it, it follows that:

1. A congregation firstly communicates its whole nature to every particular Church, and with that, it equally and indifferently bestows upon them all the power and privileges that pertain to it. It is a received rule in reasoning, that the kind is the whole of the essential parts.[306] And therefore it communicates its whole nature firstly and equally to all its species, and with it, all those properties that pertain to its nature; and it conveys these to all of them indifferently.

2. And it is from this ground that each congregation has all Ecclesiastical power that is seated in the general nature of the Church. Each particular assembly has this power as equally and completely conveyed to it, as any other. And it can exercise all of it without the others — just as this or that particular man, Thomas, John, or Jeremy, has all the nature [of man] equally and completely communicated to him, and can exercise the operations of that nature fully by himself, without the help of any other.

3. Hence the catholic Church (in this sense) is never to be seen, except in particular congregations, nor yet ever exercise its power and operations alone (or separately), but only in the several Assemblies. The kind does not exist, nor operate, except in its species.[307] The nature of an animal is only to be seen in man and brutes.[308] The nature of man only acts, it only exists, in particular men. Hence the nature of the catholic Church, the Church in general, comes to be determined and confined to its particular; and being determined, it only acts in that particular; and it is regulated by that particular in which it is [manifested], and to which it gives its constitution, together with the special or individual nature in which it is [expressed]. The old rule was that the kind takes the form of its constituent species. [309] I will take leave to exemplify for the help of the lesser sort whose apprehensions don’t fit with these in their ordinary course.

This Corporation is a special kind of a corporation.[310] This man and woman are husband and wife, and their contract is a marriage contract. Here, Corporation is taken in its general nature, for the body of people combined in a civil way for civil ends. Both this general nature, and whatever privileges are so proper and peculiar to it that they cannot be separated from it, are truly attributed to and affirmed by this or that particular corporation, as the general of the special. And this general comes to be determined and instanced [311] by the individual and formal combining of this special company of persons; and that makes it this corporation. And that general nature, as it comes to be conveyed to this particular, is confined to and expressed only by the power of that particular. So that, though this corporation has the general nature which is common to all corporations [of this kind], yet it doesn’t have power or privilege, except in its own place.

So that marriage contract, which is general to all contracts of that sort and condition, comes to be determined by the particular contracting of these [two individuals], added to the general. From this, it’s evident that beside a marriage covenant in general, there must come a particular contract between this man and this woman, otherwise they will never be man and wife. Still, the rule holds that the kind takes the form of its constituent species. The general nature of a marriage contract comes to be determined only in this particular, that he is a husband only to this woman, and this woman is a wife only to this man.

And hence, by the way, the weakness and fallacy of that concept will easily be discovered, that a profession [of faith] in general, would make a man a member of all particular Churches on earth.

From the first ground it follows,

5. Fifthly, that each particular congregation is complete and independent, for the exercise of all acts and dispensations belong to a congregation or Church, without any reference to any other congregation, because they are distinct species, which firstly and equally participate in the nature of the genus, and so too in all those privileges that equally and indifferently pertain to it.

6. Hence again, the general nature of a Church, as it is preserved, so the full good in its latitude, is promised and advanced by the particular congregations which are its species. For this is a collection which naturally and necessarily follows and flows from it.

7. Hence, a Classis arises from particular congregations; and yet not from all of them, but from some. And that is from some members of particular congregations, sent out for counsel’s sake, to consider what might be useful on behalf of the Churches. But a Classis cannot be a species of a Church, for a particular congregation is a specific species.[312] Thus the nature of the Church in general, and of the species in particular, are complete without any such Classis. And therefore, all Church-power and its exercise are also full and complete in point of Jurisdiction, without it. And therefore, Jurisdiction cannot be in the Classis firstly, because if the nature of a Church is complete without the Classis, then the power and Jurisdiction of Church-government is also complete without it; and thus it is not located first in that Classis.

Rutherford’s Arguments

Upon these grounds thus laid and debated, we will address an answer to all Master Rutherford’s Arguments, unless they fall under this conclusion, in the sense formerly explicated.

Arg. 1. First, he would have the Apostles receive the Keys in the name of the whole of the catholic Ministerial Guides [313] — because they must stand in the place and position of a single society when they received that Commission, “whose sins you remit, shall be remitted,” Joh 20.23.

Ans. 1. The Apostles in the Commission were extraordinary persons, and were sent into all the world to lay the foundation of the Gospel by an Apostolic power. And in this sense, they have no successors; nor did they stand in the place of any others.

Ans. 2. When they supplied the place of a single society, I demand, What society was it? It was neither the Ruling Elders, nor the Teaching Elders, for it must be a single society, and they must undergo one relation. Whatever is affirmed, will be prejudicial to Mr. R.’s cause. For if they were in the place of Teaching Elders, then by this Commission, Ruling Elders have no right to the Keys. If they supplied the place of Ruling only, then the Teaching Elders must claim nothing from it.

Again, I would willingly know, when they supplied the place of either of these, whether they supplied the place of all of them, or only some of them? If all of them, whether it was severally executing their Offices in their places, or combined together in a Classis or Synod?

If it is affirmed (which cannot be denied with any reason) that they supply the place of these as they are severally executing their Offices (for their authoritative preaching is one part of binding and loosing), then each particular ruler may bind or loose, excommunicate and absolve, in each particular congregation, as well as in a Classis.

But indeed, because they are first Elders in their particular congregations before they are in a Classis or Synod, and there they succeed the Apostles as Rulers, then there they may be, indeed must be the first subject of the Keys; because there they first succeed the Apostles in binding and loosing by official Preaching.

If it is said that the Apostles represent Elders, as they are conjoined in an Ecumenical Council, this belongs only to some; for all Elders never met in an Ecumenical Council. Beside this, it is not proper to Elders, for brethren there meet also. Whereas this relation that the Apostle supplies here, must be common to all of that single society, and only to that single society, whose place they represent.

The naked truth is, the Apostles here, as in Mat 28.19, Mar 16.15, are extraordinary men whom none succeed. And as they were ordinary Presbyters, or supplied their place, so they supplied the place of Deacons, Act; 6.12; and had virtually the power of all Officers, and so could exercise it. And therefore, lastly, when they supply the place of Elders, this shows what an Elder should do in his order, and according to his place. But this doesn’t evince whether he is the first subject [314] of Church power. And in no manner or measure does it evidence anything touching the combination of Elders, or their power.

Previous Considerations

Before we address a particular answer to the Arguments which next ensue, we must recollect some former considerations, so that the Reader may carry them along as his compass to steer by.

1. The common nature of Church and Officers only exists, and works, and is preserved in the particulars.

2. The complete being and power of Churches or Elders in the full compass and latitude of both, thus existing, includes not only the common, but the peculiar nature of the individuals, together with the general. And therefore, if we look at them as severed from their individuals, they only exist in our understanding; whereas the reality of their natures only exists in the particulars. There must be a particular combination of people, beside a combination in general, before the full and complete nature of a Corporation will exist, or can be so conceived. The same may be said of other free contracts.

3. Hence, the Lord never sets up Churches or Officers, gives power to them, and requires the execution of that power from them, without the Lord ever looking at the particular in the general, and the general as determined in the particular. The reason is, because the existence and working of Churches and Officers is only to be seen (as it only appears, and is expressed) in the individual.

4. Hence, lastly, upon the same ground and for the same reason, as the general is divided into its particulars, so the generals are preserved in them. All visible members exist in particular congregations, and are perfected by Ordinances in them.

Let the Reader take these particulars with him, and they will so pilot him that he may see his passage through all Objections that will be presented in his way.

The second and fourth objections are these:

Argument. 2. “I ask you to consider that Christ’s intention in giving the Ministry is not for a congregation of 40, 50, or 100, as if he intended to pawn all power in it; rather, he intended the edifying of His body catholic, and all coming to the unity of the Faith. A congregation cannot be all Saints. This power is clearly given to that body which the Lord is to make a perfect man, according to the measure of the fulness of Christ.” lib. 2. 290.

The sum of this is repeated as the fourth Argument, l.2. p. 293.

Argument. 4. “Christ has given to that Church, as to the first Church, the Ordinances and Ministry which he principally intended to perfect, gather, and bring to the unity of the Faith.

“And he principally intended to perfect, to gather, and to bring to the unity of the Faith in a perfect body, by these ordinances and Ministry, the whole catholic visible Church; and only secondly this or that [particular] congregation.”

Ans. Mr. Rutherford will answer Mr. Rutherford, lib. 2. p. 248, where he professedly argues from Ephesians 4, for the Invisible Church to be the first subject of all ordinances, Christian privileges, and Officers, in this manner —

“Hence, let me reason thus:

“The Church whose gathering together, whose unity of Faith, etc. and growth of that measure of the fulness of Christ, that the Lord intends by giving to them for that end, some Pastors and Teachers, Eph 4.11-13, must be that Church to whom all the promises of the Covenant and its privileges belong.

“And the Lord intends the gathering together to the unity of the Faith, to the knowledge of the sons of God,[315] and growth of the measure of the fulness of Christ, of the invisible, elected, and redeemed Church only, not of the visible, professing Church; nor does the Lord send Pastors or Doctors upon a purpose of gathering the Visible Church.”

Thus Master Rutherford is of several apprehensions; and one undermines another. Upon the former grant, this cannot stand with, much less conclude [the matter].

Let us come a little nearer the mark, and try the particulars. First, examine the Proposition: Those whom Christ purposes to bring to the unity of the Faith, and the fulness of the stature of Christ, etc., Eph. 4.11-13, are certainly those who shall be saved. And therefore they must, of necessity, be true believers. For they alone attain the perfection formerly mentioned.

And it is as undeniably evident that ordinances and Ministers are not given firstly to such, I mean to true believers, as Mr. Rutherford has expressed in several passages of his book. The intent of salvation from God, and giving Ordinances and Ministry, do not keep equal pace with each other. Indeed, Master Rutherford tells us such an opinion apparently sides with the Arminians, l.2. p. 248. The proposition is utterly untrue.

Let the following Assumption come to its trial:

“But God principally intends to bring the whole catholic visible Church to the unity of the Faith, the acknowledgement of the Son of God, and the fulness of the measure of the stature of Christ.”

Ans. 1. The whole visible Church consists of good and bad, wheat and tares, elect and reprobate, as it is confessed by Mr. Rutherford, and by all judicious men. And does God intend to bring reprobates to the unity of the Faith, and the fulness of the stature in Christ? I know that Mr. Rutherford will not say so. Thus, both premises failing, the conclusion must fall with them.

Ans. 2. Secondly, what has all this got to do with the controversy in hand? The question between Mr. Rutherford and us is this: The Lord has committed the Keys to the Ministry and Guides of the catholic visible Church, as the first subject. But let the former conclusion, and the whole frame of the reason be granted — to wit, that Ordinances and Ministry are given to the catholic visible Church of believers (for these must be understood here, as being distinct from Ministers and Guides) — yet it does not prove that the Keys are given to the Guides only. For we can grant the former in a safe sense, according to our former explications. And yet we deny this latter claim, as not finding any sufficient proof for it.

Ans. 3. Lastly, if we apply the Argument to that cause and question in hand which is controverted between us, it will appear that it fights strongly against it.

Christ gives the power of the Keys to that Church which he principally intends to bring to the unity of the Faith, and the acknowledgement of the Son of God, as the first subject.

But Christ does not principally intend the gathering of the Ministry of the catholic Church, for their perfecting, and bringing them to the unity of the Faith, and the acknowledgement of the Son of God.

Therefore, the Keys are not given to them as the first subject.

Thus we are done with the second and fourth Arguments.

Argument. 3. “If all Ministerial power is given to a Congregation (by our brethren’s confession) under the name of a flock of redeemed ones, as the Body of Christ (Act 20.28; Col 1.18), then it belongs to the catholic Church. For these titles are verified and agree first to the catholic visible Church, as is clear in Col 1.18, Eph 5.25-26, 1Tim 3.15, and Eph 2.19-21. And so they come to our hand.”

Ans. I am glad we have come so near, if indeed it is so. Why don’t we then shake hands? For that is what we seriously and earnestly desire, if it was that will and good pleasure of God. Let us then inquire whether Mr. Rutherford’s mind and our meaning agree, and then we will most willingly fall in with him.

This catholic Church, as before, allows a threefold apprehension, either as,

1. it implies a Covenanting Congregation of believers, or

2. a Representative Whole, or

3. an Integral Whole. [316]

If he means the first, as it is the meaning of the Scripture, then we have what we want, and Mr. Rutherford’s conclusion falls flat to the ground. If the catholic Church has the power of the Keys given firstly to it, then its Ministers and Guides are not the first subject of the Keys.

And the catholic Church — which is, according to us, a Covenanting Congregation of Saints (as we explicated earlier) — does indeed have the power of the Keys. And therefore, the Ministers or Guides are not the first subject. That Proposition is without question, because the catholic Church and the Guides are different and distinct in common apprehension.

The second part, Mr. Rutherford grants: to wit, that the Ministerial power of the Keys is given to a congregation under the name of the flock, etc.

And hence, his cause must suffer shipwreck, sailing by these shoals; for I suppose Mr. Rutherford must, as he does, differentiate between the catholic Church as the Spouse and Body of Christ, and the Ministry of that church. And here he grants that this power is given to the Spouse and Body. Therefore it is not given firstly to the Ministry. Besides, the passages he alleges and seems to allow, evince this much.

Paul sends for the elders of Ephesus, and bids them take heed to the flock over whom Christ has made them overseers. Act 20.28 Therefore, this flock is distinct from their overseers. And if the ministerial power is given to such a flock, then it cannot be given to the overseers firstly.

Hence, the flock is not the catholic Church, taken as an integrum [i.e., a united whole] of all congregations, for it’s only at Ephesus. And it was over that congregation, and not over the whole world, where they made them overseers.

Nor can it be meant of an Ecumenical Church on the same grounds. Indeed, by his own confession elsewhere, it is not to be taken so. Taking catholic in this sense, according to our explication before — i.e., the general nature of a Church, as existing and acting in the particulars — we have what we desire, and our cause is confirmed by this means, not confuted.

What is added on pp. 291, 292, lends no force to this third Argument, nor does it hurt our cause. It is said there,

“The whole catholic visible Church is made one visible Ministerial body, and is said to have organic parts, as described in Cant. 6.4-6 by eyes, teeth, temple, and so to have particular Churches under her.”

Ans. All this is true, and in a true sense, but it doesn’t urge the conclusion at all. For the general nature of the Church that I mean, is of like latitude. And conceive all particular congregations so constituted, they may be called one genre;[317] i.e., they all are a Church so gathered and constituted. This particular Church is a Church, and so all the particulars have the nature of a Church attributed to them, and affirmed of them, as the genus of the species.

And thus the nature of the Church, and so the power of the Keys in the Church, take them as completed in their full being, include the particular in the general, and determine the general in the particular. And so the nature of the Church and the power of the Keys, exist firstly in the particular Church, and are acted and determined there, which is all we call for, and all our cause requires in the explication of it. So that, we are to seek neither the nature of the Church, nor the power of the Keys, acting or existing except in a particular congregation — as the genus only exists, acts, and is seen in its species.

The fifth and seventh Arguments belong to another place where we will attend them.[318] The sixth is little or not a whit different from the third; yet we will propound it, and give an answer.

Argument 6. “Because Christ hasn’t given the power of the Ministry, ordinances, & jurisdiction to the single congregation, as the first subject, upon the ground that our brethren speak of — to wit: because the single congregation is that Spouse to which Christ is referred as a Husband, and that body to which he carries the relation of a Head.

“Nor is it that adequate number of ransomed persons, of sheep, of lost ones, to which Christ carries that adequate and complete relation of a Savior, King, and Governor. Therefore, that visible Church for whose salvation Christ has given the Ministerial power, must be the larger visible Church.”

Ans. If the Reader is pleased to look back to the first conclusion, in the explication of the cause,[319] or the preparation we made to the Answer to the Second Argument, it will appear that as we do not, so we cannot interpret our question about the first subject of the Keys, to be an individual or single congregation — as though that individual had it firstly, and had all power from it — when the clamor of Independency proclaims the contrary. How can we maintain that every individual congregation is independent, if one depended upon another? Whereas it’s well known that we maintain that each congregation has equal power with another. Therefore, we say that the power of the Keys belongs to a congregation, as existing in its particulars; and therefore equally belongs to all particulars, in all of which the general with the particulars are preserved and perfected.

The complete being of a Church being attended, as we find it in Scripture terms, and as it suits the rules of reason, it comprehends the particular in the general, and the general comes to be determined in the particular. Therefore, the tenet that Mr. Rutherford propounds is not what we maintain, but what he is pleased to make for himself.

Chapter 13. The catholic Church as it is a Representative Whole.

Of the catholic Church as it is a Representative Whole [320] in the assembling of Pastors, etc. in a General Council.

We have thus dispatched the first member of the Controversy, touching the first subject of Church-power, or the power of the Keys; namely, it does not pertain to the Guides of the Visible Church, taken as a Generic Whole,[321] nor to the Church universal.

Let us now consider it as a Representative Whole, i.e., as the catholic visible Church, represented in the convening and assembling of the Pastors of all several [322] congregations, in a General or Ecumenical Council.

The whole course and current of Master Rutherford’s argument in the several answers and explications that are given in response to the Arguments propounded, is to be understood according to this acceptance of a catholic visible Church. The words are fair and full, lib. 2. p. 305:

“The power of the Keys, by order of nature, is only in the catholic Representative Church, as in the first subject.”

Before we proceed to the pinch of the debate, we will look about us a little, so that we may see where the way lies. For the path to these General Councils has been so long disused, that it’s almost grown out of sight. And as he sometimes speaks in a similar case, The highways are unoccupied.

1. We must remember then, there are two things in which the qualification and so the commission and warrant of a member of a Council especially consists. The material ground of Commissioners at Assemblies is their gifts and fitness. The formal ground is the Church calling and sending them. Parker de Poli, l.3.c.1, The material depends on the internal donation of gifts; but the formal, from the delegation of the church.[323] And this assertion is proved by Mr. Rutherford, and confessed by all of ours that I have met with, l.1. p. 213.

2. The Churches may send, and if they follow the pattern in the word, they must send learned and holy men to Synods, besides Pastors, Teachers, and Elders. So Luke has it, Act 15.25-26. And therefore, it’s an Argument which learned Whitaker alleges from the nature of a Synod: that since a General Council represents the Church universal, there should be some of all sorts and orders of men sent there, such as Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Brethren, who should as it were, personify and supply the place of the whole.[324]

3. All those so sent and assembled in the Council, have a decisive and definitive sentence in the acts that will be made, the decrees and determinations that will pass. This is made the hinge and the very substance of the difference[325] in the controversy between us and the Papists. Our men vindicate the liberty and power of the brethren who have met in Council, against the usurpation of the Pope and his Proctors, whereby they would arrogate and monopolize all authority of deciding and determining controversies to the Prelates. And therefore Bellarmine [326] would carve out all the authority to that crew and company. He says, “Apostles judge, Priests may advise, the People only listen.” [327] But Whitaker states the question as the common received judgment of all the orthodox, and so he maintains that which is openly contradictory to the Popish concept:

“In our judgment, it is not prelates alone who have the right to define local councils, but they are governed by men suitably chosen to the council, who are free to make pronouncements as they ought.” [328]

Hence this representative body is but a part, as it stands in relation to the catholic visible Church. And therefore it is said not to be a whole in that relation, but a representative whole, by way of delegation or commission in their name,[329] or in that respect. The acts of this company carry a kind of proportion and resemblance to the body which it represents. So that, what they do by virtue of their delegation, it’s all one or the same reason, as if the represented body did it. Look at them as they are now assembled: they are an entire body resulting out of the concurrence of all the several members so concurring.

We see now what the nature of this representative body is. We will now draw nearer to the mark, and make application of this, to the particular in hand. Master Rutherford expresses the question in these terms, lib. 2. p. 289,

“The Lord has given to this universal visible Church, principally and primarily, a Ministry and all his Ordinances of Word and Sacraments. And the Lord has committed the Keys to the Ministry and Guides of this catholic visible Church, as the first subject.”

But we will look away from this place, and take the following words, which are most plain, as the bottom of our debate, lib. 2., p. 305, “The power of the Keys, by order of nature, is only in the catholic Representative Church, as in the first subject” (from pages 300-309). The scope of all his answers looks this way, taken in the most candid and fair construction that can be made of them.

Again, by power of the Keys, we understand all the power of Ordination, Excommunication, etc., which is comprehended in the current and common apprehension in that phrase. And the reasons which yet carry and tip the balance to the negative part, and our apprehensions for the present tip that way, are the following arguments. [330]

Arg. 1. We’ll attend Master Rutherford’s own explication as that which he must take for granted and good, as allowing no just exception; namely, it must agree to all and only to that kind. [331] From which the Argument progresses thus:

That which firstly and only belongs to the catholic Representative Church, neither did nor can exist before it. The very nature of the terms gives an undeniable testimony to this. For it cannot belong to the Representative Church only, if it belongs to others beside it; nor could it belong to it firstly, if it belonged to others before it.

And indeed, the power of the Keys existed before the Representative Church; indeed, before it had any being. For the churches had the Keys and the exercise of them for the space of 300 years after our Savior, while the name Ecumenical Council was not yet heard of in the world.

Beside, from the former grounds agreed on, touching the constitution of a General Council, it is plain that the churches delegate all persons and power from themselves, to make up such a general Assembly.

And therefore they had all Officers, and exercised their Office-power long before that day.

Nor will that distinction relieve the cause in this distress; to wit, that what is represented must pre-exist its representatives, in order of nature and in order of time. Indeed, medicine can make the cause worse if the person had not been sick before he took it. For if a quality that is proper to its subject, existed in time before the subject that gives it its being, it would pre-exist its own nature, in which its being lies. This is beyond the relief of all the rules of reason.

Beside, it has usually been said that several things being compared together, one might be before another by nature, when they are simultaneous and together in time; though it’s questioned by some that time ever attends nature. But I suppose it’s unheard of, that the same things could be in time, before their nature had any being (as this distinction would bear us in hand).

Arg. 2. If the power of the Keys were given to an Ecumenical Council as the first subject, then those who were not Pastors or Officers in those acts, would have and formally exercise the power of the Keys.

But that is denied by Master Rutherford.

Therefore, the Proposition is proved, because the decrees and determinations of the Council, and their acts of deciding and defining, are not proper works of a Pastor, etc. Nor do they proceed from these offices or Officers as such.

Thus says judicious Ames,

Deciding in General Councils cannot be the responsibility of pastors, for only a few of the early church were able to fulfill their pastoral duties as well, and no pastor in later generations.[332]

And this ground is sure and safe. Acts which are common to brethren, as well as to those who are Officers, are not proper to, nor proceed from an office or Officer as such, but from some root or respect which indifferently belongs to both. This is evident in the case in hand, because they all act as messengers. For as we heard just now, that gave the formality to the member of a Synod, and by power and warrant of this proceeding, it issued from there.

Besides, we heard before that the Council consists of brethren, as well as Elders, and the power of determining and binding issues jointly from all. To maintain the contrary is judged by Doctor Whitaker, to be an open point of Popery, as shown earlier.[333]

Arg. 3. If the power of the Keys belongs firstly to the Ecumenical Council, then it belongs to all other councils by virtue of that; for this is what the rule kaq a<uto (kata auto) requires. If none but this subject have this power, then this power can go no further than this. For this is what antistramenwv (antistramenoos) and kaqolikwv (katholikoos) require.[334] Wherever risibility is,[335] there the nature of man must be, because it agrees to it firstly to Richard, John, or Jeremy — not as to this or that individual, but as they have the nature of man in them.

And hence, no power of the Keys (such as ordination, excommunication, etc.) can be exercised except by virtue of an Ecumenical Council first lending their influence to that work, which is contrary to the evidence of Scripture, and the experience of all ages.

Before I leave this argument, I will take leave to make some inferences from it, which necessarily follow from the nature of the thing, according to the practice of all Arts, proceeding from the infallible evidence of like precepts.

If all the power of the Keys is firstly and only in the catholic representative body, then it is in all other representative bodies by virtue of this.

Hence, this is as necessary to the well-being of the Church as the power of the Keys, because the churches don’t have this power except from this.

Hence, this representative Church is necessary to the well-being of a Church, not only for the better, but for the best.[336] For it is as necessary as the power of the Keys; and by Mr. Rutherford’s confession, that is necessary for its well-being.[337]

Hence this power of the Keys is here most perfectly, because it is here firstly.

But is it so, most constantly and ordinarily? If it is firstly, only and always here, and in others by virtue of this, then it is here most constantly and most ordinarily.

And these follow undeniably from the rule that they belong to all of them,[338] nor can any reason to the contrary be given. Take an example in any act, and upon this ground these inferences will flow naturally and beyond exception. Risibility belongs to the nature of man. Therefore it is there firstly, only, and always. Therefore it is there constantly and perfectly. Therefore it is derived from there to all others who are made partakers of it. Therefore, take away the nature of man and destroy it, and you destroy this faculty.

From this it is clear that expressions contrary to these, dropped here and there by Mr. Rutherford, without which he could not decline the impact of the Arguments alleged against him, are just so many assertions contrary to the truth and the nature of this rule that, they belong to all of them.

Arg. 4. If the power of the Keys are here [i.e., in a Council] firstly and only, then it can exercise them lawfully, without a doubt; and in the right exercise of that power, it can attain its end.

But the first part of this is denied by Master Rutherford, lib. 2. p. 418, “I much doubt if a catholic Council can formally excommunicate a National Church.” And indeed, he may well doubt it. For suppose that many persons in the particular churches of the nation complain of the evils of the churches, and groan under them. Excommunicating these churches would inflict punishment on the innocent as well as the nocent (harmful). For the communion would reach the one as well as the other, and so the censure would proceed upon those who didn’t deserve it, as well as those who did.

But secondly, it is certain that if the churches refuse the sentence, then the power of the Council can never prevail to attain its end.

Arg. 5. Let me add a last Argument from Master Rutherford’s own expressions, lib. 2. p. 289, which are these:

“The Lord has given to this universal visible Church, principally and primarily, a Ministry and all His ordinances of Word and Sacrament. And the Lord has committed the Keys to the Ministry and guides of this catholic visible Church as the first subject.”

From this I would reason thus:

Christ has committed the Keys to the Ministry and guides of that catholic visible Church as the first subject, to which He has given His word, ordinances, sacraments, and Ministry primarily. This proposition is in terms expressed and affirmed by Master Rutherford, as if determined as a conclusion beyond all question.

But (I assume) God has not primarily given His Ministry, Word, Sacraments, and Ordinances to an Ecumenical Council, as the Representative Whole of all Churches,.

Therefore, an Ecumenical Representative Church does not have the Keys given to it as the first subject.

1. The Assumption (which alone needs proof) is abundantly confirmed by sense and experience, by the nature of the thing, and by Mr. Rutherford’s own confession in cases that are parallel and of like nature. For is it “well known” to every man, that after the Ascension of our Savior, for a span of 300 years, there was no General Council in the world. And yet, were there no Ministers sent, no Word or Sacraments dispensed, no Pastors and Teachers executing their office, and performing the duties of their positions and charges, all that while, to those to whom, and for whose good, they were principally and primarily appointed?

2. Each man knows that the Council consists principally of those who are Elders and Pastors in other churches. And will a man’s sense allow him to say that there must be Ministers sent to teach and feed, and watch over these Ministers?

3. Indeed, don’t the examples and records of all ages evidence that the preaching of the word, the administration of the Sacraments, etc. is attended neither primarily nor secondarily here, but rather reviewing controversies, deciding, and determining doubtful questions?

And lastly, Master Rutherford denies that Ministers have a Pastoral charge and watch over a Presbyterial Church, because that watch is only appropriate to the particular congregations — the care of whose souls they stand charged with. By parity of reasoning, he would in no case impose on any Pastor, the duty to be a constant watchman over a General Council. This is not only because it’s more than he can discharge beside his care of his particular flock, but also because it would seem irrational to have a Pastor, and so a Ruler, over those whom he would make to have supreme rule over all Churches.

Re: Rutherford’s Arg. 7. To this pertains the seventh Argument of Master Rutherford touching the Keys given to the catholic visible Church. I formerly reserved it for this place, and therefore I will now take it into review and consideration.[339] His argument is this, found in lib. 2.c. p. 295:

“When any scandalous person is delivered to Satan, he is cast out of the whole catholic Church. Therefore, before his ejection he was a member of the whole catholic Church. For someone cannot be cast out, who was never within. And when he is excommunicated, his sins are bound in heaven as on earth — i.e., they are bound not only in that tract of ground where a handful from a little independent congregation (as they say) of 10, 20, or 100 ordinarily feed, but in all the visible world where God has a Church. And all, both within and without that little congregation, are to repute him as a heathen and a publican.”

Ans. When we inquired about what gave formality to a member of a Church or congregation, we debated this at large: A visible profession does not make a man a member of a congregation, much less a member of all the particular congregations on earth. We refer the Reader to that debate [see chapter 6 above]. Only, we infer from what was then proved, that someone who was not a member of all churches, cannot be said to be cut off from all, because he was never ingrafted into them all; no more than a member of one individual man, being cut off from his body or person, can be said to be cut off from another’s body, just because these two men share the nature of a man in common. Or more plainly, because a member of one Corporation [i.e., a nation] is disenfranchised and condemned to perpetual imprisonment as a traitor, therefore all other Corporations [all nations] should disenfranchise him also, just because these two are species of a Corporation in general [nationhood].

It’s true that when one Church of Christ has righteously cast out a man, all other congregations should count him as such an outcast, approve of the sentence of the Church (unless anything appears to the contrary), and they should so express themselves towards him as one whom the Lord Christ has sentenced and judged as a heathen. And therefore it becomes all who are subjects of Christ to so judge him, just as all the subjects of the kingdom account him a traitor, and conduct themselves towards him as someone who has been convicted and proceeded against as such, in one City or Corporation.

This is the aim of that answer which Master Rutherford alleges from some who say that the party is excommunicated only out of that Congregation of which he is a member antecedently, because Christ has given the power of excommunication only to the Church. But he is excommunicated from all other Churches only as a consequent of that.

To this Master Rutherford says,

“I answer the plain contrary. He is antecedently and formally delivered to Satan by the power of the catholic visible Church, which is displayed in exercises and acts before that Church of which he is the nearest member — even as the left hand cuts off the finger of the right hand, which otherwise would infect the whole body. Now, it is not the left hand only that cuts off the contagious and infectious finger, but the whole man. Deliberating reason and the will, consent that it should be done for the preservation of the whole. The left hand is a mere instrument; and the loss of the finger is a loss to the whole body. And the finger is cut off the right hand not only antecedently by the power of the left hand, but by the intrinsic power of the whole body. It’s true that the contagion would creep through and infect the right hand first. And therefore, the incision is made upon the right hand first. When the Eldership of the [local] congregation delivers to Satan, it is not done by the power intrinsic in that congregation only, but by the power intrinsic in the whole universal Church.” Lib. 2. p. 296.

We’ll pause here a little, and as travellers used to do, view the coast to see how it lies — because the path seems dark, and the passage somewhat hazardous.

Ans. I answer then, if the catholic Church exercises a power intrinsic in the excommunicating of the offender, and delivering him to Satan (as it is said here), then it must either be an Ecumenical Council, or a Representative body of all churches, that must do this; or else, all the Churches must have a hand in it.

1. An Ecumenical Council cannot excommunicate. For that which doesn’t exist, and has no being, cannot exercise any operation.[340] And a General Council didn’t exist for 300 years after our Savior. There has been none of late, for many hundreds of years. And when there will be any, no man knows. And therefore it cannot exercise any intrinsic power in this censure of excommunication, either antecedently or consequently.

2. Nor can all the Churches be said, by any evidence of reason, to have a hand in, or extend power to this work. For Master Rutherford’s own principles are, one congregation has no power over another, one Classis over another, nor one Provincial or National Council over another. From this, the inference is plain.

Those who have no power, much less supreme power over another, cannot exercise any power over another.

From what has been conceded already,[341] many Churches, Classes, or Synods have no power over a congregation; therefore they can exercise no power, much less do it antecedently to this work.

3. Again, those who exercise a power intrinsic to excommunication, must do it according to Christ’s rule, and suitable to the order prescribed by him. And in cases of excommunication, especially those of obstinacy, the rule of Christ, and the direction of the Gospel, require that they examine, convict, and admonish, before excommunication. Therefore they must be thoroughly informed and fully acquainted with the offense, if they are to proceed regularly.[342]

But all the Churches cannot be thus informed with the offenses of those who are excommunicated; nor yet are they bound to be, antecedent to the dispensation of the censure. They are not bound to receive all the complaints of every particular Church, nor to hear and examine all witnesses. They are not bound to convene the offending party. Nor does any Church but the one of which he is a member, have the power to do it.

And therefore, according to the rule of Christ, they cannot exercise a power antecedent to excommunicating him.

4. Beside, if all the Churches exercised a power antecedent to excommunicating the offender, before the particular Church has exercised it, then the sentence is known and past before the sentence of the particular church can proceed. And then there is no place left to Appeal to other churches, because their judgment is past. Therefore, they need not require their judgment. But Mr. Rutherford will in no way allow this, nor is it consistent with his principles, nor indeed with reason.

5. If, after a judgment is past in a congregation or Classis, other Classes, Synods, or congregations come to be acquainted with it and the proceeding, as being irregular and unjust, they will reject the sentence as unsuitable to the mind of Christ, and protest against the proceeding. Those who in their judgments ever disallowed the sentence, and endeavored to repeal and oppose it, cannot reasonably be said to exercise an intrinsic power that is antecedent in its execution.

And I suppose the Churches who are of such a judgment would wonder to hear a congregation speak to them this way. Here is an offending brother cast out of our society for such obstinacy in evil. We have cast him out consequently; but you have exercised an intrinsic power antecedent to our act, or else it could never have been done.

I suppose if a Provincial, National, or Ecumenical Council condemned them for their sentence, the Council would quickly protest their own innocence, that they had no hand in it and were never acquainted with their proceedings; for if they had been, they would have opposed them in it.

6. Lastly, if the whole catholic Church exercised a power antecedently in casting out every particular offender from the Church, they must also exercise their power antecedently in receiving him, which reason and the experience of all ages, challenges. Should a congregation consult with all the Churches on earth before they absolve a penitent offender? There was no such law delivered to the Church of Corinth in that case, but he blames them because they didn’t cast him out before the Apostle wrote them. So he wishes them to receive this man back into communion, neither staying nor expecting to wait until a General Council was called to that end.

The similitude which Mr. Rutherford uses has a seemly color to deceive the inconsiderate Reader; but being seriously weighed, it does not reach the cause in hand.

It’s true, it is not only the left hand that cuts off the contagious and infectious finger, but the whole man. Deliberate reason and will consent to it; and the finger is cut off, not by the power of the left hand only, but by the intrinsic power in the whole body. I say all this is true, and there is a very good reason why it should be so. It is because the mind and will, and so the whole man has full and sufficient power in itself; and that power is peculiarly and properly appointed by God and nature to preserve itself; and to prevent infection in any member; and to cut off the infectious part rather than have the contagion spread to the ruin of the whole.

And it is exactly so in a particular congregation. The chief officers, like the mind and will, and the rest of the Brethren, as the whole, have intrinsic power given to them by Christ. And they should exercise it in His name, and according to his order to remove an infectious member. But how unsuitable is it to require the same of other Churches, to excommunicate with them, just because they share in the general nature of a Church — when in truth they have no power over a particular Church? And therefore, as they cannot, so they should not attempt any such thing. Laying aside for now the consideration of an independent congregation, we’ll propound only Mr. Rutherford’s own principles for proof in this case.

It is confessed by Mr. Rutherford, that a Church on an island has the power of excommunication in herself; and therefore she may exercise it alone. Yet I suppose Mr. Rutherford will confess that a party so excommunicated is to be counted a heathen by all Churches, as well and as much as any excommunicated out of a Church with neighboring Churches nearby. Notwithstanding this, no other Churches have, and therefore they can exercise no power in the execution of that act of excommunication done by a Church on an island.

By Mr. Rutherford’s own grant, the same may be said of Classes and Provincial Synods in regard to other Synods and Classes over whom they have no power; yet a person excommunicated in one church regularly, is so accounted by them all. Common sense will constrain a man’s judgment in this.

The Mayor and Aldermen of one Corporation, must first be privy to the offense of any member in that Society. And then they have power to proceed against him, without either the power or privity of another Corporation. This is true even though they are both members of the same Kingdom, and both are species of a corporation, the common nature of which is attributed to them both. This is because there is a peculiar power left to them in their own places and precincts. The same may be said of a particular congregation.

These grounds thus made good by reason, will give evidence against several expressions of Mr. Rutherford’s, as distant from the truth:

“That sister Churches receive members of other Churches to communion, by an intrinsic authoritative Church power.”

If he means such an authoritative Church-power as a congregation exercises in excommunication, or a power they should exercise in admittance to communion, then it’s an assertion that is neither safe nor sound, and a man’s experience will teach him the contrary. For by authoritative Church-power, we can enjoin our own members to come to the seal, or else censure them; but we cannot so deal with others if it seems good to them to refuse to come. Rutherford adds,

“Christ has given an intrinsic power to many consociated Churches to cast out a contagious lump. Otherwise the consociated Churches would exercise the punishment of avoiding the excommunicated person as a heathen, which follows from a power which is in no way in them. What conscience is here?

Ans. A good conscience rightly guided by rule. For if by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established, as the Lord and his Law says, then much more will a fact be established that doesn’t have the testimony of only two or three, but of a whole Church, and maybe many hundreds to bear witness to it. And no man, indeed no court in the world, can but yield to this evidence, before something appears to the contrary — unless, against conscience, they lay aside the express Law of God.

We will pronounce a narrower case than this, and yet it is so plain that it will carry the judgment of any considerate man with it. Suppose a party going to some remote place, wherever occasion leads him, intends to join with the Church of Christ set up there. Another person privy to his intention, and knowing the man is undeserving, intimates to a friend in letter written under his own hand and two others, that the party is scandalous for oppression and deceit. When he desires entrance and acceptance, the letter is shown and witnesses discovered, and he is justly denied admittance. This is a just punishment, justly inflicted on him, and done with a good conscience.

In the case in hand, the argument is even stronger.[343] If we may account a man scandalous, and carry ourselves towards him as such a one, under two or three witnesses, before the contrary is manifested, then much more may we account a person justly excommunicated, and carry ourselves towards him in a manner suitable to such a condition, under the testimony of a Church of Christ, until something appears to the contrary.

“But suppose the Church errs, and casts out the person with an errant Key? [344] Shall a man in a brutish manner practice according to their proceeding, and not discern whether the censure is justly or unjustly afflicted?”

Ans. This is not to practice in a brutish manner — but to proceed according to such rules, is better than reason or righteousness requires of any. For under such a testimony, the person stands justly excommunicated in my account, and I must judge so if I am to judge righteously. For instance, a person is accused of treason in open court, upon three witnesses who are pregnant and peremptory.[345] The judge has no choice but to condemn the man as such a malefactor. And in case he should make an escape, all who hear of the proceeding are to account him as such, and proceed against him as such. And yet they cannot be said to practice brutishly, but piously and righteously according to the rules of reasonable nature which God has revealed in His holy word — until the testimony given is controlled and disannulled. So it is here.

Lastly, I will present to the Reader and to Master Rutherford, what he himself has written in another place, and so leave this argument. In lib. 2. p. 230, we find the question propounded there in these words: Say a scandalous person is living between two neighboring presbyteries, and so he is likely to infect both of them equally and indifferently by his offense. Why should he not therefore be cast out of both? Master Rutherford’s answer is this:

“Though he dwells on the border of two Classical Presbyteries, yet since God, the God of order, has made him a combined member now, by institution of one Presbyterial Church and not of the other, he is to be excommunicated by the one, and not by the other.”

A man would think at first blush, if one Classical Church doesn’t excommunicate antecedently, then by the same proportion of reason, many must not. Indeed, none but his own Classis may excommunicate him, and therefore, how can the catholic Church be said to do this antecedently? But Master Rutherford best knows his own meaning, and this will occasion him to explicate it.

Chapter 14. The Universal Church as an Integral Whole.

And to deal candidly in this, as in the former course of our argument, we profess our aim in this inquiry is only to give what evidence we can, to the clearer discovery of the Truth. For I cannot find any expressions in Master Rutherford’s dispute, that fully fasten this sense upon any passage of his.[346] And it’s not in my thoughts to foist anything upon him, beside what he fully expresses. For our clearer and more direct proceeding, I will take leave to inquire,

1. What is meant by a catholic visible Church, taken in the sense of an Integral Whole.[347]

2. Whether such a Church is to be found in the New Testament.

3. Whether the Lord Christ has set Officers here as their first subject; and has so set the power of the Keys, that they firstly pertain to them.

To the first. That the catholic Church sometimes has such a respect as an Integral Whole, I now and then find among authors like Ames, in his Medulla:

“A particular church has respect to the catholic Church, which has the nature of an integral whole, and of which the particular church is a member.” [348]

His meaning is, if we look at particular members, and particular Churches as aggregated together, then what results and arises from the confluence and concurrence of them all, we may put the respect of an Integral Whole upon it, and so it is called a catholic Church.[349]

And for rightly discerning this, and differentiating some considerations about it, the Reader must take notice that three things are to be attended to distinctly understand this Whole. Then he may sever it from the former respects to which we have spoken, and discern the nature of it from the general nature of a Church — for there is an exceedingly vast difference between the two.

1. So then, the particular persons and Congregations, the members of this catholic Church, taken in this notion and consideration, contain in them the essential causes of it, out of which it arises and is constituted. Whereas, a universal Whole,[350] contrariwise, contains and communicates these causes to particular Churches.

2. Hence, these particular persons and Churches are, and must by nature exist before this Integral Whole,[351] i.e., before this catholic Church is thus aggregated. And this follows from the former, in so much as the causes are, by nature, before the effect.

3. Hence this totum, this Whole, in proper and precise consideration, though it is ever with its members, yet it is distinct from them, as that which arises out of them. A man is neither body nor soul, but an integrum [a composite whole], a third thing arising out of them both.

The Reader must carry these three things along with him, because perhaps we will have recourse to them as occasion requires.

The second thing to be inquired is whether this Church is to be found in the New Testament. This query was presented to Master Rutherford by way of Objection to his argument: “You cannot demonstrate out of the Scripture, that there is such a thing in the New Testament as a catholic visible Church.”

He answers in these words, lib. 2. p. 418:

“I conceive the subject of 1Cor 12 is a catholic visible Church. We do not understand it to be a political visible body, with ordinary visible government from one man who makes himself the Vicar of Christ, the Pope, whose members are Cardinals, Bishops, and such like; but the catholic mystical body of Christ, and that as visible.”

We see here Master Rutherford’s expressions presented before us. But what his meaning is, I confess, I cannot clearly perceive. For,

1. What is the meaning of that phrase, mystical as visible?

2. What is the thing intended by it?

1. I do not readily conceive his mind in such an expression. We understand the mystical body of Christ as invisible. For the mystical body of Christ, in common and current sense, is constantly taken for the invisible body of our Savior. Now, to consider an invisible body as visible, plainly implicates the same as if a man said, “I will consider whiteness as it is black.” And therefore this doesn’t seem to be Mr. Rutherford’s mind. But it may be that he takes mystical in another figurative meaning; or perhaps the expression is misprinted. It suffices to point it out, to occasion his further explication.

2. What thing is intended here, is as hard to find out fully.

When I observed that he puts visible in a kind of equal breadth and latitude with mystical — that being the Integral Whole of all the parts aggregated, I could only imagine his intent was to take visible in the same sense. Besides, in lib. 2. p. 222, I find him distinguishing the Pastors of particular congregations from the Pastors of the catholic Church. Whereas had he taken catholic for universal, then the Pastors of one must be the Pastors of the other. For genus only exists in its species, and can only be seen there, and so consequently attended there.

These are probabilities which sway my judgment that way. But I also find that sometimes he uses the word universal, to express his meaning of the place (1Cor 12). And this tips the balance the other way. So that, I cannot say that what he means by catholic visible Church, is an Integral Whole. And therefore I won’t oppose it as his sense, but only argue against it, as not being the sense of the place. And the following reasons (arguments) persuade me for the present.

Arg. 1. That Church is meant in 1Cor 12, in which God sets Teachers, Helps, and Governments as ordinary Officers, firstly, verse 28.

But God does not set these officers firstly in the catholic visible Church as an Integral Whole (explicated before).

The Assumption, where alone the doubt lies, is thus proved, because setting the Officers in the Church (I speak now of those which are ordinary) is by the election of the people.

And therefore, this setting and the officers who are set, must be there, where the election is.

This election or call, being the foundation from which the relation between Pastors and people results, and they become in relation to one another, gives mutual being to each other, and they are together one with another.[352]

And it is clear that the election is in the particular Churches, Act 14.23; 6.5; Tit 1.5. [353]

Therefore, it is there that these ordinary officers are firstly set by God.

Arg. 2. In whatever Church Pastors are firstly set, they have firstly and primarily Pastor-like power over that congregation, in preaching, ruling, and dispensing the acts of their office. The nature of the office, God’s charge and command — the end at which they must aim, and for which they are sent — evinces this. (Act 20.21; 1Pet 5.2).[354]

But ordinary Teachers don’t have this Pastoral and Official power over the catholic Church, as it will thus appear:

Those whose power by the Law and order of Christ, may be refused in all congregations except their own particular one, have no right of Pastoral power by any law of Christ, in any but their own particular charges and Churches.

Otherwise the Lord Christ would set a man in his office, and by rule and law, others may forever refuse the exercise and power of his office over whom he is set.

And indeed, the power of ordinary Pastors may by law and order of Christ, be justly refused in all congregations beside their own. Suppose all congregations have Pastors of their own; they may justly refuse any others to preach or exercise any Jurisdiction among them.

Whereas someone who has power to preach as a Pastor, has authority to enjoin those who are his flock, to attend him even if they should refuse it; indeed, to exercise his office, though they do not desire it. For it is not read in any Gospel that the Lord Christ hangs the performance of a Teacher’s office on others’ desires, but on his own duty with which he stands charged by virtue of his place.

Though many other reasons are at hand, I will not multiply them, because I don’t know Mr. Rutherford’s mind in this behalf, and I would not trouble the Reader without cause. But I might lastly add here, that if a man is a Pastor to all Churches beside his own particular one, then he is either the same Pastor to both, or another and diverse one. This last, none will own; therefore he must be the same to both, because the right of Jurisdiction issues from his Office-call.

These mists then being removed, the meaning of the Apostle is this: God has set in His Church, i.e., in a Congregation existing in its particulars, and so in all particular congregations — the extraordinary and ordinary officers,[355] according to the extraordinary and ordinary occasions of it. And this sense suits that which we explicated in the first part of this argument, touching a catholic visible Church as a Universal Whole. And hence, that query which carries the only difficulty with it, receives a full satisfaction, l.2. p. 401:

“This indefinite speech (says Mr. Rutherford) must by good logic have the virtue either of one universal, or of a particular proposition. If they say the first [universal], we have what we crave. If they say the second [particular], they fall into the former absurdity; for God has then placed Apostles in the whole Christian world.”

Ans. If Mr. Rutherford craves no more than this, that every particular congregation should be the species of a Congregation, we willingly grant him his desire. But to affirm that the reasoning is the same for an Aggregate Whole,[356] is as far wide, as east is from west. And it is plain that his cause gains nothing by this grant. For thus the nature of a Church exists only, acts only, and is to be seen only in the particulars; it equally and firstly communicates its nature to the particulars. So that, no Church has more power than another, nor yet power over another, having on this ground and grant an independent power of its own. Each species likewise has firstly and independently the nature of the genus which, so existing in it, comes to be confined to it, and wholly ordered by it. We will give evidence of this by instances of many particulars, that we may thereby relieve the Reader.

Thus the common nature of a Corporation exists in all particular congregations, and so it’s common to all, to have a Mayor and Common Council (I say this ex supposito, as a supposition). This government and governors existing in and determined by the particulars, have power only in their own place. The Mayor and Council cannot exercise authority in another corporation. Therefore, to reason this way: that if the nature of a corporation is common to all, and the King has set Mayor and common Council in all and every one of them, then the Mayor of one may therefore rule in another corporation — this, I say, is an inference that will in no way follow.

The same may be said of a similar example. All states set Generals, Colonels, and Captains in their armies. The King set constables in all towns, and Sheriffs in all counties. If any would reason this way: that if this is common to all Towns to have Constables, and Sheriffs in all counties, a Constable may therefore exercise his office another Town, or a Sheriff in another county — then each man’s experience will give evidence to the contrary. And the ground of the argument taken from the community of the nature of such things, if seriously considered, will not enforce it, but imply the contrary.

The sense of the text is thus opened, and the Arguments gathered out of the several verses will easily receive their answer. This, then, is the sense as it has been proved: a congregation or Church existing in its particulars, is the Church meant here; and therefore all particular congregations are intended here.

1. And it’s true that in all particular congregations (the extraordinary gifts and miracles now being ceased) there are the ordinary officers of Teachers, Helps, Governments, etc.

2. It’s true of all particular congregations, that they are one body in themselves, and are one in the common nature of the Church; and these take in all who are visibly baptized into one Spirit.

3. It’s true that in all these particular congregations, all Jews and Gentiles are comprehended, who come within the pale of the Visible Church. For the whole nature of the general exists in the particulars.

4. It’s true that the members of each particular congregation need each other, and one particular Church needs the help of another, as occasion requires.

5. It’s true of all particular congregations, that their members should not create a schism from one another.

6. It’s true of all particular congregations, that the members do and should especially care for one another, and suffer with one another.

7. It’s true of all particular congregations, that by immediate commission, God set Apostles, whose power of rule reaches to them all . But He has fixed ordinary officers to their particular places and stations, each one in the individual congregation by which he was called, and over whom he is appointed.

In Summary

We are now done with our inquiry touching the catholic visible Church. We will remind the Reader of two things which may be of special use, and so we will put an end to this dispute.

I.

1. From the foregoing discourse, he may discern in what the opinion of Mr. Rutherford especially appears, touching this catholic visible Church with any certainty. Such as, namely, it’s certain that Mr. Rutherford holds that the power of the Keys belongs firstly to the catholic Representative Church. For his words to this effect are most express, “The power of the Keys by order of nature, is only in the catholic Representative Church, as in the first subject,” l.2. p. 305.

2. It’s not certain to me what he holds touching the catholic visible Church, considered either as a Universal Whole, or as an Integral Whole. We have formerly intimated in several places, what probabilities his expressions carry either way. And therefore I think it would be most fair to fasten nothing upon him, unless his words were fully and conclusively clear.

3. Lastly, it’s certain that if the power of the Keys is in the catholic Representative Church,[357] as the first subject, they cannot belong firstly to the catholic Church, either as a Universal Whole, or as an Integral Whole — the distance and difference between these three, according to our former explication, being so great and vast.

II.

Again, let me remind the Reader what light the truth has gained, if we look at it as laid out in its right frame, as thus:

1. The common nature of a Church, and so the nature of Officers in that proportion, only exist, act, and become visible in the particulars, as their species.

2. Hence, all Officers and Office-power — as with the nature of the Church, so with their nature — is equally, firstly, and independently communicated to all particular congregations. So that, they don’t receive their Office or Office-power, one particular from another, or from more particulars, because all particulars share in all equally and firstly, as species partake of the nature of a genus.

3. Hence, it is not lawful for the Churches to give away their power to others; nor is it lawful for others to take it away from them. And therefore, they should not lose this power by combining themselves with others; nor should other Churches, by combination, take this power from them, in whole or in part. [358]

Chapter 15. Answer to Mr. Hudson re: the Visible Church

as an Integral Whole.

While I was inquiring and writing about this catholic visible Church, special providence brought a book to my view, which purposely treated this particular subject. The author is Master Hudson, a learned man and a faithful minister of the Gospel.[359]

When I had considered his writing twice and thrice,[360] I found his judgment sharp and scholarly, his spirit Christian and moderate, his expression succinct and pregnantly plain to express his own apprehensions. So that, my heart was greatly contented with the acumen and judicious diligence of the Author. Though I could not consent to what he wrote, I could but unfeignedly prize the learning, perspicuity, and painstaking care expressed in his writing.

Therefore I thought it good to toss in a few considerations touching the things of greatest consequence in it, so that I might give him, and also others into whose hands that book may come, an occasion, if not to judge otherwise, then to again consider some particulars, whether they will abide the balance of the sanctuary or not.

There is one principal point.[361] I say principal, because the whole frame of the dispute rests upon it, as upon the main pillar and foundation which, if it fails, the whole falls to the ground, as Master Hudson confesses, p. 11,

“I find the subject of my question exceedingly opposed, and that is by our divines. Therefore I must crave leave to confirm it sufficiently, or else whatever I say about the predicate, will be like a house built on sand, or a castle in the air.”

The greatest weight lies here, and therefore my greatest inquiry will be about the truth of this. Before I enter upon the examination of this principal point propounded, I will collect several expression out of several places in the book, which I will set down as so many conclusions that are confessed by the author. Thus myself and the Reader may have recourse to them as occasion requires in the following discourse, when their specifics come to a judicious trial.

And since Mr. Hudson acknowledges that this question is exceedingly opposed by our Divines — I may say. by all the pious and judicious Orthodox that I meet with, who write against the Papists — it will not seem strange to any, nor I suppose grievous to Mr. Hudson, if I join with them in this defense of the truth, as I yet conceive it to be.

And in my retired meditations, I could not help observing a secret kind of divine dispensation, that the Presbyterian way needs the help of a point of Popery, not only as a pillar by which it must be under-propped, but as a foundation or head cornerstone, upon which the whole building must rest and be erected.

These grants and postulations which I mention, are thus freely and fully laid down in several passages and places [in Mr. Hudson’s book].

Section 1. Conclusions

1. When a Church is called universal in this question, it means principally in regard to persons and places, and not in regard to time, page 4.

2. The universal visible Church is the whole company of visible believers throughout the whole world, page 4.

3. All the visible religious assemblies of a nation are parts of the catholic Church (he means members), page 6.

4. Particular Churches are made up of the members of the catholic Church, page 11.

5. The proper notion of the catholic Church, and the particular, is of the whole and its members p. 20;[362] and it exists before them,[363] p. 10.

6. For my part (he says), I conceive the catholic Church to be an Integral Whole, and particular churches to be similar parts of it,[364] and so members of it, and parcels of it, as Jewish Synagogues were parts of the Jewish Church, p. 21.

7. Every particular Church partakes of part of the matter, and part of the form of the whole, p. 21.

8. Particular Churches are limited and distinguished from each other by civil and prudential limits, for the convenience of meeting, and maintenance, and transacting business.

9. This membership is either devolved on a man by God’s disposing Providence, by reason of the person’s birth or cohabitation there; or it is voluntarily assumed by his voluntary removal to that place, allotted by civil prudence for such a particular society, to conveniently enjoy the ordinances of God together.

10. The catholic Church may by persecution, etc., be brought to a little place, and perhaps to one congregation, p. 24.

11. While the Church is but one congregation, that congregation has the notion of the catholic Church more properly than of a particular Church, even if it is but one family, as it was in the Ark in the days of Noah, p. 24.

12. Speaking of the existence of the catholic Church, in the existence of particular Churches, he grants that the catholic Church exists only in the existence of particular stones, p. 24.

I thus take leave to sever and sunder the specifics of one from another, because if I don’t deceive myself much, they will make way not only for the help of the Reader to more easily carry them along with him in his consideration, but also that he may readily resort to them as the occasion of the dispute requires.

From these particulars thus premised, the State of the Question is fully this:

Whether there is a catholic visible Church, as an Integral Whole, consisting of all the particular Churches, as its members?

And to this question we must answer yet negatively.

Because this question, thus propounded, looks so fully like a Popish tenet at first appearance, Mr. H. desires to put a Protestant dress on it, so that persons might not suspect that it came from a Popish Synagogue because of the Papist Shibboleth [365] that it presents to the judicious Reader. And therefore he would differentiate this question from theirs in three things.

1. The Papists take visible for conspicuous and glorious.

2. They hold that the name catholic Church belongs to one Church.

3. They hold that this catholic visible Church should under one visible universal head.

The reply is that this salve only skins over the sore, but neither heals the wound nor removes the scar. For it is certain that there are many collateral errors which go in the crowd and company of the Popish opinion. But with his favor, those which he has mentioned with many others, border on this cause, but they don’t enter at all into the state and constitution of it. Rather, they are distinct errors so mentioned, so maintained by the papists, and so opposed by ours. Mr. H. knows very well that Bellarmine, with the rest of the Popish champions, marshal these causes as distinct companies when they come into the field.

1. The Church cannot fail, (i.e.) for the number of those who profess the faith is not always full and glorious.[366] And that is the state of that question controverted between us and them. – Whitaker, on the Church, ques. 3.

2. Church government is monarchical; namely, its work is visible to the monarch and to the highest Judge. Whitaker de Rom. Pontif. q.i.c.[367]

3. It’s also a distinct question, whether the Bishop of Rome succeeds Peter in that Monarchical government of his. Whitaker de Rom. Pontif. q.4.c.i.

Hence it is plain that all the differences Mr. H. propounds are so many distinct questions among the papists. And that this one, “the catholic Church visible,” is a fourth distinction from the three former ones. Therefore they don’t enter at all into the state or constitution of this church, as either controverted with the papists, or as now agitated and disputed with us.

And if Mr. Hudson would please to cast his eye on the expressions and apprehensions of judicious Whitaker when he debates the question, he will plainly and presently perceive that visible here is opposed to invisible, by the confession of all our writers against the papists. And when they prove that the catholic Church is not visible, they don’t mean that it isn’t conspicuous and glorious to the world, but that it never was, nor can be visible to any. Rather, it is to be believed, but not apprehended by sense.

The Catholic Church cannot be seen by anyone, not so far as the wicked, and sometimes indeed, not even by the pious. Whitaker de Eccles. q.2.c.2. p. 57.[368]

And therefore Mr. H. makes these into two distinct questions:

Whether the catholic Church is not visible.

Whether the Visible Church can fail, i.e., whether the visible church is not always full and glorious, as stated above.[369]

The issue then is this:

If these three mentioned differences are three distinct questions from this one which is now controverted, then they don’t enter into the constitution of this.

Take it in his peculiar and precise consideration and as controverted between the papists and us.

And if he would have recourse to learned Sadeel,[370] he will find there that Turrian [371] so expresses, so understands this meaning: The Catholic Church is the visible aggregate of all local Churches throughout the world, cast together.[372] — which is the very hinge of this question now debated.

So that I must yet crave leave to concur with all our divines against the papists in this opinion, and to profess with them that, The catholic Church is invisible; i.e., it cannot be seen by anyone, not by the wicked, and indeed, sometimes not even by the pious.[373]

And when we say that the catholic Church is invisible, neither they nor I mean it isn’t conspicuous to the eye of the world; but that there is no such aggregate Church of all the visible ones,[374] that has any being in natural things,[375] or was instituted by our Savior Christ.

To clear this conclusion, we will first argue from the nature of an Integral Whole. For in this Mr. H. deserves just commendation that he deals openly; and like a judicious Divine, he expressly intimates what kind of Whole he means, so that we need not seek, when we should speak to the point argued and intended by him. The trick lies in the analysis.[376]

To begin then, our inquiry touches the nature of an Integral Whole. This being attended to according to the proper and right description of it, it will be like a torch in the entry, to give light, and to lead the Reader into the particular truths, like so many particular rooms in the house, so that the whole frame may be fully conceived of.

An Integral Whole (says the Logician) is that whole to which all the parts are essentials; [377] i.e., the parts are the essential causes from which the integrity and entireness of the whole is made and constituted. And therefore, to speak in their language, they are orta argumenta (an argument arising) — the members arise out of the matter and principal form, and also contain in them the matter and principal form,[378] which they give, in their concurrence, to make up the integrum, the whole. Thus the several troops and companies make up the Army. The freemen of so many companies, the Common-Council of Alderman, and the Mayor, make up a Corporation. So many cities, shires, and counties make up a Kingdom.

In all these, the members are causal: each contributes a substantial share to make up the integrity or entireness of the whole.

Hence, the members are by nature before the whole (I say “by nature” because I don’t want to run into needless niceties touching any other priority, but thus they are certainly before the whole) because they contain the causes that make it up.[379]

What Mr. H. suggests elsewhere, by way of objection, is that they are related, and therefore of the same nature.[380] This is an old fallacy frequent among the Scholastics; and it proceeds merely out of a mistake about logical principles. It’s true that the whole and its members may be clothed with that respect we put on them for our expression and apprehension (this would be easy to open, only it doesn’t suit this popular debate). But to speak properly, look at the whole (integrum) and its members (membra) in the Scholastics’ peculiar affection of arguing, and they can no more be related to one another (relata)[381] than one opposite can be another.

Hence, the whole is another thing resulting and arising from the members, imitating exactly the nature of the effect, existing from its causes; and therefore it’s called a symbol of the effect [382] — as a body is distinct, a third thing, in reason and reality from all its members; the Army is constituted from the several companies; and the Kingdom from the several counties, hundreds, and cities.

Hence, lastly, this is made specific to this Whole (distinct from what we call a Generic or Universal Whole). What belongs to this, does not belong to all the members. It’s like a man is said to eat, drink, walk, talk, and look upward, when no single part of the body, much less the soul, in reason or according to truth, can be said to do any of these actions.

Hence these conclusions then follow undeniably and necessarily:

If the catholic Church is an Integral Whole, it’s a third thing, and distinct from all the members, and so from all particular congregations. And therefore, there must be some Officer, Act, and Ordinance pertaining to that church, which does not pertain to any of the members.

And this rule is evidenced by reason, all experiences, and all instances, in all integrals (unities). There is a supreme governor in a kingdom, a General in a camp, besides all other officers in all the Regiments. Yet no discovery could ever be given of a catholic Church, as a third and distinct thing from its members, nor any Act or Officer besides those which are observed and exercised in particular churches.

I would earnestly and seriously desire Mr. H., or any man living, to lay out the nature of particular congregations, and attend to all the Offices, Actions, and Ordinances dispensed there, and then in precise consideration, offer to my understanding the nature of this whole that is distinct in apprehension. I would not desire a separation of this whole from its parts, or pulling them apart, for that would be madness from reasoning [383] — but a presentation of some distinct Officer, Act, or operation, excluding the rationale of, or not taking into account, [384] particular congregations, which do not pertain to them. And this must be done, or else this Integral Whole will prove to be a mere fiction, and a conceit [385] minted out of a man’s imagination.

It’s true, for a Generic Whole, or the nature of a Church in general, nothing is required except that it exist in its particulars, as in its species; and that the general nature of a Church, and all the privileges primarily pertaining to it, should equally and indifferently be communicated to all the particulars as inferior species. This is easily seen and observed in all examples of this sort, as we instanced in the foregoing part of the discourse.

But the nature of an Integral is wholly different. Because it is a third thing arising from its members, it always has something peculiar in it, that is not communicated to them. This is why the papists, who maintained this catholic visible Church, have created and fancied a visible Head for this visible Body; but that foolish device now labors with the loathsomeness of itself.

When Master H. answers this Argument, he writes, p. 23:

“This is the main argument of the papists, for the supremacy of the Pope, and that which made our divines deny them a catholic visible Church. But to the argument, I answer that the Church had a Head of the same nature, consisting of body and soul who at one time lived in this kingdom of grace in the days of His flesh, and visibly partook in external ordinances, though now indeed he is ascended into His kingdom of glory; yet he does not cease to be a man, as we are, though glorified; and he does not cease to rule and govern His Church here below; for it is an everlasting Kingdom, Isa 9.7 — as when King James was translated from Scotland to England and lived here, he did not cease to be King in Scotland.”

My reply is this:

1. The confession of Master H. is very remarkable, which I desire the Reader to observe, and to forever carry along with him in his consideration — that according to the concurring and joint judgment of all our divines, they saw it necessary to deny the papists a catholic visible Church, unless they were also constrained to grant them an officer as a supreme visible Head. For so his words are expressed.

“This made our divines deny the papists a catholic visible Church, namely, so that they might deny a visible Head suitable to it.”

It’s as though he had said, unless they denied the one, they could not have denied the other. This was the conclusive determination of all those worthy champions of the Lord, who opposed the supremacy of that “Man of Sin” in former ages. And I must conceive that their grounds are impregnable. If the one is granted, the other cannot be avoided, according to all the principles of well-ordered policies, and the rules of reason propounded in the foregoing arguments.

2. The salve which Master H. applies here, is so far from healing the sore, that it makes it worse. The medicine is as bad if not more dangerous, than the disease. For in his answer, he would bear the Reader in hand that Christ as a man, consisting of body and soul, living in the Church, must in that regard be the visible head of his Church, though now ascended into heaven. I would affectionately desire him, in God’s holy fear, to consider what he writes. For,

(1) It is not only untrue, but very dangerous to hold that Christ, as mere man consisting of body and soul, is a visible Head of his Church. And yet this he does and must say, if he says anything to the argument in hand. But upon this grant, it will follow that Christ is such a head that he is not present with his Body, nor does, nor can he lend influence to his whole Body and its members in all places. And therefore He must not be sufficient to fully supply its needs. How derogatory and prejudicial this is to our blessed Savior, and the fatherly love of God the Father to his Church, I am persuaded that Mr. H.’s love to Christ will make him more sensible of such an indignity, than I am able to express.

(2) It is certain that our Savior is Head of the Church, as Mediator, God, and Man, who has fulness of all grace and of all power committed to him. And so he becomes fully fit to execute the position and office of such a head, to send all officers, to furnish them for the work, and to bless them in the work of the ministry, for gathering and perfecting all His saints, until they come to the unity of the faith. So Beza says in his Confession, chap. 5. Art. 5. Whitaker, de Pontif. Rom. q.i. cap. 3. arg. 6, where he argues that to be Head of the Church was a burden too heavy for any man to bear, a work too hard for any man to discharge. He issues the reason thus: “Therefore we must leave the work to Christ, Who, as he is everywhere, so he can do all things; otherwise he would not be a Head.”

3. Hence that which master H. takes for granted, that Christ was a visible Head and Monarch in the Church, is not safe nor true, as has appeared by the foregoing arguments, and is confessed by all ours that I meet with. Whitaker de Pontif. Roim. q.1.c.2. p. 14, ad. 5., Bellarmine’s arg. “Christ did not reside in the world as a visible monarch, nor did he come into the world to set it up.” [386] Master H. may often find like expressions in Whitaker, p. 533, 554, as above. [387]

4. When we argue touching the distinction of an integrum (a united whole) from its members, we look to see that this distinction is attended in the same kind; namely, the integrum must not only have a distinct nature, but a nature that arises and results from the members. And so the Officer or officers which are appropriate to that, must have some suitable resemblance in regard to their kind, with the other.[388]

The National Church of the Jews, being a distinct kind of Church, had peculiar and distinct officers and ordinances which were national, beside those of the Synagogue. So too the catholic Church must have peculiar and distinct officers and ordinances, if it is a Church made up of the particular Churches, “as the National Church was made up of the Synagogues,” says Mr. H., p. 21.

Hence again, from the former ground laid and proved, it follows that the catholic Church receives its being from the particular churches, and therefore it is after and out of them.

Hence the particular churches receive no being from it, because the integral is a whole, to which the parts are of the essential properties, not the essential parts of the whole [389] — for that is as far wide from this as heaven is from earth; let our sense and experience speak in this case. This catholic whole is an aggregate of the particulars, as a heap is aggregated and made up of many stones. (Master H., page 24), or an Army of many Regiments. But our senses will say, if asked, that the stones must exist before the heap; and the Regiments, in reason, must exist before the Army that arises out of them.

The only thing that puts fair colors on this false conceit, is the misapprehension of some particular examples; namely, when they say of any portion of divided water, that every part of it is water, and has the name and nature of water. The answer is that this predication or affirmation is not by virtue of that division of a portion of water, being made the whole of its members; [390] for indeed it is professedly opposite to that. Rather, it is because the nature is preserved in the least portion of it; and thus, the predication that this part of water, is water, is made good. That’s because a genus and species are preserved and attended there, going along with the division of the whole into its members. For when we say, this water is water, [391] the arguments are genus and species; and the like may be said, and must be understood, of like examples.

It will easily appear that this is so, by instances, if we narrowly sever the considerations and respects from one another. Take a quart of water and divide it into two pints. Here is a division of integrum (the united whole) into its members. Though each pint may be called water, yet a pint cannot be said to be a quart, because the division of that totum (the whole), will not permit it.

From these particulars, as so many proved premises inferred from the nature of an integrum, the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th conclusions Mr. H.’s, fall to the ground.

Nor can I see how the 5th and 7th can stand together:

If the proper notion of the catholic Church and particular Churches is the whole of its members (integrum in membra), page 20, then particular Churches are essentials, and give matter and form to the catholic Church. [392] Therefore they cannot receive matter and form from the catholic Church, contrary to his conclusion 7, page 21.

If the catholic Church exists out of the particular Churches, like a heap out of so many stones, on page 24, then they exist before the catholic Church, contrary to his conclusion 5, page 10.

My second ground is what Master H. grants, and the nature of the Church seems to force:

“The catholic Church may, by persecution etc., be brought into a little place, and perhaps into one Congregation (page 24), yet all the essence and privileges of the catholic visible Church are contracted and preserved in it, and from them they are conveyed and derived to those whom they will convert,” ibid.

From this grant, I offer the following collections for consideration:

1. Hence this catholic Church being an individual, it must be a special [i.e., specific or unique] species,[393] and therefore it can have no inferior to it, or subordinately under it, to which it can give name and nature. [394] For no man is so far taken of his reason, as to affirm that this individual church is that individual church.

2. Again, where does this kind of reasoning fail?

(1) A catholic Church extends itself to all persons and places (concl. 1); but a particular church cannot do so.

(2) Particular churches may fail; but the catholic Church cannot do so.

(3) The catholic Church gives part matter and part form to all particular churches (concl. 7); but a particular congregation cannot do so.

(4) That which is an aggregate of all particular congregations, and whose nature consists in being such a whole (totum), the nature of such a integrum cannot be preserved in one. For an integrum cannot be made of one member. It’s like saying the nature of a heap may be reserved in one stone; the nature of a flock in one sheep; or a corporation in one man.

It’s true, I confess, and I would easily yield what all writers and all rules confirm: the whole nature of a genus is preserved in one species,[395] as the nature of man was preserved in one man, Adam. But it is inconceivable to me that an integrum, made of many members, should be entire and have its whole nature preserved in one — unless Master H. will help us with another sort of Logic than has yet to see the light. If someone were to affirm the body is an entire body and not lame, which lacks all the members except the head or hand, it would be counted a strange affirmation.

Let us once again look a little more seriously into that particular branch of his 11th conclusion, to see if perhaps something may be suggested to our private thoughts for further consideration. It’s said that “the catholic Church was reserved in the family of Noah.”

Beside the inconveniences mentioned before, we may further inquire thus: it’s granted that the Church was appointed by God to be in families. Suppose Noah’s sons, issuing out into their own families as they did, Noah has his family entire. When Noah was dead, and his family dissolved, I ask, where was the catholic Church? It must either have been in some of those families severally considered, or else in a fourth family as an aggregation of them all.

1. It could not be in the families severally considered, because any one of them would or could be truly called the catholic Church. For which of them could claim it more than another?

2. The catholic Church gives matter and form to the particular churches, as in the 7th conclusion, but one family did not give matter and form to another.

3. The catholic Church consists of all the particular churches as its members, but no one church consisted of the other two.[396]

Nor can the second part be granted, that there should be a fourth family aggregated of all these. A man’s sense gives sufficient confutation of this, for there was never any such thing recorded in the word, nor conceived by any in that age. Nor can there be such a thing as Mr. H. has deciphered to us, that would give part matter, part form, to all the particulars, as in his 7th conclusion. For it privily implies a contradiction: to be an aggregation of particulars, and yet to give being to them.

Lastly, we take Mr. H.’s definition of the catholic Church “as it respects all persons and places,” as in his 1st conclusion; and “therefore it is the whole company of all believers in the whole world.”

How will, or in truth can this agree to the Visible Church, when it was confined within the pale and limits of the land of Judea? It’s confessed by all whom I know, that God had no visible Church to which all Church privileges and ordinances belonged, except that one. And therefore, all were bound to turn Jews, and become Proselytes, before they could be said to be within the Covenant of the Church, or had any right to the seals, or to share in any privileges of it. Exo 12.42; Eph 2.12.[397]

And therefore all believers who were not joined to the people of the God of Abraham, who were not incorporated into the Church by subjecting themselves to the way and worship of God among them, and receiving circumcision in the foreskin of their flesh, were debarred from all privileges. We now conceive that Rahab converted to the faith; and as she was converted, it’s certain that many families might be converted in like sort.

By Mr. H.’s principles, these were all of the catholic Church, and had title to all privileges of the Church, which the words of the text professedly grant. But compare Mr. H.’s way of conveying the right of Church privileges, with God’s way, punctually expressed in His word; and then we will see what accord there is. Mr. H. writes thus on page 11:

“Particular churches are made up of the members of the catholic Church, and partake of the benefit and privileges of the Church, not primarily because they are believers of the particular churches, but of the catholic Church.”

So we have Mr. H.’s mind and method thus laid open before us:

1. When a man is converted to the profession of the Gospel, and so becomes a visible believer, he is then a member of the catholic visible Church.

2. He has by his profession and membership in the catholic Church, a right to all Church privileges.

3. He then becomes a member of a particular Church, but he doesn’t have a right to Church privileges because of that, but because of his former membership with the catholic Church.

This is his method. God’s method in His word is this:

1. A person is converted and becomes a visible believer.

2. He then comes to be joined to the Jewish Church, and turns proselyte.

3. Because he is now converted and turned Jew, he may eat the Passover, and enjoy all the other privileges, Exo 12.42; Isa 56.[398]

It’s apparent by this, that God’s method and the one Mr. H. expresses, are directly contradictory. The Lord says, it’s not because he’s a believer, but because believing, he joins the Church; and thereby he partakes of Church privileges. Mr. H. affirms, it’s not because he joins the Church, but because he’s a believer, that he has a right to the privileges of the Church; these are open contradictions in the terms themselves.[399]

From the ground formerly made good and granted, it follows in the second place, that the Visible Church was not of all people, nor in all places. If the Church was confined to Judea, then it was not in all places. If it was confined only to those who were Jews, or became Jews, then it was not of all people.

By all that I can observe in the text, or out of Interpreters, it’s plain that the sons of Keturah [400] who were sent into the east, though they were circumcised, and in all probability, not only professed the faith (which would be enough according to Mr. H.’s principles, to make them members of the catholic Church), but some of them were true and sincere-hearted believers. Yet it is most certain that God did not account them as a visible Church, nor did He entrust them with Church privileges. The psalmist therefore confines and appropriates these to the Jew. He has not dealt so with any nation, nor do the Heathens have knowledge of His ways. What then is the privilege of the Jew? Rom 3.2, “To them were committed the oracles of God,” and not to any other.

And this is why the most judicious divines conclude, with consent, that the Church was then the people of Israel, but now it is a universal people. [401] It was then in a nation, according to God’s promise to Abram, “I will make of you a great Nation.’ But now it is in all nations, according to Christ’s command, “Go preach and teach all nations.” And in Christ there is no difference between Jew or Grecian, Scythian or Barbarian. Col 3.11 And it is in this notion and consideration, that I conceive the Visible Church may now be called catholic, and not in the time of the Jew, because the Gospel is now preached to all people universally and indifferently, and gathered out of all without restraint; but then it was confined to the people of Israel.

Section 2. A catholic visible Church examined

Mr. H.’s demonstration, by which he would prove a catholic visible Church, is examined and answered.

These grounds being laid and proved, a ready way is made to rightly understand what Mr. H. propounds to prove his assertion, the nature of which we have now opened.

His demonstration, as he terms it, is this:

If particular Churches are visible, then there is a catholic visible Church.

Particular Churches are visible,

Therefore our Answer will be double:

1. We’ll inquire what our Writers and Protestant Divines reply to the Proposition.

2. Then we’ll apply ourselves to the second part, or Assumption; and it will appear by both, that this Argument doesn’t plausibly conclude the cause, much less necessarily demonstrate it.

1. To begin with the Proposition, when Duraeus urged Doctor Whitaker with this Argument, to maintain a catholic visible Church (which he and all ours constantly deny), Master H. may be pleased to consider what reply the Doctor makes (Whitaker contra Duraeum, [402] lib 3. De Eccles. page 110), when Duraeus had thus laid down his argument:

If all particular churches of which the catholic Church consists, as members, are visible, and fall under our sight, will it not follow that the catholic Church will be visible also?

After Doctor Whitaker told him that the catholic Church is not to be confined to one age and time, but comprehends all the faithful of all ages, who went before us and are now in heaven, he then demands of Duraeus, whether all these are visible or not?

2. Secondly, he comes nearer home, and drives him to a greater straight and narrow, by peremptorily and readily denying the consequence: affirming that the members may be visible, but the whole is not.[403] And he gives the reason for his denial, which is this: “If the catholic is aggregated of many parts, then when these parts are gathered together, the whole may be seen; but the parts severally cannot be seen. “ And he accordingly adds, “When the parts are seen severally, then the Totum (the whole), as aggregated, cannot be seen.”

Indeed, if Master H. is pleased to review how learned Sadeel deals with Turrian, propounding the very same argument to him, in the very same terms, he and the Reader may perceive what strength that judicious writer apprehended to be in this reasoning; and Doctor Whitaker alleges and repeats this against Bellarmine, and gives his approval of it. The concurrence of those judgments of these two worthies, may be found in Whitaker, de Eccles. controv. 2.q.c.4, Arg. 11.

Our Adversaries (says Sadeel) affirm that the catholic Church is all particular Churches spread throughout the whole world; and because the particulars are visible, therefore they conclude that the catholic aggregate of all these, is visible also [404]

So that it is plain that the papists plead the same argument as Mr. H. for their cause, as he now pleads for his. But Sadeel and Whitaker both make a round reply to him. They don’t fear to profess that the consequence is absurd and destitute of any show of reason;[405] and therefore their retort t0 the argument is marvellously strong against him.

“If the particular Churches severed are visible, then the whole aggregated cannot be visible. And if the aggregation is visible, they cannot be visible.”

As they instance, if there are ten flocks of sheep severally, they are and may be seen severed from one another. But when one catholic flock is gathered together of all these, the several flocks cannot be seen.

By what has been alleged, the Reader may attend to two things:

1. How feeble these judicious writers judged the force of the consequence of the Argument.

2. It’s evident by their whole debate, that they suppose to make up an aggregate whole, [406] there must in reason be the aggregation of the members.

For it is not enough to make up an aggregate whole, that the several members are under the same laws, and governed in the same manner. For whatever may and does belong to those who are not aggregated in any such whole, it cannot be sufficient to give a proper nature or formality to such an aggregation.[407] For things in common, don’t have any proper and differentiating nature. But these things forenamed (to be governed by the same laws, and ruled in the same manner) may and do befall those bodies that are not under such an aggregation.

Thus several free cities and house-towns, which are entire in themselves — several countries and kingdoms which have nothing to do with each other in their precincts and jurisdictions — may yet have the same laws, and the same manner of government. Only that which makes them an entire and complete commonwealth in themselves, is their aggregation under the same governors as the chief, whether one single person (as in a monarchy), or many (as in an aristocratic state).

This might suffice for a satisfactory answer for the present; but I will go to work a nearer way. As they have denied the consequence, I will deny the second part of their assumption — namely, that particular congregations are not members, but species of a Church, as a genus exists, and works, and is preserved in each particular. As far as visibility may be given to a general attribute existing and acting in the individuals, I will not oppose it. For it is what I have opened and defended in the foregoing part of the discourse. Such a universal whole,[408] I grant; and I don’t know any who either do or indeed can deny it — but this doesn’t serve the papists turn at all.

For the general nature of a Church being determined by its particulars, and existing in them, all particular Churches equally and indifferently receive from there, all the Church power and privileges that are in common. No visible monarch over all Churches is needed; only faithful Pastors and Teachers set over every particular congregation, for improving all ordinances, sacraments, and censures for its good.

Nor will it suit Master H., because (if we follow the level of this truth, as it leads us) we need not go about by a catholic visible Church aggregated of all, before we come to a congregation. Rather, we must necessarily attend upon a particular congregation; for both the essence and privilege of the Church is first to be found there, because the genus first exists there.

Master H., conceiving such an answer might be made, frames it as an objection against himself, and makes only this reply: that he takes the notion of Church in regard to its particulars, to be the whole of its members;[409] but the proofs which should settle it are not a whit sufficient.

He alleges an expression out of Doctor Ames’ Medulla, lib.1.c.32, part 4, “these particular congregations are similar parts of the catholic Church.” [410] These words, it is certain, properly and directly consider particular congregations as species of a Church, and were so intended by the author, as it appears in the next words.

It’s true that in the following words he speaks of the catholic Church as integrum (a united whole), but it’s putting such a notion on it, or analyzing the reasons for such an apprehension, rather than concluding that any such reality exists.[411] For in the first words of that chapter, he writes that “the Church in the countries where it acts, is not at the same time the whole of the Visible Church.” [412] Therefore this aggregation is not visible (for the nature of this Integral Whole lies in that). So that, this expression of Dr. Ames neither hurts our cause, nor helps Master H.’s cause.

Mr. H. also adds one argument:

When all the existing parts are compacted together, there the whole exists.

And all the parts of the catholic visible Church exist compacted together.

Therefore the catholic visible Church exists.[413]

The minor he proves out of Eph 4.16.[414]

Ans. The conclusion may be granted in a right sense, without any prejudice to our defense at all.

1. Where the particular members of a congregation are compacted in a covenant of the Church, and with Church officers, there is a particular Church.

2. Where there are many particular Churches, there exists among them a generic whole.[415]

In this sense (which is the sense of the verse) all may be granted. But in his sense, the minor is denied; namely, that all particular congregations exist aggregated together as members of the catholic Church. That should have been proved, but it isn’t touched, much less evidenced. And if Mr. H. had attempted to show how all particular churches are aggregated or compacted in an integral whole [416] which arises out of them, and has something peculiar to itself and not common to them all, then he would have helped the cause with some proof, and us with some light.

The particular is taken from the Apostles and Evangelists; namely, that it must therefore be a catholic Church because they were given to it; we will meet with that in 1Cor 12.28 [417] where it will receive a full answer.

Section 3. Examining the Alleged Scripture Proofs

The Scriptures that Mr. H. alleges in proof, will now be examined and cleared. We are thus done with Mr. H’s demonstration; and we suppose it is apparent that it does not necessarily enforce the conclusion. We will now weigh with like liberty, the Scriptures which he propounds to this end and purpose.

Mr. H. first alleges, Act 8.3, and to this may also be referred Gal 1.13,[418] because the aim of the Spirit is the same in both; and the second is but a relation of the first. Now, it’s plain that “Church” in Act 8.3 cannot mean the catholic visible Church. The Church meant there, is the one which Paul persecuted. But he could not, nor did he persecute the whole company of professing believers in the whole world, for he could not see them, nor know them.

Beside that, he didn’t persecute the Church of the Jews in Jerusalem, i.e., the Jewish Church, and yet it is certain that there were many who believed. But as the text says, and he affirms himself, he persecuted that Way, and all that he knew of that Way. This was indeed the Christian Church in Jerusalem, now erected by the Apostles; and there it was exceedingly increased by the blessing of the Lord. And therefore Church, by a synecdoche,[419] is put for that particular Church; and that also put for its members. Thus Paul could take notice of it in Act 9.2, [420] if he found any of that Way, he had a commission to pursue them, and so he did.

The probabilities intimated to the contrary by Mr. H., are not convincing; as when he says,

“It was not a particular church, because the persecution was in Jerusalem, Damascus, and even to foreign cities.”

Ans. This is true, but it’s no wonder, because he persecuted all who professed that Way of the Christian Church, and those who were scattered abroad throughout all the regions of Judea and Samaria, because of the great persecution. They fled far and wide, and therefore he might persecute them wherever he found them — as he did, hunting after them with eagerness and madness of malice. Thus Dr. Whitaker expounds the verse, controv. 2. de eccles., p. 456.

When Mr. H. adds, “an indefinite is equivalent to a general,” he’ll find that on second thought, it’s not always so, as innumerable instances might be brought to evince the contrary.

Nor, lastly, is there the same reason that the word Church here should reach all other Churches. For the Apostle gives a particular ground for why he was thus carried: namely, he persecuted their Way, not simply because they were believers (for such were many in Jerusalem, who were of the Jewish Church, Act 5.13-14);[421] but because they made this manner of profession touching Christ and salvation, by Him alone – thus rejecting the ceremonies of the Law. To this you may also refer these two other Scriptures, Act 2.47 and 1Cor 10.32:

Mr. H. secondly alleges Act 2.47, God added to the Church those who would be saved.

Ans. 1. That is not referring to the whole company of believers in the whole world, for they never saw or knew such a company, and therefore they could not be added to them. But it refers to the Christian Church now erected. And therefore it is said, They continued in the doctrine of the Apostles, in their fellowship, Act 2.42.

2. There were many believers in the Jewish Church (Act 5.14); and therefore those who met, who were of that Church, could not be added to them, but to the Apostolic and Christian Church. And therefore,

3. When it is said, they were added to the Church, v. 47, in the 41st verse it is said, They were baptized, and the same day were added to them about 3000 souls, i.e., to the Apostles and their company.

4. Lastly, the Church is distinguished from all the rest, many of whom were certainly professing believers, Act 5.11, Fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard of these things.

Mr. H. says, To this head, namely of the Christian Church of the Gentiles, you may add 1Cor 10.32, Give no offense to the Jew, nor Gentile, nor to the Church of God. Where the word Church (says Mr. H., page 13) cannot be the Church of the elect, nor any particular congregation, but indefinitely.

Ans. But must it therefore mean the catholic visible Church, and that as an integrum? That consequent deserves a denial; and the words of the text give apparent testimony that it cannot be meant of the catholic Church.

That Church, which is contra-distinct to the Jews, cannot comprehend the whole company of believers throughout the whole world, because some believers were of the Jews, 1Pet 1.1; Jas 1.1.[422] But indeed, this Church is so contra-distinct.

Again, that Church is meant here, whom a man may offend by his practice in the particulars mentioned. But he cannot so offend the whole company of believers, throughout the whole world, because a scandal must be seen or known certainly. But a person’s practice cannot be so known to all believers in the world.

Therefore, the meaning is plain: we must not offend those who are outside, nor even believing Jews, nor any of the believing Gentiles who are brought home to Christ, and to the fellowship of the Church.

To this head also belongs Eph 3.10, That the manifold wisdom of God might be made known by the Church, to principalities. It must be understood to mean the Church of the Gentiles then gathering, and not the whole company of all believers throughout the whole world, as the several circumstances carry it, beyond control. For in v. 9, the Apostle speaks of those mysteries which were kept secret since the beginning of the world. This is such a multifarious wisdom, which was now made known by the Churches; but it was made known before to the Church of the Jews. And therefore, the Churches of the Gentiles are to be considered and understood here.

That is, unless (as I said) it is meant of the invisible Church, to which Master Beza and Piscator [423] seem to incline. This is because, first, the Apostle speaks of those things which pertain only to the faithful, as in v. 9 he speaks of all things created by Christ Jesus; i.e., all the elect and called (say those interpreters). Secondly, this wisdom is revealed in v. 11, according to His eternal counsel in Christ Jesus, intended towards his elect, and indeed in those dispensations which drive the very thoughts to amazement. But however it is taken, it does nothing to help Mr. H.’s catholic Church.

Master H. adds three more:

1Cor 12.28, God has set some in the Church, such as first apostles, teachers;

1Tim 3.15, That you may know how to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the Church;

Eph 4.11-12, for perfecting the body of Christ.

He says, “These places must mean the catholic Church.”

Ans. No. they are rather to be understood of every particular or (which is the same thing, and my meaning), of the Church as a universal Whole,[424] existing and determined in its actings by the particular churches. That is, the Apostle points at one particular Church, but he includes all particulars, by a parity and proportion of reason. As God set apostles and teachers in the Church at Corinth, so He set them in all Churches. The Church at Ephesus is God’s house, and so are all Churches truly constituted. The Church at Ephesus is Christ’s body, and so are all the Churches instituted by Christ. They are all one in their general nature, and its privileges belong in common to them all, equally and indifferently.

Let us now see what is said for the confirmation of the sense for which Mr. H. alleges them.

Mr. H. The greatest cost that he bestows is upon 1Cor 12, conceiving that to be the most pregnant; and therefore he prudently gathers in upon the dispute thus:

It cannot be meant of the triumphant or invisible Church, but the visible; and that is not the Essential Church but the Organic Church.

We willingly grant both of these, and confess that his reasoning is good, as we have formerly done with Mr. Rutherford. But how does he prove that Churches collectively taken,[425] is what is meant here? He endeavors to do that by this reasoning:

If there are officers of the catholic visible Church, then there is such a catholic visible Church.

And the Apostles and prophets were officers of the catholic visible Church.

Therefore...

He proves the minor thus:

It’s because they had no limits, and yet they are said to be set [as officers], not in Churches, but in “the Church.”

The frame of [his argument] stands thus:

Those who are so set in a Church, that yet they have no limits in their works,[426] that Church must be a catholic Church.

And the Apostles, etc. are so set in a Church, that as yet they have no limits in their office.

Therefore that Church must be a catholic Church.

Ans. The major proposition or consequence is denied, as not suitable to the truth. This may thus appear:

1. The reason for their unlimited role arose from their commission, because it was general, being immediately called and appointed by God to preach to all nations. And so they had power to plant all Churches, and had virtually all Church power in them. But this power did not issue next from the Church in which they were first set.

As the eleven Apostles were first set in and over the Christian Church erected in Acts 1, where there was a company of 120, can any man reason from this premise, as follows?

In whatever Church the Apostles were set, that is the catholic Church; and it is the whole company of all believers in the whole world.

And indeed, they were set in that Church mentioned in Act 1, and Act 2.47.

Therefore, those 120 were the whole company of all believers in the whole world.

2. That Church where Deacons are set, is not an unlimited Church.

But ordinary Deacons were set in the same Church in which the Apostles were set, as affirmed jointly and indifferently of them both, 1Cor 12.28.[427]

Therefore, that Church doesn’t argue for unlimited power.

The minor proposition is expressed in the text. The major proposition is sure, being bottomed on confessed principles. Ordinary officers don’t have unlimited power, but are confined to their proper charges, because that is one main difference between them and extraordinary ones.

Whatever is impossible for a deacon to perform, that is what our Lord Christ never imposed and never exacted at his hands, nor does it belong to his office.

But it is and was ever impossible for a Deacon, called Helps in 1Cor 12.28, to distribute to the whole company of all believers in the whole world.

3. If Teachers are unlimited in their work, then an ordinary officer has power over all Churches, and is bound to feed and watch over all, and so there is a road for tot-quotes and pluralities.[428]

4. If setting an ordinary officer in the Church is by election, then he is set in that Church by which he is elected. But only a particular company combined in a particular congregation may elect — not the whole company of all believers in the whole world. And therefore he is set only in that one.

Touching Mr. H.’s alleging of 1Tim 3.15, he gives a double argument for proof:

“This Church must be a visible Church where he and others must exist and converse together, and carry themselves in mutual duties. Now, these directions didn’t concern Ephesus alone, or that church in any special manner. But all the Churches wherever he might come, it’s that Church which is the pillar of truth, and holds it forth more forensi [429] [as orthodoxy],” etc.

Ans. All these particulars here affirmed, may be and are truly said touching a particular congregation; for in that particular Church Timothy may converse with others in mutual duties. There is where directions may be given which, by a parity of reasoning, will reach all others, such as those Paul gave to the elders of Ephesus, that they should feed and watch over their flock. This is common to all pastors, in all their Churches; and Timothy was left in Ephesus to that end.

A particular congregation, which is the true Church of Christ, as a pillar, holds out the profession of Faith and Gospel more forensi. Therefore, there is no evidence nor strength of argument from all these, to conclude that it is a catholic Church.

2. But if these only belong to particular congregations, and not to the catholic Church, as now controverted, then the verse (1Tim 3.15) serves for a confutation, and not a confirmation of it, not in the integral state of the Church.[430] We will briefly survey the severals.

(1) It’s yielded by all that I know, who plead for a catholic visible Church, that this visibility is only in the parts of it, not in the integral state of it. (Ames, Medulla, l.I.c.32.p.1)

(2) That Church state which men cannot see, in that they cannot converse with one another, nor perform duties to one another, look at it in that precise consideration of which we now speak.

That which is not seen by any, cannot hold out the truth as a pillar, more forensi. The first is yielded as true; therefore the second cannot be denied.

3. If there is such a catholic Church, as a particular or individual integrum (for so it must be addressed), then it has some special acts or operations peculiar to itself, that aren’t communicable to its members — as the nature and definition of an integrum requires, and which we formerly evidenced.

But there are no such acts and operations that were ever found, or could be instanced. It’s true, there are common operations, ordinances, and privileges that belong to a congregational Church as a Generic Whole, [431] firstly; and therefore they are attributed and given to all particular congregations secondarily. And as they are acted and existing there, so they may be, and are easily and evidently apprehended.

But setting aside the particular congregations with their several operations and privileges in them, if Mr. Hudson or any man demonstrates some particular acts, privileges, officer or officers, that are peculiar to this aggregate Whole,[432] then I will yield the cause.

4. Lastly, That Church which is not, and indeed cannot be the pillar of truth, to publish or hold out the truth more forensi (as orthodoxy), is not the sort of Church meant here. And indeed, a catholic visible Church cannot do this, for we have proved there is no such Aggregate Church; and what has no notion, has no being.[433]

In Eph 4.12,[434] that Church is called one in regard to its common nature, which as a Generic Whole is communicated to all the particulars, with all the common privileges given to them by a likeness and proportion of reason.

That resemblance to the worldly empire, has been previously confuted, and its disproportion has been demonstrated. For there must be some peculiar act and officer belonging to the Church as such an integrum, as it is in all worldly empires in which the integrity of it consists, and comes to be apprehended, which is not to be found in the Church.

The consideration of Church, as a Generic Whole, corresponds to all those passages where the word Kingdom is used to signify the Visible Church. And therefore I might spare any repetition here, and leave the Reader to make the application himself. But the truth is, the word Kingdom in many of the places quoted here, carries another sense, and doesn’t apply to the cause in hand, much less conclude it — as will thus appear by the trial of the particulars.

The Kingdom of Heaven, beside other significations (such as the Kingdom of glory, etc.), by a metonymy [435] (and so it is frequently used in the Evangelists), implies the word of the Kingdom, the dispensation and administration of the Gospel in the Churches, and the special things pertaining to them. Mat 13.24, The Kingdom of Heaven is like a man sowing seed; v. 31, like a mustard seed, v. 33, like leaven; v. 44, a treasure hidden in a field. Now, the Church is not like leaven or seed; but the dispensation of the Gospel is.

And so it must be understood in 1Cor 15.24, Then Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God the Father. That Kingdom cannot be the catholic visible Church, because that consists of sound-hearted Christians and also false-hearted hypocrites; and these false ones are not delivered into the hand of the Father that He may be all in all to them.

Beside, Mr. H.’s own words are witness enough against this sense, for so he writes on p. 15, “It’s the Kingdom exercised in the Visible Church, in Ordinances of worship.” It is to be exercised in the Visible Church; and therefore it is distinct from it, in sense and signification.

To this head also belongs Heb 12.28, Therefore receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, etc. This kingdom is not the catholic visible Church.

1. For the Kingdom that is meant here, cannot be shaken. But the Visible Church may be shaken by strong persecution, and most of its members, the particular Churches, may be destroyed and dissolved.

2. It’s a Kingdom which is unlike the one in the Old Testament. And the unlikeness lies in this: that this Kingdom now, in the time of the Gospel, cannot be moved; but that kingdom was. Whereas the Church, for its existence, is subject to be as shaken now, as that was under the Law.

But the fairest construction of the words, and fullest to the scope of the place, is to show how far differing the dispensation of the ways of God’s worship, which is now appointed by Him, is from that which was ordained under the Law. Those ordinances and administrations have now come to an end, and others instituted in their place and room. But these which we have now under the Gospel, are last, and so the unalterable institutions of our Savior. And thus Mr. H. expresses himself, carried it would seem, with the constraining evidence of these words:

“This kingdom cannot mean (he says) the internal kingdom of grace, but it means the external ordinances of worship and discipline.”

But I suppose those are not the Church, and therefore there is nothing here to be found for the establishment of that conceit.[436]

Much less is there any color of such a conceit in Mat 3.2, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; i.e., the catholic Church is at hand. How harsh is such a sound to a man’s ear, and such a sense to a man’s mind?

The rest of the places, where kingdom signifies the Church, are as Luk 7.28.[437] So likewise are those similitudes of floor and field; [438] they point out all particular Congregations under that condition which is common to them all. To wit, they are made up of a mixed multitude of good and bad, or which is the same thing, they look at the general nature of a Congregation existing in its particulars, but they don’t relate members to an integrum at all. Nor does the seeming reason of Mr. H. alleged to the contrary, carry any constraining force to persuade a man who is seriously judicious. For he writes thus on page 15:

“Now, if these things (concerning field, floor, or kingdom) were said only of a particular congregation, which particular Congregation in the world will impropriate these to itself? But if it is true of each one in particular, and all in general, and all these are continually called one kingdom, then there is a catholic visible Church, to wit, an integral whole (totum integrale).”

The answer will be easy and ready at hand. That our expressions and apprehensions don’t look at anything impropriated [439] to one, except that which is common to all, and true of all, because all these particulars are one class or genus.[440] And the general nature is one in them all; and it is only reasonable in that regard, that they should be called one. But to gather from that, that there is therefore a catholic visible Church, as an integral whole, is to wrong the meaning of the text, and to wring out blood instead of milk. No, in truth it is to make the conclusion oppose the premises, and his own expressions.

That which is common to all the particulars, cannot be an integrum, but a genus, as the rules and definitions of genus require by necessity. Those are his premises. Now take his expressions, If true of every particular, and all in general; from which the issue will come to this: That which is true of all the particulars, as a generality, that must be a genus, and not an integrum to them. The first Mr. H. affirms; and therefore the second cannot be denied.

When considering Mat 16.18,[441] astonishment grabs interpreters;[442] like the body of Asahel, it brings every man to a standstill who passes by. 2Sam 2.23 Truly, that doting delusion of the papists, making Peter’s person the rock, is hissed out of all who have attained any eye-salve from the Scripture, to clear their understanding in the truth of it. Yet there remain more difficulties and mysteries in some parts of the text, which were never seen with any full convicting evidence to this day, though many have set themselves sadly to search for it.

We will only attend the particular specified here by Mr. H., What Church is here understood?

Though I must confess (for I love to be plain) that I incline to Mr. H.’s judgment, that the visible church is here understood. Yet I must profess also, that his proof is in no way satisfactory, either to evidence that it must be visible, much less a catholic visible Church.

1. For when it was objected that this was an invisible Church spoken of here, because the visible may fail, he only speaks to the second part, that the catholic Church cannot fail; but he doesn’t prove at all that an invisible Church was not intended here, nor in truth does he try.

2. His reason by which he would persuade us that the Visible Church never fails,[443] has no strength in it, nor truth in it, though the conclusion he would maintain is indeed true. For he argues thus:

“If all visible members should fail, then all the invisible must fail also; for none are invisible in this world, who are not visible also — unless any are converted and fed only by inspiration, which we have no ground for in Scripture.”

The frame of his argument stands thus:

If none are invisible members in this world, who are not visible also, then when visible fails, the invisible fails also.

But the first is untrue; there are invisible, who are not visible also.[444] This assumption deserves a denial, and I suppose that on second thought, he would grant it on his own principles. For,

1. It’s most certain that an invisible gracious Saint, may justly be cast out of the Church.

2. It’s as certain to Mr. Hudson that someone who is cast out and excommunicated from one congregation, is cast out of all congregations, and thus out of the catholic visible Church.

From this I would reason thus:

Someone who is cast out of all visible Churches, and the catholic Church, is no visible member, for excommunication cuts off visible membership. But someone who is and remains an invisible member, may be justly cast out of all visible Churches, and so out of the catholic Church. Therefore a man may remain an invisible member, and yet not be a visible member.

What is added for proof, doesn’t touch the cause. For a man cast out, and so is not a member, may be fed by word, prayer, fasting, promises, conferences, and readings, without any inspiration; and this the Scriptures abundantly declare, and each man’s experience will make this good.

Besides, it has been made good that a man may, out of the weakness of his judgment conceiving that the Churches are not rightly gathered, refuse to be baptized, and so not be a member of the Church, and yet be a truly gracious saint according to their principles.

Again, suppose a person falls into some notorious evil, and for that cause, all the Churches may reject him, and deny him communion; he is then not a visible member; and yet he is an invisible one.

It is not a little dangerous to lay the foundation of our grace not failing, upon not failing Church membership, which this argument does. This would be enough to make it appear that this place (Mat 16.18) lends no relief to the conclusion, because it doesn’t prove a visible Church is intended here. But let this be granted. I would yet add that this cannot be a catholic Church of Master H.’s cut. For I would reason from his own words and explication, which I think have weight in them.

That Church to be built, which only includes the Church of the Gentiles, and cannot comprehend the whole company of the faithful in the whole world, cannot be a catholic Church. But this Church in Mat 16.18 (by Master H.’s own words) includes only the evangelical Church of the Gentiles.

The proposition has sense to settle it, for there were many of the Church of the Jews, who were true believers and professors of Christ. The minor is Master H.’s own expression on p. 17.

We are now near home. The last place where any strength of argument lies, is in 3Joh 1.10, where excommunication is called “casting out of the Church.” [445]

Ans. By a synecdoche, the genus stands for the species,[446] which is most frequent and familiar in the Scripture. Church means that particular Church where Diotrophes usurped preeminence.

So it is used in Act 20.28, Feed the flock over whom you are set. And that was the Church which Christ has redeemed, in the words which follow. [447] And our ordinary speech is generally in this strain: such a man is cast out of the Church, meaning that particular congregation in which he was incorporated.

Let us hear how Master H. can force any catholic visible Church, with any concluding evidence from this. His words are as follows:

“If the Church here is a visible Church, I would know whether a man truly excommunicated in one congregation isn’t thereby excommunicated from brotherly fellowship in all congregations.”

Ans. I answer, yes. And what is gained from this? That therefore there is a catholic visible Church? The inference from this reasoning is weak. For when a person is justly excommunicated from the congregation in which he was, it follows by necessity, all that fellowship he might enjoy by virtue of a communion of Churches, must of necessity be denied to him, and he justly deprived of it. This is because, in the virtue of his fellowship with one, he gained fellowship with others. And therefore, when he is justly deprived of the one by the censure of that Church, he must in all reason be deprived of the other. But by what strength of inference a catholic visible Church should be concluded from this, I confess I don’t see it.

If Mr. H. conceives that the party was an actual member of every congregation, and that when one congregation cuts the party off from his particular membership which he had with it, then by the same act, it cuts him off from all the others. If this is his meaning, then there are almost as many mistakes as there are words in such expressions. And therefore the inference must be wholly destitute of strength and truth.

That which is added afterwards, is still much further from the mark, such as when he adds,

“I would know whether delivering up to Satan is only within the bounds of one congregation, so that if he moves out of such a circuit or circle of ground to another, he is out of Satan’s bounds again, and may communicate there safely?”

The frame stands thus:

If an excommunicate person isn’t cut off from his membership with every particular congregation, and so from the integral visible Church, then when he moves from such a circuit of ground, he may then communicate.

But this last part is untrue; namely, when he is out of the circuit of ground, he may therefore again communicate. This consequence is conjured into such a circle of conceit, that it is beyond the compass of common reason — unless Mr. H. imagines that excommunication only casts a man out of a circuit of ground, or that the power of Satan is only confined to some circle. I wonder how such a consequence came into his thoughts.[448]

The truth is, the power of excommunication lies in the particular congregation where a person enjoys his membership with the Saints of God under the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. And when a party is cast out of that, and delivered up to Satan, and into the Kingdom of darkness, let him be where he will, and go where he will, he is under the Kingdom of Satan; and all the Churches should look at him as a traitor against Christ, and thus deal with him as one who is incapable of Church communion.

Those two places, Eph 2.22 and Joh 10.16,[449] are either understood of the invisible Church, as the circumstances seem to intimate; or they show that unity, and thus community of the dispensation of Christ in all the Churches of the Gentiles. The general nature of the Church formerly opened and argued fully suits this, and therefore it gives no appearance of a proof for a catholic visible Church as an Integral and Aggregate Whole.

We are now done with the first Question. The reasons and Scriptures he brought for the proof of it, have been answered and satisfied. So that, by the concession and confession of Mr. H., we won’t need to add anything for the second.

For this was like the main pillar upon which the whole frame was built — which failing utterly, the whole must necessarily fall to the ground. This Question being plucked up by the roots upon which the other and all the consequents and collections grew, they will wither quickly of their own accord. This bottom breaking, no battery is further needed to be erected against the rest of the discourse. It molders away without any more ado. And therefore I will ease myself and the Reader of any further pains to be improved that way.

In Closing

Only, for a close, I will be bold to offer a few considerations of Mr. H.’s more serious trial, touching some propositions. Two of these are expressed in the tenth and eleventh conclusions. The third and last may be found on page 11. All these I will briefly set down, and quickly explain my reasons why I cannot as yet yield assent to them; and so I will leave the whole debate.

Proposition 1.

“Those parts (that is, particular congregations) are limited and distinguished from others by civil and prudential limits, for the convenience of meeting and maintenance, and for transacting business.”

That which seems difficult here, I will suggest is as follows: that several congregations are separated one from another in place. As this is something that a man’s sense can determine, and which is unquestioned, I suppose it’s not the aim of Mr. H., nor the scope he intends, nor what he would have the Reader attend to in those words. But his purpose is to point out in what the distinguishing or differentiating formality consists, from one congregation to another, as the subsequent words and special instance used, give abundant evidence.

But I cannot yet see how this apprehension suits with the nature of a particular Church, or the nature of a form from which this act of distinguishing properly issues.

1. That which formally and truly distinguishes, is internal to the thing; but this is external, and merely adventitious.[450]

2. That which is common, neither does nor can distinguish; but this is common.

3. That which distinguishes truly, is the form of the thing properly and firstly; or else it proceeds from it as a peculiar property. It is either an essential constituent or consequent; but this is neither, for the form or the property are not separable; but the place and limits are.

4. If this distinguishes one congregation from another, how does it come to each man’s experience, not only in the same town, but in the same meetinghouse, that there are several and distinct churches? — as are the Dutch and English Churches in Colchester.[451] If the distinction between congregations issued from the limits of the place, then those who were in the same place should not be distinguished; then the Dutch Church in Colchester would be English. For they are both within the same precincts, and they either do or may at several times, meet and assemble within the same stone walls of the Church so called.

5. If the diverse limits of the place put a distinctive difference upon a congregation, then the place of the Merchants moving from Delph to Rotterdam, they are therefore distinct Churches because they are in distinct places. And so, by moving and settling in several places, one congregation would differ from itself; and just as many congregations were one before, now one and the same congregation would become many.

It’s true that if the demand is to know what particular Church we’re speaking of, or to what Church we would write, it is usual and sufficient to describe the Church by the place, as the common subject where it has its abode. But this is no proof that a common subject should therefore give a distinguishing difference between that church and another.

When the Christian Church of 120 was erected in Jerusalem (Act 1.15), beside the Church of the Jews formerly instituted and not yet abrogated, is this sufficient ground to thus conclude that because they are both in the same city, they are therefore the same church? I suppose the inference will be judged unsound by all; and yet, if the differentiating distinction issued from the place, then it would undeniably follow that they were not at all distinguished from each other.

Proposition 2.

“The membership of a particular Church devolves on someone by God’s disposing providence, by reason of his birth or cohabitation there, or it is voluntarily assumed by voluntarily moving into the place allotted by civil prudence, for such a particular society to enjoy such ordinances of God conveniently together.”

I cannot give my assent to this assertion. I will presently give my reasons, once I have briefly laid open the meaning of the expressions. When Master H. seems to lay several grounds by which membership comes to be attained, I suppose in the last resolution they all issue in one: namely, the constancy of abode and residence within the limits of such a place.[452]

For imagine that a man has a land inheritance that has fallen to him by his birth in some town. If he lets out the land, or sets it out to another, and resides in another place, his birth does not devolve his church membership upon him in that other place. For if he were born heir to lands in twenty places or parishes, would he have membership in all of them, when he abides in but one? I believe Master H. would deny such an inference.

The same may be said of moving about. If a man takes up habitation as a traveller or messenger, I suppose Master H. would not affirm that he was a member of the church in a place, just because he lodged there two or three nights, or for so many weeks or months.

So that I may then put the fairest construction on his words that I can, in love and prudence and ingenuity, I conceive the meaning to be thus: where a person takes up his habitation, whether he has a right to it by birth, or it comes to him by gift, purchase, or hire, etc., his membership issues directly from this: that he takes up his constant abode within the limits of such a place or parish.

But I have formerly proved that this cannot give formal membership. And I confess that I find it a little strange that Master Hudson, a learned man, should fall in with such an opinion which I cannot perceive gains so much from any who are judicious at this time, that they are willing to speak a good word for it.

1. For no civil rule can give an ecclesiastical right. Because those are two kinds of government opposite to one another, and each of them is entire and complete within itself.

2. This destroys the censure of excommunication, and wholly frustrates the power of it, that it can never attain its end. For the scope of the censure is to cut a person off from his membership and communion with the Church, as the name of excommunication and the nature of the ordinance require.

If the privileges of membership are devolved upon me by a civil right and cohabitation, then excommunication neither does, nor indeed can take this away. And therefore, upon this ground, it cannot take away my membership and communion with the Church. And therefore, it is by this means made wholly void and of no effect.

3. If the right of cohabitation gives membership, then Turks and Jews may be members, and they and their children have a right to all Church ordinances as well as anyone. Then men may make themselves members of a congregation, however scandalous and unworthy they are to be received. Indeed, this is though the congregation is ever so desirous in a just way, according to the rules of Christ, to hinder their proceeding, and to reject them from their communion, which Master Rutherford and all rules and reasonable men challenge. In a word, by this grant, all the power of Churches and censures and ordinances would be frustrated or profaned.

The pretended inconvenience which persuades him to embrace this opinion, is because to be in a city, and not to be a member of the Church in that city, seems to imply an unchurching [453] of those places, etc. But I answer it only seems so. It in no way does any such thing. It only shows that God’s people are a free people, and that combination (joining a church) issues from free consent, when no rule in nature or providence according to God, applies any restraint of that kind.

Proposition 3.

“Particular Churches are made up of the members of the catholic Church, and partake of the benefits and privileges of the Church, not primarily because they are members of the particular Churches, but of the catholic Church.”

In these words, there is something implied, and something expressed. I can give assent to neither of these unless some proof is alleged which may prevail with my judgment, and persuade me to it. As yet I have seen none.

That which is implied is this: that the catholic Church may have its being, when as yet there are no particular congregations existing; for the words of the proposition necessarily presuppose this. If particular Churches are made up of the members of the catholic Church, then the catholic Church and its members must have being before either can give being to the particular. But I see no rule of reason, nor testimony of holy writ as yet, to settle such an assertion.

For lay aside in our consideration of this, the confederation and combination of Christians who make up particular Churches. Let it be supposed there are hundreds of Christians who are visible believers, scattered up and down in several coasts of the world. According to Master H.’s frame of Church policy, they would first make up a catholic visible Church, and then, out of that, particular assemblies would afterwards arise.

This is the same frame of Mr. Hudson’s Church-policy. But this seems contrary to the principles of all bodies politic that ever were, are, or shall be. For there neither is, nor can there be an external body politic (of that kind we now speak of) made up and constituted of people who were never in external communion with one another, and perhaps never had sight and knowledge of one another, as supposed here.

It’s true that there may be many thousands possessing and believing in the name of Christ — so many who are sincere, and have union and communion with Christ invisibly, and so they make up an invisible catholic Church. But that there should be an external visible particular body politic, either civil or ecclesiastical (which this catholic Church, as an Integral Whole must be), and that it is constituted of men who perhaps never entered into agreement of government with one another [to form a visible local Church], is beyond my compass to conceive; and I suspect it is beyond any man’s ability to explicate and evince.

Again, persons thus scattered and severed, are wholly destitute of all Church privileges, according to reason and all rules of the Gospel. I would reason thus:

Those who are in such an estate, do not have, nor can have Church Officers. They are destitute of Church membership, seals, censures, and so Church Government, and Church Ordinances.

This is undeniable because, according to Presbyterian principles, none of these can be enacted or administered without Officers. And persons thus scattered and severed from one another, can have no Officers. For those Officers receive their call and right administration by the joint voice and election of the people now in communion with one another (Act 6, Act 1).

Again, I conceive it will be granted (which cannot be denied) that these particular persons, thus severed, are integrated members [454] of this catholic visible Church. And therefore they wholly give being to this Church, but receive no being from it.

Hence I cannot see how this part of the Proposition will stand with that conclusion, that the catholic Church gives part matter, part form, to the particular Churches.

If particular Churches receive their being from the members of the catholic Church (as this Proposition affirms), then they cannot receive part matter, and part form, from the Whole.

For if the catholic Church gives any matter or form to the particular Church, it gives it by its members.

But it cannot give matter or form by its members, because it received all its being, and so all its matter and form from them, but gave none to them.

Therefore they can give none from it.

These intricate difficulties and twistings of controversy which appear in Master Hudson’s frame, yet keep me, so that I can give no assent to them.

There is a third branch in the Proposition; namely, that particular Churches partake of the privileges of the Church, not primarily because they are members of particular Churches, but because they are members of the catholic Church.

We have formerly given proof against this (see chap. 3), to which we refer the Reader, and so rest from making any further inquiry touching this subject of a catholic visible Church.

Chapter 16. Church Communion as a Peculiar Privilege

to the Members of a Church.

We are now done with Church power.

The privileges of the Church present themselves next for our consideration. And the chief of all these which we will especially attend to here, is Church communion, because we perceive the disquisition[455] of that to be of the greatest difficulty, and the right understanding of it to be of the greatest use. And here we will make the entrance of our inquiry about that question propounded and largely debated by Master Rutherford, lib. 2, p. 269:

“Whether ordinary hearing is a part of Church communion.”

1. The sense to be opened;

2. The arguments to be answered; and

3. The conclusions we hold to be proved.

1. The Sense to be opened.

I. The Sense of Communion.

Communion, according to the nature of the word, ever implies something common to many, in which they proportionally share, each according to his condition and place.

When this is applied to several subjects, though it requires a communication of something to all the subjects, yet it ever implies an appropriation of that which is so conveyed, only to that kind. This is why there is a community of the things to all those in which this communion lies. And yet there is also a specification or determination of the subject, to which that is conveyed, and upon which it comes. Though all such subjects have it, none but those are made partakers of it.

Thus in cities there are several companies that maintain several communions among themselves. Thus civil communion belongs only to those in a civil state. We may say the same about Church communion, which we now treat. It does not imply all or any of those things which a Church has in common with others while it is a Church, but as it is a Church.

For instance, a Church while it is a Church in that relation, has communion with the Town or with the people of the Plantation among whom they dwell, and communion with other towns who live with them under the same Jurisdiction and Government. But this isn’t Church communion, because it isn’t as a Church that they enjoy or share in this communion, but as Planters in the same Town, or people under the same Government.

Rather, Church communion is that which belongs to a Church, as a Church, under that notion (as we used to say), respect, or relation.

II. The Things and Manner of Communion.

The Communion of the Church lies either in the things which they enjoy, such as Sacraments or Censures, or else the special manner appropriated to them in their dispensations. And though the things are sometimes common to others beside the Church, yet the manner of dispensing, and so of enjoying them, is always peculiar to the Church.

Suppose the Churches are entreated by a company of Indians, whose hearts are stirred by some consideration of the truth, to desire some conferences with several of the several Churches, and several of the Commonwealth. The purpose is that their judgments may be further informed, and consciences convinced, and the course of godliness be clarified for them. Upon granting the meeting, they have liberty, and they take it, to propound their demands, hear answers, make objections, and seriously and dearly debate the difficulties. There are conferences, disputes, and debates by these novices, now coming to Religion, with Elders and Magistrates in the audience of the several members of the Churches. And yet no man will say that these are Church actions, because they’re not doing this as a Church, but as Christians, to draw beginners to the Faith.

Suppose again, the Church of herself appoints a meeting, and appoints the Elders to handle the same questions, to propound and explicate the same Scriptures, by way of answering and clearing up the difficulties. This is now a Church action because, though the duties are the same, yet the manner of their dispensation issues from another root; namely, by virtue of their authority, Officers require and call for the presence and subjection of the people. [456] Others enjoy the benefit of the actions (which are not Church actions per se) as appeared before, but the manner of dispensation is properly Church work, and in that, [the Indians] have no Communion with the Church.

And this is to be observed frequently and familiarly in all Corporations when they meet in public; many strangers, from several Counties or Countries, come to see and hear the benefit of the administrations. But only the members of the Corporation enjoy Corporate Communion. That is, they alone are under the power and authority of the Corporation; and by virtue of that relation, they are to be there, and submit themselves to the authority, delivering orders to that end; and they may be constrained to it, which strangers cannot be. And so it is here.

III. Ordinance, Dispensation, and Hearing of it.

It’s plain from Master Rutherford’s own grant, that neither the ordinance itself, nor the public dispensation of it, nor hearing the dispensation of it, makes it Church communion. For he confesses that Turks and Infidels may come in occasionally, several times, as it were in passing; and yet this doesn’t make them partakers of Church communion. And yet, in their attendances, these three things are evidently and undeniably to be observed: the Ordinance, the Dispensation on the Minister’s part, and Hearing on the Turk’s part.

IV. Set, Ordinary, Professed, and Resolved Hearing of it.

Therefore, in the fourth place, we are to inquire what he means by set and ordinary, lib. 2, p. 269; and what he means by a professed and resolved hearing, p. 270.

If by professed, he means such a profession that it makes a man a member, as explained before,[457] this yields the cause which he would maintain in appearance; namely, whoever is a member of a Church, communicates (partakes) in Church communion. Never have any denied this. But if it is the resolution of the spirit of a man inwardly (for resolution lies there), and profession outwardly to attend this action of hearing, we then know where to fasten; and we have two questions to discuss:

Question 1. Whether public preaching and public hearing is a Church action considered in itself.

Mr. Rutherford concedes that this is no Church action, which indeed is the main scope and hinge of the question, as it is practiced, and by dispute agitated between us and them. For if Infidels coming in occasionally — once, twice, twenty separate times to hear — and yet in so doing, they do not communicate in a Church action, then preaching and hearing do not make a church action, considered in themselves. The first truth is already conceded.[458]

Question 2. A bare profession to attend the outward hearing of the word ordinarily,[459] is not a Church action, nor should Church communion be inferred from it.

2. My Arguments to be answered.

Arg. 1. That profession which may stand with the professed opposition and renouncing of the doctrine of the Gospel, and the truth of the Church, does not make any Church communion. For opposition professed against the truth of the Doctrine, and truth of the Church state, is counter to communion with it. And such an ordinary profession may stand with both of these.

For a Jesuit may be hired as an intelligence gatherer, to hear and report the doctrine to others who set him to work for that end. Or else a caviller [460] may undermine that doctrine in the hearts of others whom he would either draw to Popery, or confirm in Popery. He may be a constant hearer, and yet profess that he hates the Protestant religion, and renounces the standing of their Churches.

Arg. 2. Where there is no Church union, there is no Church communion, because this issues from such a union. But many hear ordinarily, who have no Church union, nor real membership with visible Churches.

Arg. 3. Church communion is ordered by the power of the Church, and they can exercise their power in it. For what excommunication takes away, the communion of the Church can give. But the Church does not, nor in reason can it hinder ordinary hearing. Therefore the Church did not give it by any power of Church work.

We will now take Mr. Rutherford’s arguments into consideration. Only, we crave the Reader to call two things to mind (formerly evidenced), and to carry them along in his consideration of these arguments. Those will help to expedite the Answer to his reasons alleged to the contrary.

Premise 1. That Infidels and Turks may come in occasionally, and yet that hearing is not Church communion, lib. 2., p. 270.

Premise 2. That an action in itself, simply considered, may not be a Church action, i.e., it isn’t proper to the Church; and yet the manner of enjoining this, or enjoying it, by virtue of Church power, is a Church work and way, issuing from Church confederacy and combination.

From these two premises now recalled, and formerly proved, this follows:

The Preacher may in preaching, edify the Church that has met for that end, and convince an Infidel who comes occasionally (1Cor 14.24-25).[461] And yet the Infidel does not join in Church communion, even though hearing the word preached by the Officer of the Church, which is an answer to Mr. Rutherford’s first Argument.

Hence the Infidel may be converted, and so enjoy the benefit of the Ordinance, and be built up in Christ at his occasional coming, and so join in worship with them, and yet not be in Church worship. For his own occasional coming was not Church communion, by Mr. Rutherford’s own grant, which is an answer to Mr. Rutherford’s second Argument.

Hence the Infidel may be called by others, and being so called, he may come and hear, and partake in the worship; and yet it is not done as Church hearing or worship, which is an answer to the third Argument.

Hence Church hearing will then be Church communion, when by virtue of Church covenant, they exert Church power in dispensing it, and persons in virtue of that relation, stand bound to submit in attending to such administrations, and thus all the members hear. But the Infidel hears upon another ground; and so he shares in the act, but he is not under Church power and the manner of the dispensation of that act. And therefore his hearing is not Church hearing.

As it is in the meetings of civil Corporations, the members of the Corporation come in by virtue of the combination which they hold by Charter; and so they have Corporate community. Others come in by the by, as strangers, and they communicate in the hearing of the Acts that pass, but not in the Corporate community, in which they have no share. Nor does the Corporation have any power over them, which answers the fourth Argument.

Hence this hearing doesn’t separate a visible member, as visible marks of the genus,[462] because hearing belongs to an Infidel also, which answers the fifth Argument. Nor does this hearing bring the hearer under any tie, which answers the sixth Argument.

From this ground thus laid and made good, we may collect several things.

3. The Conclusions we hold to be proved.

(1) The occasional hearing of Infidels does not argue for communion of Pastor and people, between the infidel and the Officer who preaches to him. Church communion is between Pastor and flock, as the terms and the nature of the relation evidence. But in this hearing of an infidel, there is no Church communion, as conceded [463] by Master Rutherford, lib. 2, p. 270.

(2) If this hearing would make a person of such a stock, and so make the Minister his Pastor, then this kind of hearing of a wicked and unworthy Minister, would make a man partake with him in that sinful station of his. This has never been accounted irrational in those who have been rigid in their separation. So it is easy to distinguish between the word that is dispensed, in which a hearer communicates, and between the office and station of the one who so dispenses it, with which those alone communicate who stand in relation to the one dispensing it as their officer.

(3) Hence Church power and Church privileges are differenced in the same act. Privileges (in my aim here) imply that good and benefit which attends any Church dispensation. Take any Church act that is dispensed. There is first, the good and benefit which may arise and be received from it; and second, Church-like power in the dispensation of it. And these two, though they go together, yet they are so differenced in the reality of their natures, that the one may be enjoyed — I mean the good and privilege of the act — by those who don’t communicate in the power.

For instance, a man preaches authoritatively in his congregation. Indians and Turks come to hear occasionally; they partake in the good of the word and in its dispensation, but not in the authority of his ministry. For he is not a pastor to them, nor does he communicate with them as a Pastor, as it was formerly proved from Mr. Rutherford.

To this belong those expressions, 1Cor 5.12, What have we to do with judging those who are outside? Or Mat 18.17, Let him be to you like a heathen. Therefore, heathens don’t come within the privilege respecting a brother in Church communion, though they come to Church hearing.

And hence it is, as people are more or less capable of the good of these dispensations (for they may be), so they do, and may partake more or less in these privileges; and yet they do not partake in the Church power by which they are dispensed. As it is in some corporations, some persons of some families, because their predecessors have been Benefactors to the Charter, they have the privilege of coming into the council of the company, to venture with them if they will. And yet they have no sway, by any special relation, to act in or carry on the occasion or design taken up. Thus members of other Churches are capable of more privileges than those who are not in that condition. And therefore, they partake of the benefit of some acts and ordinances, and yet they don’t communicate in the authoritative dispensation of those acts. And this appears thus:

If a Pastor of a congregation has no authority or power by his office, to require those of another Church to receive a sacrament, but they may refuse if it seems good to them, then they are not under his pastoral power to dispense it to them. For by his office power he can require only those of his own Church to receive it. And if he has no authoritative power to enjoin them to receive it, then they cannot challenge it by any special interest they have in that power. For by parity of reason, it is the same on both sides.

That look, as it was before, when the Pastor preached authoritatively in his congregation, he not only dispensed the word to his people, as one out of office may do, but he could, by virtue of his office and relation, enjoin them to hear it. Yet Indians coming in occasionally, partake of the good of the dispensation, but they are not under the authoritative power of the dispenser. So that, by his authority, he could not require them to hear, nor could they, by any relative interest in his power, challenge him to speak to them. Here, then, remember two things:

1. That the benefit of the ordinance dispensed, and the power in the dispensing of the Sacrament, are so different, that even if the Pastor dispensed it to a member of another congregation, he had no power to constrain him to receive it.

2. Remember that even though a member of another congregation is capable of receiving the good of those ordinances (for it isn’t because someone is a member of this or that congregation that he becomes capable of these seals), yet he has no relative interest in the power of the dispenser to require it at his hand. And this example will hold proportionally with the former; namely, that persons may partake in Church privileges, who do not partake in Church power.

Take this other example. A man provides for his wife as a husband, such and such a diet; and by his authority, he can require her to take his provision. A neighbor coming in may perhaps share in the same provision, but not upon the same ground. The neighbor has a privilege of special neighborhood; but the wife does so by the power of her relation as a wife.

So that, I cannot see that the proportion is unfair. A person may partake of the word that is authoritatively preached, and yet not communicate with the power and authority of the officer as his own. A person may partake of a Sacrament authoritatively dispensed, yet not communicate with (be subject to) the authority and power of the dispenser, i.e., in either case, to have a relation to him, or them, as their officers. The same may be seen in such acts which issue from that relative interest which respects the specialty of the covenant of this or that Church. Such as, namely, when members elect, admit, or censure by vote. The formality of these acts is only proper to them as members; and yet those who are present, partake of the good and benefit of all these acts.

For instance, suppose a penitent is to be received into the Church. The members express their readiness for love, pity, mercy, and the brotherliness to forgive. Others who are also present, join thus far in that act, consenting to and approving of what they do according to God. Indeed, they are greatly quickened, comforted, and encouraged, even taught and instructed by what they hear and see; and so they receive the good, and are greatly edified by the ordinance. And yet this is what all men will concede: they don’t share or communicate at all, in any interest of the power by which such acts were dispensed.

Part II. The Church Considered as an Organic Body.

Chapter 1. The Number of Officers in it, and the Nature of it.

In the foregoing part of our discourse, we have inquired concerning the constitution of a Church in regard to the material and formal causes of it; and the special qualifications that attend these in regard to the power and privileges that pertain to it. And thus far we have looked at it as an Essential Whole.[464] And yet there is much more required to make up the integrity and perfection of it, so that it may be completed in all the special Members and Officers which the Lord has appointed and set in this visible body of His, for the improvement of the special operation of every part, and the edification of itself in love, Eph 4.13, 16.[465]

And thus the Church becomes an Organic Body,[466] a body organized of such prime and choice members, which may conduce to the beauty and building of the body in that entireness that it may grow up to a holy temple in the Lord.

As we look at Samson, when he was deprived of his eyes, he was still a man to whom the definition of man fully agreed, as a living creature endued with a rational soul.[467] But consider him in the integrity or entireness of his constitution, as consisting of body and soul, and that body made up of members such as eyes, head, and hands — these are integral to the whole. We say then, though he is a true man, yet he is not an entire man, but lame and maimed, destitute and deprived of some of those parts that conduce to the perfection of his integrity.

It is so here. A church without Officers is a true Church, in regard to the essence of it. There is a company or society of visible saints confederated together in the profession of the faith of the Gospel. But it is not complete; it is but lame and maimed in regard to the integrity of it.

The Lord Christ, therefore, has provided for the perfection of his Church in this behalf also. It is a coronation gift which He bestows on His Spouse, Eph 4, when he had conquered the enemies of our salvation by his death and obedience. He triumphed over them in His resurrection, and has now returned into his own country, ascending into the highest heavens. There he sits crowned with majesty and glory at the right hand of the Father. He gave gifts: he gave some to be apostles, some Evangelists, some Prophets —those being extraordinary, because there was extraordinary use of them for the first planting and watering of the churches. He also gave some to be Pastors, some Teachers, for gathering the Saints for the work of ministry, building the body of Christ.

The chief aim and scope of our Savior (under the glory of His name) was to provide for the special good of his elect. And yet, because his elect were mingled here with the wicked in the world (indeed, many an elect child proceeds from a reprobate parent); and because it is impossible for the eye of man to search into heart secrets and the inward sincerity which is covered there, but must judge men and dispense ordinances to men according to the laws and limits of rational charity — therefore, our Savior has bestowed these offices as a Royal gift upon the Visible Church. As we’ve heard, He is a Political Head over them by outward guidance and government, as well as a Mystical Head by His special and spiritual conveyance of His grace. The consideration of the Nature, Institution, and operations of Officers, has a constraining power to conclude this truth beyond all control. For,

1. The invisible Church and all that is comprehended within that notion, is to be believed; it is not liable to our eye, nor does it come to be discerned visibly.[468] But as for the Officers of the Church, who are now standing and ordinary, a visible company of people is required who must concur and consent to call them. And the persons called must be tested and approved (and thus, they must be visible). God sets ordinary Officers in His Church, but it is by man; and therefore man must know them, 1Cor 12.28; Gal 1.12.[469]

2. Look at their Ordination, when they are called.

3. Look at their Dispensation and the exercise of their places and power in preaching the word, in the administration of Sacraments and Censures.

4. Look at the parties who are offenders, who must be censured, or penitent, who must be received back [into fellowship].

All these operations proclaim a visibility on all parts, and in all the particular circumstances. This is rather to be observed because, when we read or meet with such expressions in the Scriptures, which intimate either the call or the instruction of Ministers, or any of their ministrations, we may know that they belong to the Visible Church, and are to be attended in that relation and respect. For common sense will constrain a man to confess that there must be visible persons who must exercise the Keys in governing. And there must be visible persons who must be governed.

What the word of the Gospel has revealed concerning these Officers may be referred to these particular heads, and thus laid out to our view:

Officers – Frame

Officers of the Gospel may be considered with reference to their,

1. Number

a. Ruling only

b. Ruling and Teaching

ii. Pastor (Eph 4.11)

iii. Doctor, or Teacher (Eph 4.11)

c. Supporting the

iv. Members’ estates (e.g. Deacons, Act 6.3)

v. Health, as by Widows (1Tim 5.9-10)

2. Institution

a. Election

b. Ordination

We see the frame; we will attend the particulars as they are propounded in their order. Touching the number of these officers, generally two things are to be attended.

I. Whether, beside these five appointed by Christ, any more can lawfully be added, or should be tolerated?

Ans. No, in no way. The rule is sure here, from which we must not depart even a hair’s breadth. You shall add nothing to it, take nothing from it. Deu 12.32 That which our Savior asked, and the Scribes confessed, touching John’s ministry, is true of all these orders and Ordinances. Mat 21.25 They are from heaven. The Lord Christ is the giver and He alone is the Institutor of them, and none beside. This is evidenced from the following:

1. From the right of giving, from which these proceed. When our Savior ascended, He led captivity captive, etc. It pertains to the one who conquers the country, to set rulers over it, and over his subjects in it.

2. They are especial means of God’s worship, and all of them in their rise and end, have an eye to spiritual things, and spiritual operations. This is true even though they are employed in ordinary outward things — as the Offices of the Deacons and Widows are appointed by Christ to provide for the state and health of the members — that the love of Christ, as the Head of his Church, might thereby be observed, and that the spirits of those who are refreshed by it, may be more full and enlarged to serve Him with a glad heart, in a Church way, and in the improvement of all Ordinances to that end. All other civil provisions, though good in their kind, will never attain this end, without the Ordinances of Christ, Act 6.1-3.

3. It is affirmed by the Apostle, touching two sorts of them, the Pastor and the Teacher, whose employment is principally about laboring in the Word, that they are for the perfecting of the Body until we all meet in the unity of the Faith, and the fulness of the stature of Christ; that they are able to attain this end; and that is to be done in all ages until the full accomplishment and gathering in of all the Saints. Therefore, no more need to be added, to the end of the world.

If is therefore a usurpation by that Man of Sin, when he ascended on high to the Pope’s chair, and to be Head of the Church, that he gave some to be Surrogates, Chancellors, Deans, Archdeacons for building up the kingdom of Darkness. Because he easily perceived that Christ’s officers would never do his work kindly, nor further his kingdom, unless he had his own creatures which must be at his beck, and stand at his pleasure.[470] And therefore they must be forced to do his drudgery, and dare do no other, lest they be flung away, if the Man of Sin but once frowned upon them.

That was God’s complaint of Jeroboam’s practice. When Jeroboam would maintain his faction and preserve the people from returning to their King, he set up false worship. He concluded that the truth of the word and worship attended to, would make them look to their true King. And to keep them in false worship, he provided false teachers, made the lowest of the people priests, who because they had no call and appointment from God, never had a care to preserve His word or worship, but instead to maintain that course of religion by which they were kept in their places.

And therefore, as God said of them, He will say of these human orders, that They never came into His mind or heart. Jer 19.5 It did not come from heaven, but from the bottomless pit, and therefore ought not to be admitted nor yet tolerated; but being plants which the Lord has not planted, they should be plucked up.[471] Whom God never calls, God never blesses.

It is to be observed that these Orders have been props and pillars of that Kingdom of darkness, and have been the brokers and maintainers of all that hideous wickedness which has been vented in the doctrines and opinions that have acted in the lives and conversations of that hellish crew that have had their dependence upon the Man of Sin. And it is marvelously dangerous to bring in, or to continue the least alteration from the mind of Christ, in anything.

The Church of Scotland complains bitterly that a constant Moderator made way for a Bishop, and so for the bane of their Churches. Christ, who is the King and Head of his Church and House, and the one who best knows, suits the occasions of the Family, and will best provide for the good of it, and His own contentment.

II. The other thing in general to be observed is that,

1. They must be kept distinct; and according to the mind and intent of our Savior, one person must not venture to engross all, nor several of these together, such as to be Ruling Elder and Pastor, or one and the same man to be Elder and Deacon. For it is apparent by the Apostle in his discourse in Rom 12.7-8, that they are put in a way of opposition as distinct members, some teachers, some exhorters.[472]·Therefore they cannot be in subordination or subjection to one another.

2. The Apostle’s comparison carries this with it, as the main thing intended in Rom 12.4: as there are many members in the body, all the members do not have one and the same office.[473] It is therefore wide [of the mark] to say, as Mr. R. does, that this comparison does not hold in all, because it must hold in the very thing that is intended, indeed specified. For this is the hinge on which the comparison turns, in verses 4-5, and the ground of the Apostle’s inference in verse 6, having differing gifts.[474]

3. Each of them is sufficient to take up the whole man, so that he is not able to attend both, but he will neglect the special service of the one.

4. If the Apostles professed they could not attend tables, and attend Word and Prayer, and therefore laid aside the one, that they might discharge the other, then who thinks he is sufficient for many of these?

Mr. R.’s reasons that he alleges. The reasons that Mr. R. alleges do not satisfy.

“1. The Apostles exercised both (word and prayer), as they could, according to the Audience.”

Reply 1. The Apostles were extraordinary persons, and were fitted and assisted correspondingly, which none whose calling is ordinary, must expect.

Reply 2. They had all offices virtually in themselves, and exercised the acts of all of them, as it appears before they chose Deacons. But if anyone now thinks himself able to undergo two of them, the profession of the Apostles and also their practice will be a real confutation of them. For so assisted, they yet saw reason to lay one down, that they might improve the other; none would dare to take up both, unless he presumes to have greater sufficiency and ability than the Apostles.

Mr. R. says that,

“2. The formal Objects of these — to wit, information about the Judgment, and exhorting — are not so different, that they should be incompatible.”

Reply 1. In themselves and full breadth, these are not so incompatible. But look instead at the specialty of the gift that fits the one, and that which furnishes the other, and they are.

Reply 2. Attend mainly and chiefly upon each one, according to the gift, and they will prove inconsistent.

To have a special gift for the one, and to bestow himself upon that, and to have a special gift for the other, and to bestow himself on that also, will ever be found if not impossible to attain, yet ever disadvantageous to the dispensation of the Gospel. And a man’s own experience will evidence as much to him, if he attends to it.

Nor is it sufficient that one is eminent in the gift which fits the Ruling Elder or Deacon; that still gives no allowance for him to be Doctor, Ruler, and Deacon at once. Rather, look where a man’s spirit is best fitted. Once he is called to that work, he must let all the stream and strength of his abilities run in that channel, lest being divided into many streams, he becomes fit for none, and fails in all.

This may suffice for the number.

Of the Ruling Elder

We will now take a survey of the several offices in the order in which they were set before us. And we begin with the Ruling Elder, for that carries a kind of simplicity with it. There are more ingredients required to make up the Office of Pastor and Doctor, and therefore we will take leave to deal with the first. The simplest takes priority.[475]

1. That there is such an Office appointed by Christ.

2. What it is, or where the limits and bounds of it lie.

1. Such an Office is appointed by Christ.

That there is such an Office and Officer appointed by Christ, as the Scriptures make plain to anyone whose spirit and apprehension is not presupposed and forestalled with prejudice. So this cause has been maintained by many of Christ’s worthies of former and now of latter times; and now at last, by those two famous and eminent Champions, Mr. Rutherford and Mr. Gillespie.[476] So that, we have no controversy here, except with Hierarchical Persons, the force and power of whose arguments lie in a Pursuivant [477] and Prison, armed with the authority of a High Commission.

Therefore we will content ourselves to settle the Scriptures shortly upon their basis and bottom, according to the sense of the Spirit of God in the several places, and argue briefly from there, and so finish this Head of Discipline.

Arg. 1. The first Argument we have is from Rom 12.5-8,[478] which witnesses to this truth, where all these officers are numbered and named expressly; if the meaning of the words is manifested, it will be made clear in the following particulars:

(1) The gifts mentioned and considered here are not those which have reference to a civil, but to an ecclesiastical condition. So are the words in verse 5, We are one body in Christ. The operations also, which issue from the several functions, evidence as much. Prophesying and attendance to it; exhorting and bestowing the heart and endeavor upon it.

(2) Gifts here are not those that are common and belong to all Christians, such as faith, hope, love, holiness, etc.

First, the gifts meant here, are those by which the members of the Body of Christ are distinct from one another, and have several acts appropriated to them, such as v. 4-5, all the members do not have the same function; we who are many are one body.[479] But the common graces are not so distinct, for in them they all agree.

Secondly, in v. 7-8 the teacher in teaching, the exhorter in exhorting, [480] the weight of the phrase, having the article (‘the’) added in that manner, doesn’t note every member, but only some by way of eminence, to whom these pertain.

Thirdly, the reason and logic of the place carries a distinction with it, and the severals are set out by way of opposition, contradistinct to one another. Therefore, they cannot be subordinate and fit in one subject, where they would both be formally acted; hence they must be public functions. For if they had been private gifts, one would have contained the other, as distributing might be included in showing mercy.

(3) These public functions and gifts are arranged and referred to two heads in general, under which the severals are comprehended, and to which they are referred. Such as,

1. teaching

prophetic

2. exhorting

Gifts are either

or

ministerial

3. giving

4. ruling

5. showing mercy

So that prophecy and ministry are here put as common heads, to which the rest may be referred, and under which they are arranged; and that’s the reason why the Apostle changes his phrase in this enumeration. The first distinction he expresses in the plural [gifts], the second in the singular [prophecy, ministry]. See Beza, in locum.

So that it is a mere conceit that doesn’t carry the weight of a feather in it, of those who say that Paul intended to set down the several functions in the Church. Then there should be seven, not five, making Prophecy and Ministry two of them, when these are not distinct species, but two general heads to which the particulars were referred.

Hence we reason that function and office in the Church, which differs so much from all the rest, as one member of the body is distinct from another, in actions that are appropriate to itself, that function is properly a distinct species or kind from the others.

But the function of Ruler so differs from all other Offices in the Church, as the members differ in the actions appropriate to them. The Proposition needs no proof. The Assumption is the express words of the text in verses 4 and 5.

Arg. 2. The second Argument is taken from 1Cor 12.28, God has set some in his Church, such as first, Apostles, then Prophets; thirdly, Teachers; after that Powers; then gifts of healing, helps,[481] governments (administration).

The scope of the place, and the Apostle’s intent, is to lay open the several Offices and Officers that the Lord has set in his church, and so many chief members out of which the Church is constituted as an entire body. And for the right discovery of the Apostle’s proceeding and purpose, we may observe the following:

(1) That the functions he names here were partly extraordinary, and thus temporary, serving the needs of the Church in that estate, and in that time, when it was first planted. And it was to be watered with more than ordinary help, as having more than an ordinary need, such as Apostles, workers of miracles, etc. Some gifts were ordinary, and were to continue, such as Teachers, Helps (which were Deacons), and Governments (which were Elders).

(2) The gifts themselves are expressed in the abstract, helps, governments;[482] yet it is the persons and officers who stood possessed of those gifts, that are to be understood by these terms. This appears if we look to the words before and after. For when the Apostle says, on the one hand,[483] though there is an apparent contrast,[484] yet “who” is to be understood, and that has an eye and necessary reference to the persons. Secondly, look to the words after verse 29. He interprets the gifts by the persons in the second repetition, Do we all have the gift of healing? [485]

(3) Though some extraordinary persons had some of these gifts virtually, and exercised their operations as the Apostles did — they worked miracles, and spoke with tongues — yet that doesn’t hinder these gifts from being formally in some subjects, as appointed for that purpose by Christ, for that kind of employment. For only some spoke with tongues; only some had the gift of healing.

And it is most apparent in some of the particulars, though the Apostles prophesied and taught, yet Prophets and Doctors (Teachers) were special functions appropriate to some men; so also were Deacons. And therefore also, it doesn’t hinder Governments from being a special kind of Rulers, distinct from Teachers.

From these premises, the dispute proceeds thus:

Just as Apostles, Prophets, and Teachers are distinct, so are Helps and Governments. For the Spirit puts them in the same rank, as having a parity of reason which pertains to them all.

But they were distinct Officers, and found in persons as distinct Officers, as in verse 29. Are all Apostles? Are all Teachers?

Therefore the same is true of Governors.

Arg. 3. A third Argument is taken from that famous place, 1Tim 5.17,[486] which is full to our purpose in hand. It is intended by the holy Spirit of the Lord, to make evident the station and office of Ruling Elders to the end of the world. And it is admirable to observe how the factors[487] and followers of the Pope and Prelates, who labor to prop up their place and pre-eminence, have used all the wiliness of their wits, and the unweariable wrestlings of their carnal reason, to darken the evidence of the truth, and to defeat the power of the proof in that place. They fear, it would seem, that bereft of this means, their way to promote and maintain the pride of the Prelacy would be utterly prejudiced and overthrown.

By contrast, they reason that if they but allowed the Deacon to lay aside the care of the poor, and made him a Priest; if they allowed him to baptize, and not give the Sacrament of the Supper; if they raised the Ruling Elder one stair higher, so that he may be a Teaching Presbyter — then by this time, the Bishop is beyond the bound of an ordinary Elder. With a little help, he will be handed up into a Diocesan Palace; one more lift will make him a Primate. And if the Kings of the earth favor him, he will make himself a Pope presently — for they differ but in degrees, not in kind.

So that, you must not wonder to see the contention grow so hot touching a Ruling Elder; because if he is confined within his compass, the wings of a Pope and Prelate will be exceedingly clipped, and their power impeached.

It’s not suitable to our purpose to contend with all cavils, nor will we need to. For they have been confuted long before this, and by those who been furnished with choice abilities to this purpose.[488] I will therefore satisfy myself to give the native and natural sense of the words, as suits only the rules of right and reason, and may be easy (as the ways of wisdom are) for those who are willing to understand. The form of the context stands as follows.

When the Apostle, in the foregoing verses, had directed the right choice of the widow whose labor should be proved in the Church, he also intimates his mind, how she should be respected by the Church in whose service she is employed. 1Tim 5.3, Honor widows, etc. That is, to so care for them, that they may be sufficiently supplied, according to their care and condition.

And from there he takes occasion to leave an Apostolical Canon on record, how the elders of the Churches should be provided for. Namely, the lowest degree of Rulers are worthy not of the single and sufficient supply that widows have, but double honor. The certain is put for the uncertain, the finite for the infinite (by a synecdoche) — i.e., they are worthy of all honorable respect, both office and benefits,[489] not only sufficient to relieve their necessities, but that which may honorably correspond to their places, employments, and prayers.

But the Elders of the highest rank, whose place requires laboriousness in Word and Doctrine, may most especially claim, and the Church should especially bestow, this double honor upon them.

The words carry a distribution with them: “but these,” or “but especially;” and this is done with the odd comparison, the more expansive, “especially.” [490]

(1) The sum of the verse is expressed in a discrete axiom: the Arguments are comparatively paired.[491] The things compared are the persons: a Ruling Elder, and a Teaching Elder. And it is especially to be observed that their works are not the things compared, but the persons are noted by the kind of their works. For the words are not, the Elders, because they rule well, and because they labor. Rather, it is worded the Elders that are ruling, and the Elders that are laboring in the Word.

So that, these are not the consequent part of the Proposition, but the antecedent, or the subject only. And therefore, the persons and Officer being the things compared, it is certain that they must be distinct persons, for the nature of the things compared requires it.

And hence those conceits vanish; namely, that the Elders here are not attended for their private conversation in holiness, as though to rule well was to order themselves well in a Christian course.

Secondly, neither will the conceit hold which says there are not diverse Elders, but diverse works of one Elder attended, when “those who,” “but who,” are persons compared and described, and not acts.[492]

(2) The consequent part of the discrete axiom is that the first Elder is worthy of double honor; but with this difference: it’s chiefly his due, first in the order to be attended, and then in measure; more is due and indebted to him.

Now, it’s well known that it is required that both parts of a discrete axiom not only be discrete from one another, but be true in themselves.

From this, again, that conceit utterly vanishes, which makes the comparison lie between the two acts of one man — namely, the well-ruling of a Pastor is worthy of double honor, as it is considered alone in itself. This is an assertion grossly cross to the rule of divinity, as the former was cross to the rule of logic. That interpretation which makes the performance of the least part of a Pastoral calling worthy of double honor, even though it is with the neglect of the greatest work, is grossly contrary to the mind of God, and the verdict of the Scriptures. For, cursed be the man who does the work of the Lord negligently, Jer 48.10 and woe to me if I don’t preach the Gospel. 1Cor 9.16 A double woe is denounced against them, rather than a double honor bestowed on them. But this interpretation does this.

Or I may reason thus: if the Apostle in this text does not speak only of Elders who are preachers, then he speaks of Elders who are not preachers. The first is true; he speaks in this verse of some Elders who are not preachers, which is thus proved. And if he speaks only of preachers, then there were some preachers who didn’t preach at all. But there are no preachers who didn’t preach at all. The second part is past denial. Thus the consequence is proved.

If those Elders who are most worthy of double honor are said to labor only in the word, then those who are accounted not worthy of it, did not labor in the word. But those Elders or Preachers who are counted most worthy by the Apostle, are said to labor only in the Word; i.e., to preach. Ergo, those who are not worthy, did not preach at all.

(3) Lastly, the Bishops’ factors who take up this defense, ill provide for the honor and pomp of their “great Lords,” the potent Prelates of the world.

For by the Apostle’s peremptory determination, the lowest Minister who is conscientious and laborious in preaching, should have more honorable respect than the Diocesan who sits in his Cathedral, and under the name of “ruling,” tyrannizes the poor people, but doesn’t labor to feed them with the word of life.

To the evidence of the text, we may add the testimony of Ambrose,[493] which carries an amazing kind of manifestation and discovery with it:

“For, indeed, among all nations old age is honorable. Hence it is that the Synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had Elders, without whose counsel nothing was done in the Church. By what negligence it grew into disuse I know not, unless, perhaps, by the sloth, or rather by the pride of the Teachers, while they alone wished to appear to be something.” [494]

The brightness and patness of his witness is such that, it is as though it had been written with the beam of the sun; it almost dazzles the eyes of envy itself. And therefore, it is strange to see how the spirits of men turn every stone, wrench and wrest every way, if not to wholly pervert the meaning, yet to darken it as much as possible; but it is all in vain.

I will leave a mark or two of remembrance upon the words, that the wise-hearted Reader may be made cautious, and so fenced against such forgeries of devices which the carnal reasons of men of corrupt minds have coined and invented to take away from the evidence of the testimony.

1. Let him know then, that the Elders mentioned by Ambrose were such that their places and Offices were almost worn out, and laid aside in most of the Churches in his time. But the Office of preaching Elders was not. Ergo, those Elders were not preaching elders.

2. The defacing of the power and rule of these Elders came, as he conjectures, partly by the idleness, but especially by the pride of Teachers, because they alone might be lifted up. Ergo, these Elders could not be Teachers. For those Teachers labored to destroy the place and power of these Elders. But it is against all show of reason, indeed against common sense, to say or think that these Elders should destroy their own places.

Again, the aim of the Teachers who would darken and abolish the place of these Elders, it is said, was to make themselves alone eminent. Those who would do so by disannulling the honor of other places, could not be those who were of that rank, or possessed any of their places.

And this is sufficient to wipe away all such exceptions that the subtlety of the wit of man has raised and pretended to weaken the authority and intent of this now alleged testimony, which has and does torment all of the Prelate party. [495]

That Christ has appointed the Office and place of Ruling Elders has been made evident.

2. What are the Limits and Bounds of Ruling Elders.

We are now to inquire, What are the duties of their places, and we will do that with as much brevity as possible.

The several duties which lie upon the Ruling Elder by virtue of his Office, are of two sorts. Some he has in common with the Pastor and Teacher. Some are proper and peculiar to himself.

Some are common with the other Officers, and therefore we find them all ranked under that common name of Elder in 1Tim 5.17, formerly handled. But because in our common language we appropriate this by a synecdoche, to signify this Office, it is from there that we so usually call him the Elder of the Church. But when the Scripture would design him to his proper place, and so distinguish him from the others, it appropriates “Ruling” to him alone. It styles him proistemi, [496] Ruler or Guide, who is above others; and as a leader, he goes before them.

The duties which are common to him with the rest of the Teaching Elders, are attended partly before the assembly meets, and partly when the assembly meets.

Before the Assembly, when there is any emergent occasion or weight or difficulty which concerns the congregation, the Ruling Elder is like one of the common council. The concurrence of his judgment, his voice and verdict, is to be taken with the others in consultation and consideration of the business at hand. For they are all leaders, all governors, all watchmen in this common work. And ergo, they must have a common influence of counsel, as the concerns of the Church require, Heb 13.17; 1Cor 12.28; Act 20.28.[497]

When offenses are public, or cannot be cured privately, before being brought to the congregation, it belongs to them all, by way of pre-consideration and preparation, to ripen the occasions, so that all the doubtful or perplexed circumstances that might trouble the body, or cause any mistake in those who are weak, or mislead any through misunderstanding, all such mists must be removed by a thorough search; the particulars must be cleared, and the cause punctually and plainly stated. This is so that the understanding of the least in the congregation may be able to discern when the business is propounded, where the pinch lies, and so to pass sentence accordingly.

The Church must be told, but in an orderly way; and they are the leaders of the Church. Ergo, in reason they must so know and prepare the cause, that they may lead them aright.

When the Church meets, in ordering the proceeding of any public censure or act of discipline, the Elder with the rest of the Governors, has liberty and authority to interpose his judgment, to express his opinion as opportunity is presented, without asking leave. This is because the Ruling and leading of the work is common to them all; only, order and decency should be observed.

The duties which peculiarly or in an especial manner are appropriate to his place, are those which concern the carriage and demeanor of the members in their more private way — when they are not assembled, or else when they themselves are separately congregated.

(1) The members of the Church, when they are under the exercise of God’s hand, and become so exercised with any spiritual wants — as in a time of sickness, because of the pressure of the disease, and the grief and weight of it, or of their own weakness — that they are not able to pray for themselves, then Jas 5.14 says they are enjoined to send for the Elders. It’s not that it was unlawful for the elders to come before they are sent for, if the sick are in a low and weary condition and not able to pray for themselves; but perhaps because either the Elders don’t know of their necessities, or don’t yet know the time and opportunity when it may be most seasonable to repair to them. Ergo, it’s most necessary that members should send for them; i.e., they have liberty to send for them. And by virtue of their places and calling, the Elders are bound to go and pray with them, and for them, when they cannot pray for themselves — the stress of the studies of the Preaching Elders then requiring their employment, and the improvement of their time in searching the Scriptures, and preparing for public dispensation [notwithstanding].

And by the same parity and proportion of reason, if any lack comfort, sinking under the discouragement and sadness of spirit, or perhaps through ignorance, they are not able to understand the things delivered [in a sermon], they may call for the help of the Elder in private, that they may be informed and comforted by him.

(2) And it follows from this, that the Elder has power to inquire about the condition, and take account of the special state of those members. For otherwise, how would he be able to administer seasonable and suitable support? The Physician must administer questions and interrogatories to the Patient to know his particular disease, before he can administer medicine to him.

(3) In case he hears of any unseemly and uncomfortable differences arising between members, he is to set himself by inquiry to know them, and to remove and still them.

(4) If any notoriety is rumored abroad touching the offensive carriage of any of the congregation to those who are outside, so that some blame may redound to the party, and so some blemish lie upon the congregation, it pertains to his place to make diligent examination to see the certainty and truth; so that if false, it may be cleared; and if just, the party may be censured, and the credit of the Gospel be so provided for.

(5) Those who are willing to join with the congregation, should repair to him and express their desire. He is, by virtue of his place, to take special consideration of their persons and conditions. And if he finds no just impediment to lie in the way, he is to bring their names and desires to the congregation, as he sees fit in his wisdom, according to God. And he is to lead the whole assembly in the work of their admission by presenting them to trial, calling for their allowance and approval by vote.

And it seems to us, to follow from this, that in case the censure of excommunication is to be administered, it pertains to the Elder to lead the action, and pronounce the sentence, because there is a parity of reason. It pertains to the one who ruled the action of admission and receiving into the Church, to also lead and dispense the act of excommunication or casting out of it. And the argument that forces and fastens all those services upon him as his peculiar charge, is this:

Whatever does not belong to laboring in word and doctrine, and is not a common act of rule, belongs to the one who rules well.

All these acts now specified are such. And in truth, the nature of the things would easily persuade a man’s reason to yield to it. For how unequal and unreasonable would it seem to a man who is acquainted with the weight and work of the ministry, that when the Pastor or Teacher should be attending upon reading, and searching the sense and mind of God in the word, and the mysteries of God in it (“who is sufficient for such things?”), that they should then be taken away from their studies, and be forced to attend to men’s special weaknesses or wants in private, when they should prepare for the public dispensations — so that, the one must of necessity be neglected, or else they be distracted in both? Whereas, this appointment of our Savior provides for both, without any prejudice or disadvantage to the either.

Of the Pastor’s Office

We’re done with the Office of the Ruling Elder. What presents itself next for our consideration is the Office of the Pastor, and then of the Teacher.

The limits of the Pastor’s work may thus be laid out, according to the laws of Christ’s institution. The scope of his Office is to work upon the will and the affections, and by savory, powerful, and affectionate application of the truth delivered, to chase it into the heart, to woo and win the soul to the love and liking, the approval and practice of the doctrine which is according to godliness (1Tim 6.3). And hence the one who exhorts, is enjoined to attend upon exhortation, Rom 12.7.

It’s not that the Pastor may not interpret the text, and lay open the meaning so far as he may make way for the truth to work more kindly, and prevail more effectually with the affections. But his own labor,[498] his main work upon which the strength of his studies and abilities should be bestowed, is this: that he attends and insists upon exhortation — how he may speak a good word for Christ, arrange the marriage, and betroth the soul to our Savior. This is called a word of wisdom, 1Cor 12.8, because it is a point of special prudence; and in the greatest excellency of it, it is how to come within the bosom of a sinner, and grapple so powerfully with his spirit, that he may not take no at his hand.

1. The one who wins souls is wise, Pro 11.30; and therefore his labor is to lay open the loathsome nature of sin, and to let in the terror of the Lord upon the conscience, that the careless and rebellious sinner may come to a parley of peace, and be content to take up the profession of the truth. And because once he has done so, either his hypocrisy may carry him aside from Christ, or discouragement may make him afraid to come to the Lord Jesus, the Pastor’s wisdom and work must be to reveal the cunning tricks of the hypocrite, and to hunt him out of his muses, that he may not deceive himself and sit down with some reserved delusion, and go no further, 1Cor 1.23.[499]

2. He is to answer all those fears, and to scatter all the clouds of discouraging objections, so that the soul may see the path plain and safe to come to the promise, and to receive power and comfort to walk with God in it, Act 14.22.[500]

3. When the Soul is truly brought to Christ, because it may either out of sloth, not stir itself up to do what it can, or out of weakness or unskillful clumsiness, not be able to do what it would, the Pastor must endeavor by heat of exhortation to quicken it, to strengthen and encourage the soul in every holy word and work, 1The 2.11-12, etc. [501]

Of the Teacher’s Office

We formerly proved that this Office is distinct from the Pastor’s place and employment. And in truth, the scope of the Apostle in Eph 4.11, in the short enumeration of the Offices of those who labor in the word,[502] will not in a seemly and reasonable conformity to such an intent, permit either an endless repetition, nor allow this name Teacher to be put in as an interpretation of the former (Pastor), when the latter darkens rather than reveals the meaning of what went before.

Besides, in Rom 12.7 when the Apostle on purpose sets himself to record the several Officers appointed by our Savior, he puts in Teacher by way of division, and opposition to the other. Only, I find some difference in the apprehensions of interpreters touching the nature and work of the Teachers among themselves. Many, and those being of exact judgment, seem to confine him to the School. I cannot so fully agree with those who favor this. I rather conceive that Doctor may be attended with some distinction.

There is a Doctor in the School, and a Doctor in the Church. Both have their special use and employment. But the second is what is meant here, for he is “given to the Church.” And that is done with this intent and aim: for the gathering and perfecting of the body; and that is of the Church or Congregation. Ergo, they are to choose him to employ and approve him for their special and spiritual edification. The School will not serve so directly for this, as his place, our Savior’s purpose, and the Church’s necessity and spiritual edification require.

In this second sense, we understand the Officer we now inquire about, and that in which he shares in common with the Pastor, is that both of them have Authority and right delegated from Christ, to consecrate and to administer the Sacraments. Whoever has Office-power to publish the Covenant of Grace, by that same office may administer the seals of the Covenant. And they may both, out of Office-power and Authority, preach the Covenant of Grace.

When I say preach out of the Authority of Office, I speak this way because, as we formerly argued, Brethren who are qualified may — as occasion requires and as they are invited — preach or publicly open the Scripture to the edification of the hearer; and yet they do not do it out of office.

Look what Office-power authorizes to dispense the Covenant; the same, and upon the same right, will authorize someone to administer the Seals. But the peculiar things that are appropriate to the Teacher’s place, are the following:

1. The aim and scope of the Doctor is to inform the judgment, and to help forward the work of illumination in the mind and understanding; and thereby to make way for the truth, that it may be settled and fastened upon the heart. It is therefore enjoined in Rom 12.7, to attend to teaching, not that it isn’t lawful for him to administer a word of exhortation by the way. But he doesn’t dwell upon that; that’s not his main work; he bestows neither his studies nor his strength upon it as his chief business. And therefore a word of knowledge is said to be given to him. Hence, all such dispensations which properly and immediately conduce to this end, belong in an especial manner to him.

He is to dwell upon the interpretation of the Text so far as the difficulty and intricacy of it may require, and to clear it to the capacity of the least among us, because this is necessary to inform the judgment.

2. It pertains to him to lay down a platform of wholesome words, and to deliver the fundamental points of Christian Faith, the principles of Religion, as the main pillars of truth which may undergird our apprehensions, so that they may not be carried aside with every wind of Doctrine — because this is necessary to the teaching.

3. It belongs to him to handle such controversies as are afoot, and arise between the Church and Adversaries of the truth: to state the contoversies clearly, strongly, and solidly; to confute them out of the Word; and to convict those who are the broachers and maintainers of them, because this is necessary to inform the judgment.

Other things might be added, but these are the principal ones.

The controversy which has exercised the world since that Man of Sin was advanced into the chair of Ambition, and falls in here, is this:

Ques. Whether Episcopus (Bishop) and Presbyter (Elder) are the same by Divine right, according to the verdict of the Scriptures, and the appointment of our Savior Christ?

Ans. The nakedness of the assertion that would difference Episcopus and Presbyter by divine right, has been laid open to the view of the world in former times, and much more in recent times, so that nothing needs to be added here. Yet, to leave it on record that we concur with those worthies in the defense of the same Truth, we will briefly set down our witness together with them.

We will say something by way of explication, and state the question. We will add, secondly, some Arguments to confute that which is erroneous, and to confirm the Truth.

Episcopus is threefold: Divinus, Humanus, and Satanicus.

Divinus. By divine institution, a Bishop is an Officer that Christ has set in His Church, and whose Office is set forth and revealed in the Word; such are Pastors and Doctors, Tit 1.7; 1Tim 5.17.

Humanus is a President or constant Moderator, chosen by consent of Ministers meeting and consulting about the affairs of their Churches in their common consociations. It pertains to them to moderate the actions of the Assembly, to propound things to be agitated, to gather voices, to pronounce the sentence which passed by common approval, and he had no more than his equal suffrage with the rest. And when his action was ended, he was but in equal honor with the rest; indeed, maybe in less respect in regard to his years or gifts.

In consociations, reason and order force such a kind of proceeding. For if all were to interpose in the forenamed acts, it would breed a disturbance, and confusion in all.

Only, to impose and leave it constantly upon one man, the experience which is past question, has made it apparent this is perilous; and indeed, it is an inlet to worse inconveniences than could have been suspected at first. Prevent, then, that irregularity of fixing such an employment constantly upon one. There is nothing in such a course that may not be tolerated in consociations, where persons, by mutual agreement, concur to help with common concurrence of counsel, as emergent occasions require.

Satanicus is such an Episcopus which the enemy Satan — acting on the pride, and suiting the sovereignty of the spirits of men — has successively and secretly brought into the Church by a mysterious way, so that he might midwife Antichrist into the world, this being the next step to that Man of Sin. And he becomes the princeps Episcopus (principal Bishop), who by his insolence has arrogated and assumed, and at last confirmed even a Monarchical power unto himself.

And however it is that the Pope, who is the universal Bishop, is the Man of Sin, and yet the Bishop, he is the same — especially when he is ascended to his Archbishop’s Chair — but only considered in his minority, as the Child of Sin, or the Man of Sin in his childhood.

For laying aside the rankness of those extravagancies of the Pope’s temporal power, or that power in temporalities, it appears that his power in spiritual things is of the same kind; for he assumes a peerless power for himself. So that, looking at what the King is to his Council, he takes them to himself for consultation; but the final determination and resolution lie in his own bosom.

So too is the Bishop to his inferior clergy. He will hear them speak when he pleases to allow it, but it’s in his own breast to tip the balance whichever way seems best to himself (so say Downam, Bilson, and Saravia); from which he appropriates to himself to be both Rector and Judex (judge).

1. He is sole Rector, and therefore Ministers cannot put forth any Act of their own order without his leave; and therefore if the Lord Bishop is in place, the poor Priest much not preach, nor pray, nor administer, if his great Master would officiate the work which (as it happens) they don’t much trouble the world with, if it is a matter of work. He counts himself the sole Pastor; they are his subsidiaries, who come only to share in the burden,[503] but not in the fullness of power.[504]

2. Hence the Bishop is sole Judex, by whom all are to be censured with punishments of suspension, deposition, degradation, or excommunication. But the Scripture owns no such Officer; he is a mere human creature. Indeed, he is an invention hatched by Satan, warmed in the womb of pride, self-Sovereignty, and covetousness, until the monstrous birth of Antichrist came abroad into the world.

Our reasons against this usurped Order are these, among many others:

1. The express testimony of Scripture, which nothing can be more pregnant than, Tit 1.5,7.[505] The Apostle having enjoined his Scholar to appoint Elders in every city, and how they must be qualified, he adds the reason for his advice, For a Bishop must be blameless, etc. Here the argument of the Apostle shows not only the community of the terms, but the identity of the thing signified by it. Otherwise his argument would not only have been a false reasoning, and failed in form, having four terms, but in truth it would not have reasoned at all, for it would have been ready to reply, Episkopos or Bishop, is another thing from Presbyter.

Acts 20, Paul sends for the elders of Ephesus, and professes in verse 28, that the Holy Ghost had made them Overseers, or Bishops, where not only is the name common, but the thing signified by episkopein,[506] is enjoined of them, as their duty. What episkopein implies or requires, that is what they were to do. If episkopein requires to lay on hands, to exercise jurisdiction in external things,[507] then that they must do. And if reproved for so doing, they might have shown this commission of theirs.

What adds still further evidence, is that episkopos is never read or recorded in the New Testament, unless the actions required belong to a Presbyter (provided it is not applied to some extraordinary subject, as it is said that another was to take Judas Iscariot’s place, episkope, Act 1.20).

2. If they were distinct, the Bishop would be superior (for they deny either equality or inferiority). But they cannot be superior. Every superior order has both superior acts and honor belonging to it above the superior; but Bishops have neither of these above those of Presbyters. For if laboring in the word and doctrine, is an act above Ruling, and is most worthy of double honor, then the act and honor of a Presbyter is above the act and honor of a Bishop. For they only assume the acts of rule, but give the Presbyters leave to labor in the word and doctrine.

3. If they differ from Presbyters Jure Divino (by Divine right), then there are some ministers by Divine authority who are necessary for gathering the Church, and perfecting of the body of Christ, beside that of the Presbyters. For if the Church can be perfected without these, there is no need of these. But there is no ministry necessary for gathering and perfecting the Church, beside that of the Presbyters. For the Apostle, setting down the several ministries which Christ had purchased, and by his ascension bestowed upon His Church when he gave gifts to men for that end, were only comprehended in these two, Pastors and Teachers, Eph 4.11-13;[508] and those who are given for this end can and will undoubtedly attain it. The issue then is this: If Pastors and Doctors are sufficient Teaching ministries to perfect the Church until we come to the unity of the faith, then no more are needed than these; all others are superfluous. The first part is in the words of the text; ergo, the second cannot be denied.

4. Distinct Officers must have distinct operations.[509] But they have no distinct operations from Presbyters. If there are any distinct operations, those must be ordination and jurisdiction. But both these belong to Presbyters. Jurisdiction — Joh 20.23, binding and loosing — implies a power of censuring, as well as preaching. And both are given by the Apostles to their successors, the Rulers and Elders of the Churches, who succeed them in their commission. For Ordination is given to the whole Presbytery, 1Tim 4.14.[510]

And if we look to ancient times, that prime place of Jerome (Ep. 126 ad Euagrium) shows the charter from which all the authority was derived: “one of their number is presented and chosen by them to a higher degree, which by name is called the Bishop.” [511] From this it follows:

(1) That Bishops were first Presbyters.

(2) That they had their first election and constitution from them, and ergo, Presbyters had their rise and ordination before Bishops.

(3) Ergo, If they can ordain Bishops, they can ordain Presbyters also.

5. Those who have the same commission, have the same power from Christ, because all power issues from their commission. And they all have the same commission, Joh 20.21, as He sent me, so I am sending you.[512] This was said to all the Apostles equally, and to all their successors indifferently.

We are now done with the nature and work of these Officers.

In these last two sections, we may attend to the manner of the doing, and the reward for it.

The Manner of Their Work.

It may appear in three things:

(1) They must bestow their whole man, and their whole strength and study upon this work that is so weighty and worthy. And therefore, when the Apostle had considered that the Lord had put life and death into the hands of the dispensers of the word, 2Cor 2.16, he cries out, Who is sufficient for these things? If no man is sufficient, then it is needful that every man should bestow his whole strength upon it.

Hence it is unlawful for a Minister to be a Magistrate, not because these things are contrary, but because the weight of the one is so great that it is beyond any ordinary ability to undertake to discharge both, unless he would wrong both. And therefore the Apostles professed they would lay aside attending tables, that they might give themselves to the word and prayer, Act 6.2, 4. That channel was wide enough in which the full frame and strength of their endeavors might be laid out to the utmost.

(2) They must bestow their whole time, partly by way of preparation, to prepare themselves for the work — a good steward lays in old and new, or else he could not bring it out, Mat 13.52; 1Tim 4.13; 2Tim 4.13 — and partly in his dispensation, 2Tim 4.1-2; Act 20.34. [513]

(3) They must take up no other employment, nor bestow themselves upon any such business, except that which may fit them for this main work, and furnish them in the more fruitful discharge of it, such things as may be helps and not hindrances to it. 2Tim 2.4, He that goes to war, does not entangle himself in the things of this life; rather, he uses his family, calling, etc. as the traveller uses the boat. The Ferryman lives by his rowing; the traveller uses it for his passage.

The Reward for Their Work.

Ques. But how can it be conceived that a Minister should provide for his family, and yet not bestow his care and strength about it?

Ans. Very well. As he puts forth his effectual working, and the full employment of his time and strength for the good of the Church, the Body also should jointly put forth their effectual working for his temporal good. So that, they should make provision for him and his family in the things of this life, as he lays himself out for the provision of all spiritual good things for them and their families in the things belonging to a better life. And this also is a Church, or Ecclesiastical work, and spiritual service, as issuing from a spiritual ground, and aiming at a spiritual end.

Ques. What is the Rule according to which the Church ought to walk in making this provision?

Ans. We may conceive the compass of the rule in the following conclusions.

Conclusion 1.

It’s not a matter of liberty or courtesy which may be done or left undone; but it is a duty and work of justice to which the Church is called, and to which they are bound in conscience to perform. Provision in this kind is wages, not benevolence. So our Savior concludes (Mat 10.10) regarding his disciples when he sent them to preach. He bids them not to solicit relief, For the workman is worthy of his wages. And the Apostle determines it by the verdict of all laws. Look at the Law of Nature: We must not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn, 1Cor 9.9. Look at the Law of Nations: Does any man go to war at his own expense? 1Cor 9.7. Look at the Law of God, who has ordained that those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel, 1Cor 9.14. They must not live from their patrimony,[514] but from the Gospel. For instance, Those who ministered at the altar lived from the altar, 1Cor 9.13. The one bestows his time and thoughts to provide bread on the weekdays for his family, how will he be able to provide bread for the Church on the Lord’s Day?

Conclusion 2.

This provision should be so honorable and comfortable that it may attain the end for which it was appointed by God, and so collected by the people, and given to the Ministers. The end (as it is intimated above) is that the Officers might employ their time, strength, and study, for the work of the Lord, and do that freely and fully. Hence, this provision should be such that it might take away all care and distraction in a rational proceeding, so that they have no need to bestow either thoughts or care, travel or expense of time, which was either fit or needful to be employed t0 make preparation for the public, or to bestow themselves upon the private necessities of the members of the Church, as their occasions or the Officer’s duties may require. Thus it was with the Levites in the Old Testament. Thus the Apostle charged also, 1Cor 16.18.[515] And if they must not entangle themselves in the business of this life, then the Church must not be such an occasion. This is one thing aimed at in 1Tim 5.17, The Elders are worthy of double honor. Indeed, they must be given to hospitality, and therefore they must have such a supply that they may provide not only for their own present comforts, and lay in provisions for this in a faithful way, but that they may be able to give comfortable entertainment to strangers, as opportunity is afforded.

Conclusion 3.

Touching the order, as to how this may be raised, that place of the Apostle, Gal 6.6, is of all others, most pregnant, and carries the most conclusive evidence to direct and determine in this case:, Let him that is taught in the word, communicate [516] in all good things, to the one who teaches.

Two things are of special remark in these words.

First, what these things are, from which this maintenance must be raised.

Secondly, from whom.

1. Where it must be raised from, is said to be “all good things” [517] that are communicable. For some things are such that they don’t allow for communication; or a man cannot lawfully communicate them, and so he should not make them common. Say a man has one room to lodge in, one servant to attend him, one coat to supply his own necessities; these cannot be made common. But whatever good things he may make common, if he has enough for himself and some to spare, he should communicate according to his place, portion, and proportion.

Some good things are common to all, or to most of the body. Other good things pertain only to a few. In all of these, there must be a communication. For example, if they have land, lots, meadows, cattle, etc., so must the body provide for them.[518] Thus provisions for clothing, diet, or any choice comfort that God throws in occasionally, which may be communicated, they should communicate even from those special things.

2. The persons who must do this. The text gives an express answer. It is everyone who is taught, whether servant or master, bond or free, rich or poor. Indeed, though in other cases he receives contribution, yet when God entrusts him with any good thing which he may communicate, and if he finds the Word powerful, he will be provoked to do it. I know of no judicious and pious Divine who is against this, unless it is those who are too taken with the tang of a Popish and Jewish way of tithing. However they may (and perhaps do) add something more, yet the text has that native and natural evidence that will, like a mighty current, carry any conscientious man away with it. Upon laying this ground, I will take leave to add several things.

Tithing and Maintenance

1. This way of maintenance is safest, and certainly in Gospel times, it was most suitable to the mind of God, having the express testimony of the truth for its warrant. It is recorded with such evidence that it cannot be waived or questioned. This maintenance is sufficient and abundantly satisfactory to correspond to the work that is done, and the end to which it is given. That which makes the portion and provisions of the Ministers carry some kind of proportion to the plenty and variety of all the good things of all those with whom they live — that way of raising maintenance — makes it honorable and comfortable. But this does so because not only many, but all, bring in something of all they either have in their constant possession, what they can occasionally procure, or what God in His providence throws in.

And here there is latitude given to diverse apprehensions. Some conceive — the Lord’s Treasury being committed to the Deacons for supply of all tables of Officers, and the tables of the poor, both its own and others — that this Treasury should be furnished every Lord’s Day by the freewill offerings of the Assembly, everyone casting into it as God has blessed him, 1Cor 16.1-3.[519] They also conceive that this rule from Gal 6.6, may be attended in this way, everyone bringing in from all their good things in proportional value, as may suit the occasions of the Church. Others again conceive that the maintenance mentioned in the foregoing place cannot be fully raised by a treasury common to the poor and the Ministers, nor can it be gathered on the Sabbath day.

The conclusion has two parts:

First, that this way of maintenance cannot be fully raised by a treasury common to the poor and Ministers, from which a supply for them both should be fetched.

Second, that this way of maintenance cannot be fully raised on the Sabbath, because there are several “good things” cast in by Providence, which should be bestowed on our Officers.

As to the first part:

1. All should not pay into such a Treasury; but all do pay into it, for all are instructed.

2. To thus provide is appropriate to the Minister, and to him alone. For it is said of him alone, Let him who teaches be made partaker of all our good things; let no one else, not even the poor. That which is put into a common treasury, is common to all who must be so relieved. The poor are not to be relieved by all our good things; nor does either rule or reason lead us, or allow us, to do so.

3. If all our good things cannot be put into the Treasury, which yet by the word we cannot do other than bestow upon our Teachers, then this providing for Officers must not wholly and only be confined to the Treasury. For experience tells us that many of our good things are to be given to our Teachers, which cannot be put into a Treasury.

4. This coupling of the poor and Ministers in one common Treasury, confounds works of Justice and Mercy. For the poor who are to be relieved out of mercy, would then share in the contributions which are put in, out of a just recompense of wages to the Ministers.

As to the second part:

On the same ground, they conceive that this way of maintenance cannot be fully raised on the Sabbath because there are several good things cast in by Providence, which we should bestow on our Officers. And perhaps they cannot be kept until the Sabbath, nor would it be proper to give them in that place, and at that time.

These are the different apprehensions of differing brethren. But all agree that an honorable and comfortable maintenance is a due debt. It should be no breach of love, that each Church follow her own light in this.

Thirdly, in case any member fails in this free contribution, he sins in a breach of the known rule of the Gospel. It pertains to the Church, to see the Reformation of that evil, as of any other scandal. Therefore, if there is any doubt or difficulty arising, how it may be regulated in any particular, the Church is to determine it according to God. And the Deacons, according to such a determination, are to seek to execute it. And because it is better to prevent a scandal so that it may not come, and also easier, than it is to remove it once it is given, it is most suitable to rule that each man should know his proportion according to rule, what he should do before he does it, so that his judgment and heart may be satisfied in what he does, and just offense prevented in what is done.

1. Hence again, I recollect that this way of raising maintenance, appointed in the Gospel, is far different from that way of tithing in the Law. Indeed, to be tied precisely to follow the one, cannot stand with the other, for this is raised out of “all good things” that the person has who is taught. But those tithes in the Old Testament were out of the seed of the land, the fruit of the trees, or the herd of the flock, Lev 27.30-32, Deu 14.22-23.

2. This maintenance is to be paid by all who are taught. But the Levites were to receive the first tenth, and pay the tenth of that tenth to the Priest, Neh. 10.38. So that, if the patrons of tithing look at the command given to the Jew, as a moral law, they must confine themselves precisely to the prescribed form of it: ergo, the Ministers must have a tenth of the tenth. And perhaps this is taken from those who were never taught by them, as the Levites who taught in the particular synagogues, paid it to the Priest who administered in Jerusalem. Hence it follows that the way of tithing in the Old Testament was not a natural or moral law. For no law appointed in the Gospel is inconsistent with any natural or moral law of God — which this is, as immediately proved.

Of Deacons

We are done with those Offices and Officers which look at the whole Church, whose dispensation merely and immediately reach the special good of the soul. But the Lord Christ, as a King of infinite mercy as well as wisdom, provides for the outward good and comfort of all his household and subjects, in regard to their estates — that they may be maintained, and their health also, and so their lives may be preserved in a prosperous condition. To this end, He has appointed Officers who should in a specific manner, look to the Church, and so provide for the good of both.

The Office that is to look to and relieve the estates of those who are commended to their care, is the Office of Deacons, which we will inquire about:

first, their name;

secondly, their Office as it is distinct from the rest;

thirdly, the bounds within which their duties ought to be confined.

The name Deacon, in our English language, comes from the original Greek word diakonos, which in the general and largest sense of the word, signifies to administer; and it implies any kind of administration, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

Mat 22.13, Then the King said to his servants; the word for servants is diakonois. It’s also used to express the administration of the civil Magistrate, in Rom 13.4, He is God’s minister to you for your good — minister is diakonos (deacon). And in this large circuit of signification, it comprises all special Officers in the Church, such as Apostles, Evangelists, etc. — 1Cor 3.5, Who is Paul? Who is Apollos? but ministers (diakonoi), etc.

Secondly, sometimes it is taken in a more specialized sense, and includes these last two remaining offices, Deacons and Widows, as in Phi 1.1. It’s a very remarkable place, when in Paul’s salutations, he begins with the whole, and so proceeds to the several officers. He writes, To all the Saints in Christ Jesus, who are at Philippi; there is the body of the Congregation. And then he adds, with the Bishops and Deacons. In these two expressions, all the Rulers are to be understood: Pastors, Doctors, and Elders are comprehended under the name of Bishops, as Paul styles them in Act 20.28. The Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos, or Bishops). Observe,

1. There were many Bishops in one Church, not one Bishop over many Churches.

2. That among these there was no Metropolitan, or superior Archbishop. For then Paul would have been much to blame in bypassing him, or omitting his title and due remembrance.

The second word in Phi 1.1, is Deacons, those who minister to members who are weak in their estates, such as the poor, or weak in their bodies, such as the sick. And so both of these are comprehended in 1Cor 12.28, by those whom the Apostle calls Helps.[520]

Thirdly and lastly, when it is taken most strictly, and as it concerns our purpose in hand, it sets out those officers who are designed by the Church to dispose its state and treasure, to those several purposes for which God has appointed, and as the occasions and necessities of the body, and any member of it, may require.

Deacons as a Distinct Office

Several Scriptures give undeniable evidence that this is a distinct Office in the Church. Rom 12.8, He that distributes.[521] Here the Apostle reckons these as a distinct kind from those that went before.

1. It being the Apostle’s aim, by similitude with a body (Rom 12.4), to reveal several parts by their actions which were in a peculiar manner appropriate to them. As there are many members in the body, and all don’t have one office or action, so in the Church there are many members, but there are several offices appropriate to them.

But if this was a Christian duty, common to all, the Apostle would overthrow his own purpose. For he would have shown things agreeing to all alike, when he should have shown that some things are specific to them.

Obj. It could be said that this was done before, and now he comes to lay out those duties which pertain to all.

Ans. The words of the text bear down that conceit. Because that which went before, and that which comes after, are public officers. How can these be private? Add to this, that at first view the words in verse 9 begin a fair transition to common duties, Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

The acts are so general, that the Reader shouldn’t miss the aim of the Spirit, if he would but lend the least wary attention to it. Besides, the words hold forth a plain distinction continued in the several members of it. Now, the members of a division are opposite to one another, and therefore they must have something specific to one, distinct from another.

2. The Apostle, intending to lay out the several officers of the Church in a summary way (as we formerly heard), he addresses himself to a distinct description and discovery of this Officer, as select from the other Elders, 1Tim 3.8, 10.[522] Deacons must be grave, and being approved and tried, let them exercise the Deacon’s office.

3. And lastly, if we look into Act 6.1, 2, 6, we may see the ground and occasion of the institution and scope of their calling. We can see at what it especially aims when murmuring began between the Grecians and the Hebrews, in that their poor were not so finely and comfortably attended, as they desired and expected. The Apostles, perceiving the multitude increasing, and that it would take up their time and pains too much to give full attendance to it as the necessities of it required, they therefore directed that they should choose men among themselves, fitly qualified for that purpose, and they would settle them in that employment. According to the Apostles’ counsel, the Church elected, the Apostles prayed, and laid on their hands, and appointed them to perform that service. From this it is apparent,

(1) That this was a public Office, because they were elected to it in a solemn manner, and received a solemn ordination from the Apostles, and so from Christ, for undertaking the service.

(2) That their service was about attending tables, because the provision for the maintenance of the widows and poor, by a daily supply as the condition and necessity of the Church at that time required, gave occasion to it. Ergo, that name deacon is used; and it implies the dispensation of the treasury, state, and provision of the Church, for those ends and purposes that would appear useful and tend towards the benefit of the Church, or any member of it, as far as it served a spiritual end.

(3) The full and careful attendance to this work could not stand with careful, constant, and conscientious attendance to the Ministry of the word, as the Office of a Minister so employed required, and as the words of the text witness: It is not fitting for us to lay aside the care of the word, to attend tables, v. 3, ergo, provide men fit for this things, and we will give ourselves to the word and prayer, v. 4. These cannot stand together; we must either lay aside the one, or prejudice the work of both.

These conclusions being fair and infallible from former grounds, it appears what the Episcopal Ordination of a Deacon is, by which they make him half a Priest, or a Priest in preparation, and invest him with power to serve the Priest in the distribution of the Supper, to look after the poor, to Marry, to Bury, to Baptize and Preach, if he is counted worthy to have a license granted for it. But to consecrate the Lord’s Supper is wholly forbidden to him, until he is made a complete priest. He may attain this at the next time of ordination, if he can provide money to pay for Parchments and Orders.

Thus the mystery of iniquity 2The 2.7 has eaten into the frame, and wholly defaced the institution of our Savior, so there is nothing of an Evangelical ordinance that can be discerned.

The first error (which was indeed the first inlet into the usurpation of the Bishop, and the exaltation of the Man of Sin) was that they lifted him above his own place, and crowded him into a corner of the Pastor’s Office, giving him the right to Baptize, which is directly cross to the order of Christ.

(1) That which is made by Christ, to be a distinct Office from Pastor and Teacher, cannot be any part of either, nor a preparation for them. But so the Office of a Deacon [currently] is.

(2) That Office which is to attend tables, has nothing to do with Pastors’ or Doctors’ places, either of preaching, or administering the Sacraments. But this Office is to attend tables, Act 6.3. If any man says they may attend both, the practice and profession of the Apostle will confute and confound such a conceit. Act 6.4, We will give ourselves to the word and prayer. They conceived and concluded that they could not do both, without doing wrong to both.

1. If the Apostles, who were extraordinary persons, could not undergo both, then will men of ordinary abilities be sufficient to do so?

2. Would the Apostles, directed by Christ to sever them, dare to conjoin the offices, unless they were to go against the direction of the Lord Jesus?

3. The gifts of the Deacons, which are described by the Apostle (1Tim 3.8), are not such that will furnish a man to be a Minister, for it is not required of him that he should be apt to teach. To be a teacher and not be apt to teach, is to be a bell without a clapper.

Obj. 1. Stephen, a Deacon, preached, Act 7.

Obj. 2. Philip, a Deacon, baptized, Act 8.38.

Obj. 3. Deacons, by using their office well, purchase for themselves a good degree, i.e., a degree to the Ministry.

Ans. 1. Stephen’s speech was not a sermon, but an Apology made by him, to clear his person and cause from the accusations and aspersions that were cast upon him by his adversaries.

Ans. 2. Philip was an Evangelist, and so he was appointed by God, as it afterwards appears, and he baptized by virtue of that, and not by virtue of his Deaconship.

Ans. 3. That good standing, bathmos, mentioned in 1Tim 3.13, is not a degree of the Ministry. But he that gains a good standing, and has it, will purchase a good standing in the Church, by which he may boldly administer his office, and with more fruit. For as we said before, if a man may be a fit Deacon, and yet by some impediment in his utterance, can never be a Minister, then he is not by his Deaconship, engaged in any necessary preparation for that Office.

The Limits of the Office of Deacon

The limits of the Office will appear by showing,

I. What he must do; and

II. How he must do it.

I. What he must do. This Deacon being the steward or Treasurer of the Church, the thing for which he is mainly to be employed, and for which he was ordained, is for husbanding the estate and temporals of the Church, as may in every way further the benefit of the body, according to the rules of the Gospel. His service will show itself in three things.

1. He must address himself with great observance to receive those provisions which will or ought to be committed to his trust. I say, due observance in gathering in the estate of the Church.

(1) It is for him to inform himself by advice and counsel from the body, what every man’s freewill offering should be in making provisions for supplies and payments of the Congregation. For though the Church contribution is a freewill offering, in regard, it should willingly and with a ready heart, be tendered unto God. Yet neither in the Old Testament, nor under the New, was the thing itself, nor yet the measure, left to a man’s own disposal or liberty. Compare Deu 16.10 with Lev 22.18-19. If God blessed a man with so many oxen, he must not offer so many goats.

(2) Upon this information and direction given by the body, he must observe whether each member performs his due and duty. And in case he fails, the deacon is to admonish him, as swerving from a rule. And in case he doesn’t reform, the deacon must follow action against him, by the rule of our Savior provided in that behalf, and bring him to the censure of the Church.

(3) What is not offered or given, but only promised, the deacon must attend to, to require it; that being thus observant to gather in the stock and provisions of the Church, he may not be sent to seek it; for succor may be lacking when the supply isn’t tendered.[523]

2. As he must thus give attendance, as Christ’s receiver, to gather in His rents and revenues of the Church, so he must be careful to keep it when it is in his custody, so that no lack comes to it. He must not misspend it himself, nor allow it to spoil in the keeping, nor lend it with disadvantage so that it should return less in worth, or be unready when the Church has occasion to have the improvement of it.

3. He must be prudent in the dispersing and disposing of it to such uses and to such persons as the body of the congregation, according to the rules of Scripture, require at his hand in this — because the weight and work of his office is especially to be seen here. Ergo, this is especially and particularly mentioned in Rom 12.8, He that distributes. And this implies and includes the rest.

For the one who must distribute, must gather; he must keep it by him. Thus his office is said to attend tables, i.e., to lay out the revenues and treasury of the Church, as may be beneficial: to provide elements for the Lord’s Table, when that should be attended; for the table of the poor, i.e., for all their wants, that they may be supplied; for the tables of the Ministers, i.e., whatever provision the Church puts into their hands, so as to be administered to them, according to that debt which the Church owes to them in the way of wages.

And here his providence, faithfulness, and pains will be fully employed.

Chapter 2. The Nature of Ordination, and a Pastor’s Power

over other Congregations.

In which the nature of Ordination is discussed, and the 17th chapter of Mr. Rutherford is considered and answered, as touching the power he gives to a Pastor in and over other congregations besides his own.

We are content that the reasons which are in the 16th chapter, alleged and answered by Mr. R., stand or fall to their own masters, not intending to weary ourselves with maintaining other men’s works. What we conceive to be suitable to the truth, and make use of, we will endeavor to vindicate and make good against all opposition, in their proper places.

It is said in Mr. Rutherford’s chap. 17, p. 264, that we make ordination and election of Pastors all one, by a mistake. I suppose it will appear that we are wholly mistaken in this, if what follows is impartially attended. To clear this coast, we will therefore inquire after some particulars which pertain to the full understanding of this head of Discipline. We’re willing to bestow our thoughts about this subject, so much the rather, because of the difficulty and obscurity of it — especially because misconceptions here, draw many inconveniences with them, and disturb almost the whole frame. As in an unjointed body, or misplaced building, when any special part, and the main pillar are out of place, it brings a weakening. Indeed, it brings a declining of the whole, and spoils both the firmness and fashion of the frame. We take leave, therefore, to insist on these particulars by way of inquiry:

1. Whether ordination is, by nature, before election?

2. Whether ordination gives all the essentials to an Officer?

3. What is this ordination, and where does the full breadth and bounds of its being lie?

4. In whom does the right of dispensing lie, and by whom may it be dispensed?

1. Whether Ordination is by nature before Election.

What occasions an inquiry here, are the words and expression of worthy Mr. R., in chapter 17, page 265:

“Ordination is what formally makes the man a Pastor. The people’s election only appropriates the man’s Ministry to such and such a people. It is one thing to make a gold ring; it is another thing to pledge and gift the ring to such a person, p. 267. It is presupposed by order of nature, that A.B. [any qualified candidate] is first called and ordained a Pastor by Christ, and the laying on of the hands of the Elders, 1Tim 4.14, before the people can elect them for their Pastor. For if A.B. is not a Pastor, the people cannot choose him to be their Pastor. Nor does the people’s election give any such power to A.B. That power is given by the Presbytery’s Ordination, which by order of nature, comes before the people’s formal Act of Election.

“As the husband who, in a Goldsmith’s shop, chooses a gold ring for his wife and puts it on her finger, it presupposes a gold ring before choosing it. Nor does his choosing make it a gold ring, but only makes it his wife’s gold ring, by application to her. Just so, people’s Election appropriates such a man who is already a Pastor, to such a charge. It does not make the Pastor a Pastor, but only chooses him to be their Pastor,” p. 269.

I confess, I also find expressions such as these in Bellarmine, who implied that election comes after the vocation of a minister. But Dr. Ames seasonably tells him that he places the cart before the horse. [524] I also know that it is a Popish course which our Prelates use (the reason for which we will reveal in its proper place), that they ordain a Priest, and when they have laid their hands on his head, and put his parchments into his box, sealed with the great seal of the Bishop’s office, he sends the man to take possession of his parish and tithes. And the poor multitude let themselves be fooled and oppressed so far with the tyranny of the Prelate, that they are constrained to submit to him in their practice. Often they cannot but justly loath him in their hearts, as being either very scandalous in his life, or insufficient in his learning and abilities.

But I cannot find any judicious writer, who either knew or maintained the course of the reformed Churches, that places ordination before election. Nor did I ever conceive that to be the order of Christ. For I have taken it for granted what Cyprian [525] says,

We see what comes down by divine authority, that the priest, in the presence of the people, under the eyes of all, is assigned to another, and is made worthy and fit by public judgment and the testimony of the one speaking approval.[526]

I ever conceive that to be true, by Chemnitius [527]:

Do not call for laying on of hands on anyone, so as to share in their sins, approving them, that is, in selecting them for a vocation that is not made legally.[528]

I have judged with Musculus,[529]

Those legitimately elected, are respected by the bishops and the elders who were present at the election, and by prayer and the laying on of the hands, in the established and ordained way, and this mode of election was in effect at the time of Cyprian.[530]

I was ever of the same opinion as the Magdeburgenses,[531]

The bishop was selected by the people, at which the future bishop was presented, and there was a laying on of hands.[532]

I ever consented formerly to that of the Honorable Plesse,[533]

But he is always to be engaged with the consent of the people, before he is ordained and installed by the Church; in general, this is most basic in this business. This is the course of all ages, unless proof can be brought my way that it was a matter of controversy.[534]

So that, he concluded it to be a course beyond controversy, and the perpetual practice of antiquity.

I took it to be a confessed truth in former times, what Calvin wrote, and with whom Beza consents, It remains the rite of ordaining, to which we have given last place in the call, etc. [535]

To conclude, I have apprehended it as an everlasting truth, which judicious Ames delivers in his Medulla, (a book never lauded enough),[536]

A consequent and consummating adjunct is ordination, which is nothing else than a certain solemn entrance of the Minister already elected, into the free execution of his function; laying on of hands often signifies the same thing among the ancients.[537]

It is but an adjunct; and it is consummating. This agrees with Ames’ expression in his Bellarmine Enervat. [538] — election gives jus ad rem, but ordination gives jus in re [539] — just as the election of the Prince authorizes him in his Regal power; Coronation only invests him into his place. And some of the Jesuits, most ingenuous, affirm as much.

Conclusion

I conclude all this with Gerson Bucer,[540] whose book not only argues what his opinion was, but what the constitution was of all the Churches where he lived:

After the consent of the Church is made known to the Presbytery, and counted up, it ends in the Ordination. [541]

And in the following discourse, I hope it is apparent that Ordination depends on the people’s lawful election, as an effect depends upon the cause, by virtue of which it is fully administered. So that, in Apostolic times, the liberty even of the Apostles, was not so great in Ordaining, as was the people’s liberty in Choosing. For as in Acts 6, it is said of that Office of the Deacons, the people were first appointed to choose, and to present the persons to the Apostles. And then they readily received the parties, not once questioning what the people did; nor by withdrawing ordination, refuse to second and establish what the people had done. And if the people had this liberty in an under-Officer, there was greater reason that they should have the same liberty in an Officer of higher degree, in whom they had greater interest, and by whose administration they were to receive greater good.

So that, none were to be ordained except those whom the people chose. The elders neither did, nor could according to rule, refuse to ordain those so elected, unless some just exception was against them. And then too, the people were to make a new choice. In that case, they were not in error and aberration from the rule, to take the choice into their own hands. The proof of this will become apparent in the explication of the other particulars propounded. And therefore we will proceed in this. The second thing then to be attended is this:

2. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer.

Here there are two things that come to be reviewed.

I. How far the Essentials of the Ministry or Minster may be given by man.[542]

II. If they may be given and conveyed by man, then by what means men are said to do this — whether by Ordination, or by any other appointment of Christ.

I. How far the Essentials of the Ministry or Minster may be given by man.

The first of these calls for some special disquisition. This is because it will appear upon trial, that the contrivance (or invention) of these truths is so secret and subtle, that it drives men into diverse conceptions, as not being able to discern how in the work of the institution of the Ministry, the essentials come to be woven together. The thread is so fine-spun, that the dim eye of man’s discerning can hardly find it, or follow it, much less cut it.

And because there is no small difficulty here, and it is the very hinge upon which many weighty consequences, and in truth, controversies turn, I will be bold to offer some things to consider. They may at least cause further inquiry by those who are better able to fathom these depths. And here, as seamen used to do when the Bay or Haven is unknown, or being known it is yet hard to hit, I will as it were, sound the coast by several conclusions. Thus I may find where the channel of the truth runs, in the full strength and stream of it.

Conclusion 1.

There is a causal virtue exerted in a subordinate way by some under Christ, to bring in the formality or special being of an Ecclesiastical Office, to a person or party called to that office, or to someone who stands possessed of it.

1. I say this is done by some, because it is confessed by all, that an external call is required of necessity. Only, some lay the weight of it on one thing, and some on another. But all agree in this, even those whose conceptions have but the color of common sense in them. [543] All, I say, who are willing to be led with the light of any reason, readily grant that there should be an outward call. In the lowest order and office of a Deacon, this was observed by Apostolic direction. They must not, they could not administer, before they were called and appointed to it, Act 6.5. And it’s a staple and standing rule, which teaches all this by proportion, that No man takes this honor to himself, unless he is called, as Aaron was, Heb 5.4.[544]

Secondly, there is a causal virtue exerted in the communication of this power. I will show, and they will easily confess when they express themselves freely, that their own words evidence as much, unless they are forced by the fear of the approach of some Argument which might hazard some conceit they have, which they are loath to leave and lay aside. Then perhaps they may mince their language, so that nothing may be gathered from that against themselves. I find this expression in the Apostle, Gal 1.1, “Paul, an Apostle not of man nor by man.” [545] Men did not institute the office of an Apostle, as the authors of it. Nor was it conveyed to Paul by man, as the instrumental cause. But it was in every way immediately from God. There is therefore in reason (as all judicious men collect from the place) these Two Ways of dispensation to be attended: first, when God immediately institutes and appoints out of His good pleasure, any office of authority; and secondly, when He also immediately from Himself appoints the person to it. Thus both the Calling and the Persons called, namely the Apostles, were immediately from God.

2. The Way of dispensation is mediate. When the institution of the office issues only from the good pleasure of the Lord, he yet may, and does use other instruments for communicating this authority, and investing a person with a right to exercise. And yet, the office is still truly said to be his alone. And in this we see the Popish usurpation in appointing orders; and the orders appointed by them appear to be totally Antichristian, such as the rabble of that wretched crew of Monks, Friars, Cardinals, Chancellors, etc. — because they are of man and by man, mere human creatures which the pride and ambition of the heart of the Man of Sin, the froth and vanity of his mind, has brought into the world. He has provided all of these profane beasts, as so many rotten pillars, to prop up the throne of his Antichristian power and Prelacy.

But those offices which the Church takes up, according to the Institution and allowance of Christ, are wholly from Him as their Author and Institutor. Yet they are conveyed by the Church — to whom He has first delegated power in a subordinate manner, by such instruments as He sees fit — to some persons, that they may possess such places, and exercise such offices, according to Him. And this is done without the least impeachment of the royalty and sovereignty of His rule, which yet resides in Himself alone.

To come nearer to home, let us lend a little help to the weakest Reader, that he may in turn lay his finger upon the several things, and see how they lie distinct in the frame of the Institution.

First, it’s true that there are no orders or officers which have been received, or are to be retained in the Churches of Christ, that it is not the royal prerogative of the Lord Jesus, as King of the Church, to appoint them. They are parts of His worship; and there, what he does not appoint, he does not approve. Instituting and using any other, is merely will-worship. And therefore, all such persons and performances, as they issue from the folly and froth of man’s brains, and never came into His mind, so they are abhorred and loathed by God from His heart, 2Chr 13.9; 1Kg 12.31-32.

Besides, all these places and offices are appointed for spiritual and supernatural ends. And so, they are to effect supernatural works, even the conversion, sanctification, and salvation of those whom God has purposed to bring to Himself. He then alone, must appoint the office, Who can give a blessing to the office and the officer to attain their end. And this none can do but the Lord Christ alone, by the virtue and power of his Regal authority. Now being ascended, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, he gave and blesses by the presence and operation of his own Spirit. Eph 4.8, 11, When Christ ascended up on high, he gave gifts. Some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, some Teachers. These offices are coronation-mercies, of the greatest worth and excellency. And the Psalmist gives the reason from the end, in Psa 68.19-20. He gives these gifts, that God might dwell among the rebellious. And by them the Churches are gathered and perfected, Eph 4.12-13.

And hence, by way of emulation — because Antichrist saw there was no means to underprop his kingdom, and promote his tyranny, unless he had slaves of his own making and creation — he binds those who would serve his turn, by taking up blind obedience, in doing his will, even though they see no rule or reason for it. Therefore, when the Pope ascended on high to the chair of Antichrist, he also sends his emissaries and instruments, as the swarms of locusts out of the bottomless pit,Rev 9.3,4 for the destruction of the Church, and the perdition of millions of poor miserable souls — he being himself the Man of Sin, and the son of perdition, 2The 2.3.

Secondly, it is also certain that men are furnished and fitted inwardly with graces and abilities for so great an employment; with willing and ready minds also, to give themselves up to such holy services. Rom 1.15 He calls; he sanctifies. 2Cor 3.6 He is the Lord of the Harvest, and He sends forth laborers. Mat 9.38 This is termed the inward call. This comes from Him alone. Graces and abilities are in His hand, and they are His gift.

Thirdly, He sets the laws and limits of the place and callings, sets down all the rules according to which they must act, both to order and be ordered, as the quality of their places require. They must do no other things, nor in any other manner than He prescribes. There was a pattern prescribed for all the things in the Tabernacle, from the least to the greatest, which must be observed in all its several parts. Eze 43.11 So it is in Ezekiel’s vision: ordinances, laws, figures, and fashions. Eze 44.5 All must be attended according to the mind of the Lord, without adding to it, or detracting from it. Deu 12.32 It is but reasonable that a Master should set down the laws and orders of his family. 1Tim 3.4

Fourthly, all this while there is no officer nor office put upon any man, however many there are, and however fitted and gifted in every way — they are not officers, if they have not received nor are invested with a right or jus, according to the rule of Christ and order of the Gospel, by those means which our Lord Jesus the King of his Church has ordained to leave the imprint of authority on them to that purpose.

As to how this is done, we will inquire briefly — but we see it plain that this must of necessity be done. Why?

First, because without this Call, none can warrantably do any act which belongs to an Officer; and therefore, without this call, he does not have the specific form of an Officer.

Secondly, without this Call, whatever is done in that behalf, and for that end, is void and of no effect.

Thirdly and lastly, the strength, validity, and efficacy of an outward call in this, appears beyond challenge, if it proceeds from those who may give it by rule. Because whoever has received this outward call in a regular way, is then a complete and true Officer, and may act any part of his office, though he is not inwardly graced and fitted worthily to such a place or work by God.

The Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ chair; i.e., they had this outward call to that office. And therefore they must be heard, by God’s own charge — though they were most unworthy men, and had neither sufficiency of parts to do the work of the place, nor yet sincerity of heart and life to endeavor, much less discharge the weight of the services which should be done by them. They were blind guides, painted sepulchers, Mat 23.16,27 grossly hypocritical and scandalously vile in their general course. They corrupted the Law by their false and unlearned glosses, perverting the simple people by their lewd carriages, polluting all God’s ordinances by their corrupt handling and administration of it.

And therefore, there is more than a mediate subject [546] to be considered in giving this outward call, if we look at the rigor of the phrase. Though, if the Authors will give me leave, I would take their meaning to include as much as what I mention here — because I love not to trouble myself and the world with words, or to make any needless contention about that which may allow for a fair and rational construction in anything. This mediate subject, then, is to be attended not so much in regard to the parties who take office, but in regard to those who give it, in a subordinate way. They are instruments under Christ; and so, as instruments, they are exerted in a causal virtue so as to leave the imprint of an Office-right upon another. For otherwise, we won’t be able to find and maintain any mediate calling.

Suppose, as with Matthias and Joseph who were set before the Lord (Act 1.21-26), there were two persons set apart for the ministry. If there were no causal virtue coming from those who were to call them, and to outwardly authorize one to the place rather than the other, there could be no mediate institution conceived in regard to the parties. They both equally and immediately are presented as subjects to the call. And equally and immediately (in regard to themselves), they lie open to the call. Joseph does not stand in the way of the call of Matthias; nor does Matthias come between Joseph and the call.

But the mediateness of the call lies in this: that however in regard to themselves, they are equally subjected to whatever call comes, yet Christ has given a virtual right to those He is pleased to appoint. And He will not immediately dispense a call from Himself to either party, without a mean between Him and them. They [i.e., the elders or appointees] will leave an imprint of a right of power upon one of the parties, to exercise such a place.

This is also what they call designatio personae,[547] the designation of a person to a place. If by that they mean that they exerted a causal virtue to imprint the formality of the power of office upon such a man, then that is the sense I would give of what they say; and so I willingly grant what they’re saying. But if by Designation to a place, they would darken the truth with words, as Elihu puts it, Job 38.2 and make the meaning of the expression to be that all the essentials — namely the material and formal constituting causes of external Office-power — was in the party beforehand, and so he already had a complete special being of a call, and they are only appoint him the place, and tell him it’s fit that he should exercise his power there, then I say designatio personae, in this sense, neither reveals the truth, nor is the thing done that was intended by it. For designatio personae is then only an adjunct to the office he had before without them; and it puts forth no causal virtue (as subordinate instruments under Christ) to bring into being an outward call.

For upon this explication, what difference can be found between an immediate and a mediate call, which we heard out of Galatians to be founded in Scripture, and confessed by the Apostle? [548] For if all the essentials of both inward and outward calling are equally from God alone, then both the callings are equally immediate, since that call is immediate which is conferred without any means.

Secondly, I can see no cause to hinder this, except that an ordinary Officer may execute his place without any call in the Church. For I would argue thus: someone who has all the causes of his call, both inward and outward, outside the Church, has the power and right to exercise his call, and no one has the power and right to hinder him.

But ex concessis,[549] if this conceit is true, they have all the causes; that designatio personae adds no essentials to the constitution of an outward call. For I suppose there is nothing else to be added outwardly to make the call. Suppose there were two persons fully, indeed equally gifted and furnished with all the graces, abilities, and willingness for the work of the Ministry, which now is lacking in some congregation; and they both desired that work of Christ. If no more was required to be done, to bring in all the causes, and so the being of the power of Office, then both these men had an equal right to officiate. And even if they were to officiate any acts without the designation, they would be true acts of an office; if it was consecrating or administering sacraments, they were valid. And if they have a right to administer, then who has right or authority to hinder that?

Nor can the words admit any logical respect to be put upon them, other than cause and effect. In Act 14.23, when they had made or appointed them Elders by way of choice, the scope of the place is to show what provision the Apostle made for the Churches, in supplying them with Officers, and furnishing them with Rulers, which they did not have before. But now, by God’s appointment, and under Him, they gave an outward call to such persons, to sustain that place to which formerly these persons had no power to execute.

Conclusion 2.

Hence it follows from the former ground that,

It is an act of power, as an instrument or means under Christ, to give an Officer the being of an outward call in the Church.

I desire the Reader here to recall to mind what has been formerly expressed and proved, so that the minds of the simple may not be troubled, or taken aside from the truth, by the ambiguity and mistaking of words.

When we speak of power, the word is of a general sense and signification, and has an influence into every act of judgment, Indeed, judge those who are within, 1Cor 5.12. So that there is no admonition either when one tells another alone, or when he takes one or two, and convinces a brother. But there is a process, in a way of judicial proceeding, according to the Laws and the Government of Christ. This is the difference between a Church admonition, and a Christian admonition. Between those who are not under such bonds, there is an admonition of Christian duty. Here is an admonition issuing from Christian power, which they have because of the places in which they are set.

Sometimes the word authority is largely taken this way, though most frequently it is used another and in a narrower sense. And so, there is also a power which is proper to Officers.[550] And when we would speak properly, or understand distinctly each thing in its proper nature and place, we then mean the power of Office, leading power, ruling power, or superiority of power.

This being conceived and kept in mind, the demonstration of the conclusion is opened: to give power, is an act of power. Those who give the external call, or leave the imprint of the power of office upon another, have the power of judging that other. They cause that virtually, which another has formally, but not they themselves.

Thus we’re done with the first Branch of the second Head, which we propounded to be debated. The next thing that comes to our consideration is this:

II. By what means the Essentials of this Power may be conveyed.

Here also, because we meet with many shoals and sands of several opinions which cross us, so that we can’t make a straight course, we’ll be constrained to tack about a little. We won’t proceed in a perfect method, but will show negatively what does not give this power, and then affirmatively [after Hooker’s Argument 5] what does give this power.

The NEGATIVE PART we will lay out in two Conclusions.

Conclusion 1.

Ordination (as it is Popishly dispensed under the opinion of a Sacrament, and as leaving the imprint of an indelible character) does not communicate the essence of this outward call.

What the Popish sense is here, the [Anglican] Prelates — being their proper successors who tread in the papists’ steps, and keep their path for the most part in Church Discipline — cordially and privately maintain also, though they are not so willing to profess it openly. And therefore, though they would not have the whole world know that they hold to seven sacraments by full expression (and so that of Order to be one), yet they intimate some such thing by the ambiguity of their language, which those who are their familiars can easily send out. Such as, namely, there are but two Sacraments absolutely necessary to salvation; [551] but q.d., there are more, and those are necessary, though not absolutely necessary to salvation.”

But as for the indelible character that should come from this, to make up the formality of a Priest, that to my own knowledge, I have heard stoutly defended and determined in the Schools of the University. It would be worth the while, if we could pry a little narrowly into this conceit, so that we might discern what is the fashion of this Character when it is expressed to the full. Thus we might find some foothold for a man’s fancy to rest upon.

Well, the refined secrecy and subtlety of this speculation is so high, that it forced the Schoolmen to snuffle the candle so near, that they put out the light.[552]

First, they would have it be a quality different from grace, and only a preparation to it.

Secondly, it must be common to all who receive the Sacrament, whether truly or feignedly.

Thirdly, it must be fixed and engraven in the soul in that indelible manner, so that it cannot be blotted out, nor burned out in the flames of Hell.

And in truth, we cannot easily see the sleight and cunning in carving out this Character; for the aim of this device was threefold:

First, that the dignity of the Episcopacy might be advanced. It was from this, that whatever action carries any kind of eminence, or might cause and cast a reflection of respect upon it, that must be given to it, so that men might have an eye to it, and a special reference and dependence upon it.

Secondly, that the honor of Priesthood (as the Papists and Prelates say) might be maintained, some special excellency must be left upon it. And because the baseness of the carriage of that Popish crew might bring their pers0ns and places out of esteem, they must therefore have some Character that could not be defaced. This is because their loudness and wickedness was such that it would deform the very impressions of morality. And therefore they devised such a Character, that would be engraved so deep, that the most abominable profaneness of Hell itself would not eat it out unto eternity.

Thirdly, because the right of the one in what he gave, and the worth of the other in what he received, had no reality, they must therefore join something, such a farfetched conceit, that the secrecy might hold men in admiration of that which surpassed their apprehension, and from this came the minting of this mysterious nothing.

This indelible character comes out of the forge of Popery, and it’s so soot-laden with the smoke of the bottomless pit, and carried along in the fogs of the mysteries of antiquity, that by a secret sleight, it has eaten insensibly into the orders of Christ before the world was aware. It is out of this fog that the School (Scholastics) will speak, when they commonly attend their own liberty of dispute. They are so dazzled by their own sayings, that as a result, they as much as profess that they don’t know what they are saying. For example,

- Some say that it cannot be gathered from the sacred Scriptures, nor the testimony of the Fathers, nor from natural reason.[553]

- Others say that authority alone gave it life, and not predominantly antiquity.[554]

- Some say that reason doesn’t demonstrate it, nor does evident authority prove it.[555]

- And lastly, they say that the determination of the Church (in whose bowels it was bred and has its being, if anywhere) is not express on the point.[556]

And hence they cannot tell what to make of it. For one, it’s ens relatum (as related), such as Durand[557] and Scotus. For another, such as Thomas, it must be ens absolutum (existing absolutely). They cannot conclude where to refer it.

Some would have it in the first species of a quality. Some in the second. Others choose the third. Others the fourth.[558] And all these are like the Midianites, drawing daggers among themselves. They seek by might and force, how to confirm their own imagination, and how to confute the other’s.

Thus, when they would have it, they cannot tell where to find it, or where to set it. Some will have the understanding to be its subject, such as Thomas (Aquinas); some the will, such as Scotus. They will all confess that it is no saving grace, because the worst of men may have it; and that it is no common grace, because it pertains only to some persons in order. But surely it must be a supernatural quality which perfects the soul, and makes a man like Christ, and continues with him in hell. That’s a pretty tale.

A man must have a supernatural grace, and have it for no end when he has it, and that is to conform a man to Christ in hell. This must perfect the soul, when the soul has all evils in the full source and perfections of them.

It’s a common quality in regard to man’s nature. It’s not universal (omni) nor solitary (soli). And it has no special inseparable principle in the soul, which would make it inseparable.

So the sum after so much ado is this: We have found a mysterious nothing, which cannot enter into the imagination of a rational man. Only, if anyone will admire and adore the device that he is not able to discern, then he may, and truly he will, make his ignorance the mother of that devotion.

Thus we have taken leave to sport with ourselves, as it were, in this weary travel, with this speculation of the Popish vassals and the Prelacy. This is not altogether unuseful, if it was for nothing else than this: to show how wily the vain mind of man is, to coin devices, to darken the truth of God, and to delude itself.

We come nearer home, and our second Conclusion is this:

Conclusion 2.

Ordination administered according to the method and mind of Master R., namely, as preceding the election of the People, does not give essentials to the outward call of a Minister.

Why not?

Hooker’s Argument 1.

For it is cross to the Apostle’s institution, given in his express charge, Act 6.3, Choose from among you seven men of honest report. It is contrary to their present practice; v. 5, And the saying pleased the people, and they chose, and they set them before the Apostles.

If none but those who were first elected by the people should be ordained; and if all those who were so chosen could not be refused; then to ordain before this choice is made, is neither to apply the rule, nor to communicate the right in an orderly manner.

And so, in effect, it defaces and makes ineffectual the frame of the institution; and it too hastily invests a man in a place, who has no reality of right to it.

But the first is plain from the place alleged. Nor need that make anyone stumble in this case, because the instance is given of Deacons, which are Officers of a lower rank. Since the reason is the same in both, it rather forces the conclusion a fortiori (with greater reason) as we say. For they have as great an interest in the one as the other. Indeed, they have a greater dependence on their Rulers, and are engaged to a greater subjection to them, and to provide for their honor in a more especial manner, both in reverence and maintenance. Therefore, as it regards all who observe it, it should be approved by all.[559] This is why the Apostle ever has an especial eye to the people in this, as it is their peculiar privilege.

Obj. Tit 1.5 might be objected here, which is often and ordinarily in the mouth of the Prelates and their followers, that the Apostle delegated this authority to Titus, and put its dispensation into his hand: For this cause I left you in Crete, that you should ordain Elders in every City, as I have appointed.

Ans. True, the Apostle did appoint him to do this work, but to do it according to his mind, and in the order which Christ had instituted, and of which he had given him a precedent by his own practice. Namely, when the Elders were elected and presented to the Church, he then laid hands on them and only them, according to the order of Christ in that behalf.

That manner of Sovereignty in proceeding, which the Apostle would not take or use in the Churches, he would not in reason allow his Scholar (Titus) to arrogate to himself. But shall we take Paul’s practice for a precedent in this behalf? His course is plain: Act 14.23, When they had created Elders in every Church (or as the Geneva Bible reads, when they had ordained Elders by election in every Church), and prayed and fasted, ... they commended them ... to God.

It is certain that the Officers were complete in their institution, and had a full call, and a full right for the execution of their places. And therefore, laying on of hands was either not required of necessity, or else it was included, and is to be understood in that they fasted and prayed. So that, the people had the chief hand in the calling of Officers. They first chose, before any ordination could be dispensed in an orderly way.

And the next words show that this was the mind of the Apostle, and the meaning of his charge to Titus. For it is added that he should redress things amiss (Tit 1.10f). And must this not be done by the Officers, and the Church also, according to the rule of Christ? (Mat 18.15f)

Hooker’s Argument 2.

It’s not the scope of Ordination, appointed by God, to give the essentials of an Officer’s call; therefore, it is not to be expected from that, in an orderly way.

The force of the consequence is so full and undeniable, that it gains consent without challenge. Only the antecedent needs proof, and we will apply ourselves to that.

I suppose it will appear from that famous place, 1Tim 4.14,[560] that the scope of ordination is not intended by the Spirit to give the essentials of an outward call. This is the verse which Mr. R.’s Treatise has so often alleged, and conceived also to carry another sense.

Let us therefore, in the fear of God, address ourselves to a serious consideration of the severals in the Text, so that once a thorough search and examination is made, we may then see what certain conclusion can be inferred from them. And so we will ease ourselves for future times, from any further trouble from this Text, whenever it is alleged against us.

Three things then require special explication in the Text:

1. What the gift is, that is said here to be in Timothy.

2. How it was given by Prophecy.

3. What the laying on of the hands of the Elders adds, and why it is used.

1. What the gift is.

The word charisma, translated gift here, according to diverse acceptations, has occasioned interpreters to diversely express their apprehensions of its meaning. We will leave each man to his own apprehension, and crave liberty to weigh each particular, according to the balance of the Sanctuary. And where truth tips the scales, our judgments may willingly be carried that way.

In the first place, then, the word signifies such graces and gracious dispositions of heart, which are freely given to us by God. And thus it is most common, and most frequently used — whether these are common graces which are bestowed on those who have no interest in Christ, such as we find in 1Cor 12.9, 28 or 7.7; or those which, in a saving manner, belong to those who are effectually called. Thus they are sometimes alluded to by the Apostle in Heb 6.9, we hope better things, and such as accompany salvation — meaning better gifts and graces than ordinary, and better than those that the common and ordinary men of the world attain to, because they are for those who have salvation attending them. Thus it is used in Rom 6.23, “the gift of God, charisma, is eternal life,” and 11.29, “for the gifts, charisma, and calling of God are irrevocable.”

Sometimes it is put for the offices and places to which men are fitted through grace, and called out of God’s good pleasure. So it is in Rom 12.6, “having then gifts, charisma, differing according to the grace, charis, that is given to us.”

Lastly, it implies the gift of grace, which through the obedience of Christ is given to us for our Justification, Rom 5.15, “the free gift (charisma) is not like the offense.” Chamierus [561] conceives that it is never taken in this sense, except in this one place. This last sense, beyond all question, does not suit 1Tim 4.14, as all the circumstances in the Text give evidence, and interpreters therefore fall upon the former sense.

Some understand it to mean the faculty of Teaching (docendi facultatem), such as Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Oecumenius.[562] Some understand it as the office of Teaching (docendi officium); this is the common current, and carries the consent of most with it: Anselm, Lombard, Thomas (Aquinas), Cajetan. And Gerson Bucer, a man of accurate judgment, conceives and concludes this to be the most suitable to the scope of the place.[563]

In this variety, I suppose there is liberty for any to lean toward that opinion which he likes best. And I must confess freely that when I weigh all things, I rather incline to the former of the two. For all the leading, indeed, casting circumstances of the places, seems to carry it that way: to wit, that gift must necessarily mean those spiritual and gracious abilities which Timothy received by the Spirit, in a way of prophecy (which we will address shortly), and by which he was fitted and furnished to that extraordinary work of an Evangelist, being the office appointed to him by God.2Tim 4.5

So that, though the Office [of Evangelist] is not firstly and primarily intended here, yet these extraordinary gifts and endowments bestowed on Timothy, are attended with an eye and a certain reference to it. And therefore, that is not altogether excluded, but taken into consideration in the second place. Or more narrowly, These gifts are looked at as bordering and butting upon it. For it is a frame of speech which we hardly find used — we are not prone to speak this way: do not forget the office that is in you, when a man is not only more properly, but more truly said to be in his office. Indeed, the very nature and reality of the thing requires this also: An office is a relation adjoined to a man, that is not inherent in him.[564]

Besides, that place is parallel to this one, and speaks expressly to the same purpose: 2Tim 1.6, Stir up the gift (charisma) which was given to you by the laying on of hands. The sense, therefore, must be the same in both. A man is not said to stir up the office that is in him, but to stir up the grace that is in him, having been put into office. We are done with the first.

2. How this was given by Prophecy.

For understanding this, because various inconveniences attend mistaking this passage, we must know that, even though the office of an Evangelist was extraordinary — both for the gifts belonging to it, and the nature and continuance of the Office (the Apostles being raised up as waterers of that Doctrine of which they were the first and extraordinary planters) — though the calling was extraordinary, I say, it’s not necessary that it be immediate, since the Scriptures seem evidently to allow a large breadth. Sometimes it’s immediate by the operation and peculiar inspiration of the Spirit; sometimes it’s mediate, by the intercession of the Ministry of man.

We have an instance of the first of these, in Philip the Evangelist, who before the dispersion and scattering of the Church, was called to the place of a Deacon. But after the dispersion, without the privity and knowledge of the Apostles, he went into Samaria, and there he preached the Gospel. He is styled an Evangelist by the Spirit of God, Act 8.12, compare v. 26, and Act 21.8.

Of the second sort, we have an instance in the present Text concerning Timothy, whose choice to his office was not left to the judgment of men, but was determined by the immediate dictate and direction of the Spirit.[565]

This way of divine revelation, styled as prophecy in the verse, was acted in a double manner. Sometimes the Spirit, by some prophet who was present and raised to that purpose, pointed out, as it were, by the finger and voice of God, such a person to such a place, or to such a special design in the place to which that person was called. So it is in Act 13.2-3, When they were fasting and serving the Lord, in that solemn manner, the Holy Ghost said, i.e., the Spirit gave that intimation by some Prophet who was stirred up, verses 1, 2.

Sometimes by a special revelation, the Spirit dictated to the Apostles, and prophetically revealed who they should call to such a service, and whom He would enrich and furnish with graces for so great a work as that was.

This is what Bishop Bilson observed in his book about the government of the Church.[566] For if the Spirit of God immediately directed the Apostles in their travels and journeys, and expressly pointed out the places where they should go, then in reason we cannot but conceive and conclude that the Holy Ghost would not fail to reveal to them what companions were most fit to further their comfort, and the work especially committed to their care, there being a greater need for direction. And greater good and benefit could not help but redound by the right choice of the one, rather than the other.

And this last sense, I conceive, is most suitable to the present verse (1Tim 4.14), leaving each man to his own choice. Namely, he enjoins Timothy to stir up the grace which, by the imposition of hands (being directed by the Spirit of Prophecy), he communicated to him according to God’s special appointment. This was the usual ceremony taken up for that end and purpose by the Apostle, in conveying the graces of the Spirit (Act 19.6).[567]

And thus all things suit appropriately. The words are by prophecy, not by the prophets;[568] and both by laying on of hands,[569] and by prophecy, aim at one thing, and are the explication of each other.

The third thing to be inquired is,

3. What laying on hands of the Eldership adds.

This being opened in short, we will issue the proof of the Argument, with evidence of dispute from the verse.

The Eldership here doesn’t note the Office, but the Officers. For as Mr. R. elsewhere well observes, the Office has no hands; nor is the word ever found so used in all the New Testament. And were this the sense to be attended here, if the words had been expressed and set down in that signification, not only would reason reject it, but the very ear would not relish such an unsuitable sense. Do not forget the gift which is in you, which was given to you by Prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the Office. How awkward and unpleasant is such an expression?

Eldership, then, means the Officers. But whether they are the Pastor, Teacher, and Ruling Elders of one Congregation, called a Consistory, or whether they were the concurrence of the Officers of many Congregations together, called a Classis, I have never yet heard any arguments that evinced either, by means of undeniable evidence, Didoclav. 160 [see note].[570]

Either apprehension will serve our turn, and therefore we won’t disquiet the Reader with any needless debates. We say, then, this imposition of hands did not add to the constitution of Timothy’s office, and gave no essentials to it, but only a solemn approval of it. And this we enforce by double reason from the Text:

1. That which was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery, they could not communicate. Nothing acts beyond the bounds of its own being. And giving the essentials of Timothy’s office, was beyond the power and place of the Presbytery, either Congregational or Classical (Classis). For the Office was extraordinary, and their places and power were ordinary. That Office was to cease, and it has now ceased, which would not be if it were in the power of ordinary Officers to give being to it (those who yet remain in the Church, and will do so to the end of the world).

2. Besides, it has formerly appeared and been proved that the gift named here was not the Office, but the graces in Timothy, which should be stirred up by him. And therefore, this reveals those gracious abilities and qualifications by which he was made apt and enabled to that extraordinary work. Hence comes this inference:

The outward gifting and fitting of an Officer to his place, especially an extraordinary one, is beyond the power and place of a Presbytery.

The first is here in the text. Ergo, the natural and native sense of the place is only this:

Do not despise those gracious qualifications which God by His Spirit, in the extraordinary way of Prophecy, has furnished and entrusted you with. The laying on of the hands of the Eldership as consent and approval, concurs with this, to your further encouragement and confirmation in your work.

And thus the woof [i.e., the weave or texture] of the words lies fair and even, and the whole frame goes on pleasantly. And hence it is that studious and judicious Didoclavius observes seasonably and truly, the difference between these two expressions. When the charisma given to Timothy is spoken of with reference to Paul having a hand in it,[571] then the phrase in 2Tim 1.6 is, by the laying on of my hands. [572] But when it is spoken of with respect to the Eldership in 1Tim 4.14, the phrase then is with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. [573] It’s BY (dia) the hands of Paul, indicating there is a causal virtue, under Christ, of constitution. But it’s WITH (meta) the hand Eldership, as concurring by way of approval only.

This ground being gained, many things follow for our further direction.

Hence it is plain that Ordination therefore presupposes a constituted Officer; it doesn’t constitute him. And therefore (1) it’s not an act of Power, but of Order; (2) those who don’t have the power of Office may exercise it; and (3) though it is most appropriate that those of the same Congregation should exercise it, yet the Elders of other Congregations may also be invited to this. They may be interested in the exercise of it in another Church, where they have no power, and upon a person who has more power in the place than they themselves have.

Thus it was here. Timothy was an Evangelist. And therefore, by virtue of his Office, he was to move from place to place, to water where the Apostles had planted, either as the need of the people required, or as the Apostles called. And in those places where the Elders who laid on their hands certainly had nothing to do, they might reasonably approve of that power which they could not give nor exercise.

Hooker’s Argument 3.

That action which is common to persons, and performance or employments, and applied to them when no Office is given at all, cannot properly be said to be an act that specifically makes an Officer, or gives him a call.

For if it was such an act, that would certainly bring in the form of an Office; so that, where that act was, an Officer would be.

But the action of imposing hands is applied to persons and to performances, as special occasion is offered, when t no Office is given, nor indeed intended.

Therefore, it is not an act which gives the essentials to an Officer.

The minor premise is evident by an instance.

Act 13.2-4, As they were ministering (i.e., some Pastors and Teachers), the Spirit said, Separate to me Barnabas and Paul, for the work to which I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid on their hands, they let them go.

Here, for our purpose in hand, these particulars are presented to our view:

First, the Spirit had formerly called Paul and Barnabas to the work; and therefore the words (I have called them) are in the preter-perfect sense.[574] Secondly, we read of Paul’s call and commission given to him expressly, Act 9.16-17.[575] And lastly, the Office being extraordinary and immediately from God, it could not be that the Officers or Elders of the Church could be the cause of the call. For that implies a contradiction, to be both mediately and immediately called.

Secondly, by her Officers, the Church was appointed to separate them to that service to which they had been previously called by the Lord.

Thirdly, this Separation is signified and performed by prayer, and by the laying on of hands by the Officers. This was not to put a new Office upon Paul and Barnabas, but to confirm their sending to the Gentiles. As Chamier says, “I do not think this laying on of hands in ordination was for a new Church office, but only confirmation of the mission.” [576] From this it is plain that imposition of hands is an act which is common to persons, and applied on other occasions.

Therefore, it is not a specific act to bring in this call of an Officer. And on this ground, it seems that the Church of Scotland is so far from conceiving laying on of hands as necessary to Ordinations, that they not only do not use it, but judge it unlawful to be used, unless some special considerations are attended — as it may appear in that accurate work called, etc. [see note] [577]

Hooker’s Argument 4.

If ordination gives the essentials to an Officer before Election, it implies there may be a Pastor without a People, an Officer without a title (sine titulo as they used to say); and a person might be made a Pastor at large. To follow Master R.’s similitude, the ring made and completed in the Goldsmith’s shop, is ready for any man who comes in next and buys it, being made to his hand.

But this individuum vagum,[578] or a Pastor at large, is irregular and cross to the order of the Gospel. For first, in this (as Master Best says) an Apostle differs from a Pastor, in that the Apostle is a Pastor throughout the whole Christian world; but the Pastor is tied to a certain Congregation, outside of which he is not to exercise Pastoral acts.

To this Master R. replies,

“We allow no Pastors to be ordained outside a certain flock.”

I reply, Does their practice shame their profession? [579] What they allow in word is one thing; but if their opinion of necessity implies what they seem not to allow, then it is another. Their grant has a constraining power to conclude what Mr. Best alleges. For if a Pastor may have all his essentials without having a certain flock, then he may be a Pastor without it, there being no more required for the essence of his Office.

I find it strange how Master R. didn’t remember what he wrote two pages before 263, that “A.B. is made indefinitely a Pastor for a Church.” And he confesses not many lines before that,

“Suppose a people were to reject a Pastor, and do it on just grounds; they cannot make him not a Pastor, and yet they can make him to be without a certain flock.”

What is added doesn’t loosen the knot, but ties it faster. For it is said,

“An Apostle was pastor to all the world, yet he might exercise Pastoral acts of preaching and praying towards those people who would not receive his Ministry.”

I reply, The same may be said of this individuum vagum, on the former ground and grant. He may exercise his Pastoral acts even toward heathens who reject him and his preaching. And that which is lastly answered, wholly yields the cause, for these are the words on p. 266:

“And a pastor is only the Pastor of that flock over which the Holy Ghost, by the Church’s authority, has set him as their Pastor. Yet this is so as, when he preaches in another Congregation, he does not cease to be a Pastor; however, he is not the Pastor of that flock.”

WE ARE THEN AGREED, and the conclusion is granted.

If a Pastor is only the Pastor to that flock, then he is not a Pastor to any beside it; and then he can do no Pastoral acts to them.

To whom he is not Pastor, he can do no Pastoral acts to them.

But in that [other] place and to that people, he is not a Pastor.

Therefore, he can do [no] Pastoral acts to them.

Has that been demonstrated? [580]

It’s true, that while he preaches to another Congregation, he does not cease to be a Pastor. It’s that (we all say and grant) he doesn’t preach as a Pastor. He expounds in his own family [at home], and he prays as a Master of his family, but not as a Pastor; and yet he does not cease to be a Pastor while he does that work. He is a Pastor while he does it, but he does not do it as such.

It’s obvious to each man’s apprehension, that a thing may have many relations, and may act by virtue of one only. Though it has the others, yet it neither does nor can it act by those others, in that place. A Constable in a Town, or a Mayor in a City, are Officers while they are in other places; but they can do no acts of their Offices, except while they are in their own places.

Ques. Here belongs that question which Master R. propounds on p. 261, and maintains:

“We hold that a Pastor may officiate as a Pastor outside his own Congregation.”

He makes four arguments which now come to be reviewed in order:

Mr. R.’s Argument 1.

“That which the communion of Sister-Churches require to be done, Pastors may lawfully do. And the communion of Sister-Churches requires that a Pastor may officiate as a Pastor — as in the necessary absence of the Pastor, to keep the flock when challengers trouble it, to convince so that they may not pervert the flock.”

Reply. The assumption is to be denied, and is left wholly destitute of proof. For supply may be lent in those propounded cases of necessity, by Christian council, and by mutual consociation of advice, though there is no expression of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in that behalf. Nor can we be said to take communion away from Churches where God never granted any right of communion.

No man is said to take the communion of Cities away when he denies the Mayor of one to exercise authority in the jurisdiction or corporation of the other. For that would be to take away their privileges and proprieties, not their communities, as it will appear presently from Master R.’s own principles.

Mr. R.’s Argument 2.

“If Ministers may labor to convert unbelieving strangers, and to add them to their flock, that they may enlarge Christ’s kingdom, then they may exercise Pastoral acts over and above others than those of their own charge.

“And the former is true, ergo, the Assumption is clear, Pro 9.3-6; 1Cor 14.24.” [581]

Reply. The proof is added where there is no need; what is feeble and false is not at all confirmed by it, nor is any attempt made to that purpose. And the consequence of the proposition doesn’t have a shadow of truth in it.

When the Apostle stayed in Jerusalem, and the Church was persecuted and scattered, those who were scattered were not Officers, and yet they preached, Act 8.4. Apollos, a Christian Jew, was eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures; he confuted the Jews publicly, Act 18.28; he greatly edified those who believed, v. 27, and yet he was no Officer.

And Scripture gives abundant testimony that it is the duty of all Christians, to labor to convert unbelieving strangers; and experience makes it more than evident that many have been converted, and more have been comforted, by the labors of [ordinary] Christians.

Mr. R.’s Argument 3. The third argument labors from the same disease, namely:

“Because diverse Congregations are to keep visible communion in exhorting, rebuking, etc.”

I say this labors from the same disease as the former, since all these things may be done where there is no Pastoral act; or they can be done regularly, as it appears from Mr. R.’s own principles.

Those whom a Pastor cannot judge, he cannot exercise any Pastoral act over; for that is one special act of a Pastor.

But, says Mr. R., a Pastor cannot judge Pagans and Infidels, p. 226.

Notwithstanding, he may preach to them.

Ergo, merely to preach to a people is not a Pastoral act.

Secondly, again, a Pastor of one Congregation may preach to another; a Pastor of one Classis or Province may preach in the assembly of another Classis, and in another Province. Yet, in none of these can he do any Pastoral act, as I will prove from Master R.’s grant.

Over whom a Pastor has no power, he can do no Pastoral act, for that is an act of principal power. And indeed, over these, says Mr. Rutherford, a Pastor has no power:

“We hold that one Congregation has no power over another, nor one Classis over another, nor one Province over another.”

Thirdly, consider this. If acts of Pastoral preaching, administration of Sacraments, and Church-censures (such as convincing, rebuking, etc.), are required by Church communion, then there are no acts which a Congregation has proper to itself. This was not only to maintain communion, but indeed to breed confusion in all the Churches.

Fourthly, where a man has a right to administer Pastoral acts, he has Pastoral power; where he has a right of Pastoral power, he may claim the right to execute this Pastoral power. Therefore, the Pastors of several Congregations outside the Classis, may notwithstanding, crave liberty to press into the assembled Classis, to join their vote, and censure, and sentence with the Classis, either to hasten or hinder any act. This would be to pull all things onto heaps, and disturb the order of all Assemblies.

And hence it was that the ancient Councils and Canons have ever added so much caution to curb and confine the power of Bishops, that they would not stretch the arms of their authority beyond the compass of their own Diocese. That they then made a Diocesan, was a human device; yet they found it necessary to restrain the Diocesans’ extravagance. If it belonged to them to oversee all as indefinite Pastors, then those who so much enlarged their rule and jurisdiction, would not only have wronged them, but the rule itself.

The learned Junius [582] says of the largeness and lawfulness of the extent of the Bishops’ rule by human grant, that to go beyond his bounds is to be a foreign Bishop, or everyone’s Bishop.[583] I may truly say of a Presbyter who is staked down as the shepherd to the flock over whom he is made overseer, that to play the Bishop in another man’s Diocese, or in every man’s Diocese, is a shoe too big for his foot.

What is alleged touching the partaking of the Sacrament by someone of one Congregation, in another Congregation, has the greatest difficulty of all. This is because the administration of the Sacrament is a Ministerial act, and it can be done only by a Pastor or Teacher.

What authority does he have to do it, or they to receive it from him, to whom he is not a Pastor?

To which I will reply as follows. First, this has been a course which I have ever questioned, and for many years I have alleged many arguments against it. And therefore I could readily ease myself of the Argument, by professing that the course is unwarrantable. And I could profess that the course of the Churches in England, in their corrupt way, have given some such intimation, by forbidding anyone to receive the Sacrament at another place than where they properly have their abode, and their constant dependence upon the Ministry of that place.[584]

But supposing it to be lawful [to take the Sacrament elsewhere], we will see how far the Objection will go, or at the least, how far it touches the cause in hand.

First, then, these particulars are plain and beyond exception:

1. The Minister has power to consecrate the elements in his own place and charge.

2. In consecrating and administering it there, he does not go beyond his Pastoral power.

3. Nor can he reject anyone whom the Assembly lawfully admits.

Secondly, therefore, the question now grows:

What title does anyone of another Congregation have to come to the Sacrament, and by what right can the Church admit them?

First, a person has his first right to a Sacrament, because he has an interest in the covenant of the Gospel, of which it is a seal. But he must come at it in a right order of Christ; i.e., the party must be a member of a visible Congregation, because only there can the seals be rightly and orderly administered. I say, it’s sufficient that the party be a member of a visible Congregation, not a member of this or that particular Congregation.

Secondly, whoever is thus qualified may lawfully be admitted to that ordinance by the Assembly. Therefore he cannot be lawfully rejected by the Pastor, as can be shown.[585] Such an administration doesn’t evidence that the Ruler does anything beyond his place, or has any power outside of his place or particular charge, nor yet that the receiver shares in anything more than his right.

Mr. R.’s Argument 4.

“That opinion of which the reason and ground is false, must be reasonless and without ground.

“And the special ground and reason of this opinion is false.

“Therefore, the assumption is proved, because we are said to maintain that the election and ordination of Pastors is all one, and that Pastors have the essence of their calling from the election of the people.”

Reply. I never saw the assumption and proof of this written down, nor ever knew it practiced by any among ourselves. The utmost that I ever knew was acknowledged or avowed, is that of Doctor Ames; namely, that Ordination is a consummating adjunct.[586] It is the completing of the essence of a Pastor, by an especial perfecting adjunct. But is does not enter into the essential constitution [of the Office]. And I have never yet known this to be maintained, that ordination and election should be all one.

We therefore see that the proof, which should be the main pillar to bear the stress of the argument, breaks all in pieces, and is a mere mistake. So that, the force of the argument melts away like snow before the Sun. What remains as part of the proof of the assumption (that we say, Pastors have the essence of their calling from election) we will make good in the following discourse, Christ helping.

Hooker’s Argument 5. Our fifth and last Argument is this:

If Ordination gives the essentials of a Pastor before election, then by that alone, he has Pastoral power.

I reason against it thus:

Whoever has complete power of an Office, and stands as an Officer without exception, cannot justly be hindered from doing all acts of that Office.

For to be an Officer complete, without an Office; or being complete in his Office and yet according to rule, to be hindered from doing anything belonging to his Office, implies a contradiction. For it’s all one to say that a man is bound to a rule, and yet by a rule, he should not do it.

But this is the condition of a Pastor who is ordained without the election of the people. He may, according to rule, be justly hindered from executing any act of a Pastor.

Suppose all Congregations are full. They may justly deny such a Pastor any leave or liberty to Preach, or to administer either seal or censure among them. And so he will be an Officer complete and without exception; and yet justly and according to rule, be hindered from doing any act of his Office. This is cross to reason, and to the rule of Office-bearing.

By this time we have passed all the shoals and sands which crossed us in our course, and have finished the NEGATIVE PART of our Discourse, namely, What does not give the essentials of the call of a Pastor.

*****

We have now come within sight of the point. And if through mercy we are able to weather it safely, we will satisfy ourselves.

For the AFFIRMATIVE PART, our Conclusion is this:

Election by the People, rightly ordered by the rule of Christ, gives the essentials to an Officer, and leaves the imprint of a true outward call, and so of Office-power upon a Pastor.

Argument 1.

This is taken from that relation which God, according to the rule of reason, has placed between the Pastor and the People, and from which the dispute grows.

One Relation gives being and the essential constituting causes to the other.

But Pastor and People, Shepherd and Flock, are Related. Ergo...

Mr. R. seems to be greatly moved with this reason, p. 262, but he gives no proof at all for what he says. He only takes for granted what is the very question in hand; or else he knows it will be denied, and deservedly so. For his grounds are these:

“Election doesn’t make a Pastor, because Ordination does.”

He barely affirms this, and he knows it is constantly denied, and it has been disproved in our foregoing dispute. He adds,

“Election doesn’t make a Minister, but only appropriates him, being formerly made a Minister to the Church.

“Again, A.B. is indefinitely a Pastor to a Church.”

These are bare assertions, which may with as much right and ease, be denied as affirmed. In our foregoing conclusions, they were proved to disagree with the truth. Laying aside all prejudice, then, let us look over the several propositions of the Argument, and see where the doubt can arise.

The Proposition is supported by the fundamental principles of reason, so that he must erase the received rules of Logic that must reject it. Relatives are those, of which the one is evident from the mutual affection of the other. [587] And hence all men who will not stifle and stop the passage of rational discourse, quickly infer that they are therefore together by nature (simul naturâ), one with the other. A father, as a relation or father, does not come before his son; nor does buying come before selling, or selling before buying.

Assumption. No man who has sipped on Logic, has a forehead to challenge that Pastor and People, Shepherd and Flock, are relations.

The Premises being so sure and plain, the conclusion must be certain and undeniable.

And hence it will also follow, that they are together by nature, and the one cannot be before the other. There cannot be a Pastor before there is a People who choose him.

“The Episcopal ordination of a Minister without title, that is, without a Church to which and in which he should be ordained, is as ridiculous,” says Ames, “as someone pretending to be a husband, without having a wife.” And indeed, it is a ridiculous thing to conceive the contrary.[588]

And hence, again it follows that Ordination which comes after, is not for the constitution of the Officer, but the approval of the one so constituted in his Office. For relations are one to one (Relata are unum uni), says the rule, and completely give mutual causes to each other.

Argument 2.

It’s lawful for a People to reject a Pastor upon just cause (if he proves pertinaciously scandalous in his life, or heretical in his Doctrine), and put him out of his Office. Ergo, it is in their power also to call him outwardly, and to put him into his office.

The consequence is plain from the staple rule, the same that is instituted, may be destituted. [589]

The antecedent is as certain by warrant from the Word: Beware of wolves, Mat 7.15; Beware of false prophets, Phi 3.2.

Ans. Master R. answers, p. 265,

“It’s true, the People have power to reject him from being their Minister or Pastor, but their power doesn’t reach so far as to reject him from being no Pastor.”

Reply 1. If this is true, then a species may be destroyed, and yet the general nature in it preserved. The particular and individual nature of Thomas or John may perish and be dissolved, and yet that general nature of Thomas or John still be safe and maintained. This is, I confess, beyond my understanding.

Reply 2. However, this I am sure of, unless the fundamental reason fails, lifting one out of the relation removes the other,[590] and they are but one to one (unum uni). Therefore, if that relation between the two fails, the relation fails altogether.

Reply 3. Lastly, this rejection cuts him off from being a member in that Congregation where he was, and so from every visible Congregation. It therefore cuts him off from having any visible Church communion with Christ, as a Political head of the Visible Church, and therefore from being any ministerial member — and so from being an Eye, or Hand, or Officer in that Body.[591]

Argument 3.

This one is taken from the manner of the communication and conveyance of this power, which we conceive of necessity requires that it be derived by way of election.

Here we must crave leave to prepare our argument by some preliminary explication, so that the force of the argument may appear with fuller evidence; and maybe also, that the whole cause and carriage of this part of Discipline may receive some disclosure that will not be altogether unwelcome to the Reader.

We must know, then, that conveyance of power is done in two ways. It is either by,

1. Authoritative Commission; delegation from Office or Office-power; or else,

2. Voluntary subjection.

1. Authoritative Commission.

Authoritative Commission is when a particular person, or body and corporation, delegates power to another of themselves, and from themselves alone, they leave an imprint of authority upon another. And then it’s certain, the person or the body must have the power seated in themselves. This is because all the causes of that power issue out of themselves alone, in that there is no other to join with them in that work, or to concur with them by any causal virtue.

Hence, the superior may delegate to the inferior.

Hence, he may give some part of his power to another, and keep to himself the greatest. One who is Lord of diverse Manors and Towns, may give away both Land and Lordship over the places and persons to others, and reserve some royalty (as they call it) for himself. So too, a King or State, or some supreme power in whom such authority is seated, may make under-officers, such as Sheriffs, Bailiffs, Constables, etc. Indeed, he may leave his power wholly, and give it and also his place to another, as usually seen and observed in ordinary course. But to give his power wholly to another, and yet to keep his place and authority, he cannot do. And therefore, to make another fully equal with himself, in the full power that he had and now communicates, that he cannot do.

A Prince may divide his possession and rule, into two portions, and make others share with him in it, and do that equally (equal to what he now has, not what he had). And hence it comes to pass, when ordination was conceived to be Authoritative Delegation (I speak only of a Ministerial manner of dispensation), and was put into the hand of the Bishop, he quickly begins to claim a place of superiority over those to whom he delegates. He claims that the whole care and cure [592] of the Diocese belongs to him, and he commits several portions to several men, that they might share in partem solicitudinis (for purposes of oversight), when he had plenitudinem potenstatis (jurisdictional power), as they used to say.[593]

And from this came that woeful generation of Curates and Vicars; and that device of ordination sine titule (without a title), when the Bishop left some imprint of his power on deposit, as it were, until there came a fit time to dispense it.

From this came the mangling of Offices into broken parts. There must be one ordination to make him Deacon, and another to make him Priest; and when all is done, the poor devotee [594] must yet have a further license to Preach. By all of which, not only did the Fees of the Court,[595] and the Bishops’ Officers come to be replenished, but which is and was the main thing, this was done that it might appear that the power was seated in him, and that he carves out such pieces and portions of it to his underlings, as best suits his pleasure.

Some of these pangs of Popery and Prelacy, like the moths of the mystery of iniquity, have eaten into the Presbytery in some measure. They have taken power to themselves to ordain before election, and to make indefinite Pastors. This indicates that they would have power seated in themselves. They clip the wings (in truth, they cut off the hands) of the Congregation in the work of censure. For they have taken this liberty from them. For the Church that may speak to the offender, if he will not hear it, may excommunicate the offender. But the Prelates say that only the Classis can do that.

From the former ground it also follows:

1. That the one who is of the lowest administration, or whose Ministerial power is the lowest of his kind, cannot delegate to another, for then it would be even lower.

2. That the one who is bound to officiate or execute his own place in his own person, cannot delegate it or any part of it to another.

3. Where a person never had power to rule, there he cannot give power to rule.

From these grounds I would reason thus:

If a Presbyter (an elder), has Ministerial power, and has it of the lowest kind, and is bound to execute his own place, in his own person alone, then he cannot delegate his power or any part of it to another.

The first is true [an elder has Ministerial power].

Therefore, I would here demand to know what that power is, which it is conceived they delegate from themselves alone?

I say “alone” (as above) because all the causes of that power issue from themselves alone.

It cannot be a supernatural saving quality, because it is given to those who have no saving grace. It cannot be a common grace, because then there would certainly be found some real change, by the conveyance of such habits — and that would be all of a sudden, such as the laying on of hands, which we see there is none. And then the loss or defacing of such common qualities would take away the essentials of the call, and nullify the essence of an Officer — which we see it neither does nor can, as it appears in the Pharisees.

What then is communicated? We see here what use we have for the consideration of an indelible character (Conclusion 1 above). To drive this home at a push, if anything is communicated, it must be a relation. So Durand confesses,[596] speaking of the character which is left (as they dream) by the Sacrament of Order. When he could find no footprints of any reality — where to set it, and what to make of it — he ingeniously professes that it’s a Relation, because that answers the ends of this intention. And he speaks true in this; but with saying that, he overthrows what they intend, by what he says. For if it is a relation, then where are the termini (the limits), or the foundation between whom this relation stands? Here we are utterly at a loss. The rest of the Popish crew easily perceived that, and therefore they would not give way to it, because they clearly perceived that the Pastor was in relation to his people. But then the essence of this indelible character, and so this power, must also arise from his people. This would quite spoil the fashion of the Sacrament, and the sovereignty of the Bishop’s ordination.

2. Voluntary Subjection.

Secondly, power is communicated by Voluntary Subjection when, though there is no Office-power formally in the people, yet they willingly yield themselves to be ruled by another, desiring and calling him to take that rule. And by accepting what they yield, he thus possesses that right which they put upon him by free consent. Hence arise this Relation and authority of Office-rule.

The reason:

It is from the voluntary subjection of those whose choice it is whether any shall rule over them or not, that the party chosen has a right, and stands possessed of rule and authority over them.

From this come many things.

1. First, there is an act of power exercised in election.

That which causally gives essence and Office-power, ergo exercises an act of power. And therefore the similitudes which would darken the declaration of this truth, used by Master R. (p. 265), do not hold. He says,

“Ordination is an act of jurisdiction, such as to send an Ambassador. But that an Ambassador must consent to go (such as in election), is not an act of jurisdiction. For a Father to give his daughter in marriage to someone, is an authoritative act of a Father; but for the Daughter to consent to the choice, is not an act of authority.”

Election in the concrete (as we call it) implies two things:

(1) The choice on the people’s part;

(2) The acceptance of the call on the Pastor’s part.

It’s true, consenting doesn’t argue for power; but giving him authority over them — their calling him, and by their willing subjection delivering themselves up to be ruled by him in Christ — is an act of power. Ames writes, “The essence of the calling is in election by the Church, and acceptance by the elected.” [597]

2. Hence the power that the Pastor has, extends no larger nor further than his own people. He has no more than what they give, no more but this: for their subjection is only from themselves.

3. Hence those may, by a verbal power, convey the imprint of a ruling power, who neither have that power formally themselves, nor can exercise the act of that power and place lawfully.

The Church of people can make a Pastor (as we say) by election, who cannot do a Pastoral act, such as administer a Sacrament, etc. In this place, this is especially to be observed, because the collection is full and fair from the conclusion proved; and the weakness, feebleness, and falseness of the contrary collection, which Mr. Ball and Master R. take up in several places, is here evidently revealed and answered. They thus collect:

“If the people could virtually give being to a Pastor and Teacher, then they might execute the Office of Pastors and Teachers.”

The contrary to this has been evicted by the former Argument; and daily and ordinary experience yields the same. The Aldermen choose the Mayor; Soldiers choose their General;[598] and none of these have the rule of such Officers in them, nor can they execute their places lawfully.[599]

4. Hence persons may virtually communicate power to another, who is inferior to, and ought to be ruled by that power so communicated. This is because they gave both place and power to the Officers by voluntary subjection, investing them with rule and right to govern; and they promised reverence, submission, and obedience to the rule and authority in their hands. So that, when they walk according to the laws of that place and authority they have, they are to submit to them in the Lord. But when they go beyond their place and power, they may reform them (correct them) by the rules of the Gospel.[600]

5. Hence, lastly, we see the feebleness of that conceit which is moldy with the tang of the mystery of iniquity by which it was first conceived and has been maintained; namely, that Bishops are of the category of fathers,[601] and this made a piece of the royalty and peculiar privilege belonging to his place.

We will add a fourth Argument.

Argument 4.

If the essential of a Pastor are communicated from the Eldership or Bishop merely, then properly speaking, there will be a Pastor of Pastors.

For the Pastor that is made by them, has reference to them, and dependence upon them as Pastors properly. For this is what is contended for here in the question in hand — that it should be appropriated to their places only, to make Officers.

But this is what Master R. condemns, and reason disputes. For it would breed and bring confusion among all Offices and Officers. And this is charged upon us and our cause, as an absurdity, often by Master R. We desire that they would take the charge home to themselves, to whom it justly belongs, as being firstly guilty of it. And so at length, we are done with the second thing.

We have now come to the third thing to be considered.

3. What Ordination Is.

The premises formerly considered and drunk in, we will only nakedly propound the description, and not trouble the Reader with any tedious dispute about it. This is because most of the chief difficulties which concern the nature of it, have been fully discussed before.

Ordination is an approval of the Officer, and solemn settling and confirmation of him in his Office, by prayer and laying on of hands.

The several parts of the description have been cleared in the foregoing conclusions. What is added is only that which touches the ceremony of laying on of hands. Though there are no convicting arguments in the Scripture which will infallibly conclude it, yet because it is most commonly received, and seems most probable from that charge to Timothy — “Don’t lay hands rashly on any man, nor share in other men’s sins” (1Tim 5.22) — I am willing to follow the road when I have no constraining reason to go aside.

Only, I will add in this place, that from the description now propounded, the explication and confirmation which has been given before, seems to be a fair inference that,

Ordination is not an act of supreme Jurisdiction, but rather of Order. It gives no being or constitution to an Officer, but is rather the admission and confirmation of him in his Office.

And though each ordinance of God has His weight and worth, yet we should not lay greater stress, or put more necessity upon it, than the Lord himself does. When we see, as it appeared by a former dispute, that election has a greater hand in giving being and essentials of Office-power to anyone than this does, let it have its place. But to put such transcendent greatness upon it, will not pass current [602] when it comes to reviewing it.

Therefore Gerson Bucer, a man completely furnished with all manner of learning and language, makes a professed dispute against the comparative excellency of it. What else is the laying on of hands, according to rule, if not a pronouncement on a man? [603] Augustine’s determination was, What is it to order anything on this, if not to pray? [604] Chrysostom (1Tim 3) calls it almost nothing.[605]

The issue is, the main weight of the work lies in the solemnity of prayer, which argues that it is no act of jurisdiction at all.

This much, then, may suffice for the third thing propounded. The fourth and last thing which offers itself to our inquiry, with which we will end this dispute is this:

4. To whom the right of dispensing the Ordinance pertains.

Here we will first state the Question aright, so that our opinion may not be mistaken, and thus misjudged by prejudice. Secondly, we will add an argument or two to settle the conclusion, which we will own, and so leave this head of Discipline to the Reader’s judgment. The plain state of the Question may be presented in these particulars very briefly:

1. When the Churches are rightly constituted, and completed with all the Orders and Officers of Christ, the Right [606] of Ordination belongs to the Teaching Elders. When an Officer is invested in his place, the Act pertains to the Presbyters constituted as Ruling and Teaching. For it is expressly spoken of these, even in the text of the letter, 1Tim 4.14.

So that, to appropriate this to a Bishop of peerless power, who is a mere human creature invented only to lift that Man of Sin into his chair — where there isn’t a syllable in the text that sounds that way — as it goes against the text that endeavors it, so it is a course void of any reason to trouble the Reader by confuting it. This has been done for us by many judicious pens — of Baynes, Bucer, et al, whose arguments never had, n0r will have an answer. It’s more than evident to the one who will not shut his eyes, or hasn’t blinded his eyes with the luster and pomp of a worldly Prelacy, that Paul’s episkopus and presbyter are all one.

2. Though the act of Ordination belongs to the Presbytery, the right and power of ordination [607] is conferred firstly upon the Church by Christ, and resides in her. It is in them instrumentally, but in her originally.

They dispense it immediately; she dispenses it by them mediately. So says Junius (controv. 5. L.i. c.7 not. 9.45), Zanchi,[608] and Bucer (on Mat. 16),

It is said this power to constitute (appoint) public Ministers of the Church in all churches, is within the authority of the Ministry — with Presbyters and Bishops — as in times past in Rome, it was within the authority of the Senate. [609]

But most pregnant, and indeed impregnable, is the testimony of Melanchthon, who says:

For wherever the Church is, there is the authority [or command] to administer the Gospel. Therefore it is necessary for the Church to retain the authority to call, elect, and ordain ministers. And this authority is a gift which in reality is given to the Church, which no human power can wrest from the Church, as Paul also testifies to the Ephesians when he says, Eph 4:8: He ascended, He gave gifts to men. And he enumerates among the gifts specially belonging to the Church pastors and teachers, and adds that such are given for the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Hence, wherever there is a true church, the right to elect and ordain ministers necessarily exists. Just as in a case of necessity even a layman absolves, and becomes the minister and pastor of another. This is the second argument on the power of Bishops. [610]

What can be more plain, unless it was written with the beam of the Sun? And as his judgment is full and clear, so his argument is strong.

All these officers are coronation-mercies given to the Church. The extraordinary are given immediately, the ordinary, mediately; namely, so that she would have power not only to preserve them when she has them, but to provide them when she lacks them. And unless she could do the one, she should never do the other. For if it were so, that ordinary Pastors were made and then given to her, how would they not be as immediate as the other? Most express to the same purpose is Whitaker’s statement:

The Church was given the power to nominate and care for bishops and pastors; and although it cannot execute the office, it can choose and order that appointment.[611]

3. Thirdly, in case the face and form of all the Churches are generally corrupted, or else the condition of the Church is such that she is wholly destitute of Presbyters, she may then, out of her own power given by Christ, provide for her own comfort by ordaining her own Ministers; and this is according to the regular appointment of our Savior, and the order of the Gospel.

Christ has firstly the whole power of Ordination in himself; the Church as his Spouse has it communicated to her. And she exercises this power in a double manner: either she provides, elects, and ordains a Presbytery by which she may ordain them in future times; or else, having constituted and ordained such, she preserves and maintains them, so that she may use them as instruments to ordain. The first of these ways she uses in raising and renewing Churches after great apostasies, and universal departures from the sincerity of the truth. The second she uses in times of peace, when all the Ordinances of Christ are in their pure and constant use, and Officers are continued by an uninterrupted succession, in the profession and maintenance of the truth.

It is touching this third one, that all the difficulty lies, and all the difference between us. We will therefore briefly settle this conclusion by a few arguments which follow from the former dispute, and confirm this with undeniable evidence.

First, if the power of ordaining rests firstly in the Church, then she may — and in this case, having the most need — she should provide for her own supply.

But the power of Ordination is indeed given first to the Church, as enforced by Melanchthon from unchallengeable grounds. Ergo,

Secondly, if the Church can do the greater, then she may do the lesser: for the acts pertain to the same thing, and are of the same kind.

But the Church can do the greater, namely, give the essentials to the Pastor, as above. Ergo,

Thirdly, that which is not an act of Power but of Order, the Church may do in an orderly way.

The reason why it’s conceived and concluded that it’s beyond the power of the people, is because it is an act of supreme Jurisdiction [i.e., power].

But this is an act of Order, and not of Power.

Lastly, it is most certain that this cannot belong primarily to a Classis.

Because if a Classis must arise from the Church,[612] and it is made of the Ministers from diverse Congregations, then Congregations provided Ministers firstly; for a Classis did not receive them from another Classis.

But the first is true, even from the constitution of a Classis. Ergo...

And it is certain that it cannot firstly belong to a Bishop, which by human invention and consent, is preferred before a Presbyter in dignity alone, if they hold themselves either to the precedent or patent from which they raise their pedigree.

It is a saying of Jerome the Hermit,[613] that the problem is choosing one to a higher position. [614]

If Presbyters elected and gave first being to a Bishop, then they were before him, and they could not receive Ordination from him.

The first is conceded,[615] ergo...

Chapter 3. The Right Meaning of an Independent Church.

In which the state of the Question is opened, the distasteful term of Independency is cleared, and the right meaning put upon it; Master R.’s Arguments in his thirteenth chapter are debated.

It is the subtlety of Satan, that when he cannot wholly destroy the truth (which he especially desires to do), he labors to deface what he may, and to present it in such unseemly appearances to men, that they either reject it wholly; or if not that, they long delay before receiving it; or if they do receive it, then it is done under jealousies and suspicions, so they receive it only in part, and not with the full approval that they might, and which it deserves.

And hence, through the envy and distaste of some, and the headiness and rashness of others, men put such unsuitable expressions upon the truth, like a badly shaped garment on a well-composed body, that it appears somewhat deformed at first sight.

This has befallen the cause now in hand, by the term Independency put upon it, which — because in common use, it carries a rankness of Supremacy [616] — it easily disrelishes the spirits of men, being used here somewhat improperly. At first appearance, it easily provokes a nauseous distaste in the spirit of the hearer who is not so fully acquainted with the compass of the cause now under hand.

We will take leave therefore to lay open the state of the question nakedly as it is, and narrow the expressions a little where, because of their unfitness and breadth, they leave a kind of ill-favored appearance upon the truth.

The state of the Question, then, may thus be conceived:

1. When we speak of the Church here, we look at it not as an Essential Whole only, as they used to say — as it is made up and constituted of visible Christians gathered in the fellowship of the Faith; but as an Integral Whole, or Organicum (Organic Whole), as Ames expresses it [617] — as it is furnished and completed with all such Officers which Christ has given to His Church for its perfecting. For then, and not before, the Church is said to be able in a right order, to act and exercise all the ordinances of God.

2. When this Church is said to be Independent, we must know that Independency implies two things:

(1) Either an absolute Supremacy, and then it is opposed to subordination;

(2) Or else a sufficiency in its kind, for attaining its end; and so it’s opposed to imperfection.

Taken in the first sense, a particular Church or Congregation is not absolutely supreme. For it’s subject to, and under the supreme political power in the place where it is located. So that, the Magistrate has a coactive power to compel the Church to execute the ordinances of Christ, according to the order and rules of Christ, given to her in that behalf in His holy Word. And in case she swerves from her rule, the Magistrate may by a strong hand constrain her to keep it. He is thus a nursing Father to the Church, to make her attend that wholesome diet which is provided and set out as her share and portion in the Scripture. Indeed, should the supreme Magistrate unjustly press or persecute, she must be subject, and meekly according to justice, bear that which is unjustly inflicted.

Again, she is so far subject to the consociation of Churches, that she is bound to crave their counsel in case of doubt and difficulty; and if it is according to God, to follow it. And if she errs from the rule, and continues obstinate in this, they have authority to renounce the right hand of fellowship with her.

In the second sense (SUFFICIENCY), the Church may be said to be Independent, when she is sufficient to attain her end. Therefore, she would have complete power, being rightly constituted, to exercise all the ordinances of God.

All Arts are thus complete in their kind, and have a complete sufficiency in themselves to attain their own end; and yet they are truly said to be subordinate to each other in their works.[618]

The Word, then, in its fair and inoffensive sense, imports this much: that every particular Congregation, rightly constituted and completed, has sufficiency in itself to exercise all the ordinances of Christ. And thus there is no harshness in the Word that offends the hearer; nor is the sense of it hard or difficult, nothing which may load the cause with any loathsome distaste at all, were the mind were not prepossessed with prejudice.

For it’s granted by all, that the Church has this sufficiency in the exercise of some ordinances, such as to Preach, or dispense Sacraments, without either craving or needing the consent of the Classis; nor would she yield to the judgment of the Classis if they forbade her to execute her work.

And if she has a completeness of power in the highest Ordinances, then why she should be denied the like in those that are of less excellency, I don’t know. Or why the one should be conceived so strange, and the other so ordinary and equal, I don’t see. The Apostle knew no dispensation of so choice an excellency as Preaching, which he prefers before any other. I was sent to preach the Gospel, not to baptize (1Cor 1.17). That was the greatest part of his errand. If Ordination or Excommunication had been of so great an eminence above all others, then certainly he would have mentioned some of them.

It was the reasoning of old, [619] which went current without any challenge: the body of the Lord is able to preach, and able to complete; hence, it is also able to consecrate. [620]

It’s also granted by Master R., that on islands separated from the mainland, churches cannot enjoy the societies of neighboring Churches, with that comfort and convenience as their occasions may require; and therefore, ordination, and so excommunication may be performed among them by the Congregation.

This being an ordinary and common case, which falls out in the usual and constant course of providence, and there being many such churches proportionally — I say it appears from this, that the power natively and naturally lies in the Congregation. For to think that these occasions should put God to such extraordinary dispensations as to cross His ordinary rule; or that the exercise of the act of Ordination should again return into His own hand, to be immediately dispensed by Himself, is too weak.

The Jesuits in like manner are put to their shifts [621] when they cannot tell what has become of the supreme power that was in the Pope when he dies, because there must not be two Popes on earth. They are therefore forced to say that it is re-assumed into the hands of Christ. The feebleness of this conceit is confuted and condemned by all our writers, Whitaker, Junius, Ames. The same may be said here. To put the Lord Christ to immediate and extraordinary ways, when according to the ordinary course of traffic and commerce, the Churches might have intercourse with other Churches, just as civil States in such places have intercourse with other States. It has no show of Scripture or reason to deny it, especially if we add that the first Synod, which was made a pattern for all the rest, was a concurrence of such Churches, which were two hundred miles away from one another.

Lastly, it will soon appear that Mr. R. maintains that there is such a sufficiency of enacting all God’s Ordinances among those who are yet not independent in this opinion; and therefore the one may stand with the other.

We come now to consider those Arguments which Master R. alleges against this Independency now propounded.

Argument 1.

“If there is not a pattern of such an Independent Congregation by precept or practice, when one particular Congregation with one Pastor and their Eldership, did or may exercise all the power of the Keys in all points, then such an Independent Congregation may not be held.

“But the former is true, there is no precept or practice of any such Church. Ergo...”

Mr. R. then instances Ordination, and desires either precept or practice to be given from that.

Answer. Let it be remembered here, first, that the difference between Master R. and us, is not in cases either of separation of Churches from one another, or special restitution after great defections and apostasies.

Secondly, the difference between him and us is this: He argues that when Churches are completed with all their Orders and Officers, it is then not in the power of a particular Church to dispense Ordination; but Ordination is to be enacted by a Classis, or College of Pastors, and that is to be done before Election.

(1) Taking this consideration along with us as his conclusion to be proved, it is namely this:

“Ordination must be dispensed by a Classis of Pastors, and that is to be done before election.”

Reply. I will readily reply many things; and rather do it because this dish has been so often set before us, and is brought in as one, in all services almost ad nauseum. Therefore, referring to what we have formerly written, we add here,

First, there is not the least show, in all the Scriptures, of Ordination before Election, so dispensed. All the places alleged have not the least appearance of proof of this conclusion.

Secondly, when Churches were completed with all their Officers, that Ordination was then enacted by a College of Pastors, there isn’t a syllable in the text that says any such thing.

If we examine particulars by a quick survey, both these will be evident as first sight.

In the first chapter of Acts, there is but one Church, and no Ordination at all. “For that is an act of supreme jurisdiction,” as Master R. says. But that the Apostles had supreme power to call an Apostle, whose own calling was immediately from God, implies a contradiction.

In Acts 6, the Church there was not complete with Officers, and the Apostles as extraordinary persons acted there [appointing deacons], as they might act in all other Churches that would be erected. Therefore this doesn’t reach our conclusion.

In Acts 13.1-3 [selecting Barnabas and Saul to go to Cyprus], there is no Ordination to Office at all, for the Apostles had their office before. Secondly, the Officers of one Church (for so the words are, in the Church of Antioch) did what was done in an ordinary way. Therefore, this is no precedent for the Pastors of many Churches, as to what they either may or should do.

But how that passage in Act 14.23,[622] can haled (dragged) into the purpose in hand, is beyond my apprehension.

First, there is no mention made of laying on of hands, but lifting up the hands.

Secondly, here are not Officers of many completed Congregations, but Officers to be made in each particular Congregation.

Thirdly, here no act of Ordination is mentioned, but of Election. And therefore,

Fourthly, what is alleged here was the proper and peculiar act of the people, as all our Divines evince against the Papists and Formalists; and as the native signification of the word evidences, which must be attended here.

All of this considered, Mr. R.’s reasoning is thus: if the people of one congregation, Paul and Barnabas ordering the action, chose their Elders, then ordination of Elders before election must be the act of the Pastors of many Congregations. This, I say, is wide of the mark.

That passage of Act 20.17, 28,[623] is as far wide, if not further. For,

First, it cannot be proved that there were Elders of many Churches, but only of one Church, as all the casting circumstances carry it.

Secondly, it is but certain that here no act of Ordination is performed or attended, and therefore nothing concerning that can be concluded.

The same is true of Phi 1.1. [624] If there is any probability of dispute, it must be taken from 1Tim 4.14. But it has been proved before, that here there was not an Ordination of an Officer, because it is beyond the power of ordinary Officers to give being to extraordinary Officers, such as Timothy [an Evangelist, 2Tim 4.5]. And therefore his laying on of hands was like that in Act 13.2-3.

(2) Master Rutherford adds,

“If Ordination of Pastors in the Word is never given to People or believers, or to Ruling Elders, but still to Pastors, as is clear in 1Tim 5.22, Tit 1.5, Act 6.6, Act 13.3, 2Tim 1.6, and 1Tim 4.14; and if Ordination is never in the power of one single Pastor (unless we bring a Prelate into the Church), then one Pastor with one single Congregation, cannot exercise this point of discipline, and so he cannot exercise all points of discipline.”

Reply. This argument is the same as the former one, as to its substance. Only a few places (which might have been annexed to those that were mentioned before) are added here, which we may consider in the order they are propounded.

As to 1Tim 5.33, where Paul charges his Scholar not to rashly lay on hands on any man, and also to Tit 1.5, which carries the same sense; and therefore they both receive the same answer, we say:

First, here is nothing in the Text that gives the least intimation of a Classis; and therefore the authority for it can by no inference come from here, by which the thing to be proved may either be concluded or confirmed. But the charge is directed expressly to Timothy and Titus in particular.

Secondly, the manner how Ordination is to be enacted by the one, or Elders constituted by the other, is not expressly revealed (the word appoint is larger in Tit 1.5, katasteses [set in place]). Rather, we are called by the words to look elsewhere for the pattern by which this practice and proceeding must be ordered in both cases. As I have appointed [or directed] you. What this appointment of the Apostle was, this Text does not reveal; therefore no man can determine it.

Thirdly, all the circumstances give evidence, touching whose ordering the Apostle speaks of here, that the Churches were not yet completed in their Officers. But being newly founded and planted, they were to be furnished and perfected with Rulers, by the help and direction of Timothy in the one place, and Titus in the other. Therefore, in none of these is the question touched as to its true nature, as stated before; which is of Churches furnished with Officers.

Fourthly, it cannot be reasonably thought that the Apostle would approve, much less appoint another way of ordaining Elders, than he himself practiced (I speak to Tit 1.5). But he ordained Elders by the suffrages of the people, and established them by the help of their fasting and prayer (Act 14.23). That is all that is left there on record; and therefore Titus and Timothy must follow this direction.

Fifthly, in all those charges which are directed to Timothy and Titus in these Epistles, it was never intended that they should enact them alone, but ever supposed that they should attend the order of Christ in His Churches, and have the concurrence of Officers and members, in their ranks and places, as the quality and nature of the actions required.

When it is enjoined of Timothy that those who sin should be rebuked openly, 1Tim 5.20-21, to do nothing with partiality; that Titus must teach things pertaining to wholesome doctrine, Tit 2.1, etc. — would anyone say that these duties must not be attended by all the Elders of those Churches; or deny that they should see and provide that they might be attended to, and that they stood charged to do so, as well as Timothy and Titus?

Indeed, let us go no further than Tit 1.5, rectify the things that are lacking. Imagine there had been Deacons lacking; must Titus attend to that only, and nothing else? And do it alone without any others? Or rather, that as a Guide, he should go before and see that others acted according to their places. The people were to discover those who were fit to choose, and present them; and had there been Elders in the Church, that they should lay on their hands, for settling and investing them in their places.

Lastly, Timothy and Titus are considered here, either as they are Evangelists, and so extraordinary persons — and then their actions are not to be made ordinary precedents — or else they are to be considered as expressing common actions of government, which are to continue in the Churches with those who succeed them in such power. And then, if we enforce this example, it will follow that:

As Timothy and Titus, being particular persons, exercised such acts of government, the same acts may be expressed by particular Officers in their particular Congregations. And hence the inference drawn will be fair against Master Rutherford’s assertion.

Touching that passage concerning Ruling Elders, that the Ordination by the Pastor is denied to him, as he has no right or power in it, the falseness of this has been sufficiently evinced elsewhere, to which I refer the Reader.

(3) And from this, the third allegation also receives a satisfactory reply, because what is contained in it, in no way concludes the thing to be proved. Mr. R. writes,

“If Preaching Elders are charged to watch against grievous Wolves, Act 20.29, then be rebuked, because they suffer them to teach false doctrine, Rev 2.14, and be commended because they try false Teachers and cast them out, Rev 2.2. If they are commanded to ordain faithful men, and taught whom they should ordain, then one Pastor and a single Congregation, don’t have the power of this Discipline.”

Reply. To this I must profess that I can see no ground of reason in the Inference. For,

First, those in Acts 20 were Elders of one Congregation, as the circumstances of the Text evidence.

Secondly, suppose they were not, does Paul enjoin them that when they are assembled in the Classis, that they should watch against ravening Wolves? Or instead, that it properly pertains to them in their special charges, in which they are set as episkopos, bishops and Watchmen in an especial and particular manner?

Thirdly, in its due proportion, doesn’t this watch concern the Ruling Elder as well as the Teaching? Doesn’t it especially pertain to this place, to be like eyes in the wings, to pass up and down in the Assembly, and inquire after the first and least stirring of any false opinion when it is in the very hatching, and brooding secretly, before it dares show itself, and then to give timely intimation to the Teaching Elders to fortify against the approach of such evils?

And isn’t it more than plain, that the Teaching and Ruling Elders of any particular Congregation, are so far bound to watch over the flock, that they should by private rebukes, stay and stop the venting of erroneous conceits? And if that won’t prevail, they should then take two or three to witness. And if yet they will not hear it, nor reform, they should tell it to the Congregation, and Preach publicly against it, and not permit them to vent, or others to listen to their delusions?

Now lastly, doesn’t Master Rutherford grant that the people have power to reject an unworthy Minister? And therefore, may they not try him, hinder him from Teaching, watch against him, and by the mouth of the Ruling Elder, both publicly rebuke him, and remove him? So that, nothing can be inferred from here, that these acts are peculiar or appropriate to a Teaching Elder, much less to him alone, when they are assembled in a Classis.

We are done with Mr. Rutherford’s first Argument.

Argument 2.

“That government is not of God, nor from the wisdom of the Lawgiver, which devises means of Discipline to edify the People, but omits means to edify the Elders of every Congregation by the Keys. The Doctrine of an Independent Congregation is such. Ergo, the Assumption is evidenced by instance.

“Suppose Elders grow scandalous and corrupt, either in life or doctrine. There is no way to gain (win against) them on this ground. For either they must censure themselves, and that is against nature and reason; or else they must be censured by a Classis, but the Independence of Churches won’t allow that.

“Or else they must be censured by the multitude of Believers. But this cannot be granted:

“First, because the Lord has not given this rod of censure to the flock.

“Secondly, because this is popular government [a democracy] and worse. The flock is made OVERSEERS of the Shepherd; the Son is authorized to correct the Father.

“Thirdly, we desire a pattern of this from the Word.”

Reply. There is nothing here that hasn’t been alleged and answered before. The first part of the Answer turns the question into the proof of the question. For the conclusion to be proved is this:

That a particular Congregation cannot exercise in a right order, all God’s Ordinances; and so it cannot exercise excommunication, not having received that power from the Lord Christ.

The proof is this: they haven’t received this power; ergo, they have not received it.

This is to crave, and not to prove.

To the second part of the answer, we have spoken at large. This much will suffice here:

1. If by Overseer is meant an Officer, it is a bare mistake. For that is and has been denied. If it means a Judge and brotherly helper of his reformation, it is such a government which the Word not only allows — Tell Archippus, beware of false Teachers [625] — but it’s what all combinations, both civil and Ecclesiastical, of necessity require.

2. Isn’t a Pastor a member in the body, a Brother as well as a Father? And doesn’t, shouldn’t, one member take care, and each have a memberly oversight of the other? Aren’t we therefore called members of each other? Rom 12.5; 1Cor 12.12-27; Eph 4.25.

And is it strange to Master R. that a Son being in a combination or corporation with the Father, should be authorized to reject his aberrations and offenses according to the rule of Religion and Reason. Isn’t it easy to conceive, and ordinary to find in experience, that Father and Son may be fellow Aldermen in a Corporation? And in case the Father is a delinquent and proves justly liable to censure in the Court of Aldermen, may not, indeed should not a son pass his vote in a just sentence against his own father? Though he doesn’t do this as a son, yet being a son, and being in the same Corporation, by virtue of that combination, he may and (according to the righteousness of the cause) should proceed to censure the evil of his father. We have given a pattern of this government before, and therefore the third thing is answered: that a pattern of this is desired from the Word.

Argument 3.

The third Argument, taken from many absurdities which follow from this cause, is made up of nothing but mistakes. Some of them are the very question in hand; some have been directly handled in the foregoing reason, such as the second and the fifth,[626] which are one with the former. And therefore they have received an answer partly before, and will receive one partly afterward, together with the things of this nature.

Argument 4.

“That Doctrine is not to be held which tends to remove a public Ministry.

“But this Doctrine of Independent Churches is such.

“The Assumption is proved from the definition of a visible Church, which is this:

“It is an Assembly of true Believers, joining together according to the order of the Gospel, in true worship.

“From this it follows that every twelve in a private family is joined in this way.”

Reply. Family-relation is one thing, and Church-relation is another. They each stand by virtue of diverse rules, civil Economics, and Ecclesiastical Politics. And therefore, however many families there are, even of those who exercise Christian duties together, yet this would not make them a Church.

His second proof is,

“Because such a Church has within itself the power of the Keys, and is not subject to any superior Ecclesiastical jurisdiction.”

The force of the proof will appear in its framing:

“If an Independent Church has the power of the Keys, and it is not subject to any other, then it tends to remove a public Ministry.”

Reply. This proof is, in reality, the same as the proposition to be proved. For to be an Independent Church, and to have full power of the exercise of all Ordinances, are all one.

Secondly, the consequence has no truth or strength in it, for quite the contrary follows.

Such an Independent Church can call and ordain Officers; and it is bound to do so, before she can enjoy some Ordinances. For none can consecrate and give the Sacrament except Pastors and Teachers. And therefore she must provide those before she can partake. This is the easiest and most certain means to provide, and so to continue a faithful ministry according to Christ’s appointment, to the end of the world. For both Brightman [627] and Ames, and the Truth also, will make it apparent that Christ will never lack a Church of Believers professing His faith, to the end of the world. Whereas Classes and Synods have totally failed, and have come to be restored and recovered only by the help of particular Congregations.

His fifth Argument, taken from Mat 18.17, has been answered before, to which I refer the Reader.[628]

Part III. Church Government

Chapter 1. Of the Government of the Church.

There were two things attended in Church-policy, viz. first, the Constitution of the Church; and secondly, the Government of it. We’re done with the first; now we consider the second.

Government – Frame

1. Severed

a. What the watch is which pertains to all

b. What the behavior is of all under it

2. Assembled

a. Admission

i. What is to be done before they come

ii. What is to be done when they meet, in receiving those who,

(1) Are not members

(2) Come as members of other congregations

b. Dispensation of

i. Sacraments

ii. Censures

We have thus set forth the frame of the severals to be considered. We will quickly treat the particulars as they are presented in their order, attending them so far as serves our intended purpose.

The work which is of common concern to all the Members when the Assembly is dissolved, is that WATCH in which they stand engaged to express to each other, above or before all others, for the good of the body so confederated.

First, all Christians are bound by the rule of Christianity, to love and provide for the good of all Christians. Their honor, lives, chastity, goods, good names, and prosperity should be precious to us, and we should be careful to preserve them in a way of love. Yet we know it was Cain’s voice, and it argued Cain’s heart, when he asked, Am I my brother’s keeper?

Those have a nearer and deeper engagement, who beside the bond of Christianity, have the bond of Christian confederacy, and in a peculiar manner, engage one another more than any other Christians in the world. So Peter presses in 1Pet 2.17, and Paul concludes in Eph 4.16,[629] By the effectual working of every part, etc. And it seems to be the care to which the Israelites were enjoined in Jos 6.18, And you in any way keep yourselves: each man himself, and each man his brother. And this watch, being neglected, involved all under the same guilt, Jos 7.1, the children of Israel had committed a trespass. Though Achan did it without their knowledge, yet they were guilty of the sin, in that they had not taken care as they should, to prevent it by way of watchfulness in each other — as with Achan.

Secondly, as they have a deeper engagement than others, as Free-men of the same Corporation have a nearer tie than all the people of the same Country, so they have special power over one another; and that is by virtue of the Covenant. For by free and mutual consent, those who were free to join in any other Society, willingly yielded themselves to this: to walk with one another in all the Ordinances of Christ, and to be subject to one another, to be proceeded against judicially in case they wrong that society. And hence the process that each has against another according to the order of Christ — Mat 18.15, If your brother offends you, tell him — is indeed appropriate and peculiarly intended for a Church-corporation. For that Church which can judicially censure and cast out an offender by excommunication, has power to proceed against him judicially in all the other degrees which make way to that, such as, Tell him privately, and then Take one or two. We may admonish others Christianly; but only those who are in combination judicially, can lay an action against another and pursue it.

Hence, if I tell another Christian of his fault, and he refuses to hear it, I am not necessarily bound to follow this law against him. And if I do take one or two to fasten his conviction, and he refuses, I must leave him. But we have express law against Brethren, by which I am bound to pursue their conviction, and they are bound and will be required to attend, and either come to a reformation, or else suffer a just censure for their obstinacy.

Hence, lastly, by virtue of that engagement by which I am tied, and the power I have received, I stand charged in a most peculiar manner, to prevent all taint of sin in any Member of the Society — that either it may never be committed, or if committed, it may be speedily removed, and the spiritual good of the whole be preserved. 1Cor 5.7, Purge out the leaven, that you may be a pure lump.[630] It’s not that each particular person apart may keep himself pure, but that the whole may be so preserved. And this kind of watch reaches any of the Members, and this kind of process is good against any of them. Every brother, and therefore Archippus and any Elder,[631] if he is a Brother, he is liable to it. This is the watch which we must express towards those who are within.

For the perfecting and increase of the Body, we must attend those who are to be brought in. For this is a spiritual Corporation. None can be constrained to join it unless they willingly submit to it; so neither can they join unless the body as freely and willingly entertains them.

It is not dwelling in the same city, parish, or place; it is not being a subject in the same Kingdom that interests any in this privilege.[632] And as the Church can compel none to join against their wills, so the civil Magistrate should not use any compulsive power, nor by violent constraint, force the Church to receive, or anyone to join the Church against their wills.

The civil power may compel them to come under the call of God, and attend the Ordinances, and force them to use means of information and conviction, so that the Lord Christ may make them glad to seek Him in the ways of his appointment, and even more glad to find Him in these. But the civil Magistrate is to leave the Church to follow the rule of Christ in her Admissions; for it is a Church work to be enacted by the rule of Church Policy. And therefore it should be left to the power of the Church, not constrained by civil power. Christ’s people are a willing people; faith is not forced.

In ADMISSIONS, two things are to be attended. First, what is to be done before they come; and secondly, what is to be done once they have come into the Assembly.

First, before the Assembly, so the proceeding may be carried on in a seemly and orderly fashion, the person who desires to join himself as a Member with the Church, is to make his desire known to the Ruling Elder(s). For it’s peculiar to that Office to lead the action of Admission, it being a work that does not fall within the compass of laboring in the Word and Doctrine.

1. The desire of the party being made known, the Elder is then to inquire diligently, and to carefully inform himself, touching the uprightness of the person’s carriage and conversation, from the testimony of others who know him intimately, and who will reasonably deal with this openly and sincerely.

2. He must take notice by way of conference, what the person’s knowledge and acquaintance is with the things of Christ and his Kingdom. The reason why he should thus inform himself is this: because hereby the party may reveal, and the Elder may discern, whether this person is a visible Saint to the judgment of reasonable charity. We formerly proved that this is necessarily to be attended according to the rules of Christ, and the right constitution of His Churches.[633]

And Master R.’s own grounds and grants imply as much by force of argument. For if those who are to be admitted must be void of scandal in their course, and also freed from gross ignorance, which in some cases, by Master R.’s own confession, will unchurch them, there must then be serious inquiry made, whether the persons who tender themselves to enter into this condition, are so qualified.

The profession which Master R. requires is of such a quality,

“That it notifies the Church that there is saving faith in the hearts of such persons, and that they are invisible Saints who desire to join themselves to a visible Congregation,” l.2. p. 196.

Therefore, the Church is bound in an orderly way to inform herself touching such fitness, lest she break the rules of Christ, and bring pollution and thus ruin upon the whole.

After the Elder has informed himself in the particulars formerly mentioned, he then sees the way and warrant to propound the desires of such a person to the Church, so that they also may use their best information, by their own experience, and take into account the consideration of others, to be fully informed and satisfied touching their unblameable conversation.[634]

As for that, the Members should at several times, by several companies, repair in private to them, to examine the work and manner of their conversion. I’m afraid it is a presumed kind of liberty which warrants precept and example, for anything that ever appeared to me in the Scripture. That liberty is as much as the office and duty of the Elder binds him to, and therefore it seems to entrench too near the propriety of his place. Beside, all such pains miss the end and fruit of it; for the stress of the trial doesn’t lie there, nor can the last resolution of judicious and reasonable charity issue there, as to whether the person is a visible Saint or not. For there are many who are truly and savingly called, who never knew the time and manner of their conversion, and therefore cannot relate it to others. And yet they express the power of grace in their lives, and consequently had it effectually wrought in their hearts, though they didn’t know at first, how the Spirit breathed in their birth.

A time of inquiry being thus granted, if upon serious observation and consideration, the Brethren find any just exception, as touching any scandal in their carriage, and after dealing with them, they can receive no real satisfaction, they repair to the Elder to leave their complaint with him. And that is sufficient to stay the proceeding for the present.

But if upon sufficient time of gathering information, there appears nothing scandalous, the person briefly gives some reason for his hope, in the face of the Congregation. He is admitted, engaging himself to walk with them in the Covenant of the Church, according to all the rules of the Gospel, that either are or shall be made known to them.

If it is asked, What is the rule according to which satisfaction is to be regulated, the Reader may be pleased to look back to what was largely debated touching the visibility of the Saints, and what evidenced these things to rational charity.[635] In a word, if a person does not live in the commission of any known sin, nor in the neglect of any known duty, and can give a reason for his hope towards God, this fixes the cause, with judicious charity, to hope and believe there is something of God and grace in the soul, and therefore he is fit for Church-society.

That this much is required, has been demonstrated from Master R.’s own principles. And that this much is required, is undeniable by the rules of right reason. For whoever lives in known omissions of duty, or commission of sins, professes himself by that practice, that he is not willing to submit to the rules of Christ, and therefore is not fit to be His subject, or to enjoy the privilege of His kingdom, which reveals the authority of His Scepter. Indeed, by such a practice he professes to persist and to be pertinacious in sin. And therefore, if he was in the Church, and would be fit to be cast out and censured — then he is not worthy to be received.

This rule being received and agreed upon, it would marvelously facilitate the work of Admission without any trouble, and prevent such curious inquisitions and niceties which the pride and wantonness of men’s spirits has brought into the Church, to disturb its peace, and to prejudice the progress of God’s Ordinances.

Hence also, those sottish (drunken) pangs would quickly be calmed, when some complain that they cannot join with such and such, and yet they cannot show a just exception. Whoever joins with the rule in his practice, who has but a teachable and meek, self-denying heart, will easily join with him. This is the manner of receiving men.

Ques. What difference is there in receiving Women (you may ask), whether any, or none at all?

Ans. It’s true, women are forbidden to speak in the Church,[636] i.e., by way of Teaching; but they may speak when their speeches demonstrate subjection, and suit their sex. For instance, so as to give testimony of repentance, in case they were censured and came to be restored again — so as to answer a question propounded to them. Yet, we find by experience, that the frailness of some — their humble modesty and melancholy fearfulness — is such that they’re not able to express themselves in the face of a Congregation. And yet they have the precious work of saving grace in their hearts. And so we are forced to take the expressions of such persons in private, and make a report of them to the Congregation [on their behalf]. And since this was necessary for some, and warrantable for all, it’s almost without exception, that we receive all in the same manner. Thus the infirmities of the weakest may be relieved, and the seeming exceptions of others may also be anticipated.

Ques. The last Question belonging to the topic of Admission, is this:

Whether those who are dismissed from other Congregations, must necessarily make their confession [of faith] afresh? Or whether recommendations are sufficient?

I answer by the following Directions:

First, the testimony of any Church of Christ ought to be valued according to its worth, and received with all the due respect that is due to the Spouse of Christ. And therefore, if by the testimony of two or three Witnesses, every word comes to be established, then much more when any report or relation comes from so many in such a relationship. We should sit down satisfied with the truth of it, without the least suspicion, as that the thing is sufficiently certified. And therefore Paul makes it the highest evidence of testimony that can be given, 2Cor 8.18, The Brother whose praise is through all the Churches.

And yet secondly, Churches may decline in regard to their practice, and walk at greater breadth of liberty, either in respect to their actions, or of their opinions, than others can and indeed should. And when they have used all the care and watchfulness they can to search into the walks and ways of their Members, there are others who meet with them in their daily and occasional converse, who may perhaps see more and discern more than the Elders can. Each Church has her liberty to follow the light of the Word, and the rule of it, which will not err, nor can deceive. Rather than to sit down merely with the allowance of men, use their own search and care. And if upon inquiry and observation, either the person in question appears scandalous in their lives, or erroneous in their judgments and opinions — those being dangerous and infectious — it is then left in the power of the Church to require humiliation corresponding to the offenses, and to exact a profession and confession of the truth, and an open renunciation of such errors, before the person is received. This is because the care both for the reformation of the party, and also the preservation of the Church in purity of life and doctrine, is hereby attained.

So Paul advised against those ravening wolves, Act 20.30; and the Disciples were marvelously cautious to investigate Paul after his conversion, before they were fully satisfied by some testimony, whereby their fears might be quieted, Act 9.26. And not only in these cases, but in any other, the Churches have liberty to seek satisfaction that may suit their hearts according to rule, as requiring some report of the work of God in them, and the frame of their spirits towards Him.

We’re done with Admission.

Chapter 2. Of the Dispensation of the Sacraments.

We are now to inquire with the same brevity, touching the Dispensation of the Sacraments, which are the brand of God’s sheep, and the livery (uniform) of his household servant. For among many other ends of the Sacraments, this is one: that it’s a brand-mark and a separating note between the sheep of God’s fold, and those who are without.

It’s constantly to be observed in the Scriptures, how God’s people have been judged as privileged by these seals, and how they rejoiced in them as peculiarly appropriated to them. Psa 147.20, He has not dealt so with any Nation; Rom 3.1-2, What is the privilege of the Jew? Much in every way. And these seals are the chiefest of them. Indeed, the Lord expressly forbade any stranger to partake of the Passover, Exo 12.48.[637] And how frequently is the Jew known by Circumcision? It’s as though the privilege came to be their proper name. Eph 2.11-12, And therefore the Gentiles are called uncircumcision by those who are called circumcision. Our purpose is not to handle either the number or nature of these Sacraments, because that belongs to the heading of Doctrine. But we look at them as they come within the compass of Church policy, and how they come to be dispensed according to the order of Christ. And so as not to go beyond these bounds, we will inquire about two things in the dispensation of the Sacraments:

1. The Parties who are interested in that work.

a. Those who have the right to give it

b. Those who have a right to receive it

2. The Manner of it

a. Common to both Sacraments,

i. Public in the Assembly

ii. Done with the Word

b. Peculiar to each Sacrament

i. Baptism

(1) Having One Element

(2) Administered Once

ii. Lord’s Supper

(1) Administered Frequently

(2) Administered by Distinct Blessings (as there are distinct elements).

1. The Parties to the Sacraments

Ques. 1. Who has the right to administer the Sacraments?

First, as for those who have the right to administer the Sacraments, they are called to it by God’s command, and the allowance and designation of the Church: namely, Pastors and Teachers only, no one else, as we formerly proved. The commission is given to them authoritatively to preach the Covenant, and therefore, by the same authority, to dispense the seals of the Covenant.

It is a frenzy of the Anabaptists, which begins to labor with the loathsomeness of itself, that any gifted Christian who can teach or administer a word of instruction to win a disciple after him — that in a pinch he may also baptize the one whom he has won to his opinion. But as Paul said of James and Jambres, 2Tim 3.8-9 Their madness is made to appear to all those who are not willing to shut their eyes against the Sun when it shines in its beauty.

For the Lord Christ in his infinite wisdom and kingly care, conceived it necessary for the honor of the position, and the execution of the work of a Deacon, to appoint choice men and solemn ordination to authorize them to the work — that being called and fitted to the work, they might be accepted in it by the people, and blessed by Him who appointed them to that employment. In reason, then, what greater need there is that persons who are peculiarly gifted and furnished with grace and ability, should be called to this work of preaching, and of dispensing these holy Mysteries — a service of greatest weight and worth, above all others.

Secondly, added to this, the Apostle, as by a flaming sword, stops the way to all pretenders, and therefore lays in this prohibition, No man takes this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as Aaron was (Heb 5.4). He must have a special call from God, who would dare to meddle with a service which is of such peculiar eminence in the house of God. Indeed, the Lord himself allocates this, and that is to some persons whom He puts into place: He gave some to be Pastors and Teachers, Eph 4.11. Are all Apostles? Are all Governors? Are all Teachers? etc., 1Cor 12.29. This [misappropriation] would bring confusion, and so destruction to the whole. These are the persons who have received a right from Christ to administer. We are now to inquire,

Ques. 2. Who has a right to receive the Sacrament?

Who are the parties that have a right by rule, and an allowance from Christ, to receive the Sacrament?

And here it’s agreed by all hands, they are those who have come to the ripeness of years, and are rightly received, and so stand as members in the true visible Church of Christ. These, I say, have title to all the seals of the Covenant, being to the judgment of charity not only really within the Covenant of Grace, but also truly within the compass of the Covenant of the Church. We will not therefore trouble ourselves to prove what has the approval of all.[638]

But we would rather trade in that which is attended with the greatest difficulty, and finds strong opposition according to the strength of men’s affections and apprehensions, who are engaged either way. There is then a two-fold question which excites the hearts, thoughts, and pens of the most judicious at this day.

First, between us and the Anabaptists. They willingly admit all Members of the true Church to both the seals, but they wholly exclude the infants of all those Members, from partaking of Baptism until they come to the years of discretion. When they actually profess their faith, then they may actually share in the Sacrament.

Secondly, between us and Master Rutherford. For we conceive that confederating makes persons members of visible Churches. Those who are not confederate, we conceive are not members of a visible Church. And therefore, in that condition they have no right, nor can they claim in a right order, the benefits or privileges of Members; nor can any officer in a right order dispense them to such persons. If an Officer by any power of his Office, attempted to exercise any authority, and therefore to enjoin such a person, a non-member, to come, hear, and receive the seal, then that person may justly refuse the command; and the Officer cannot proceed against him if he should refuse. Indeed, if he persisted obstinately to reject his authority, the Officer could not convene him before the Assembly and cast him out of the body, for he was never in the body. And if an Officer has no authority to require him to receive the seal, then no more does the person have any power to require the Officer to give the seal.

The Questions which then offer themselves for our consideration here, are these two principally.

First, Whether infants of those who are Members of the Congregation may be baptized? And this we affirm against the Anabaptists, and refer the Reader to the Treatises penned by judicious writers to this purpose.

Secondly, what is of greatest difficulty, and thus requires the most serious search and consideration, is this: Whether the infants of non-confederates, who refuse to be Members of the Church, should be partakers of Baptism, which is one of the special privileges of the Church?

First we will set down the state of the second Question, lest we miss the right understanding of the cause by some mistakes. Secondly, we will lay down some conclusions which may lead the Reader by the hand, to look to the grounds which yet keep us in this apprehension. Lastly, we will answer the arguments which are made to the contrary.

To find the right basis to understand the Question, we must know that we are not now disputing about the wickedness of men while they remain Members of the Congregations, as though that could prejudice their privilege while they remain in that state and relation.

True, this wickedness justly deserves that they be proceeded against, either to be reformed or removed. But if the Church, through connivance, negligence, or indulgence, sinfully tolerates such evils and evil persons in that estate of Membership, they cannot then deny them the privilege of Members. So that, while Prophets prophesied lies,Jer 20.6 and Priests ruled by their greed, Jer 6.13 and the people would have it so,Jer 5.31 and grew corrupt. While they were members (though corrupt members), they shared in the Passover, and their children were made partakers of Circumcision. So too with those of Sardis, of whom the Spirit says expressly, they were dead, though they were reputed to live. Rev 3.1 As long as the Church, through her carelessness, kept them in her bosom, it’s certain that their children might and did partake of Baptism as one of the Church privileges.

So then, the Question is not, Whether wicked Members, while they are tolerated sinfully in the Church, may they and their children partake of the privileges? For this is beyond question: THEY MAY. Nor do I know, nor yet ever heard it denied by any of ours. And therefore all the Arguments alleged by Master R. (lib l. cap.12) are all granted, without any loss to either our opinion or practice.

The pinch then of the Question lies here: Whether the children of non-confederate persons (and so in our sense, non-Members of the Church), are entitled to the seal of Baptism, being one of the privileges of the Church — their Parents (though godly) being yet unwilling to come into Church fellowship.

This is a slippery and difficult place.[639] That I may shrive [640] my heart to the Reader and Master R., I nakedly profess that if I had given way to my affections, or followed what suits my secret desire and inclination, I could have willingly wished that the scale might have tipped on the affirmative part, and that such persons (many of whom we hope are godly) might enjoy all such privileges which might be useful and helpful to them and theirs.

But after all the stones I have turned, and the thoughts I have spent in this kind, there are some reasons which yet arrest my understanding, and cause me to make a defense for this cause. And the main pillar principle which fortifies the judgment against all approaching assaults, is the nature and truth of Church-Covenant. In this I must profess freely that I am yet more confirmed, as I have been constrained to take it into more serious consideration. And the best of those Arguments that men have raised — men of such eminence, and worth, and learning, that my heart highly reverences according to their righteous desert — to breach that part of the Discipline which, like braces in the building, binds all the parts together, have strengthened rather than shaken my judgment.

Let men here again crave leave to propound those thoughts I have, without offense, that I may swap roles,[641] and occasion those whom God has furnished with greater light, to clear this cause and this coast more fully than I have ever yet had the happiness to see, to the satisfaction of my judgment. And here, in estating (conveying) these privileges, as Lawyers used to do in settling inheritances, inquire where the first right lies, and how it comes lineally and lawfully to be derived and established upon such and such parties. And we will do this by inquiring about the Pedigree (the line of descent) in the conveyance of this privilege in the following conclusions.

Conclusion 1. Children, as children, do not have a right to Baptism, for then all children of all nations, sects, and sorts of men, would be made partakers of it. The rule is received, and admits no challenges: That which belongs to this, because it’s this, belongs to all of this kind. [642] But that all children of all nations — Turks, Pagans, etc. —should be admitted to the privilege, is absurd. [643] And this Master R. grants.

Conclusion 2. It doesn’t belong to any Predecessors, either nearer or further removed from the next parents,[644] kata auto and firstly, [645] to give the right of this privilege to their children. When I say predecessors nearer or further off, I include and comprehend all those beside the next parent, grandfather, great-grandfather, and so on, ascending ever so far into so many generations going before. And of all these, I affirm that it doesn’t belong to any of them, kata auto or firstly; this last word expounds the former. That which belongs firstly to a thing, belongs to all others because of that. To have a faculty of speech belongs to the nature of man firstly; and therefore it belongs to this or that particular man — a Thomas, John, or Abraham — so far as they have the nature of man in them. Nor can any have this faculty, unless they have this nature.

I need not study this plainness. It’s only that I will now speak of a common point; and that point is of common and yet great concern to the lowliest among us. Therefore, it’s needful to speak of the common capacity of such. The conclusion thus expressed, is thus proved:

First, that which belongs firstly to any Predecessors nearer or further off, kata auto, that belongs to all others by a right received from them, because it lay there first. The evidence of the terms and former explication gives full evidence of this. But the next Parents can give the privilege and title to Baptism without any help from the Predecessors. Suppose all their Predecessors were dead, or were all without any knowledge or remembrance, or were apostates from the Gospel or opposers of it. Yet the next Parents, fearing God and confederating in the Covenant of the Gospel, do and can give a right to their Children to share in this privilege, without any help from their Predecessors. Therefore, the right is not firstly in those Predecessors, nor is it firstly conveyed by them.

Secondly, they can do that which belongs kata auto and firstly to the Predecessors, without the next Parents. Otherwise they would not have their hand as directly in the conveyance of this right, as those to whom it firstly pertained; and so it would not belong to them firstly.

But the Predecessors cannot convey this right without the next Parents. For it’s that paternal power [646] which belongs to them, to dispose of their own. If they depart and go out from under all Church-power, and depart into places where there are no Churches; or lastly, if both the next Parents were apostates; then it’s not in the power of any of the former Predecessors to bring the child to the enjoyment of this privilege. So that, if the next Parents are the adequate cause [647] of entitling their Children to such spiritual advantages, then it belongs to them alone, firstly. [648] But so they are. It’s in their power to give the right, even if all other Predecessors opposed it. It’s in their power — even if all other Predecessors endeavored to give it — to yet hinder and deprive their children of the right. For their own apostasy removes all the federal holiness of the Children, 1Cor 7.14.[649]

Hence, I cannot conceive but that it is a misapprehension and misapplication of Exo 20.6, to say that because God has promised that he will show mercy to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his Commandments, that therefore the Predecessors, though far removed, can entitle Children to Baptism — even though their next Parents are such that they never love God, nor keep His Commandments; indeed, who perhaps are apostates and excommunicates.

We will weigh a little the sense of the words, and the strength of the inference that is made from them, so far as it concerns our cause in hand.

First, the current of Orthodox Interpreters carry the meaning of the Text this way: the Lord, in the threatening and promise, reveals the jealousy of His heart towards those who are professed worshippers of Him; namely, He is so tender of his honor in this case, which so nearly concerns Him — as the conjugal affection of matrimonial faithfulness concerns a husband from the behavior of his wife and Spouse — that out of jealousy, He is ready and resolved to punish all falseness, and to reward faithfulness in that behalf.

Secondly, in the expression of his jealousy, He is more sparing and unwilling to execute his anger against those who offend in the breach of His worship, but more enlarged in revealing his love and goodness to those who maintain conjugal fidelity towards him in this. And therefore, certain numbers of the third and fourth, and thousands of Generations, signify the large and uncertain extent of His displeasure to the one, and His kindness to the other. And therefore,

Thirdly, the Lord doesn’t tie himself strictly to a particular law or allowance in this case, but walks in a breadth that best suits his wisdom and good pleasure. And hence, He exempts some in the third and fourth Generation from his threatening and punishment (Gen 25.23),[650] and withholds the expressions of his love from others in the thousand mentioned.

Fourthly, the threatening, and so the inflicting of the punishment, is ever in His order and manner — namely, those who imitate the sin of their idolatrous Parents, may expect and will certainly suffer their plagues. Those who imitate the love and obedience of their faithful Parents, may be assured that they will receive the mercies promised to their Parents, in the footsteps of whose faith they persist (Eze 18.9,13; 1Sam 2.27,30).

Lastly, the mercy promised here is not to be so conceived as though all the particular blessings or privileges that the Parents possessed, will be communicated to their Children in its severals; for we know by experience, it is contrary. The Israelites lacked Circumcision for forty years in the Wilderness (Jos 5.5). And in the time of the Judges (5.8), and during the seventy years of Captivity, the Israelites were destitute of several privileges which they were made partakers of when they enjoyed peace and prosperity in the days of David and Solomon. Mercy, here, is that saving mercy which God never fails to bestow on his Elect — grace here, and glory hereafter — reserving a variety of dispensations in regard to diverse privileges or benefits, as seems best to the counsel of His own will.

This is the received meaning of the words by the common consent of judicious Interpreters, such as Calvin, Zanchi, Junius, and Perkins, according to the precepts.[651] What inference can be made from this for conveying the right of Baptism from remote Parents to Children, I must confess, I cannot conceive. For the Generations that the Lord promises to show mercy to, must be those who imitate their godly Parents, by loving and obeying God’s Commandments, and especially that of the truth of His worship. And how does this apply to Infants who lack capacity, not having come to sufficient years to execute such acts?

2. Upon this grant, and making this ground good, where there would be a stop or stay made,[652] I cannot see. For if a thousand Generations, more or less, have an interest in Baptism by virtue of their forefathers who were faithful within that compass, then the children of Turks or Jews cannot be excluded from this privilege and ordinance. Some of their Predecessors are comprehended, without question, within the bounds of a thousand Generations mentioned there. And yet, all those Infants are excluded by their own confession, and by the peremptory and plain affirmation of the Apostle, Rom 11.17.[653] Through unbelief, the natural boughs were cut off from the Church and from Church privileges.

3. Take a new convert soundly brought home to Christ; yet through his weakness he is not able to to rightly discern the Lord’s Body;1Cor 11.29 would this be a good argument? If God shows mercy to a thousand Generations, then this man, who had some godly Predecessors, may be admitted to partake of the Lord’s Supper. And if this is a weak collection,[654] as each man yields at first sight, then the inference of Baptism on the same ground, must have the same weakness in it. Indeed, why an excommunicate may not on this same ground, plead partaking of the Sacrament — professing the true faith, but only censured for such a practice (especially, conceive him to be within God’s election) — I cannot see.

God shows mercy, and so the privilege of a Sacrament, to those who had godly Predecessors within the compass of a thousand Generations.

I had godly Predecessors within that compass.

Therefore, I have title to that mercy, and so to the privilege of the Sacrament.

All men reject this conclusion, and therefore they must also refuse the former collection.

Conclusion 3. The next Parent being an adequate cause of conveying or withholding the right of Baptism to their Children, it inevitably follows that Children may either be deprived or possessed of privileges by means of the sinfulness or holiness of their Parents; and that is in a way of God’s most righteous proceeding. I say most righteous, because the parity and proportion is most exact on both hands.

The faithful Covenant of the Parents as fully entitles them to and advantages them in the privileges of that Covenant, as the careless rejecting of the Covenant disadvantages and debars them from enjoying the fruit and benefits of such special means [of grace].

It is confessed by all, and is most apparent in that Text, that temporal benefits are dispensed and continued to undeserving children, for the faith and piety of their godly Parents — as they were to Ishmael for Abraham’s sake, and to Esau for Jacob’s sake (Gen 16.11; 21.13). And so we have it frequently recorded and repeated, Yet for my servant David’s sake, I will do so and so.[655]

It need not seem strange, nor can it seem so to any who are seriously considerate, that temporal punishments are laid upon their children to correct the sin of their wicked Parents. A man’s children are his Goods, Job 1. And isn’t it ordinary that a person should be punished in his estate because of his transgression, without the least appearance of any prejudice to justice?

Conclusion 4. Hence, Parents must first have a right themselves, before they can convey it to their Children; and they can deprive them of no more than they can give them.

There are two branches of this Conclusion.

First, a Parent must have a right before he can give it. A man must be possessed of an interest in a title to a privilege, before he can make over that title to another. Otherwise he would give what he doesn’t have, and the claim of the other is void. His expectation will wholly fail him because his claim of an interest is from someone who had none; and therefore he can receive none from him: he lacks the power,[656] acts are frustrate (useless), says the Lawyer.

And this is the order of God’s proceeding with his people (Deu 29.9-10),[657] and that is according to the rules of infinite wisdom and justice. The Parent enters into Covenant for himself and his seed; so that, Children are within the Covenant, because they came from Parents within the Covenant, in which the Children were included, and so they are also received by God.

And upon this ground it’s certain that an excommunicate Parent cannot entitle any of his children to a Sacrament. That right which he does not have, he cannot give, ex concessis.

And he has no right or title to any Sacrament; for by the consent of all, he is cast out from any such communion.

And therefore, it’s certain that he cannot convey that right to his children.

We are thus helped a little by these conclusions that are premised and proved, to see where the right firstly lies, by which children come to be entitled to the Privileges, and how it comes to be conveyed, according to the rules and laws of Christ. Let us now inquire what force those Arguments have which are alleged to the contrary.

All the Reasons brought by Master R. in his first book, do not at all reach the Question in hand, as it has appeared in stating it. And therefore they are all granted without any gain to him, or loss to us. Others which are alleged to this end, I find in two places, lib. 2. pp. 186 and 262. In the former place we have these allegations:

Arg. 1.

“We hold that those who are not members of a particular Congregation, may lawfully be admitted to the Seals of the Covenant; first, because those to whom the promises are made, and profess the Covenant, should be baptized. And men of approved piety are such persons, even if they are not members of a particular Parish. This proposition is Peter’s Argument, Act 2.38.” [658]

Ans. The Proposition is denied, because there is more to fit us for receiving the Seals, than to profess the Covenant, and to have the promise of grace made to men. We find Master R. confessing that an excommunicate, for some notorious acts, or for pertinacity in some practice of evil, may yet profess all the truth of the Gospel. He may in fact be truly gracious, and therefore has all the promises of that kind pertaining to him. And yet, by Mr. R.’s own confession, the man has no title to a Sacrament, l.2. p. 232. That passage in Acts gives no confirmation, because first, these were Jews and Proselytes who were in a visible Church-state. And secondly, it’s to be observed that even though that Church-state gave the ground of their baptizing, yet by the Apostle’s argument, they must approach this Ordinance, according to Christ’s method and manner. So that, unless they had taken this way, they would not have followed the direction of the Apostle; nor would he in reason have admitted them to partake of that Ordinance. Therefore John the Baptist constantly exacted this at the hands of those who came to him: Repent and be Baptized; and upon no other terms did they receive it from him.

Arg. 2.

“Those who are not members of a particular Church, may be visible Professors, and so members of the Visible Church. Therefore the Seals of the Covenant belong to them.”

The frame of his argument at most stands thus:

The Seals of the Covenant belong to those who are members of the Visible Church in general.

All visible Professors of Christ, even if they are not members of a particular Congregation, are members of the Visible Church in general.

Ans. Both parts of the Reason fail, for there are no such members of the Visible Church in general. Secondly, the seals of the covenant don’t belong to many of those that Master R. conceives to be such, by his own confession; e.g. as to excommunicates. And I may also add, according to his own opinion, scandalous persons, who by his grant, are not to be entertained as members of any particular Congregation. And therefore, they are not in communion with them, l.2. p. 25.

The Assumption is also to be denied. For it would bring in a newly devised kind of membership, which neither the rule of reason, nor the constitution of a visible Church will admit — namely, to be a member of the Visible Church in general, and yet not be a member of any particular Congregation. For first, take all particular Congregations in their full enumeration and induction. They are all the members of which the catholic visible Church is made up, as an Integrum of all its parts. Those who are not members of any particular Congregation, don’t come within the rank, nor can be referred to any kind of members of a visible Church. But all the members that constitute the visible, are contained in the particular. It’s as if a man said there are two parts or members that make up an entire man; and yet there may be a member of a man, which is neither comprehended, nor can be referred to either of these two. That is in truth to speak daggers.[659]

Again, it is a fundamental rule of reason, that the general nature of anything has its existence, and so its working, in the particulars. The whole nature of manhood or humanity, exists and works in the particular individuals of John, Thomas, Richard, or Jeremy, who are now living on the face of the earth. Therefore, to affirm that there is any part of manhood or humanity that does not exist in these particular individuals, is to forge a thing in a man’s fancy, that is without any reality at all. To be a member of the Visible Church in general, and yet to have no particular existence of membership in any particular Congregation, is a mere conceit,[660] which comes out of the same mint, cross to the principles of reason.

Lastly, it is a conclusion to which Master R. has given his full consent, that known scandals are sufficient ground to exclude a person who otherwise professes the Covenant, from being a visible member of a Church (lib. 2. 243, 251); and so, by parity of reason, to exclude him from being a member of any of the Visible Churches on earth.

Someone who is justly excluded from membership, and so from the fellowship of all particular Congregations on earth, is justly excluded from partaking of any privileges by means of those Congregations.

But a person may be a visible Professor, and yet be excluded from membership, and so from fellowship with all the Visible Churches on earth, ex concessis (this is conceded by all).

And therefore he may have such a profession, and yet be justly excluded from all privileges which may come by means of them.

Arg. 3.

“The contrary opinion has no warrant in God’s word.”

Ans. This is nakedly and rawly affirmed by Mr. R., and it is just as readily denied, which will be made good afterward.

Arg. 4.

“The Apostles required no more of those whom they baptized, than a profession of belief. As in Act 10.47, “Can any man forbid water, so that those should be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we have?” or Act 8.37, “If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized.” No more than that was sought from the Jailer. Act 16.31, 34 “So they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.’”

Ans. The consequence deserves a denial — that because no more is expressed than a profession in these places, therefore no more is required in other places. But Peter plainly requires more in Act 2.38, Repent and be baptized. The Baptist constantly called for more, from all those to whom he administered that Ordinance. And the more General Commission, in its open terms, calls for more: Make Disciples, and then baptize. And making Disciples is to be understood in the full breadth of it, which is not merely to believe. This they did in Joh 12.42,[661] by approving of the Doctrine of our Savior; but they didn’t confess him, or show themselves to be his Disciples. And therefore, by way of explication, they said to the restored blind man, Joh 9.28, You are His disciple, but we are Moses’ disciples. Yes, they were those who magnified the Doctrine and profession of the Apostles, yet dared not join themselves to them.

If this joining — this being made a Disciple, as the Jews were disciples to Moses — is added to an open profession, then it would imply both their subjection to the Doctrine and fellowship of the Apostles, and the Apostles’ acceptance of them. And then it amounts to as much as we require, or that Church-confederation calls for.

Other Arguments I find in lib. 2. 262

“If the Infants of the Christian Church only have a right to Baptism through the faith of the nearest Parents, then this is to be conceived, either to be true and saving faith in the nearest Parents, or only faith in profession.”

Ans. We grant the first member, that it is not the saving faith of the next Parents.

Obj. 1. Let us hear how Master R. makes good the second, p. 262.

“If the faith of the nearest Parents, only true in profession and show before men, gives a right to their Infants to be sealed with the seals of the Covenant, then (first) apparent and hypocritical faith confers a true right to the Seals to Infants, and there is not required, as the Author says, chap. 3,[662] that the Members be called of God, the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty, not only in external profession, but also in some sincerity and truth.”

Ans. The Qualification of those who come to the Sacrament, is to be attended in a double respect: First, as they stand in relation to God, and the worthy partaking of the Ordinance; and then God requires, and also the Ordinance calls for, inward truth. Secondly, as they stand in reference and relation to the Church, and their outward dispensation of them  — and then that profession which intimates sincerity, so far as the judgment of rational charity requires, is sufficient, because the Church can judge the tree only by the fruits. Mat 12.33

Obj. 2.

“Upon this grant, God has warranted His Church to put his seal upon a falsehood, and to confer the seals upon Infants, for the external profession of faith, where there is no faith at all. This the Writers think is inconvenient and absurd.”

Ans. The consequence is denied, as not having a color of truth. For the Church warrantably gives the Seals to those who unworthily receive them, the Church judging things according to rules of Charity. She doesn’t know who are hypocrites, but is bound to judge otherwise if they appear otherwise. And therefore the Church in dispensing the Ordinances, and the aim and work of the Ordinances (according to their nature) is to seal up the truth of the Covenant. If unworthy Receivers deal falsely with God and His Ordinances, abuse them, and pervert their work, and partake unworthily of the seal of Baptism (just as many eat and drink to their own damnation in abusing Christ’s Body and Blood), then their sin and guilt lies on their own head. God and the Church are free from both. And none of ours, nor Mr. R.’s Writers, once question this. Only Papists and Familists toss in such cavils. And yet those (I mean of the Familists) who have not forsaken the reason of men, nor laid aside the forehead of modesty, are forced to yield as much in their own way. For no man thinks, unless he desires to willfully blind and delude himself, that when all Jerusalem, Judea, and all the coasts about the Jordan, came to be baptized by John, that all these had the reality of faith in their hearts. This is clear according to our principles.

But how Master R. will quit his hands of this Objection, according to the rules of his proceeding, I confess I cannot tell. For he affirms, lib. 2. p. 260, that “We are not to cast any out for non-regeneration, even known.” If we are not to cast out non-regenerates, then give them the seals; and then the Church would give those the seals, whom she knows, out of reason and charity, have no title to them; and she is guilty of sealing a falsehood.

Obj. 3.

“On this ground, it follows that excommunicate children are in no better case by this Doctrine, than the children of Turks and Infidels.”

Sol. [soliloquy, or musing] If in some particulars, excommunicates are equal to Turks and Infidels, let him be as a heathen, Mat 18.17 it’s no wonder. Nor is it cross to any reason, that in such particulars, their children also should share with them those inconveniences coming by the breach of Covenant, when keeping it would have procured contrary comforts and privileges. Look at the particular enjoyment of the privileges — they are so far alike, that they have a like title to them, though the advantages of the one are far greater than the other in many regards.

A man should reason thus: if someone is a member of a Church, and yet not able to examine himself, and has no right to partake of the seals of the Supper (as the express word of the Text testifies), then in this particular, he is no better than Turks. The answer would be easy: in point of non-right, they are alike; that is equally affirmed of both. But in other privileges and advantages which look that way, they far differ from one another.

These are all the reasons I find here and there in Master R., which fully reach the cause.

Hooker’s Arguments

We will now, beside the grounds formerly given for explication, and which served mainly to clear and settle this truth, offer some Reasons for the Reader’s consideration, and so leave this difficult head of Discipline.

First, it’s confessed by all, that Baptism is a privilege of the Church, either catholic or particular. Therefore it’s “not to be found or enjoyed but in the Church,” as Master R. says, lib. 1. p. 175. And therefore, as Circumcision of old was counted the livery of God’s household servants, and the brand of the sheep of His flock, to difference and distinguish those who were Aliens, from the commonwealth of Israel, Eph 2.12, so is Baptism now, in the time of the Gospel.

Secondly, it has been proved in the foregoing conclusions, that only the next Parent can convey this privilege. Upon these premises partly agreed, partly proved, the Argument issues thus:

Hooker’s Argument 1.

Those who have no right to Baptism, ought not to receive it.

And children of non-confederates have no right to it.

This is thus evidenced:

All the right which such children have, is from the next Parents, as in the third conclusion.

And the next Parents, who are non-confederate, can give no right; for that right which they don’t have, they cannot give.

Non-confederates are non-members of the Church, and the seals are a Church privilege.

Hence they have no right to Church privileges.

Therefore, they cannot give them.

Or more briefly,

Non-members of the Church have no right to the privileges of the Church, and so they can give none of them.

Non-confederate Parents are non-members.

The second part of the reason, where all the difficulty lies, has been formerly evinced, when we argued about the form of a Church, and that which gave formality to its members. We refer the Reader there [Part I, chap. 4], to what has been maintained as the truth of God: that confederation gives formality to a Church.

And if Mr. R. can prove that visible Profession makes a member of a visible Church, when a man is not a member of a particular Church, or that profession makes a man a member of all the particular Congregations on earth, I will freely yield this cause to him.

Hooker’s Argument 2.

If those children who were externally in Covenant, were alone to be circumcised, then those who are externally in Covenant in the Christian Church, are to be baptized.

And these children who were externally in Covenant and born of confederate Parents, were alone to be circumcised, Gen 17.10;[663] as Master R. affirms, lib. 1. p. 165.

Obj. 1. Master R. answers this Proposition:

“The Covenant mentioned there was the Covenant of Grace, but ours is the Covenant of the Church,” lib. 2. 202.

Ans. It’s true, the Covenant of Grace is ever included and presupposed in Covenant of the Church, and so it is in this place. But that which is attended here in the ultimate consideration, is the Covenant of the Church, with which the Covenant of Grace was clothed. And that appears by this reason:

That Covenant is here understood, which gives full right to Circumcision (as comparing Gen 17.7 with v. 10 will fully show); [664] and so it gives full right to all other privileges in their order.

But the Covenant of Grace does not give full right to Circumcision. For Job and all his friends were in the Covenant of Grace, and yet neither Circumcision nor Passover pertained to them, nor yet to any other people on earth, Exo 12.48.[665]

Obj. 2. Therefore it is a mistake of Mr. R., when he affirms the contrary. Nor does it help much, what he alleged:

“That Job and his friends sacrificed, which was peculiar to the Jews.”

Ans. This is a mistake. Sacrificing was practiced before the flood, and immediately after Noah’s time. And therefore it could not be appropriated to the Jews, except as it was peculiar to their circumstances, according to God’s appointment.

Obj. 3. Nor do those expressions carry any weight, when Master R. affirms,

“The Covenant in general was made with Infants eight days old; and our Covenant is not made with Infants.”

Ans. This affirmation is a great mistake; for we maintain according to the truth, that the believing Parent Covenants and confesses for himself and his posterity.[666] And this Covenanting, then and now, is the same for its kind; and it lays the foundation of the conveyance of all the right that children have to this holy Ordinance of Christ.

Hooker’s Argument 3. This is taken from Rom 11.17. There the holy Apostle reveals the mind of God touching the communication of Church-privileges to the Gentiles, and he sets it down under this similitude:

“If you, being a wild Olive, were grafted in among them, and partake with them of the fatness of the Olive tree...”

The Olive is the Church of Christ, visible in her profession. The engrafting is entering into visible fellowship with her. The fatness of this Olive is the Privileges and spiritual Ordinances by which spiritual good things are communicated to those so engrafted and received into communion. This is the conceived sense by Beza, Paraeus, Piscator, etc.; and the frame of the Text forces as much. This fatness cannot be the efficacy of saving grace; for this fatness is communicated from the Olive. But saving grace is not so conveyed from the Church to her Members. And this fatness may be lost, for the branches may be “broken off,” and so severed from the Olive, and so from all the juice and moisture that comes from it. But none can lose this saving grace that at any time he is made partaker of. Once engrafted into Christ, one is never severed from Him. The words being opened, the Argument proceeds thus:

Those who are not engrafted into the Olive, the true Church, cannot share in the fatness of the Olive, the Privileges of the Church.

But children of Parents who are non-confederate, are not engrafted into the Olive, the Church. For their engrafting doesn’t come from themselves, but from their next Parents, who are not entered into the Church-Covenant.

Nor will that conceit come in place of an answer, that the profession of the Parent is enough for engrafting themselves and their posterity.

For that engrafting or admission into the Church is meant here, which excommunication from the Church can take away;

For that which the Church gives, the Church can take away.

But excommunication cannot take away a profession of the truth, as sense and experience evidence.

Therefore, that is not the engrafting meant here.

Hooker’s Argument 4.

If a Pastor of any Congregation has no power by any rule to require a non-confederate to be baptized, or to bring his children to baptism, then a non-confederate has no power by any rule to require baptism of a Pastor of any Congregation.

Consequently, he has no right to it.

For if he had any rule and authority to require that privilege, then he would have a right to it. The truth of the consequence depends on the parity and proportion of reason which is equal on both hands.

Take a Pastor or Teacher of any Congregation, and let him deal with a non-confederate who has not joined himself to any particular society, and press him by all the authority he has, to come to the Ordinance. In case he refuses, let the Pastor try to proceed against him as an offender; and in case of abstinence, to execute the censure of excommunication. The Pastor will find himself at a loss, and that he has gone beyond his line. The non-confederate’s answer will be, “I will not join with your Assembly; I am not bound to it, nor can you censure me for it.”

Beside, [if permitted], then why may not any other Congregation [that this person is likewise not a member of] censure on the same ground, and for the same cause: for not partaking with them. For they may make the same claim, and by the same reasoning.

Hooker’s Argument 5.

This is taken from 1Cor 1.13, We are baptized by one Spirit into one Body. This body is not the mystical and invisible Body, but the political and visible body of Christ. And this visible body is not attended here as the catholic visible Church, but as a particular Church, as suppose at Corinth and Philippi. And therefore, Baptism seals the external communion with a particular Church. It supposes our union to it, and our communion with it, and that is done only by confederation, as argued before.

Ans. It is here answered that,

“The body and visible Church here intended is the catholic visible Church, not a particular Church or Congregation.”

Reply. Against this I will thus reason, out of the particular circumstances in the Text (Act 20.28),

That Body is meant here, in which Teachers [poimaino, shepherds] are set up by Christ.

And Teachers are not set up over the catholic Church, but over a particular Congregation.

It is a flock of which they are overseers [episkopos].

It is a flock which is among them, and must be ruled by them, as their charge, 1Pet 5.2.

If Pastors are set over the catholic visible Church, then it is either as taken as distinct from the particulars, or else as it comprehends all the particulars in it. But neither can be affirmed. It’s not the first (distinct), for Pastors and Teachers are never set over a flock that they never saw, nor can tell where to find; and such is the catholic Church. It’s not the second (comprehending), for if by the same commission they are set over all particular Congregations, then they are bound to bestow the same care and watch over all particulars, which no man will grant.

Secondly, ordinary Teachers are set in the Church by ordinary means, and therefore they are put into their places by election (Gal 1.1), of God and by Man.

But election doesn’t set them over the catholic Church, as sense will suggest in this manner. Let three or four men be propounded for election to however many Churches that now need and crave supply. Each of the Churches chooses one, and refuses the other as not so suitable to their spirits. If the election of the one gives power, then rejection or non-election stops the extent and efficacy of that power; so that, he can have no pastoral Office-power there over them.

We are now done with the Persons who have a right to receive these seals.

2. The Manner of Dispensing the Sacraments

We are now to inquire about the Manner of the Dispensation. And that is either common to both, or else peculiar to each of the Sacraments.

That which is common to both appears in two things:

First, they must be dispensed publicly.

Secondly, the preaching of the Word should accompany their solemn administration.

First, is that they must be dispensed publicly, in the presence, and with the concurrence of the Church solemnly assembled. For since the seals of the Covenant and the preaching of the Covenant go together, the publication of the one must accompany the dispensation of the other. It’s not in the power of the Church to confine preaching into corners; for wisdom cries openly in the streets, Pro 8.2-3.[667] And of old, the Church of the Jews erected synagogues in every city (beside the Temple set up in Jerusalem) for the hearing and preaching of the Word. Our Savior enjoined His Disciples that what they heard in the ear secretly, preach openly on the house top, Mat 10.27; Joh 18.20-22. Paul compares the Lord’s Supper to their ordinary supper; so he manifestly opposes the Church or Congregation to the private house, and declares that the LORD’S SUPPER should be celebrated in the Congregation, and the BANQUET should be kept in their private houses. [668]

Indeed, the scope and nature of the Ordinance calls for such an Administration. For sacraments are badges to show our separation from all other profane societies, and to signify our communion with one another visibly in the profession and confession of the Faith, and in our spiritual union and communion with Christ our head mystically. Therefore, the administration of them should be such that it suits the nature of the Ordinance, and serves its ends. And that’s why in times of persecution, when the Church dare not, nor would it be fitting to show herself to the enemy, even then, the Word of God is not to be privately preached, nor the Sacraments privately administered, nor should they be. For even if they are done in the house of a private man, yet because they are and ought to be administered in the presence of the Congregation, there is neither private preaching, nor private celebrating of the Sacraments.

Secondly, both these Ordinances should go hand in hand. After the Word has opened the seals, they should be administered.

The practice of John the Baptist, of our Savior and his Disciples, are precedential to us in this behalf. Mat. 3.2-3 should be compared with v. 5; for this last verse refers to the former (the description of John’s person and behavior being put in occasionally) when John came preaching in the Wilderness, Repent, for the Kingdom, etc. Then the people come to him from all coasts, and were baptized, Mar 1.5. Hence he was said in verse 4 to baptize in the Wilderness, preaching the Baptism of repentance, because there was a concurrence of these two things. The one made way for a clearer understanding, and the effectual working and fruitful entertaining of the other.

And that collection of Act 19.4 [669] seems to be fair, observed by some Interpreters (who commonly search the text more narrowly), that Paul meant to confer the gifts of the Holy Ghost which the twelve disciples at Ephesus were to receive by his laying on hands, unto the performance of the truth, by the performance of the promise figured by Baptism — and thus to join the sign with the thing signified.

In the fourth verse, Paul shows how John preached and administered that ordinance. First John preached, so that his Disciples who followed him, would believe in Jesus Christ. After verse 4, those Disciples of John (not those twelve disciples of Ephesus, as commonly supposed) having heard John’s preaching (and not Paul’s, as supposed) were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. This interpretation has plain proof from the grammar of the words; the two conjunctions (which are related to one another, and cannot without violence be severed) lead the Reader to this way of understanding, and lay out the order of the administration: that after they had heard John preach, they were baptized.

This Manner of the Administration of Sacraments is common to both places. But there is something that is peculiar to each, to which we will add a word.

The Manner of Administration Peculiar to Baptism

First, Baptism is the Sacrament of our Initiation and engrafting into Christ. And that is the usual phrase of the Gospel, “to baptize into Christ Jesus,” [670] Rom 6.3. Our initiation and incorporation into Christ is signified and sealed by Baptism. And hence it is administered once, and never again to be repeated, because of the stability of the Covenant of Grace. It is an everlasting Covenant, and they are the sure mercies that are sealed up there; Act 13.34 the constancy of God’s truth and faithfulness towards His own, notwithstanding all their failings and infirmities which overcome them in their daily course. Whom Christ loves once, He loves to the end; his gifts and calling are without repentance (irrevocable). Rom 11.29 And therefore, whom he calls effectually, he preserves forever through faith unto salvation; 1Pet 1.5 so that no man shall, and therefore none can take them out of his hand, Joh 10.28 unless they are more than men. There is no falling away, then, totally or finally from the Covenant, and therefore no repeating of Baptism, which seals our entrance into the Covenant.

Secondly, that which occasions some kind of further consideration here, is that which has been stirring a little of late, namely,

Whether Baptism is to be administered by the pouring of water, and so washing the body with it, or by dipping the body into the water?

For here lies the very hit and turn of the question, as it is now controverted.

First, it is confessed on every side, that the word baptizo properly signifies to dip. We say to dip, for so it is sometimes used by the Seventy.[671] Ruth 2.14, Ruth dipped her bread into the vinegar; 1Sam 14.27, Jonathan dipped the end of his rod into the honeycomb. Thus it signifies to dip, but seldom or never to dive, as learned Beza interprets and explicates the propriety of the word, when he intends to lay out its limits in its own bounds, Mat 3.13.[672]

Secondly, in ordinary course, it is commonly used among Authors, and in Scripture, for “to wash.” In Luk 11.38, the Pharisees wondered at our Savior, that he didn’t wash before dinner; so also Mar 7.4, 8.

Thirdly, washing is the main thing intended by our Savior in the institution, and it is to be attended in the signification of the use of the water in the Sacrament of Baptism. And this is evidenced by these testimonies, which speak expressly to this purpose.

The Apostle Peter, 1Pet 3.21,[673] points at this, by special description, as the intended signification of the outward sign — that to which Baptism now corresponds, saves us. But the question might perhaps arise, what of Baptism is meant here? For there are two things in the Sacrament: the outward sign, and the spiritual part, the thing signified. The Apostle, therefore, by way of prevention and by a special description, distinctly interprets it himself. “I don’t mean the putting away of the filth of the flesh, i.e., the washing of water” — which is the signification to be attended in the use of the outward sign, and is the outward part of the Sacrament — “but I mean the inward and spiritual part.” This agrees with Eph 5.26, and Tit 3.5-6. God is there said to save us by the washing of the new birth, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which is said to be poured out upon us, following the semblance of water poured in the washing of Baptism.

Nor can that phrase rationally admit another construction. For in Act 1.5, our Savior promises his Disciples that they would be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days after, as John baptized with water.

As they were baptized by the Spirit, so they were baptized with water; for so the proportion requires. And therefore it is an utter mistake to think it is baptized in water [674] implying dipping into the water, when the proposition as most frequently used with the Hebrews, and generally among all Grammarians, notes only the cause or instrument; and so it carries cause and effect with it — to baptize in water as a means used to signify and seal the Covenant. And therefore the same is used, baptized with the Holy Ghost;[675] it’s not that we are dipped into the Holy Ghost, but that the Holy Ghost is poured upon us. And therefore Luke [676] expounds it by the shedding and pouring out of the Holy Ghost, Act 2.33. [677] And so I could wish that these particulars might be considered:

First, as we are baptized by the Spirit, so by proportion we are said to be baptized with water; so the text says, Act 1.5. [678]

But we are baptized by the Spirit when that is applied to us first; just as the practice expounds the promise, Act 1.5, compared with Act 2.33.

Secondly, the nature of Baptism, and its administration, corresponds to the work of application, because it is to seal and confirm the Covenant to us: as it is agreed, so it is communicated and sealed.

Applying the water to the body first, corresponds to the work of application. For Christ by His Spirit applies Himself to us first, Phi 3.12.[679] We apprehend as we are comprehended: the promise comes to us, before we can come to it.

Indeed, the Argument grows even stronger.

The administration of the Seal doesn’t suit that which crosses the nature of the Covenant.

But immersion intimates that we apply ourselves first to Christ, and so to the Covenant, and this indeed crosses the nature of the Covenant;

Therefore, this administration [by immersion] doesn’t suit it.

Thirdly, whatever best resembles our implanting into the likeness of the death and resurrection of Christ, is the administration that fits the nature of Baptism.

But applying and casting the water upon the body best resembles the nature of burial, as sense will suggest. Dipping the body into the dust, in no way so lively resembles Burial, as casting dust and mold upon it.

The Manner of Administration Peculiar to the Supper.

This is peculiar in two things.

First, it is a Sacrament of our NOURISHMENT, and our growing up in the Lord Jesus. And therefore it is appointed by Him to be frequently used, as one of the standing dishes which the Lord Christ has provided for the daily diet and the household provision of His faithful ones, who are his family: 1Cor 11.26, 34, as often as you eat this bread, etc.

And to this purpose, our Savior is here presented to us as the spiritual food — indeed, as the choice and complete feast of the soul, such that it may answer all our wants, and our desires also. Bread sustains the hungry; wine refreshes the thirsty; both satisfy to the full. Christ perfectly saves all who come to Him, Heb. 7.25.

And hence, secondly, in the ADMINISTRATION of it, just as there are distinct parts of the Ordinance, so there is a distinct blessing which was expressed by our Savior in its first institution, and so it is to be imitated by all his Officers. For the words are clear: He took Bread and blessed it; in the same manner he took the Cup and blessed it also. For one action is expressed, and the rest are implied; the very frame of the words, and the order in which they are set out, imply as much.

For blessing the Bread comes immediately after setting it apart. Hence that blessing came before taking the wine, and setting that apart for its spiritual end; and therefore it came before the blessing of that element. And therefore there must be a distinct benediction used from the former. That best suits the distinct nature of the several elements which were appointed by our Savior. And they are to be used and received by the Communicants in that distinct consideration. For though the whole of Christ spiritually is in each part of the Supper, it is not a piece of Christ, as Bread and Wine;[680] represented to the Receiver. Yet all of Christ is not there sacramentally, except in both.

Chapter 3. Of Censures and Excommunication.

The Lord Christ being a tender-hearted father to his Church, to his family and household, he has provided a wholesome and choice diet — his holy and spiritual Ordinances for the food and refreshing of the souls of his faithful, so that they may grow up into him in all things, Eph 4.15 and may increase with the increasings of God. And He has laid in Purgatives [681] as well as Restoratives. Out of his infinite wisdom, he has appointed Church-censures as good Medicine, to purge out what is evil. For who knows how many corrupt distempers, how many hurtful and nauseous diseases, the Saints are subject to. And he has appointed the Word and Sacraments which, like a good diet, are sufficient to nourish the soul to eternal life.

And his caring compassion has made him so careful here, that he has appointed each particular Brother as a skillful Apothecary,[682] to help promote the spiritual health of all who are in confederacy with him. Hence all the members are made (as we have heard) watchmen over the welfare of their Brethren. And by virtue of their consociation, they have power over each other, and a judicial way of process against each other in case of any sinful aberration, to proceed legally and judicially against them, according to the rules and orders of Christ provided for that end. And in this, the members of the same Congregation proceed not only Christianly, but Judicially against offenses, as in civil bodies special corporations have special advantages this way.

The proceeding in the dispensation of censures is double, according to the double quality of offenders and offenses, which are either Private, or Public.

Private offenses appear only to one or a few, and therefore they alone are to proceed against [the offenses], covering and hiding them from the apprehensions of others as much as possible, provided they can thereby attain a healing of them.

The rules here are to rectify their proceeding, so they may not neglect their duty — lest in not endeavoring reformation, or else through their unskillfulness, they increase sin and trouble when they would remove the one and prevent the other.

The RULES, I say, by which to regulate their proceedings, are these:

First, such human infirmities which unavoidably attend the best Saints breathing on earth, while they carry a body of death about them, are not to be taken as the matter of offense intended by our Savior. Nor do we have any just cause to stumble at such straws, or be taken with distaste against the carriage of a Brother in that case. And therefore they don’t come under the nature of an offense in this advice of our Savior, in Mat 18.15.

Secondly, if the sin is like a stone of stumbling in our Christian course, and therefore needs to be reformed in the one who commits it, and removed out of the way of the one who sees it, then we must attend to our duty here, and the direction of our Savior, Mat 18.15; Lev 19.17.[683]

Thirdly, if it is not yet so clear, but still doubtful to us, even if our thoughts and apprehensions lead that way, then it is not yet ripe for any Church process. But if fears and suspicions pursue us, fearing we won’t do what we should for the good of our brother, nor for settling our affections toward him, then we may inquire by way of doubt. This is to be satisfied, and to have our hearts quieted, but not to venture to censure it. For it is a safe rule, Where we haven’t found ground for conviction, we have no reason to administer an admonition.

Fourthly, if the offense is such that it deserves censure, and we have evidence enough by argument and rule to convince our apprehension, then it is yet the fairest way, to enter into a serious debate and consideration of the evil, and to hear fully and freely what can be said by the offending party for his defense. The grounds which are good to bear an admonition, will then be clearer. And all shifts being fully discovered by discourse, we may better see how to more fully and undeniably fasten a convicting reproof on a brother, as our Savior counsels in Mat 18.15.[684] If this fear and wariness were well attended to, then those ordinary mistakes, clashes, statements, and questions, and the many offenses committed among brethren, would then be easily prevented as they come to reform one offense given, through the help and assistance of Christ — if the party that comes to rebuke, would be sure of the following things:

First, that the sin was actually committed.

Secondly, that he has evidence, either by the confession of the party, or the witness of others, that this brother committed it.

Thirdly, that such a rule is fair and full to convict him of such a sin.

The majesty of Christ’s Ordinance would then be apparent with much evidence, and with much ease and comfort on all hands, in all its degrees. This would be true whether it is between you and him; or in case he will not hear, you take one or two witnesses; or if required, in bringing it to the Church. This much of Private Offenses.

Public Offenses. That offense is public which is famous and notorious at its first practice, such as open drunkenness, swearing, stealing, or lying; or it is such that a brother, according to the rule of Christ, and because of another’s obstinacy, is constrained to tell it to the Church and make it public.

In this Public Process, two things are to be attended:

1. The preparation to the sentence.

2. The execution of it.

1. By way of Preparation, the offense must,

First, be brought to the Elders, and debated by them, and then delivered to the Church. For they are the guides and leaders of the Church, Heb. 13.17, the watchmen and overseers of it. And therefore, they must know the causes and controversies to the full, in all its circumstances, difficulties, windings and turnings, so that they may be able to lead the Congregation in ways of peace and truth, which they cannot do unless they know the way themselves.

Secondly, it pertains to the Elders to judge whether the things are of weight and worth, and so they need the presence and assistance of the Body to express their judgment against them, and whether the party is guilty of them or not. For if they are petty businesses, and altogether unfit and unworthy to trouble the Congregation with, then it is in their power to prevent such causeless and needless disturbance, and therefore to suppress any further proceeding in it.

Obj. It will perhaps be said, by this means and under this pretense, if the Elders are corrupt in their judgment, or partial in their affections, they may silence the weightiest cause there can be, and so prejudice the innocency of those they are not friendly to, and hinder the reformation of those whom, in a corrupt and partial way, they sinfully favor.

Ans. Therefore, as it is in their power to suppress such petty occasions which are not worthy of the time, pains, and disturbance that must be spent on them, so yet it is in their power to prevent injustice and partiality in such cases. The party who considers himself to be wronged, may complain about the Elders in that behalf. And if the Congregation sees that the Elders have apparently dealt unjustly and partially, then it is in their power to rectify it. But if the complaint proves unjust and unreasonable, it is at the peril of the one who complains. For he is to be censured sharply and severely, as acting out of pride and perverseness, refusing to listen to the seasonable advice and counsel of those who were set over him by the Lord. And also because he has needlessly disturbed the peace of the Congregation, as much as it lies in him to do so.

Thirdly, this preparation is to be made by the Elders, because the body of the people, if numerous, will be unable to consider and weigh all the circumstances with any seemly convenience — not with all the emerging difficulties which certainly and necessarily occur in such agitations. Nor in reason can they bestow their time and pains on them, as the intricacy and perplexity of the work will sometimes require.

But when all things are cleared, and the native and naked state of the controversy is laid out and presented in its several parts, even the lowliest in the Congregation will generally be able to see cause to join their judgments with the truth.

This Preparation of the action lies in two things: the Cause must be examined, and the Examination be recorded; and both must be done quickly and exactly.

The eagerness of some spirits is inordinate in the overly rigid pursuit of an offense. And the pride of all men’s hearts generally is such that, though they can do shameful things, yet they are loth to bear the shame of it. And therefore, out of their waywardness and wiliness of heart, they are ready to wimble and wind out devices, so that they may deflect the dint of a revealing and convicting argument. [see note] [685]

Therefore, in the Examination of controversies, the one who complains must know two rules.

First, he dare not complain to the Elder of a Church, unless he can plainly and peremptorily lay out his accusation of another, touching speech and carriage of which, upon a thorough search, he is well-assured. I say, peremptorily accuse of things he has grounds to be assured of, because I would prevent such weak and windy kinds of expressions that we too often meet with, out of men’s too sudden pangs, and heedless mistakes: I take it so; I conceived it so; it was so reported; I met with it in that manner, etc. — when upon searching, all these vanish as mistakes. The word says we must rebuke convictingly [Gr. elegcho], Mat 18.15.

Secondly, as his accusation must be plain, so his proofs must be direct and pregnant, so that, as to the substance and reality of them, such words were indeed spoken, and such things actually done. There must be two witnesses to establish every word, unless the things may be sufficiently evidenced otherwise, such as by confession of the party, etc. [686]

On the Elders part, two rules, if attended, make a great riddance of occasions, and prevent distempers.[687]

First, let the accusation be quickly and exactly recorded, together with the answer to it, in the same manner. For experience teaches that in a multiplicity of debates, parties are apt to forget, or else are not willing to remember, and sometimes ready to mistake, add, alter, or vary in expressions, as they see there may be an advantage coming to their own cause, or disadvantage to the contrary cause. Again, by this means all is easily prevented, and the truth made open to the apprehension of bystanders.

Secondly, let the Elders confine all parties to the point in hand, not allowing extravagances [688] to darken the truth, disturb the proceedings, and bring confusion the whole debate. They are also, by the authority put into their hands, to forbid and restrain all personal attacks and passionate expressions, and constrain both sides to speak to the cause, and only to the cause in hand.

Thus the preparation is done, the cause rightly stated and cleared, doubts answered, mistakes removed, and by fair and sufficient proofs, the truth confirmed. Now the cause is ready and ripe for judgment, and may easily be determined in half an hour, which cost many weeks in the search and examination of it.

2. The Execution of the sentence. This issues in four things.

First, the cause exactly recorded, is as fully and nakedly to be presented to the consideration of the Congregation.

Secondly, the Elders are to go before the Congregation in laying open the rule,[689] so far as it reaches any particular now to be considered, and to express their judgment and determination about it, so far as it pertains to themselves.

Thirdly, unless the people are able to convince the Elders of error and mistakes in their sentence, they are bound to join their judgment, in order to complete the sentence.

Fourthly, the sentence, thus completely issued, is to be solemnly passed and pronounced on the Delinquent by the ruling Elder, whether it is the censure of admonition or excommunication.

Excommunication

Touching this last point, about excommunication, there are several cases which offer themselves to further search and consideration. We may briefly and in order inquire about these, having an eye and reference to what has been said touching the first subject of the Keys, where all these disputes had their first rise, and will receive their last resolution.

Ques. 1. The first question is, What is the order of the Gospel in the process of this great and dreadful Ordinance of Excommunication?

Ans. First, the execution of this sentence against the malefactor, against whom it is passed, concerns the whole body. This is because they are all bound to reject all Church-communion with him, and that is because he has renounced the rule of Christ, and is therefore justly delivered up to Satan, to be his slave in the kingdom of darkness, who would not be a subject to Christ in the kingdom of light. They are to renounce all voluntary and unnecessary familiarity with him, even in civil converse, that they may as much as it lies in them, and without any breach of bond or relation that lies upon them,[690] discountenance him in his course, and cause him to be ashamed.

And therefore, in some particulars he is below the degree of a heathen. 1Cor 5.11, don’t eat with such a person; and yet .1Cor 10.27, If an Infidel invites you to a feast, we may go by allowance from the Apostle; and by parity of reason, we may invite such persons (heathen) on occasion. But we may not express the same carriage to an Excommunicate.

Now, because the execution of the sentence concerns all, it would therefore be wished that there be a unanimous consent to it by all.

Secondly, excommunication thus being an Ordinance of so great a terror, and 0f so common and great a concern to all (if we look at the manner of it), it must proceed with great moderation, pity, patience, and long-sufferance. If there can be a healing of a corrupt member, we must not be hasty to cut it off. If we look at the matter of it, it must not be for petty and small aberrations, but for those evils that the mind and conscience of a man, enlightened by the truth of God, would condemn in himself or any others, upon the first serious consideration of it, if his understanding was left to the liberty of reason to act thereby, and not crack-brained and perverted with prejudice and selfishness.

Thirdly, such evils which are either heinous and abominable — such as fornication, murder, adultery, incest, treason, etc., or if not so gross, yet carry the face of evil on their forehead — upon the first serious and well-grounded consideration of reason, and the evils have been pertinaciously and obstinately persisted in after the use of all means for conviction and reformation of them, these alone deserve excommunication by the rules of Christ, 1Cor 5.11-13; Mat 18.17. [691]

Fourthly, when such evils are presented to the Church, and there’s a mutual and joint concurrence by all, then every particular Congregation has received power from Christ to proceed to excommunication without any more ado.

This, everyone grants, may be done by a Church on an island; and every particular Congregation has as much power and right in that censure, as has been formerly touched, and will more fully be proved afterward. The same may be done if some few should dissent, in case their reasons are heard and answered, and they are silenced by the power of Argument.

Fifthly, in case things prove doubtful (which in truth they rarely will, or can, if the rules formerly mentioned are attended), and the difference grows wide and great, then it is seasonable to crave the counsel and help of neighboring Churches. This is not to receive any power from them to execute the censure, but that they may see the truth cleared, the erring parties may be convinced, and also the way warranted. This being done, either all will agree, or else the majority of the Church has the power and right to proceed and pass the censure according to Christ; and the rest of the Church dissenting, are bound to sit down satisfied with it.

But in case the counsel of the consociated Churches advise to withhold excommunication, the case will then appear doubtful, and lack ground for conviction on the Church’s part. And therefore they will lack a ground for execution, as said. And therefore they must stay their proceeding.

Ques. 2. The second question is, Where does the Highest Tribunal lie, when this sentence issues?

Ans. Before we can lay out the rule of proceeding in this censure, and the order and rank that each person must keep, according to his power and place, we will say something first, by way of explication of the nature of the censure; secondly, lay out the bounds according to which the people should confine themselves in exercising their power; and lastly, briefly give the reasons for the question so stated.

First, this censure of excommunication, and the admonition that makes way for it, is to be attended in a double regard: either (1) as it is Legally prepared, i.e., Dogmatically propounded to the Congregation by the Elders as their leaders; or (2) as it is Judicially passed and executed.

To understand the first, you must recall that it pertained to the place and office of the Rulers, by a thorough search and examination, to ripen the cause, and to clear all mistakes, and to settle the truth by sufficient and undeniable witness. And therefore, in case things were doubtful, and admit no serious and thorough proof, the Congregation should not be troubled with such things. Where no conviction can be gained, no censure of public admonition or excommunication should be administered. But when things are fully testified, the Elders are to dogmatically reveal the mind of God, and the rule of Christ, according to which the Congregation should proceed.

Secondly, their judgments thus expressed, and the compass according to which the people should confine themselves in exercising their power and judgment, may be conceived in THIS RULE:

(1) The fraternity have no more power to oppose the sentence of the censure thus prepared and propounded by the Elders, than they have to oppose their doctrine which they publish.

(2) But they have as much power to oppose the one, as the other.

We’ll touch both parts of the Rule. Let it be noted that I’m speaking of the censure as dogmatically propounded, and not of the act of judicially passing it when it comes to be executed.

The proof is plain:

(1) The Elders have the same authority in dogmatically propounding the one, as in promulgating the other. They are acts which alike issue out of their office in which they are placed, and to which they are called by God. They are as bound to be leaders to the people in preparing the cause, that it may be ripe and ready for the censure, as in laying open the rule as it reaches the several particulars, and then expressing their own judgment and determination of it.

(2) That their power is equal in both, appears palpably by this: when the cause is cleared and proved by evidence of undeniable witness, the Elder may refer it to the Word; and out of the Word preach it as a Doctrine. [692] So that, the sentence which the Elder passes, will be a point that he would preach; and therefore none will oppose the one, without opposing the other.

Hence it follows, as formerly intimated, that if the people cannot convince (convict) the Elder of his error or mistake in the sentence, they are bound to join their judgment with his in completing the sentence. This is to be without impertinent questions, needless scruples, willful and disorderly challenges. For if they cannot confute his Doctrine, then they are bound to entertain and establish it. Therefore they must do so with their censures, as the inference forces.

And this kind of proceeding in judicature reveals so much wisdom, care, and faithfulness of the Lord Christ, in providing for the comfort, honor, and safety of His Church, that the like is not to be found in all the governments on earth, in which the greatest excellency ever appeared to the apprehension of the sons of men.

For behold, the Lord Christ is so tender and compassionate over his Church, that the lowliest member of it won’t be touched in the least measure in his liberty. But He has fitted, called, and appointed His Officers, wise and holy watchmen, who will secretly and seriously examine all things with all exactness, receiving nothing except upon such proof as that by which every word will be established. And yet, when all this is evidenced, they won’t proceed against them in private, but will present all the evidence to the view and consideration of them all.[693] They will lay open the rule of truth before the members, and nothing will be done that they oppose; rather, they must approve and set their hand and seal to it, as suitable to the rules of truth, righteousness, and love. And this proceeding is held in all things, to all His members. The like is not to be found on earth.

The second part of the Conclusion is, That they have as much power and right to oppose Elders’ censures, so propounded, as their Doctrine. For their power is alike in dispensing the one, as the other, as was proven. And therefore, if they can oppose the one, they may so far oppose the other.

Since then, it is yielded on all hands, that the fraternity may renounce and condemn the false, erroneous, and heretical Doctrines of an Elder, and hinder them, so that they may never be entertained nor established in the place — indeed, reject his opinions, and take his Office away from him — they may do as much by parity of reason, against his false and unjust censures that are propounded and concluded. And so they may interpose and oppose proceedings, such that they will never take place and be established in the Congregation. Only, the method and order prescribed before in case there is a difference, must be attended.

The conclusion then is this: The Fraternity is put for the causal power in the censure of excommunication, from which it receives its completion. And here lies the supreme Tribunal in point of judgment, and public proceedings in censure against an offender. The reasons for this we have given formerly, when we treated the first subject of the Keys, to which we refer the Reader.[694] Only, we may recall two or three for the present, so that we may not leave this place wholly void.

First,

The Church that can publicly admonish the Elder (or Elders) in case he will not hear one or two, can excommunicate, for not being heard, Mat 18.17. [695]

But the Church of the fraternity, in case the offending Elders will not hear one or two, may also admonish.

For if one or two may admonish privately, according to the degrees of process prescribed by our Savior, then why all may not admonish publicly, I don’t see, by the same parity and equality of reasoning. Mat 18.15, If a brother, i.e., any brother. Indeed, the case may be such that they alone will be left to admonish. For suppose there are three Elders in the Congregation, and two of them are under an offense in which they persist, not yielding to the first or second admonition. To what Church must the complaint now be made? One Elder is not a Church. Therefore the complaint must be made to the fraternity along with him; therefore they must admonish, and therefore they may also cast out if their admonition is not heard.

Secondly,

Any placing of the supreme power which crosses the proceeding prescribed by our Savior, is not orderly and regular.

But placing the supreme power in the Elders [alone] does so.

The assumption is thus evidenced:

That which makes the guilty party the Judge in his own Cause, crosses the proceeding prescribed by our Savior.

But this does so.

For in case the Elders offend, and are complained of, to whom must the complaint be carried? The text says, “To the Church.” The Church (says this contrary opinion) is the Elders, and therefore they must be complained to as their own Judges.

Thirdly,

That power which is appointed by Christ in his Church, to reform evil — that being managed according to His appointment, and in a time of peace — that power can and will attain its end.

Otherwise there would be an imputation laid upon our Savior, that he lacked either wisdom or power in His institutions, in that such were appointed which were not able to attain the end for which they were provided and appointed.

But if the power of Censures is placed in the Presbytery, for the removal and purging out of the leaven of a pertinacious sinner, it cannot attain its end.

For suppose the body of the people would keep him in the body, converse with him, and maintain full communion. Their excommunication will not do the deed, which shows that the arm is too short to manage this power to the full extent of it, as it was intended by our Savior.

And Master Rutherford grants this, lib. i. p. 44. That is the constant received and maintained opinion of Divines, both ancient and modern: that excommunication be done by consent of the people.[696] Indeed, Zepperus, Zanchi, Beza, Bucanus,[697] and Paraeus, think the Eldership shouldn’t excommunicate without consent. Peter Martyr goes further: Therefore, it is concluded that none are to excommunicate without the consent of the church... The right of the church is regarded here, and nothing ought to be taken from it. Cartwright on 1Cor 5, The Keys are handed over to the whole Church. [698]

The ground I conceive of this joint judgment, thus constantly requiring the consent of the people, in truth implies that their consent was not a matter of complement,[699] but carried a full causal virtue with it, for completing and accomplishing this censure.

Suppose that where there are three elders, two of them became heretics, and continued so. How could the Church proceed against them, unless there was a causal power in the fraternity to accomplish this censure? For if Church meant the Eldership, then how can one be the Church? And if the people were to consent, and yet their consent carried no causal virtue to this work, then the impropriety, which is cross to right reason, remains yet unremoved — excommunication would proceed to be completed by one man. This is contrary to the grain of the words, and the process of our Savior that’s set down in the passage, which is to arise by increase from one, to two or three, and from there to a multitude.

This ground thus proved, and being received, many collections will flow naturally from it, which will take the place of so many answers to several questions.

First, the power of judgment, and the power of Office, are apparently distinct and different from one another. The Elders in point of rule, and exercising the act of their Office, are supreme, and above the Congregation; none have that Office-authority, nor can they execute the acts of it, but themselves. But in point of power of Judgment or censure, the Fraternity are supreme, and above any member or Officer in case of offense and delinquency. Nor need any man wonder at this distinction, when the like is daily obvious in parallel examples presented before our eyes.

The Lord Mayor is above the Court, touching the ways and works of his Office. None has a right, nor can execute such acts, which are peculiar to his place. And yet the Court is above him in point of censure, and can correspondingly proceed to punish in a just way, according to the just desert of his sin. Thus the Parliament is above the King, and the soldiers and Captains above their General.

Hence again, excommunication is not an act of power of Office, but of Judgment, from grounds and grants formerly cleared. And therefore it cannot be appropriated to Rulers, nor upon right consideration, be accounted an act of highest rule. Rather, it is an act of supreme Judgment, which is seated in the Fraternity, and may be executed by them in a right order and manner, as proved before. Still, that is a staple rule which stands fast: The whole has power over any member or members, and can preserve herself and her safety against any of their power who would harm or destroy it.

And this must be conceded by all those who give power of excommunication to Synods and Councils, in that Brethren as well as Elders are members of the Synods. And the Acts of those Assemblies issue from both Elders and Brethren, as all the Orthodox prove against the Popish Impropriators.[700]

Hence, lastly, as long as the Church continues, and has the being of a Church, she has the right and power to manage these censures, because that right belongs to her, kata auto, of herself, and it pertains to her as such a body. Therefore it cannot be taken away unless her being is taken away. An Officer, while he remains in his place and Office, has the right and power to Preach and to administer the Seals — even though the exercise of those acts may sometimes be hindered by violence and constraint. So too, while the members continue confederate in combination, and so they have communion with one another by free consent, they also have power over one another. And in case the part prejudices the whole, it’s subject to the power of the whole, to be removed from its communion.

Part IV. Concerning Synods.

Chapter 1. The Nature of a Synod and its Power to Bind.

In which Mr. Rutherford’s sixth Argument, taken out of Acts 15, is debated, and the nature of the Synod discussed; and how far that or any other Synod can be said to bind, by any warrant from the Word.

The SIXTH ARGUMENT of Master Rutherford is taken from that exemplar of a Synod propounded in the 15th chapter of the Acts.

Before we can come to give a direct and clear answer to it, we will be forced to say some things to prepare the way to that purpose, that it may appear how far the power of a Synod is confessed or denied, and what the stress of the Controversy especially consists in. And that will be dispatched in the following conclusions.

Pre-Conclusion 1.

The consociation of Churches is not only lawful, but very useful also, serving not only to search out the truth, but to settle the hearts of all who are sincerely minded in the right apprehension and profession of the same.

It occurs when many men, and those select and eminent, lay the best of their abilities together, improve their parts and prayers, disquisitions, consultations, and determinations, in order to promote the knowledge and practice of the things of Christ, the establishment of Churches, in the unity of the Faith, and their eternal peace.

The light of nature and right reason force men out of their own necessities and experience to confess that, In the multitude of Counselors there is safety. Pro 24.6 Many eyes see more than one,[701] etc. The issue of that counsel evidences as much. Act 16.4-5. They delivered their Decrees, etc. and the Churches were established in the faith, etc.

Pre-Conclusion 2.

This Consociation is of several sorts and degrees, some lesser some greater, such as Classes and Synods; and these are Provincial, National, and Ecumenical.

Pre-Conclusion 3.

The power which any or all have, is not boundless or unlimited. They are all but men, and may err. Their judgments are not the rule, but must be regulated. Their power is under Christ, only from him and for him, to be wholly acted and ordered by his authority in his Word.

Thus far we all agree. But,

Pre-Conclusion 4.

This authority is by several men, severally considered — namely, it is either the authority of Church Council, or of Church Jurisdiction, as Mr. Rutherford writes, p. 271 near the end.

1. Authority of Church Council is when the case is controversial, and many doubts and difficulties arise which cannot easily and readily be discerned or decided. The aggrieved parties crave the advice and seek the counsel of many Churches, and willingly submit to the truth of God appearing by their means.

2. Authority of Church Jurisdiction is when the Churches meeting, not only have authority to counsel, but power to censure ecclesiastically in case the parties whose cause comes to be reviewed and considered, are found to be guilty and worthy of such a censure.

Pre-Conclusion 5.

Hence the Churches thus meeting, may be said to impose their determination and such decrees, which result and arise out of their disquisitions and disputes by authority of the Word only, from where their determinations are fetched and affirmed demonstrably.[702]

(1) And then they are said to bind materially in regard to the thing which is determined, being no more or other than that which is evidently expressed, or infallibly collected out of the Word. And so their counsels are none other than God’s Commands. They contain a Divine Authority which is now revealed by them, and applied in His name to the particulars under hand. Thus the Council in Act 15.20, enjoins them to abstain from fornication, which are the express Words of Scripture, from the Law in the Gospel.

(2) But besides this, they are said to bind formally, when it’s supposed and taken for granted that the Decrees are not only required in the Word, but enjoined by those who have Church Jurisdiction. And by virtue of that Authority, they can impose, and in case of refusal, they have the power to censure Ecclesiastically.[703]

We conceive the power, i.e., the Authority of Brotherly Counsel, is attended by Christ. Mr. R. expresses much learning and labor to maintain and prove the latter, and to that purpose, he alleges this is the pattern in Acts 15. Whether it is fit and full to this purpose, we will make some serious inquiry according to our measure, after we have debated the nature and quality of this Assembly and its proceedings. We will do that in the following Conclusions.

Of Acts 15.

Hooker’s Conclusion 1.

This Synod was not extraordinary, either in regard to the infallible assistance of the persons in it, or in the immediate revelation of the truths discussed and decreed in it.

It’s true, the Apostles were extraordinary men in regard to their Places and Office; but that was not attended here, nor by virtue of what they enacted. There are individual rights and common rights,[704] says Junius. The second is what is attended here. There were Pastors who had ordinary abilities, as well as Apostles, who had extraordinary assistances; but they acted in the former relation.

For in extraordinary revelations and infallible assistances, men don’t join Ordinary Churches in their consultations and inquiries; but so the whole work was carried on here. The men disputed, and inquired; each man was allowed liberty to propound his thoughts, had recourse to the Scriptures, and reasoned out of them, Act 15.7-18. And ergo, the Lord here leaves a Copy and Exemplar for all succeeding generations, how to seek the truth by way of trial in the use of such means which He has appointed.

Hooker’s Conclusion 2.

Hence their sentence was not Scriptural or Canonical only because they decreed it, as when they were infallibly assisted and acted upon by the Holy Ghost, 2Pet 1.21.[705]

But the thing or matter that was decreed, was either expressed pregnantly [fully or fruitfully], or infallibly collected out of the Word; and so, being Scripture, it was therefore decreed by them, as the instances of the Decrees give evidence.

To abstain from fornication, which is one of the Decrees, is the very letter of the text. The other particulars issue out of one ground; and from there they have the strength of divine prohibition. For in things of indifferent use (such as those which were strangled, and blood), the rule of the Apostle admits no challenge, 1Cor 1.10, and Rom 14.23.[706]

They were not therefore Canonical Scripture because they were decreed; but on the contrary, because they were Scripture, they were decreed.

It is one thing to make a mandate as such,[707] Divine Scripture. It is another thing when the matter is by force of undeniable consequence, gathered out of Scripture to give out as a mandate.

And this, I suppose, is how that phrase is to be understood, “It seems good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” Act 15.28.

By the Holy Ghost must either be understood as the immediate revelation of the Spirit, parallel to that of 2Pet 1.21, being carried by the Holy Spirit [708] — but the text does not admit this sense, for this is not extraordinary revelation that in reason can be attributed, or conceived to belong to that ordinary group; besides, the Argument formerly alleged, has confuted this sense.

Or else it must be understood as the Holy Ghost speaking in the word, which is open and easy to conceive. And we have a like phrase in Scripture carrying the like sense, in that the several parts of their sentence follow by infallible inference from Scripture grounds, as the Will of the Lord — to which the Spirit led them by dispute, collation, and comparison of places.

Hooker’s Conclusion 3.

Hence the Synod may be said to charge the truth of God upon the Churches, and to load their Consciences with the Decrees they published by way of authoritative Council, because they have the Divine Authority of the Scripture commanding all that they decreed, long before their decrees came out — the evidence of which they now revealed, and the power of which, by way of Application, was pressed upon their consciences in the particulars mentioned.

Taking this sense and interpretation along with us, that Mr. Rutherford here and there opposes (as in the Answer to the 11th and 15th Objections, pages 210, 212), his will easily be removed, for he thus reasons:

Rutherford’s Obj. “If this Assembly’s Decrees laid a tie and bond upon the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, then it either tied them as a Council, or as a part of Scripture, or thirdly, as a Decree of an Ecclesiastical Synod.” (p. 212)

“1. If the first is said, this Canon does not lay a Command upon them; we find the contrary of this in verse 28: It lays a burden upon them; and in Act 16.4, decrees they must keep.[709]

“2. It cannot tie as a part of Scripture; for what is proper to the Church until Christ’s second coming, does not oblige as Canonical Scripture. For Canonical Scripture won’t continue to be written till Christ comes again, because the Canon is already closed, with a curse upon all who add to it. But what is decreed according to God, by Church-guides, is proper to the Church, etc., page 210.

“Ergo, they must tie as a Decree of an Ecclesiastical Synod.”

Hooker’s Ans. The ambiguity and doubtfulness of the phrase [in Act 15.28] darkens the whole dispute. The explication of that will expedite an answer to all that has been said with great evidence. To bind as a part of Scripture, allows for a double sense. Either,

1. That which is decreed is clearly contained in, and so it is infallibly collected out of Scripture, and so it is Scripture, and has the binding Power of Scripture with it; or else,

2. This act of Decreeing, issuing from the immediate revelation and assistance of the Spirit, makes that which is decreed, to be Scripture.

We take it in the former sense, and affirm according to what we have formerly proved, that the Decrees are express Scripture, or necessarily to be inferred from the Scripture. And ergo, they tie as a part of Scripture, which is alleged there, though the allegation itself, as barely considered in itself, has no such Power, nor can it lay any such bond at all.

As when the Nicene Council decreed that the Son was homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, as the words of the text evidence — Phi 2.6, “He counted it no robbery to be equal [Gr. isos] with the Father” — this Decree contains Scripture; and ergo, it has a Divine Power going with it to bind; not because it was decreed, but because it is Scripture which they have decreed.

And in this sense they did, and any Council may, lay a burden upon any man’s conscience. So any Christian who publishes and preaches 1Cor 6.18 — Flee fornication; and every man who commits that sin, sins against his own body — may press this prohibition as binding the conscience, and lay it as a burden of the Lord upon every soul. This is not from the authority of the one who speaks, but because it is Scripture that is spoken. And he may lawfully lay an absolute necessity upon all his hearers, that they must keep that Charge, since it’s God’s Charge now published and applied by His Means.

And in this sense, it is true that what is proper to the Church until Christ comes again, may oblige as Canonical Scripture — not because the formal publishing makes it Scripture, but because the thing which is published is assuredly Scripture.

Indeed, immediately before this, on page 209, Mr. Rutherford affirms what amounts to this much. In his first Answer to the ninth Objection, he conjoins these two together:

“That the excommunication of the incestuous Corinthian by the appointing Elders at Lystra, was Scripture; and yet the Decree of excommunication and the appointing elders, bound them with an Ecclesiastical tie only.”

By the same [line of reasoning], the things that are counselled may be Scripture, and bind by a Divine Power; and yet the publication of these may tie by way of Counsel only, in regulating those who publish them.

Natural vs. Positive Law

Before we pass from here, it won’t be amiss to take into consideration how Mr. Rutherford clears the ground; how it comes about that a Presbytery can bind a Congregation by an Ecclesiastical tie of Obedience; how a Synod can tie a Presbytery, etc. He answers, they have warrant by a Positive Law by God, and by the Law of Nature. [710]

Concerning this, I will take leave to offer a few things for consideration, because I cannot so well reach his meaning, so that I may give him occasion to explicate himself more fully in his response.

The Law of Nature, and Positive Law,[711] when their specific nature comes to be attended, I have looked at as carrying a kind of opposition, as dividing members [712] used to do, and as it is ordinarily observed among all Interpreters in the exposition of the Commands.[713]

The Law of Nature is that which issues out of the reference and dependence which the Nature of men have to God as a Creator; so that, if God is God, and man is a Creature made for Him and His Glory, then man must bestow himself and his heart upon God, in the first Command. This is a Natural Law.

But that man should worship God by such means — by the Word, sacraments, and Censures so dispensed — this is a Positive Law of God’s appointment. If He had not expressed it, or if it was expressed after, then that which was Positive Law before, is no Law now. This may be easily discerned in the Sacraments of the Jews, which are now out of date. Those which were means of Worship as then appointed, are no means now, because they were abrogated. How the authority of Synods should bind by a Positive Law, and yet also bind by Nature, deserves some further explication.

Nor does the explication and distinction added on page 208 — “A thing is natural in two ways, simply and by consequent” — take away all the scruple (hesitance), or clear all the doubt. For if that may be counted a Law of Nature, which upon some supposition or condition stands by a rule of reason, then I cannot see how Natural and Positive Laws will be distinguished.

Rutherford’s Examples

We take into consideration Mr. R.’s examples that he propounded.

“That Thomas and John should dwell in such a Congregation, God in His providence might have otherwise disposed; and ergo that is Positive Law, that they should come there to be Members.

“But being Members, it is then connatural,[714] that they should be subjected to the Eldership of this Congregation; and the ground of the bound is that the part must be in subjection to those who command the whole.

“John and Thomas are parts of this Congregation; such an eldership commands the whole; ergo they must be subject to such an Eldership,” page 201.

I don’t see how this distinction can clear the cause in hand. For by the same ground, I don’t see why any man may not say that all positive Laws are natural; indeed, they can only be natural. Let’s look at the consequent and condition, which may (indeed, certainly will) attend all of them in their very constitution.

Take some instance for evidence. When any of the Heathen came to embrace the Jew’s religion and its ceremonial Law, they did that by a Positive Law — because they might have remained like Job, and never become proselytes (converts).

But once they turned Proselytes and became Members of the Jewish Congregation, it is connatural that they submit to all their Ceremonies. Every Member of the Corporation must be under the Laws of the whole, so that on this ground they must be said to obey the Ceremonies by Nature’s Law. But how awkward does that sound?

Besides, when a man is a Member of such a Congregation, it’s ordinary and usual for such a man to depart at his pleasure, and become an inhabitant in another Province, as it suits his own will, or as emergent occasions require. But still being there, as a Member he must submit to the rule of the whole. And upon that ground, he is bound to obey by Nature’s Law when there are no laws that can be more merely positive than these are — and obedience comes from free choice, because it is in a man’s choice to depart if he will.

To end this case, let this reason be attended:

That ground which is common to Nature’s Laws and Positive Laws, cannot make a distinction between either of them.[715]

But this rule of reason, that the part should be ordered by the whole, is common to all the Laws, both natural and positive.

What follows from Mr. Rutherford needs a grain of salt to be added; otherwise it exceeds my apprehension to make work of it, page 202:

“The division of a Nation into Provinces, and of Provinces into so many Territories called Presbyteries, and the division of so many Presbyteries into so many Congregations, cannot be called a device of man’s, just because it is not in the Word of God. For by the same reasoning, John and Thomas, and so many threes and fours of Believers being Members of Independent Congregations, seeing that this is not in the Word either, it would be a device of men.”

Against this Assertion, I would reason thus:

The division of a Nation into Provinces, etc. is either a device of men, or a Divine Institution, for there is no third choice.[716]

But it cannot be a Divine Institution:

1. That which stands by the rule of arbitrary policy is a device of man, not a divine institution. And this stands by a rule of arbitrary policy, as practice and experience evidence.

2. That is a device of man, which proceeds from the free choice of rectified reason, suiting his civil ends, according to the several occasions and means he devises to that purpose. And the division of a Nation into Presbyteries, etc. is of this nature. It issues from the free choice of rectified reason, suiting civil ends, according to the several means and occasions devised to that purpose.

3. That device which is enacted by one man, may lawfully be altered by another, keeping the end of civil order,[717] is the device of man. And this is so. One King and Governor orders the combination of people and places one way, into so many hundreds, so many shires, some so large, others so much less. The successor alters it all another way, and both of them without just blame.

4. Lastly, I will reason from his own grant: That which is not in the Word, is a device of man. For all lawful devices must either be from the wisdom of the Word — revealing, directing, and approving such whenever they are observed and followed — or else they must issue from the wisdom of man, following that light of reason, the relics of which are still left in lost nature, or else renewed by education, and the use of such means as may be helpful to it.

And that which I desire may be especially observed in these places is that, from this grant, I cannot see how either of them can be maintained to be an Ordinance (I don’t say the authority of a Classis or Synod can be proved, but how).

If Classes and Synods are Ordinances of Christ, and so they are parts of His Worship, then if they are not expressed, yet they may necessarily be collected out of the Scripture. For that alone is part of God’s Worship, which God Himself appoints.

But here it is granted that all these divisions of Nations into Provinces, of Provinces into Territories and Classes, are not to be found in the Word.

Therefore, they are not Ordinances of Christ, nor parts of His Worship.

When it is added that it is not found in the Word, that John and Thomas should be Members of a Congregation, I answer that it is found — though not particularly expressed, as many other things are not; and yet it is so expressed that it may necessarily be collected from it.

All who are believers in Christ, should by duty attend upon Christ in all his Ordinances, and therefore in Church-fellowship, as the Apostle argues and concludes, Eph 4.14-16.[718]

But John and Thomas are such believers. Ergo...

Then comes that which follows on Mr. Rutherford’s page 202:

“That all our singular actions are mixed; that there is something moral in them, and that must be squared and ruled by the Word; and there is something in them that is not moral but positive, and this is not to be squared by the Word, but by Nature’s Light.”

In these expressions there are many doubtful things which deserve to be discussed and cleared, but to show that they do not fall in so pat with the purpose in hand, [I ask the following]:

1. It would need to be proved that all our singular actions are mixed, and have something to be squared by the Word, and something not. For example, grant that preaching, praying, receiving Sacraments, professing Faith at this time and season, and all this upon the express Command of God, how are these singular actions mixed? What in these is to be squared by the Word, and what is not?

2. How is that which is positive in an act (I suppose the meaning is that it’s done by a positive Law), is yet not moral, when these are for the most part subordinate, and not contradistinct?

3. How is it that some actions must be squared by Nature’s Light, and not by the Word, when the Apostle’s injunction goes this far: Whatever we eat or drink, or whatever we do, let it all be done to the glory of God? 1Cor 10.31 And the received tenet of the School maintains that every action in an individual is morally good or bad.[719] And if it is such, it’s certain that they then come within the verge (the bounds) of the Word.

I propound these queries to occasion Mr. Rutherford’s further explications. But I conceived it necessary to take notice of that division of a Nation into Provinces, and those into several Territories, because in this we have the foundation laid, and a way made for Synods, which must have their garb and garment cut according to this compass. But it will shortly appear that this Apostolical pattern will quit us of any such constraining inference.

*****

We are done with the explication and preface to the dispute. We now come to Mr. Rutherford’s argument which he thus propounds out of the place [Acts 15].

“If the Churches of Antioch, being troubled by a question which they could not determine, and had recourse to an Assembly of Churches, who gave a Decree, which the Churches were bound to keep, then upon like occasion, we must have recourse to a like remedy.

“But the first part is plain, being in this trouble, etc., they resorted to an Assembly which gave a Decree, which they were bound to keep.

“Therefore we also, upon a like occasion, must seek the like remedy, and stoop to its Authority.

Hooker’s Answer.

The whole conclusion may be granted as true in a true sense, as we have formerly opened it in the foregoing conclusions. For it’s granted, we lawfully may, indeed it’s necessary that we repair in cases of difficulty and doubt, to a Classis or Synod. It’s certain that they should show their counsel, and set down their sentence out of the Word, and lay it by virtue of the Word, as a burden upon men’s consciences. And being so published, so confirmed out of the Scriptures, we ought to receive it as the Word, so much as is gathered out of the Word, and attend to it as an authoritative advice, as Mr. Rutherford says, and as we formerly declared in the foregoing Conclusions.

This is all the place requires, and all this we grant.

But that they Ecclesiastically tied other Churches, by virtue of any Church-jurisdiction which they had over them, is not yet apparent.[720]

Act 15.28, We lay no greater burden. Act 16.4, And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep. Act 21.25, We have written and concluded that they observe no such things, but that they keep themselves, etc.

All this, I say, may well agree to a way of Counsel.

For suppose a Christian man out of office (an expectant as Mr. Rutherford puts it), preaches and publishes the Commands of God. He may be said to press them as a burden upon men’s consciences and charge them as necessary duties, which they are bound upon the hazard of their souls to discharge carefully and conscientiously, and not dare to neglect in the least measure. [721]

The whole frame of the proceeding, and all the contributing circumstances of the context, show that the Assembly [in Acts 15] acted by way of counsel.

1. These Decrees are said to bind those to whom they are sent. But they were sent to all the Churches of the Gentiles. Act 21.25, As touching the Gentiles who believe, we have written and concluded, etc. — those who had no Commissioners, nor Messengers delegated to the Synods. And therefore they could not bind them by way of any authoritative jurisdiction.[722] For it is a ruled case in all such Synodical proceedings. Those who have warning and liberty to send to the Synod, are those who are subject to the Authority of the Synod. What Mr. Parker expresses as effectual to the constitution of a Synod, is approved by all, and by Mr. Rutherford.

“That which materially furnishes Commissioners at an Assembly, in their gifts and holiness, that which formally fits them to that work, is their calling and sending.” [723]

Where there is no delegation of Messengers by mutual consent, there is no right of jurisdiction.

2. All these fundamental grounds which are laid for the orderly acting of any of their occasions, take this as confessed. For if it was enough for several Churches to assemble and set out Decrees which might bind all indifferently, whether they had Commissioners or not in their meeting, then the Decrees of one Province or Nation might impose on another Province or Nation, which is conceived and concluded by all, to be unequal (inequitable). Indeed, it may fall out that they may impose contrary things; and so of necessity, that would breed and bring confusion and vexation instead of reformation.

The Decrees of a Synod bind by an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, only those who delegate Messengers to the Synod.

But the Decrees of this Synod bind more than those who delegated Messengers to it; to wit, all the Churches of the Gentiles.

Therefore, they did not intend to bind by Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, but by way of Christian Counsel. Or more plainly:

Those who send the Decrees of the Synod to such Churches, who never sent their Messengers or Commissioners there, send only by way of Counsel.

But this Synod at Jerusalem sent their Decrees to all the Churches of the Gentiles, who never sent their Commissioners there.

Ergo, they sent them only by way of Counsel.

3. That Pattern which sends a Church 200 miles for a Synod and consociation, does not tie a Church either to a Provincial or to a National Synod.

But this one does so.

Reply. If it is replied that if I may go that far, I may therefore gather one nearer, I answer this:

Ans. True, you may do so. But it’s as true by this pattern, that any delinquent may refuse to go. When his cause comes to be reviewed, and he is to be convened before a Provincial or National Synod, he may plead that liberty which the practice of the Apostles (propounded here as precedential) will permit them. And so, by this exemplar, National and Provincial Synods would be wholly frustrated, and may be rejected as well as received — notwithstanding any force of argument from the place or practice that might constrain to the contrary.

4. It is said in Act 15.2, when they appointed Paul and Barnabas to go to Jerusalem to inquire touching the opinion about the necessity of circumcision, that created for them no small business, that the Church of Antioch sent other Messengers with them,[724] with the same commission. And they concurred with the Apostles in the sentence determined. For the Church of Antioch, which was a party, and contested with those of the Pharisees against their false conceit and opinion, so as to be a judge in their own cause — that would be against the rule.

But that they may crave counsel and concurrence with others, and so be a means to settle themselves and others in the Faith of the Gospel, and to walk with a straight foot in the profession of it — that suits well with rule and reason.

Chapter 2. Alleged Superiority of Classes and Synods

above Particular Congregations.

Where Mr. Rutherford’s Arguments touching the Superiority of Classes and Synods above particular Congregations, are considered and answered. And they are six in number, with more set down in the 15th chapter of his book.

The 7th and 9th Arguments propounded in this 15th chapter, seem to be of greatest weight, and therefore require more serious and studious search. And to that purpose, we will make way for ourselves by some previous explications, in the Conclusions which follow.

Conclusion 1.

There is some first and most supreme Tribunal in the exercise of Church-power, to which judicial appeals are last made, and from which no appeal can be granted or expected. Otherwise the wisdom of Christ would be blemished if there were an endless maze and circle in seeking reformation, which could never be found nor attained.

Beside, the peace of the wronged and complaining party would be exceedingly prejudiced if he were never to come to a period (.) in the pursuit of his case, and so never come to a remedy of his wrong; seeking a cure would prove far worse than suffering the trouble of the disease.

Something must stand foremost;[725] God, and Reason, and Nature determine this. And this, I suppose, must be an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL in the apprehension and approbation of our most learned and reverend Brethren.

Conclusion 2.

Having this first and supreme Tribunal, which exercises power over all others, there can be none to exercise power over it. This follows from the bounds,[726] and out of the Nature of the thing. That which is above all, can have none over it.

There cannot be higher than the highest. I speak now only of a way of Ministerial proceeding. And not only equity, but necessity forces this upon all courses of judicature, whether Civil in the Commonwealth, or Ecclesiastical in the Churches.

Conclusion 3.

Hence, the highest and supreme Tribunal cannot be censured by any power of the same kind; nor yet is there any prejudice to the care and wisdom of our Savior, that the punishment of such a Tribunal is reserved only to the throne of His divine justice.

1. Common sense teaches that such cannot be censured. No censure can be exercised upon those over whom there is no power. But the highest Ministerial power has no power of that kind above it (I mean Ecclesiastical power). Only the supreme Magistrate in the Commonwealth has a civil co-active power to constrain Churches in case of their excesses and apostasies from the order of the Gospel to attend to the rules of Christ, and to recover themselves by a just Reformation.

But if we look at the highest Tribunal of Church-power, in case they are faulty, where can an appeal be made in an Ecclesiastical proceeding? We cannot go to a higher power, because we are at the highest. And to appeal to the inferior from whom the appeal has been made, not only the rules of prudence, but common sense will condemn a man of his folly in such a practice. [727]

2. Nor yet does this derogate anything from the depth of Christ’s wisdom and faithfulness in the government of His Church. For it is none other than that which infinite Providence yields approval to. When all flesh has corrupted his way,Gen 6.12 and erred in judgment, it’s only rational that the execution of judgment should then come into His hand, who is the Righteous Judge of all flesh.

These things being premised, which cannot be denied unless we ask to battle to common sense, we will now address ourselves to the examination of Mr. R’s seventh and ninth arguments, because they arise out of one root, and one bottom serves to bear them both.

Mr. Rutherford’s 7th and 9th Arguments.

“If when an obstinate Brother offends, we must tell the Church, then the same course is to be taken when an obstinate Church offends (p. 217). For Christ’s remedy for removing offenses is hence argued to be imperfect if excommunication does not remove all offenses (p. 221), and prevent the leavening of many lumps.

“He that cares for the part, must care more for the whole Church, and ordain excommunication for edifying it. And he that takes care of a national Church, who can doubt that he takes care of edifying and saving in the day of Christ, Churches of Nations and Provinces (p. 221).”

This is the main and only bottom that bears up both his Arguments. And if this proves brittle, the whole frame will have its bottom fall out.[728] That this weakness may appear, I desire no better armory than this to fetch weapons from, in order to wound this cause. For from the ground of his Argument I would reason as follows — not that I take the ground as good, but I take its good against him and his cause, because it is his own ground:

If I must tell the Church when an obstinate Brother offends, then when an obstinate Church offends, I must take the same course; then when an Ecumenical Synod or Council offends, I must take the same course. But that is exceedingly irrational.

Christ’s remedy of excommunication must remove all offenses, otherwise it is imperfect.

But excommunication cannot remove the offenses of an Ecumenical Council.

Therefore Christ’s remedy is imperfect.

And that it cannot remove the offense of a General Council, reason and common-sense evidence at first sight, besides the conclusions formerly proved; for to whom can the appeal be made, or who can excommunicate?

When Master Rutherford has answered these Arguments, he will answer himself.

Reason 1 against it.

That course of proceeding which hinders the removing and healing of offenses, is not Christ’s course.

But this appeal from particular congregations to Classes, and from there to Synods, hinders the cure of offenses.

For suppose I am a Delinquent; the Classis will proceed against me; so I appeal to a Synod. If the Synod doesn’t favor me, I will appeal from it to a National Council, and from that to an Ecumenical Council. And since there hasn’t been a General Synod for nearly two hundred years (and who can tell when there will be any), based upon these grounds, censure cannot be executed until that General Synod is gathered.

Reason 2 against it.

That which frustrates the power of Congregations, directly crossing the rule which our Savior has given for the exercise of discipline in each particular Church — that is not Christ’s way.

But this course of subordinating congregations to the jurisdiction of Classes, and then to Synods, does so.

The Assumption will be made apparent by practical instance.

1. It frustrates the power of a Congregation; for if the delinquent is complained about to the Congregation, and he perceives an admonition is ready to be dispensed and a vote passed against him, he quickly makes his appeal, and prevents the proceeding of the Church. For that is a received rule, a party considered guilty, must be regarded as not convicted while an appeal is pending. [729]

2. Indeed, I cannot see but that the rule of our Savior is directly crossed. For when the admonition is given, and the judgment of the offender does not approve of the Church’s proceeding, he may then go further, and crave the judgment of the Classis and Synod, and so avoid the blow of excommunication. This is professedly to thwart the rule of our Savior, and the words of the text: Whoever does not hear the voice of the Church, is to be cast out and accounted a heathen.

But the one who appeals from the judgment of the Church after admonition, does not hear the judgment of the Church.

Therefore he deserves to be cut off.

And yet, by this Law of Appeal, the law of Christ for cutting off a pertinacious sinner, is wholly crossed. Or else the Church may proceed against him for taking a course which, according to this opinion, is lawful and regular.

Reason 3 against it.

Let it be further considered whether this provision made by a Synodical proceeding, keeping the pattern propounded here, will heal the wound and reform the sinner, even if an appeal is not made to the Ecumenical Council.

And that this provision, according to the proposed grounds, may be defeated in a legal way, I thus show:

The party that is to be censured in a Classis, appeals to a Synod for his relief, as he has an allowance by the judgment of our Brethren. But the Synod of which he will make a choice, is so far remote, that either it will not be easily gathered, or the Messengers of the Churches cannot readily be fitted to travel there, as instanced thus:

The party that broaches false doctrine in Scotland is not convicted, cannot be reclaimed from his error by the Classis, but makes an appeal from them to a higher Court of jurisdiction, which may right his wrong. But that won’t be a Provincial or National Synod in Scotland, but one in Germany or Holland. And from this pattern, he pleads his lawful liberty in such a proceeding.

If they went to have their cause reviewed 200 miles from Antioch to Jerusalem, why may I not upon a like occasion challenge the like liberty? And who can oppose, unless he would oppose the precedential practice of the Gospel?

Now, when this Error is suppressed, or this heretic is reformed by this way, let the Reader judge. For the Error may be such that it isn’t worth the labor, and travel, and trouble that must be undertaken; or the cure is likely to prove so difficult, that it’s unlikely ever to be attained, or at least never in season. And thus humane devices prejudice God’s Ordinances, and their own comforts.

The truth is, A particular Congregation is the highest Tribunal to which the aggrieved party may appeal in the third place. If private counsel, or the witness of two have seemed to proceed too sharply and with too much rigor against him, before the Tribunal of the Church, the cause may easily be reviewed, and executed according to Christ.

If difficulties arise in the proceeding, the counsel of other Churches should be sought to clear the truth. But the Power of Censure still rests in the Congregation, where Christ placed it.

Let us now hear what Mr. Rutherford answers in this behalf, p. 218,

(1) when it was said that an offended Brother cannot have a Synod of Elders or a National Assembly to complain to; and

(2) that Christ is setting down a way, how an obstinate Brother may be cast out of the Church where he was an offender.

Rutherford’s Answer 1.

“Excommunication must reach as far as offenses; but offenses are between Church and Church.”

Reply. The contrary to this has been proved; and I suppose upon cold blood and second thoughts, it will be confessed that a General Council cannot be excommunicated, even if it offends.

1. If the Council of Nicaea had determined against Paphnutius on the marriage of Ministers,[730] he would have needed to sit down in silence and swallow his offense; but he could not have gained satisfaction. Nor is Christ’s remedy insufficient upon this ground; for excommunication is sufficient to attain its end, which is to cut off particular persons, one or many, but not whole Churches, as will appear shortly, Christ willing.

2. He would seem to retort the Argument, and turn the edge of it against itself, thus:

“Those who are consociated and neighbored together in the acts of visible Church-communion, by rebuking one another (Lev 19.17), comforting one another (1The 5.11), pleading with one another (Hos 2.2), and so occasionally having communion with one another, these make up one visible Politic Church, that is under a common Government.

“But so it is that sundry particular Sister Churches are consociated in the aforesaid acts, p. 219, Col 4.16;[731] Macedonia and Galatia in the same acts of charity, 1Cor 16.1-3; 2Cor 8.1. [732]

“Also, if any person is excommunicated in one Congregation, he is also excommunicated in the neighboring Congregations; and hence, these visible acts of Church-communion require a common Law and Discipline.

“But they cannot have one common Law and Discipline, unless by authority, they may convene in one Synod in their principal Members.

Hooker’s Answer. These acts are of a double Nature, as issuing from a double ground: namely: they are either Christian (voluntary), or else Ecclesiastical and Authoritative (mandated).

Several Churches communicate in the first way, but not in the second. And I confess, it seems somewhat strange to me, that a respect so obvious and ordinary should not be observed and acknowledged; but what is strangest of all, is that such actions, which reach not only to Christians, but to Excommunicates, even to Infidels, should be put as proofs of Church-communion.

A man may rebuke an Excommunicate, and in case (by way of parity) he counsels and exhorts him, as Mr. Rutherford grants, does it therefore follow that a man is exercising acts of visible Church communion?

One may, indeed he should distribute to the necessities of others, when extremities pinch and press. Someone who sees a Brother in need, and shuts up his heart, how does the Love of God dwell in him? 1Joh 3.17 Do good to all, but especially to the Household of Faith. Gal 6.10 If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink. Rom 12.20

Let him be an infidel, let him be an Excommunicate of other churches. Will any man, can any man therefore rationally conclude that these are visible acts of Church communion, and so they require a common Law of Discipline?

When Paul rebuked Elymas the Sorcerer; Act 13 checked the superstition of the Athenians; Act 17 when he shook his garment with indignation against those who opposed and blasphemed, and threatened and condemned them for their sin, Act 18.6,7 and professed to renounce communion with them; thus Paul and Barnabas did with the pertinacious Jews, Act 13.46 when they sharply rebuked them for their base opposition to the evidence of the doctrine of the Gospel, and therefore openly professed they would turn to the Gentiles — are these acts of Church communion, and require a common Law of Discipline?

To this head belongs what Mr. R. adds on page 221, as arising from the same mistake. For when it was said that God has provided other means for whole Churches, to then excommunicate them, we must plead with them, and rebuke them — but it lacks precept, promise, and practice to excommunicate a whole Church.

Mr. R., Answer 1.

“It is begging the question; for we desire a warrant from God’s word why Sister Churches may use some power of the Keys against their Sister Churches, such as to rebuke and plead with them, and yet they may not use all the power of the Keys, even excommunication,” p. 222.

Reply. To which I reply,

1. From what has been said, it is apparent that all rebuking is not an act of the power of the Keys. And therefore that may be used, when excommunication cannot.

2. Beside, it has not only been affirmed but proved, there can be no act of excommunication passed upon some Churches, as I suppose will be granted by them; and by Christ helping, it will be made evident that it can pass upon none in propriety of speech, or according to the order of the Gospel.

3. Rebuking out of Christian charity is diverse from an act of authority and excommunication. I suppose no better proof is needed than Mr. R.’s own principles will yield:

(1) One Classis may admonish another.

(2) One Provincial Synod may counsel, may rebuke another, upon just occasion offered.

(3) One or all of these may plead with a General Council.

And yet he grants, one Church cannot excommunicate another; one Provincial Synod has no power over another; none of these can excommunicate a General Council, nor do they have any authority over it.

Mr. R., Answer 2. He adds,

“The Jews justly excommunicated the Church of the Samaritans, and Christ allows it. Joh 4.22, You worship you know not what, but salvation is of the Jews; in these words Christ pronounces the Jews to be the true Church, and the Samaritans not to be true.”

Reply 1. How to fetch or force an excommunication from these words, I have yet to learn. For by his own confession, excommunication is to deny all Church communion with those who were of one Church and communion; but the Samaritans were never of the Jews.

Reply 2. Besides, there’s no act of power expressed by the Church of the Jews on the Samaritans. Indeed, not a word, syllable, or sentence sounding that way, revealing any judicial proceeding of the Jews in that behalf.

Reply 3. It’s true, our Savior plainly and peremptorily pronounces that their estate was idolatrous and corrupt, and perfectly heathenish. But to infer from that, the power of the Church to excommunicate another Church, would be a far-fetched and in truth, a feeble inference. Should a man reason that if our Savior condemns the Samaritan’s worship as heathenish and idolatrous, in that they don’t know what they worship, then one Sister Church may excommunicate another? I suppose repeating such a consequence would be reply enough, as the recitation is the confutation.[733]

Mr. R., Answer 3. Lastly, he desires to know what excommunication is, if it is not to deny all Church communion with those who were once in one Church.

Reply. Something here is craved, which has been proved to be far from the truth; namely, that the consociating of Churches makes a Presbyterial or Synodical Church; and makes the particular congregations into “members” of that Church, as an integrum — which is not so. It is but a mere concurrence and combining of their Councils together, without any authoritative and Church jurisdiction over the particular Congregations.

And this he perceived to follow by undeniable Argument, that renouncing the right hand of fellowship, which other Churches may do, and should do as occasion requires, is another thing from excommunication.

1. Because one congregation may do this to another. One Provincial Synod may do it to another, which has no power given to them by Christ over each other. The same may be said of the rejection of a particular Church by a Synod; and that is all that can be said.

2. That which every Christian man or woman may do to one, or many, is not excommunication. But any Christian man or woman may, upon just grounds, reject the right hand of fellowship with others whom they cannot excommunicate.[734]

In a word, there may be a total separation, where there is no excommunication. This is because excommunication is a judicial sentence, ever presupposing a solemn and superior power over the party sentenced; but there is no such thing in separation or rejection. Separation is, and may be, from those who are outside the Church; but excommunication is only of those who are within.

A man who is ever so lowly, may separate from the Assemblies of the Turks, Pagans, and Papists. Yet for the same person to excommunicate such an Assembly, would be a sinful profanation of God’s Ordinance.[735]

Mr. Rutherford’s 8th Argument.

His eighth argument is taken from the common concurrence in their counsels and carriages of business:

“If all weighty affairs that equally concern many particular congregations, were not managed by one single congregation, but by the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and selected brethren of many congregations in the Apostolic Church, then Synods would be the practice of the Apostles, and not Independent congregations.

“But the first is true.

“The Assumption is proved by induction.

SEVEN INSTANCES IN SUPPORT OF IT: [736]

“1. The Select Pastors of the Christian World, and select brethren, chose Matthias, Act 1.15-26.

“2. The treasury of the Churches was committed to the Apostles, because that concerned all — Act 4.33-35.

“3. The common Synod of the twelve Apostles, ordained Deacons, Act 6.3-5.

“4. There is a Synod of Pastors at Ephesus, Act 20.17, 28, whom Paul warned to take heed to the flock.

“5. Peter gives an account of his going to the Gentiles, before a Synod of Apostles and brethren, Act 11.1-3.

“6. An Assembly of Elders appoint Paul to purify himself, Act 21.18-24.

“7. A Synod of Elders ordained Timothy, 1Tim 4.14.”

Reply. These several places have commonly and frequently been propounded; and they are alleged many times, in many passages of Mr. R.’s book. They have met us, as it were, at every turn, and stopped us in our way. In all of these, we have referred the full debate and disquisition about them, to this place, as the proper place.

And therefore we will take leave to examine a little more seriously, the particulars once for all, so that it may appear what vigor and validity is in all these instances to conclude the cause in hand; and whether there is a sufficient cause to place so great a confidence in the several places that are expressed here.

Only, before we can apply ourselves to the particulars, what must be remembered and taken along with us, will be easily yielded and confessed on all hands.

THE OFFICE OF THE APOSTLES, being extraordinary, they had the care of all the Churches under their care and watch. As extraordinary persons, they interposed their power in all the particular Churches wherever they came, and also expressed their judgments by vote and counsel, as occasion required.

And therefore, what they did in this case, must not, and should not be drawn into an example. Extraordinary practices are not suitable ingredients to make up ordinary precedents, as certain and standing copies for succeeding generations. But we must take only that which is ordinary, when we would make ordinary patterns to regulate our proceedings by.

Once this is mentioned and remembered, it will ease us of needless repetitions in the succeeding discourse.

I will reply then, first generally; and then secondly, we will briefly examine the particulars.

First, generally. It will appear by apparent evidences from Master Rutherford’s own principles, that there can be no warrant or proof of a Synod in these several instances. On page 204 he lays this down as a confessed truth, which allows no dispute:

“1. That the members of a Synod must be Elders and Brethren, sent as Commissioners from several Churches, which are not to be found in any of these places.

“2. The ground of thus gathering members from many Churches, must be a matter of weight, and also attended with much difficulty and danger.

“3. The manner of their proceeding, is by way of disquisition and agitation by all or many of the members, who are willing to speak.

“4. The decisions and determinations are by common consent, and joint approval of all in whose name such sentences are decreed and published.”

And none of these are to be found in any of the seven instances he lists. So that, to my shallow conceiving, there is not the least semblance of a Synod.

Secondly, let us come somewhat nearer, and take the particulars into special consideration.

In the FIRST instance, in Act 1, there are these three things to be attended, which take up the substance of the whole proceeding:

1. Peter leads the action, lays out the ground of their meeting, and the mind of God as to how the action should be managed, verses 15-23.

2. The whole Assembly, by mutual consent, present two to choose from.

3. They commend the determination of the business to God by prayer, and so they cast lots.

What is done here, that carries the face or appearance of a Synod?

True: The eleven Apostles were here together, because they were enjoined by our Savior to abide in Jerusalem until they were endued with the Spirit from above. But there is nothing done here that anyone might not have done; nor was there a need to crave the concurrence of other Churches which they did not have. The whole Church concurred by mutual consent, to appoint two by lot; and they accepted the one on whom the lot fell. There were no joint voices and suffrages of Pastors and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the thing to be proved. Nor can I imagine where the force of the dispute lies, or from where it will be fetched.

[Non sequitur]: if Peter directed the particular Assembly — how far they should go, and in what manner they should proceed in making way for the choice of Matthias — then Synods have Ecclesiastic Authority over particular Congregation. How crazy is such a consequence?

Yet the SECOND instance carries us a further distance from the cause in hand, and is marvelously wide of the mark. For all that is expressed, or can be gathered from Act 4.35, is that the Apostles had the disposing of the common treasury and provision which men raised by selling their goods, and laid it at their feet to dispense as seemed best to their wisdom. All of this, it’s certain, they did as extraordinary persons, and in an extraordinary manner; for the Officers who were to take care of such occasions were not yet appointed in the Church.

Where are the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and select Brethren of many Congregations, which were promised to be demonstrated in this example? Besides, how Deacons are to order the treasury of the Church, needs no Synod at all, if we consider the matter without the extraordinary managing of it, and to reason then from this place.

[Non sequitur]: If the Apostles, by the extraordinary power of their places, managed the treasury of the Church, because the Office of Deacons was not yet instituted, then a Synod has Authoritative Ecclesiastic Power over a Congregation. Such an inference has little cement of reason.

Neither does the THIRD instance, Act 6.3-5, touching the ordination of Deacons, come near the Conclusion to be proved. For where are the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Elders, and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the proposition to be confirmed? It’s true, the people are directed to choose able men; but any particular Congregation may do that; indeed, it has a right to do it, without a Synod. The Apostles, as extraordinary men, laid on their hands to establish these men in their places, being extraordinary men, and having a plenitude of power in them.

[Non sequitur]: But to infer from this, that if the Apostles laid their hands upon the Deacons elected by the people, therefore a Synod has Authoritative power over a Congregation — such an inference will appear feeble at first sight.

The FOURTH instance, of Act 20.28, has the least force of all; it looks this way:

The scope of the place, and the purpose of the Spirit, is only this: Paul is now resolved for Rome. By the Spirit of Prophecy, he knows that he would never again see those coasts, nor their faces, those among whom he had preached the Gospel; he knows also that false teachers, like ravenous wolves, would endeavor to make a prey of them. He therefore desires to take his leave and solemn farewell of them, and to leave a savory caution and heart-breaking exhortation as his last farewell with them. And to that purpose, he sends for the Elders of Ephesus, and pours out his passionate and affectionate expressions into their hearts.

Where is there any of the least show of the joint voices and suffrages of Apostles, Elders, and select Brethren of many Congregations?

Here were none but the Elders of Ephesus, and all things in the text argue that they were Rulers of one Congregation. They are only Elders of the Church, not Churches, v. 17. He charges them to attend to the flock, v. 28.

But had they been the Elders of ever so many Churches, sent for by the Holy Apostle to take his farewell of them, and to leave some spiritual counsel with them, alas! What has this got to do with a Synod, or the Ecclesiastic Authority of a Synod over particular Congregations? Here there is neither joint voices, nor disputing, nor decreeing, but only hearing and attending to the last words of a dying and departing Apostle.

[Non sequitur]: To reason thus: If the Elders of Ephesus who met at Miletum, were sent for by Paul, to come visit him as he passed by in his travels, and to take their farewell of him, and to receive some holy counsel from him, then Synods have an Ecclesiastic Power over Congregations — how unreasonable would such reasoning seem?

The FIFTH instance of Act 11.3 comes next to our consideration, and that has just as little, if not less evidence of proof than any of the former. For there are no joint voices and suffrages of Pastors and select Brethren of many Congregations, which was the thing to be proved. It is not so much as remembered, but wholly laid aside.

There is no evidence given of many Churches present here, indeed, no certainty of any. Rather, it is most certain that they did not meet (if they met at all) in the way of a Synod, nor for that end; nor did they act or intend anything in that way. Only, some of the Jews who were not so thoroughly informed and convinced of the liberty and lawfulness to converse with the Gentiles in holy communion, as Peter had done with Cornelius, questioned his course; they demanded a reason and warrant for his practice. He gave an account to them, that he might remove all doubts from their minds, and stumbling stones from their way of profession, as any Christian man would do. Any Apostle ought to remove any appearance of offense that any might take in their way.

[Non sequitur]: But to then reason that if Peter gave an account and warrant of his communion with Cornelius to those Jews who questioned it, and who were not sufficiently informed in it — that it be done before them and however many beside them — then a Synod has an authoritative Power over a Congregation — there is no conclusive force, and in truth, not even a color in such a consequence.

The SIXTH instance, of Act 21, carries some small appearance at first view. But when we come to a closer search, it will be found to have little pith in it.

It’s true, Paul went to visit James, with whom all the Elders were present, as it might seem by some intimation and appointment of Paul’s coming, that they might entertain him. But there isn’t the least vestige [737] of the joint suffrages of many Elders and select Brethren, of many Congregations, being called to determine any business.

The text only says, Paul saluted them, as it may seem, meeting on purpose to that end. And he reported to them the passages of God’s providence towards him, and the good hand of God’s blessing on his labor. They also acquainted him with how circumstances stood with them, what rumors were spread abroad about him, and what a jealous eye the Jews had touching his disregard of Moses’ Law. They suggested such advice as might seem most advantageous to promote the work of the Lord.

There is nothing done or recorded here, except what the Elders of a Congregation might do to some faithful Minister who had arrived at their coast.

There is nothing like calling or carrying on a Synodical work. And without any question, there was no Synod, because it must be ether Provincial or National. And touching either of these, there is not so much as a syllable that sounds this way in the text.

[Non sequitur]: And to reason from this, that if James and the Elders met to entertain Paul at his coming, and he saluted them, and they suggested to him how he might so carry himself in wisdom and wariness so that he might crush the false rumors that were spread about him — that then a Synod has Ecclesiastical Authority over a Congregation; there is no constraining force in this kind of reasoning.

The SEVENTH and last instance alleged is 1Tim 4.14 (the Eldership laying on hands upon Timothy). It is, I confess, accompanied with much difficulty and obscurity, and it deserves a thorough examination. But this place has been opened and handled under the head of Ordination, to which we refer you for the time being. We will now attend only so much as concerns the present Argument.

Whatever the meaning of the text is, then, it’s certain that it falls short of that for which it is alleged here by Mr. Rutherford; nor does it prove the Proposition for which it is brough. Indeed, if his allegation may be attended, it wholly crosses a main Conclusion for which he contends.

1. That it doesn’t prove that for which it is brought, is evident by the letter of the text. For the Proposition under hand to be made good is this: That the weighty affairs were managed by the voices and suffrages of Apostles, Pastors, and select Brethren of many congregations. But in this place of Timothy, we have only the hand of the Eldership; but not the word of any select Brethren who were involved in this work.

2. Indeed, it will appear upon search, that if this Argument is good to prove this cause for which it is brought, then it is certain that it will confute another cause strongly maintained by Master Rutherford. For I reason thus:

If laying on hands upon Timothy was, by the concurrence of the Elders and select Brethren of many Congregations, then Ordination is not an act proper to the Eldership; but it issues from the power of the select Brethren also; and so the Church of Believers have a hand in it.

But the first is true, by Mr. Rutherford’s own assertion: laying on hands in Timothy’s Ordination was by concurrence of Elders and select Brethren of many Congregations.

Let Master Rutherford now make his choice. If he denies the Assumption, then he confesses by that denial, that the place was wholly misalleged by him, and that he missed his purpose and the proof that it was brought for.

The consequence of the Proposition, upon his own grounds, cannot be denied. If the select Brethren have a joint hand and suffrage in the work of Ordination with the Eldership, then the work is not proper [i.e., it isn’t restricted] to the Elders — something for which Mr. R. has so frequently, and so constantly contended throughout his book.

We have stayed longer on this, because we desired to clear this coast, so that when these places come in our way, we may overlook them without any trouble, or even once taking a stand or stumbling at them.

Mr. Rutherford’s 10th Argument.

“Government which is deficient in the means of the propagation of the Gospel to Nations and Congregations which lack the Gospel, is not from Christ.

“But government by Independent Congregations is such.”

He proves his Assumption by the doctrine of Independency:

Pastors and Doctors may not preach the Gospel outside the bounds of their own Congregation; nor can they exercise any Pastoral acts elsewhere.

And so Pastors and Doctors now, since the Apostles’ times, have no Pastoral authority to preach the Gospel to those who sit in darkness.

And if they do preach, they do it as private men, not as Pastors; they have no Pastoral authority from Jesus Christ and His Church,” p. 224.

Reply 1. For my reply, by way of prevention, I desire to settle that which is OUR TENET:

That Doctors and Pastors may preach to all sorts, on all occasions, when opportunity and liberty is offered; indeed, they ought to do so.

However, they don’t do this as Pastors, but as gifted and enabled Christians who use their talents given to them by God and Christ, to the best advantage of God’s glory and the good of others, as any opportunity is presented and put into their hands. But they do not, nor in truth do they have any right to exercise any authority and jurisdiction over them. And this I will prove in several cases from Mr. R.’s own grant. For on page 226, speaking against the opinion and expressions of Mr. Davenport and Mr. Beast, Mr. R. writes,

“That would have pastors so far strangers to all Congregations, save only their own, that they say other Churches are outside, and that they have nothing to do with judging them. And they allege for this, 1Cor 5.12. But by “those who are outside,” Paul does not mean those who were not of the congregation of Corinth, but he means infidels and heathens, as in other Scriptures. For Paul judged and excommunicated Hymenaeus and Alexander, 1Tim 1.20, who were outside the Church of Corinth.”

It is granted then by Master Rutherford, that Pagans and Infidels are outside, in the Apostle’s judgment, and that the Pastor of Corinth could not judge them. But Pastors of Churches cannot judge Pagans and Infidels; and therefore they have no pastor-like power over them, nor in truth can they be called their Pastors.

The Assumption is Master Rutherford’s own grant and confession.

The proposition cannot be denied, for the power of order and jurisdiction ever go together. Being a Pastor to a people does, in the very nature and constitution of the Call and Office, give power of judgment over that people to whom he stands in that relation, as being one special act of feeding the flock.

And in truth, how does any man come to take a Pastoral power over any Pagans? By nature, no man has any. For it is not conveyed by way of Propagation. He cannot claim it by institution; for Christ never gave to anyone an extraordinary Commission of that latitude, except the Apostles, to go preach and teach all Nations. If any man receives it, then, it must be by their voluntary election and choice. And because they neither have, nor can show this, they have no Ecclesiastic and Office-rule over them. Here that question is timely, and will not receive an answer: Who gave you this authority?

No, it’s certain that a Pastor of one Congregation (elected and settled according to Christ) cannot receive a Pastoral power over Pagans, without relinquishing his current place and power — unless we bring in an allowance of pluralities and totquots,[738] a conceit so loathsome that the most ingenious among the Papists have abhorred its Patronage.

Lastly, let any man put his power to the test in the exercise of it, and his experience will make it more than plain, that it’s a thing merely imagined and arrogated without rule; there is no reality in such presumed rights. For if the Pagan offends, the Pastor rebukes him; if he will not hear, the Pastor then takes one or two with him; if he rejects them also, the Pastor reports it to the Church; if he casts away the advice of any Church, what will the Pastor or his Church do? Excommunicate him? How will they? How can they? To cast a man out of Church communion, who was never in Church communion — How irrational is that? How impossible? The result therefore evidences that it was a presumption, having no power in truth; for when it comes to proof, it’s powerless.

Before we leave this place, let me put two things on record with the Reader, which may lead him to a right conception of what he has met with, or will meet with touching the power of a Church Ruler. For, from the premises, it is plain:

1. That bare preaching to people, though ordinary and often, is not an act of Pastoral power and so of jurisdiction; but his Commission is mainly to be attended, which gives vigor and validity in that work of preaching. And therefore,

2. A man may preach by Pastoral power to some people in one place, and that same person may preach to others without Pastoral jurisdiction, but only as an able gifted Christian.

Reply 2. Again, out of Master Rutherford’s grant in another place, I will argue against his opinion expressed in this. It’s a conclusion which he sets down on page 72:

“We deny that Christ has given power of jurisdiction to one particular Congregation over another particular Congregation.” Page 199: “We grant that one Presbytery has no jurisdiction over another Presbytery.”

Suppose now that one, or many, or all of one Presbytery should be destitute of Elders. The Pastors of another Presbytery cannot then exercise any pastor-like acts there, nor yet in another Province and Nation. And by the same proposition, they can exercise no pastor-like power over those who have no jurisdiction. The first proposition is granted, and therefore the second is yielded.

Mr. Rutherford’s Reasons.

Let us now listen to the reasons Mr. Rutherford alleges, by which he endeavors to prove this.

Reason 1.

“Because it is unbecoming the care of Christ, that pastoral authority be so confined at home, and imprisoned within the lists of every particular Congregation, that the care spoken of in 2Cor 11.28 [739] should now be in no Pastors on earth, but have died with the Apostles.”

Reply. It is granted that each Congregation should have their own Pastors and Teachers, and that out of their calling and commission, just as they have pastoral power, so they should have care of those over whom they have taken charge.

It is confessed that Christians out of love to Christ, his Gospel, and the souls of fellow Christians, and as far as liberty, opportunity, and ability will reach, they should take occasions to exercise their care and pains to promote their spiritual good. Gal 6.10

But that one, many, or all of them should have Pastoral authority, and on that ground exercise pastoral care over all Churches, or indeed over many, as the place alleged would, 2Cor 11.28 — this is cross to the institution of our Savior; and therefore it should not, and in truth cannot be exercised by any ordinary man.

The Apostles indeed, because their calling was extraordinary, their gifts extraordinary, and their assistance extraordinary, they had a larger task, even the whole world as Christ’s field to till: all Nations, every reasonable creature.

But Pastors and Teachers who have but ordinary gifts, only have, as it were, an acre of ground, a particular Congregation to till and teach. And the one who knows his duty, and does his duty, will find enough of that, in his own flock, Act 20.28.[740]

So that, we should be very careful to cast any disparagement upon the wisdom and care of our Savior, because he has now put an end to the extraordinary callings of the Apostles and Evangelists, [741] once their end was attained. Or to weakly and sinfully make ourselves more merciful and mindful of the good of the Church, than He who is the God of mercy. He therefore cares most for his Church, because he confines the Pastoral power and pains of one man to one Congregation, as sense itself teaches. He that keeps the stream in one channel, best provides for its strength.

Reason 2.

“As if these places, 1Cor 10.32, 1Cor 9.19-21, Rom 1.14-15, 9.2-3, did not press upon all Ministers of Christ, the extending of their pastoral vigilance to the feeding and governing of all the Churches in their bounds, that make up one visible body,” page 225.

Reply. Even if all this was granted, yet that which was propounded is not proved; nor should this be concluded: that because they did not have pastor-like authority to make Churches of Pagans, they are therefore deficient. All that is said here, falls short of that.

The reason is not only wide of the mark, but wide of the truth. For besides Rom 1.14 being peculiar to the calling of an Apostle (and therefore presses no particular minister at this day), unless any man would vainly conceive that he has a commission to preach to all Nations, and all conditions of men, as if the calling and date of the Apostles’ commission were still in effect, this does not concern any particular Officer. The rest of the places respect only a double Christian duty to which all men are bound: namely, that we should walk inoffensively towards all, 1Cor 10.33.

And secondly, we should use our liberty to comply with all the occasions of men as much as it lies in us, that we may edify all — which each of us must do who is not a Pastor. And each Pastor should behave as a Christian among those over whom he can exercise no Pastoral Authority — such as to those of another Presbytery, and of a General Council.

Thirdly, one would infer some seeming absurdities which follow from this kind of government. For the FIRST INFERENCE, Mr. R. says,

“It must follow, that when the Grecian Church is wronged by the Hebrew, that the Pastors may not meet as a Synod, and by joint authority remove offenses, Act 6,” page 225.

Reply. I reply, There is no color for such an inference, nor does it once touch the thing to be proved. For let it be granted that the Pastors may meet Synodically, and by authority also remove offenses, they will still not have power to give Pastoral Authority to men, to make Churches of Pagans. Even from his own grant, though they thus meet, he yet denies they can give Power over the Churches that are under other Presbyteries.

The SECOND INFERENCE is of the same stamp. It doesn’t once touch the thing to be proved.

“It follows that all the meetings of the Apostles and Pastors to take care for the Churches authoritatively — as in Act 1, 4.35, 6.2-4; 11.1; 21.18; 20.28; 8.14; 14.1-3, 15.6 — were all extraordinary and temporary meetings.”

Reply. For the present, let all that he would desire be granted. Let these meetings be ordinary, and let them care authoritatively for the Churches in what they did. Yet this gives no evidence that they can give Pastoral Power and Jurisdiction to men outside the Churches. For we have heard that the Apostle affirmed it (1Cor 5.12), and [Mr. R.] granted it in this sense: that no ordinary Pastors can judge those who are outside, and those, also by his grant, are Infidels.

So that, though they have Power to meet, and these meetings are ordinary, yet neither of these grounds will evince that they do, or can give Pastoral Jurisdiction to judge those who are outside. Therefore, none of these inferences come near the thing to be proved. For if Government by Independent Churches is therefore insufficient, because it does not authorize persons to be Pastors over Pagans, and to make them Churches of Christ by Pastoral Authority, then this Government by Synodical meeting will be insufficient; for we see it labors from the same fault.

The THIRD INFERENCE fails in the same manner as the former.[742] Thus these inferences are altogether impertinent; but the places themselves are misunderstood, as has been argued at large in the Reply to the former Answer.

Since it has appeared in all the places formerly handled (for these witnesses have been brought to speak, but their evidence proves nothing at issue), there is no Synodocial meeting, nor any Ecclesiastical Power to authoritatively impose upon particular Churches. Only in Act 15 is a true Synod gathered, and they did what the Churches of Christ should do: they consociated with one another, and by mutual concurrence, laid all their cares and counsels together, to promote the good of Christ’s Kingdom.

Let it be considered whether the Apostle had done anything extraordinary in the meeting on which Mr. Rutherford lays so much weight, and conceives so much by mistake:

1. Was the acting of the Deacons’ work (Act 4.35) ordinary for any of them?

2. Was it ordinary that they had their votes, and ruled on the action in every Assembly?

3. Was the care of all, and their Commission reaching all, ordinary and perpetual?

Mr. Rutherford’s 11th Argument.

Master Rutherford’s 11th Argument is taken from the light of sanctified reason.

“For sanctified reason teaches that the stronger Authority of the greater Body Politic of Christ should help the parts of the Body that are weaker, as in 1Cor 12.23, 26. The whole Body helps the weaker and less honorable Member.

“Therefore, the greater Body and National Church is to communicate its Authority for the good of a particular Church, which is part of it.”

Hooker’s Answer 1.

The Proposition is true; but the assumption takes for granted, the very question which is to be proved, and has so often been denied. For there are no National Churches which are the integrum to particular Congregations as the parts of it. Nor does the pattern in Acts 15 give any evidence of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, as has been declared before. And if it did, surely very slow help would be coming if we were always to send 200 miles to Synods, as that passage sets a precedent before us. As their Members are the greater, they may and should consociate, and lay their Counsels together; for in the multitude of Counsellors there is safety.

Obj 1. “But suppose the greater part of the Church of Corinth errs?”

Reply. Suppose the greater part of the National and Ecumenical Councils err? The same difficulty is urged upon the same supposition, and we don’t profit at all, when we seek authoritative relief beyond a particular Church.

Obj. 2. But that is an act of Authority, and taking discipline that is enjoined to the Church.

Reply. Let it therefore be those who have the Authority in their hands that should do it; and if they are followers of Christ, they will do it.

Obj 3. What if the Congregation is corrupt and will not?

Reply. I reply, what if the National or Ecumenical Synod is corrupt and heretical, and refuses to do it? There is no more help in the one than in the other upon these suppositions.

Hooker’s Answer 2.

It is lastly added that, “The Argument is drawn from the greater Authority in the Body Politic, to the lesser, but Brotherly Counsel has no Authority,”

It’s true. The Argument is taken from that Authority in the semblance and similitude; but that similitude is not made good in the case in hand, and in the explanation, which was the thing to be proved. For it is the very thing questioned and denied by us, that a Classis has any Power over particular Congregations, according to Christ.

Mr. Rutherford’s 12th Argument.

This last argument is taken from the practice of the Jews.

“If Christ left the Churches of the whole Nation in no worse case than the National Church of the Jews was in, etc., for turning away His wrath, then Christ has ordained to Churches in the New Testament, National Assemblies which authoritatively, etc.

“But Christ has indeed left the Churches of a whole Nation in no worse case than the National Church of the Jews was in, for reaching the aforesaid ends.

Reply. The proposition is denied, because there is a marvelous difference between the National Church of the Jews, and all other Churches that ever were or shall be since then, to the end of the world. For that was a National Church, properly so called and appointed by God. It had National Ordinances and Offices peculiar to itself. And so it also had the authoritative power which was appropriate to them in a special manner, none of which ever did, nor can belong to any other Nation in the world beside them.

Nor yet does it follow from this, that the Churches of the Gentiles in New Testament times, are without these, and that therefore they are left in a worse case. This is because the Jews had the types, we have the truth; they had the shadow, we have the body.

Every visible Congregation, rightly gathered, has a right to, and use of, all the Ordinances, all the Officers, and both Seals of the Covenant, so that we need not go to Jerusalem, either to observe Passover, or the Sacrifices.

If any man reasons thus: If Christ has left the Church of a Nation in the New Testament in no worse case than the Church of the Jews, then Christ has left them a High Priest; then He has appointed them to meet three times a year, to exercise and perform solemn services and sacrifices. The feebleness of the argument would reveal itself at the first view.

The same fault is in this reason: But the Jews had these solemn Assemblies for the ends mentioned before.

Mr. R.’s Objections to the Reply:

Obj. 1. “But these were moral, and concern us.”

Obj. 2. “Without these Assemblies, these public ends cannot be obtained.”

Hooker’s Reply.

We will briefly weigh these severals in the balance of the Sanctuary.

It’s granted then, as to Obj. 1, that the whole Nation of the Jews was a Nation elected and adopted by God, and the whole of the Land was taken into Covenant with Him. And hence it’s also granted, that in cases of Apostasies and departures from God and his worship, the godly Kings might and did recall this backsliding people to recover and renew the Covenant formerly made by God with them. And therefore Deu 29.10-11,

Their Elders, Officers, all the men of Israel, their little ones, wives, and the stranger within their gates, they all stand before the Lord.

Here is more than Elders and select Brethren, sent as Commissioners to a National Synod. Here there are Captains, hewers of wood, all the men of Israel, women, and children — which evidences it was a National Covenant which God entered into with them. And therefore the godly Kings might recall them back to this when just occasion required.

But no King or Emperor did the like to this, in calling their Synods. Nor indeed do they have either Moral Law or Ceremonial Law, nor in truth any Law to deal with a Nation in this manner, to call them to renew a National Church Covenant in the manner of the Jews.

God’s people, who enter into Church covenant and fellowship of the Faith, are and should be free in doing so. Church fellowship is to be ordered and acted by Ecclesiastical policy, not civil. If a Prince on earth should by Covenant and Oath, make his whole kingdom into a National Church, he would be doing more than he has any word of Christ to warrant his work.

So that, it is one thing for Emperors or Kings to call councils of Elders and select Brethren. It is another thing for the King of Israel to call all Israel together — men, women, and children — to renew a Church covenant which God had made with them, and with no other people on earth.

Rutherford’s Proof.

But let us attend Mr. Rutherford’s proof of this, that these Assemblies were moral.

“An Oath to keep God’s Commandments is a part of the third Commandment, Psa 119.106. We are enjoined to contend for the Faith, Jude 3; and to profess God before men. And that which binds one many morally, binds a Nation.”

Reply 1. The reason is weak, and the ground of it is worse. To show that it is weak, put it into its form, and it will reveal its own feebleness at the first appearance.

Mr. Rutherford is saying that if David swore he would keep God’s righteous statutes, then it’s lawful to swear to a National Church, as that of the Jews was.

Ans. The consequence is unsound, because David’s taking an Oath, was upon lawful grounds, to do a lawful thing. But to do the second is now unlawful, because all such National Churches, and such manner of covenanting as they did, is now abrogated and antiquated.

Beside, were the thing lawful, yet taking the Oath might be unwarrantable in the one, and not the other, cause in Oaths and promises, one special ingredient to make them warrantable, is that they suit our strength. Hence, what is useful and helpful to one, because he is strong and able to go through the performance of his Oath, is hurtful to another, because he’s not sufficient to accomplish what he swears.[743] The same answer will satisfy the passages of Jude, and Matthew 10.

Reply 2. As the reason is weak, so the ground is worse. For it’s said that what binds one man morally, binds a Nation. This rule, applied to the former practice of David’s Oath, fails in many ways:

1. For though when a man has sworn, he is bound by a moral Command to keep his Oath, and so his promise. Yet this manner of swearing, seeming to be private, is but a free-will offering, as the nature of vowing or promising is. And therefore if I vow, I may; and if I will not, I may choose. And I believe a man may live all his life, and never take a private Oath (I say private, meaning between God and himself, to keep His laws) and yet not be guilty of sin in doing so. Thus, a man is not morally and necessarily tied to swear or vow; though having vowed, he is necessarily bound to perform it. If you do not vow, you do not sin. [744]

2. But let it be granted that it is moral, yet the rule given seems exceedingly uneven. That which binds one man morally, binds a whole Nation. Take it generally, as propounded here in the Argument, when there may be some special duties that in a peculiar manner belong to this particular man, which a Nation need not do — indeed should not, no, cannot do.

Say a man finds by constant proof, that drinking wine is exceedingly prejudicial to his health, and also hurtful to his soul — being given to his appetite, as the Wise man says; and so he is apt to sin. He finds it impossible to abstain. He therefore swears he will drink no wine in such company for such a space of time. Another has found himself somewhat too abstentious,[745] and has prejudiced his health out of neglect of the lawful use of created things. He swears he will use such means provided for his health. These men are both morally bound to take the Oath, and to keep their Oath.

Do these Oaths bind the whole Nation?

The Scholar swears he will study conscientiously; the Plowman that he will plow so painfully. These are moral bonds to those men; but is a whole Nation thus bound to swear?

The truth is, the contrary rule for the most part is most true: that which morally binds one man in things specially pertaining to his moral course, does not bind a whole Nation.

Lastly, the ends of general Reformation may be attained by the Power of the Civil Magistrate. He may authoritatively require all the Churches in all their several Assemblies, to attend the mind of Christ, and solemnly humble themselves by fasting and prayer, and see Reformation wrought according to God, in their several places. And if [the Magistrates] see that Churches are holy, they will willingly listen to them; and if they see that they are corrupt, these Churches may be compelled by the Civil Power to attend the rules of Christ, which through the corruption that has now crept in among them, they would be content to cast off.

Chapter 3. An Appendix to the Former Treatise

Concerning Synods.

An Epistle of those who sent the Book over to be Printed.

Courteous Reader,

You may be pleased to take notice that the Treatise concerning Synods is not so complete as was intended by this Reverend Author; but the Lord having taken him from us before the book was transcribed for the Press, we cannot find among his writings any other copy but this. Only these few questions here annexed came into our hands, being found in his study. Because they may be somewhat useful to further clear the same subject, we thought it good to communicate them together with the other.

Only, we should add this: that whereas there is a seeming denial that a Synod has any footing at all in the Scriptures, yet there is an allowance of it from Acts 15. This is known to be the Author’s mind, which the whole discourse manifests. He denies that a Synod has Juridical power, which he takes for a Synod properly, as used in the present controversy. And he grants that a Synod has power of Counsel, which is a Synod more largely taken. And for such a Synod, the 15th chapter of Acts is alleged as a pattern, by way of proportion.

Farewell.

Ques. 1. What is a Synod?

A Synod is an Ecclesiastical meeting, consisting of fit persons, called by the Churches, and sent as their messengers, to discover, and to determine of doubtful cases, either in Doctrine or Practice, according to the truth.

Three things are main:

1. It’s an Ecclesiastical meeting.

Meeting, when it is taken in a large sense, includes all the Ecclesiastical intercourse that is between Church and Church, and this may be referred to two heads.

(1) by Communication, or

(2) by Combination.

(1) Communication is when, by letter or messengers, one Church seeks and craves some common help by counsel and advice, what may be most suitable to the truth, and to acting and ordering their present difficulties which concern the peaceable managing of the occasions presented. Thus we find one Church sends to another, or to many, as the weight of the business may require; so it is in Colossians, Philippians, etc.

This sense is somewhat too large for our present consideration, as it appears by the stating of the question by all who have purposely set themselves to search into the nature of Synods.

(2) There is a meeting by way of Combination, when Churches consociating together by mutual consent, enter upon a common engagement to administer help to each other, as any occasion appears to call for consultation, for a common good.

And that is the sense taken here.

Ecclesiastical is so termed, not only because of the persons who are assembled there, nor because of the occasion to be agitated there, which may be merely and only ecclesiastical, or at least it may be handled ecclesiastically. But it’s especially termed ecclesiastical (for now we speak according to the opinions and apprehensions of those with whom the question is controverted) because such meetings are peculiar to Churches. The actings are appropriated to them, as they would be to any other Church administrations. And if we may conclude their opinion by their practice, it cannot be otherwise.

For those who allow Synods to censure by way of excommunication — which is a judicature that pertains only to the Church [746] — they must make the constitution properly Ecclesiastical. For the Operation reveals and certainly determines what the Constitution of a Synod must be.

2. The parties who constitute this meeting.

They must be,

(1) Men fit and able for the work; and that gives the material (the matter) to the messenger.[747]

(2) Chosen and sent by the Church; and that is the formal reason [748] for being a member of the Assembly. Parker expresses this in Polit. Eccles., lib. 3.

All the Presbyterians I meet with, constantly receive and approve this.

Hence, upon these grounds, and the true stating of the question according to their intent:

(1) A Magistrate, as such, is no member, nor can he act as such in this meeting.

(2) Here there is no act of an Office or Officer, because the formal reason to make one a member, is the choosing and sending. Therefore, those who are not Officers, if so elected and appointed, have the right to vote.[749] But those who are Officers, if not called or sent, have no right to vote.

(3) Hence, all have equal power, because they are equally sent and chosen, which are the substantial [i.e., substantive] ingredients to make up Synodical members.

(4) Any member, though not an Officer, if he is elected as Moderator of the Synod, may as legally and regularly, and as sufficiently supply that place, as anyone who is an Officer.[750] Suppose some learned Reader in a University is chosen to the Synod; though not a Pastor, he may be elected to that place, and act in it regularly.[751]

(5) Hence, none have this power unless they are sent, because sending is what gives formality to this action.

(6) Hence, these cannot censure by way of excommunication, according to Presbyterian principles, because by their rules none can censure except Officers. But here, no one acts as an Officer; i.e., though they are Officers in their own Congregations, yet they do not act so here, but only as called.

(7) Hence this power is not intrinsic to their Office, but wholly superadded. And if authors who call it an accumulation of power, not a deprivation of power,[752] intend this sense, then they speak truly; namely, it is a special Power, beside an official Power. But if their meaning is that it is an Office-power, only with additional power, it’s a total mistake. For many Officers don’t have this Power; and many who are not Officers, being called, have it.

The third thing in the Description is,

3. The end [or purpose] of this Meeting.

The end is to reveal and determine doubtful questions, touching Opinion and Practice.

For the Churches sent them, and therefore they are above them. And thus they may send others if they see fit, who may vary in their judgments, and alter their sentences if they see fit. How far this judgment goes, will be considered after.

The power of Synods arises from a double root, according to which the proofs will proceed. Their power is either,

(1) Authoritative, or

(2) Consultative.[753]

(1) Authoritative or Juridical Power is that by which they execute censures, and impose their sentences to be received and subjected to under that penalty.

And this power is not so seated in any Church, that it can challenge it of itself. For by all Presbyterian principles, it is confessed that one Congregation has no Power over another, nor one Classis over another, etc. But whether they should give this Power to any, or thus be subject to any, etc., we will speak to that when the Authority of Synods comes to be reviewed.

(2) Again, the Power of Synods is conceived by others, to be only Consultative. This is when Churches, by way of Combination, and for their mutual support in truth and peace, with mutual consent, appoint times of meeting for their mutual help — that they may lend common relief by their Common Counsel, and have the benefit of each other’s gifts and abilities. Or, though they are not in any set consociation, if there are any emergent occasions of more danger or difficulty, they send for help of Counsel, to those who are most able to lend and administer it, even if they are furthest removed from their society and fellowship. The practice of the Church of Antioch is most pregnant to this purpose.[754]

Ques. 2. How are Synods proved to be Scriptural?

Or: What Scriptures or reasons prove the necessity of Synods?

Ans. That there should be Synods which have Juridical Power, is nowhere proved in Scripture, because it is not a truth. Such a Power will afterwards appear to be unlawful, and therefore never appointed by God, nor approved by His Word.

The example given out of Act 15, and Gal 2.9,[755] carry no full and satisfying evidence with them. That instance from Act 15 is deficient in many ways.

1. If they had Juridical Power, it must arise by way of Combination.

But they were not in combination, being at least 200 miles distant from one another.

2. If that was a Synod, then it must be referred to some of the species of a Synod.

But it can be referred to none of the species.

It is neither a Classis, Provincial, nor National Synod, as the distance from Jerusalem gives evidence.

It was not an Ecumenical Council, because that is gathered out of all Nations.

And here there were but two Churches.

Obj. It may be said here, that because the Apostles were present, who had Power over all the Churches, it may in that regard be called a General or Ecumenical Council.

Ans. It is easy to reply that there can be no just warrant taken from this for such an assertion.

For, if the Apostles acted here as particular persons, and not by any Apostolic Power, then their presence, looking at them as private persons, cannot make it a General Council.

And their acting in this Synod was not as Apostles by way of revelation or peculiar assistance. For they disputed as did others, consented, concluded, subscribed, and were sent as others.

Ergo, that cannot make it a General Council.

3. One Church has no power over another.

But here is only one Church advising another, Antioch with Jerusalem. The minor is in the text; the Proposition is a confessed principle, and reason gives force of confirmation to it. For it carries some appearance with it, that one should yield to many. But that means one should submit to the Power of another; and perhaps the stronger, more able and judicious, should submit to that which is weaker and more ignorant, etc.

4. All Juridical Power issues from Combination.[756]

Therefore, only those are bound who are so combined and sent.

But this Synod sent their dogmata and sentences to the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, who never sent any Messengers there.

Ergo, all that they intended and enacted was by way of Counsel.

5. The controversy arising from the Church of Antioch, those repairing for judgment cannot be judges in their own cause, which is now controverted by an opposite party.

Hence, there was but one Church that gave the sentence, and that cannot make a Synod.

6. Each Practice or Example is warrantable and binding, so far as it has either some particular precept to enjoin it, or some general rule that may confirm it by way of collection.

But here there is no particular precept to enjoin it; let them show any general rule appropriate to Church discipline or Church government to bottom it.

Dr. Whitaker confesses there is no precept for Synods.

Obj. 1. The reason alleged for proof, has no convincing evidence. For when it is said that an ordinary Assembly of Church-members, Elders, and Brethren of many Churches, meeting on the occasion of a controversy, to dispute and clarify the truth from Scripture — that is founded on Act 15, in which there is a Synod.

Ans. 1. To the major, such an Assembly, a meeting of many Messengers from many Churches, is not found, nor can it be proved out of Act 15.

Ans. 2. They didn’t meet to dispute and determine juridically. This has the same fault as in that proof of Gal 2.9. Paul went up to the Apostles to gain mutual consent and approval, not at all to submit his office or doctrine juridically to them, for he professedly denies this: he says that he didn’t have his office from man, or by man; and that his doctrine was from God by revelation, as well as theirs was.

To say that if he came to advantage his proceeding by mutual consent and approval, then other Churches may meet by way of jurisdiction — there is no soundness in such a consequence. Also, the reasons don’t reach this Power. For errors may be prevented, truth cleared, union of Churches preserved in judgment, they may be kept from running in vain, and all neighboring Churches may be consulted in weightier transactions, without meeting in this juridical manner.

But if Synods and such meetings are attended only for Consultation, having no other power, nor meeting for any other end, then as they are lawful, so the root of them lies in a common principle which God in His providence, has appointed for human proceeding. And that is,

He that hearkens to counsel shall be safe. Pro 1.33

In the multitude of Counselors there is safety. Pro 24.6

Hence, all conditions and callings, as they need it, so they may use a Combination of Counsel for carrying on the occasions that are under their hand.

Hence arise the Companies of Merchants, and all men of all crafts.

Hence there are Common Councils in all Kingdoms and States.

And therefore, in the Course of Christianity also, the Churches of Christ should use the means God has appointed for their more comfortable and successful proceeding in a Church way.

And hence, one Church may send to another, or to many, and do that severally or meet jointly. Hence they should send to the most able, as Antioch sent to Jerusalem, because though it was far remote, yet in reason they might expect more relief, because the Apostles were there jointly together. Beside, they were concerned in it in some manner, as it appears some came saying they were from them, and pretended to have the judgment of the Apostles touching the necessity of Circumcision. The Apostles said, We gave no such allowance to them. Act 15.24

Obj. 2. It may be said that this course of Counsel is common to all sorts, and therefore they may as well consult with anyone, as with Churches.

Ans. True, they may, and in some cases they should consult with the Chief learned men and Readers of Divinity in several Universities, or those who have the greatest skill in the occasions which are in doubt. But because the occasion of one Church may deeply concern others, and because Churches are, in reason, most fit and best able, and will be most affected (sympathetic) with the conditions of other Churches, it is therefore most suitable to right reason, and to the rules of consultation, to advise with them.

Ques. 3. What is the Power of a Synod?

Ans. Power (exousia) is again, either Juridical or Consultative. If it’s Juridical, then it is either Magisterial (to bind consciences to Christ), or Equatorial. [757] If it is equatorial jurisdiction, it is used either in inflicting censures; or else imposing their conclusions and determinations upon others under pain of censure; and this is what they call Legislative Power.[758]

Again, this Power looks two ways: either in respect to other Churches, or to the Magistrate. Hence the power will issue in three heads:

I. The Synod does not have power to instigate censures, nor can they excommunicate. [759]

1. The reason is taken from Presbyterian principles:

All censures are administered by men in office.

But here the actions don’t issue from such men.

Those acts which proceed in common from men, without as well as within office, cannot be the acts of men in office.

But all acts of the Synod are performed by all the Members of the Synod. “It seems good to the Spirit and to us,” that is, to all the Brethren, as well as the Church.

2. They grant that all the Power the Synod has, is accumulative, not privative; it takes nothing from the power of the Churches.

But thus to censure, would take Power from the Churches.

That which crosses the Power given by Christ, diminishes their lawful and rightful Power.

But this does so; for Christ says, He that will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen.

But this Power gives the Synod leave to refuse the admonition of the Church, and to appeal; and so it nullifies the proceeding of the Church.

3. That which gives power over a Church without the attending judgment of the Rulers (perhaps against their judgment) diminishes the power of the Church.

But this does so, as in the case where all the Elders of a particular Congregation oppose the censure, and the rest of the Synod passes a censure against the Elders’ judgment.[760]

4. Excommunication is proper to the Congregation.

Therefore the Synod takes that which is the propriety of the Congregation.

That it is proper to the Congregation, thus appears: It’s either proper to the Congregation, or else it’s common to both.

If it falls firstly and properly somewhere else, then it belongs to the Church in general first, and then to both the species.

But this cannot be.

That which is firstly in the genus, belongs indifferently to both species from there.

But all the power that the Classis has, they have from the Congregation.

Therefore, it was firstly there (in the Congregation), not in the Church generally, as though belonging both to Synods and to Congregations.

5. All jurisdiction belongs to, and issues from the power of Order.

But this jurisdiction in the Synod does not issue from power of order.

For here is a new jurisdiction, but no new order or Officer.

6. Where there is a superior power, supreme honor belongs there.

But the greatest honor belongs to those who preach, not those who rule.

II. The Synod has no power to impose their Canons or Conclusions on the Churches.

1. Because the Churches’ power is above them, in that they sent them.

2. Because the Churches have power to call another Synod, and send other Messengers, and pass sentence against them.

3. Because in many cases, the Synod may enjoin a man to believe contradictions. Suppose a man is under one Province which has determined a case one way, and therefore he must believe that. He moves into another Province the next week or month, and they have determined a contrary Conclusion, and he must believe that one.

4. In all Synods but an Ecumenical, it is lawful to make an appeal; and therefore to refuse it.

III. In Point of Counsel.

They may dogmatize and set down their judgments definitively, and by way of determination.[761]

Ques. 4. To whom does the power of calling Synods pertain?

1. The State of the question must first be inquired about.

2. The Reasons must be brought for the truth, so that it may be settled.

This controversy comes to be agitated between us and the Papists; and also between many of the Protestants in some particular branches, or in some particular explications of it.

We will endeavor to lay out the full breadth, and then to point out the several parts in which the very nick and hinge of the question stands. Therefore we inquire,

1. What Synod means here.

2. What it means to call.

3. To whom the power pertains.

1. A Synod, in this question, is usually restrained to a General Council, or an Ecumenical Synod, as it appears in Dr. Whitaker. For touching Provincial or National Councils, he grants they were commonly convocated by the Bishops, Metropolitan, or Patriarch, who inspected such places by human appointment. Though I confess, in a safe and fair sense, I would extend it further.

2. A convocation.[762] The greatest weight lies in the explication of this word, what it means to call. And if we may look at it in the full bounds and limits of it, as it is often considered by those who inquire into all the ingredients of this action, then it implies two things:

(1) By way of appointment and injunction, to require the solemn and public concurrence and assembly of some persons from several Churches, for those ends as specified above. I say a public and solemn Assembly and concurrence of Churches, for if it’s but private and clandestine by some privy intimation from one to another — to meet in a secret manner, as under the color and by the rule of Christian society — then we don’t look at such a meeting as Synodical.

(2) This public concurrence must be appointed and enjoined, not attained by entreaty — as persons dissenting and having a difference with one another, are said in one usual phrase, to call in Arbitrators; or by entreaty, to desire the help of such persons to consider and end their controversy. Such a calling, which is by occasional entreaty, doesn’t reach the stress and state of this question.

3. I find some also, who make this like one branch which grows toward the body of this question:

Whether those who call, may name and specify the particular persons who must be sent, or may refuse those who are sent, in case these persons seem to their judgment to be unfit, upon reasons which appear just to them?

And here men’s apprehensions vary. Some will allow the Magistrate to enjoin and require Churches to send someone; but the Churches must choose those whom they will send. Others conceive it is in the Magistrate’s hand to appoint both. Again, they look at this power of appointing in a double consideration. They see it either as a commission which they give, by which they are enabled to this action; or only a permission, that the Churches having power of themselves, the Magistrate suffers them, or at least he will not hinder them from exercising it.

And the issue then returns to this:

(1) It belongs to the supreme Magistrate, and the power of his place, to enjoin the solemn and public concurrence of the several persons of the Churches, and to appoint and nominate which of those he will have to consider such weighty and doubtful cases, which concern the public profession and practicing of the worship of God within the Magistrate’s Dominions.

When I say it belongs to the Magistrate’s power and place, I mean it is unique to him, and doesn’t belong to the Church.

(2) I say, the public and solemn concurrence is appointed by the Magistrate. Now, they may, as Christians, maintain private communion with one another, and by entreaty, call for the counsel and help of one another. And as they are Churches, they may use that privilege of assistance & advice,[763] to further their own good, and to promote the work under their hand. And that act requires no allowance of the Magistrate at all.

For what I do in private so far as it is ethical, economical, and Christian,[764] it does not pertain to the Magistrate to inquire about, provided it doesn’t entrench upon his political needs.[765]

But when any proceed to public and solemn Assemblings, this comes under the cognizance of the Magistrate, and properly so, as falling professedly in his way, and it requires his allowance. I say allowance, for in those acts which issue from the common abilities or dexterities of men, what is commissioned, and what is rightly permitted,[766] are all one, or at least they make no great difference.

If the Magistrate allows a scholar or fencer to set up Schools for their art, no further commission is needed, but only that permission to do those actions in a State.

Before I descend to the Arguments, there are two postulations that I will premise:

1. That a right opinion and worship of God should be openly professed within the territories and jurisdiction of a State; it pertains to them as that which comes within the verge and object of the state and policy to attend. For how could they provide for their subjects, to live in godliness and honesty without this?

How would they be nursing Fathers and Mothers to the Church and Religion, if they allowed open Blasphemy and Idolatry to be maintained and professed? No, in that such crimes were punished with death in Israel, it’s plain that the Kings did it — not as Types of Christ, but by a civil power. For no spiritual power uses the weapons of this world.

2. Hence, the supreme Magistrate has liberty and power both to inquire and judge of professions and Religions. That which is true ought to be maintained; and that which is false ought to be rejected. For were he bound to follow the judgment of the Churches or Ministers, if they judged a Toleration of all Religions to be lawful, or judged a false religion to be true, then he would be bound to nurse the false Religion, and false Churches.

Now we’ll proceed to the Reasons for settling the truth, which was the second thing to be attended.

Argument 1.

If it’s in the Magistrate’s power lawfully to forbid and hinder, then it’s not in the power of the Churches to lawfully do so. For then the same thing might, in the same regard, be lawful by the one, and unlawful by the other; and the rules of providence would be opposed to one another.

But the supreme Magistrate may lawfully hinder any people of another Kingdom to come into his; or his own subjects to go out of his territories without his leave. Otherwise he would lack lawful power to oppose those who would come in to undermine or lay waste the State, and to defend himself. And he would also not have authority to require homage by his own people.[767]

Now, without many coming in from all Nations, or his own subjects going out to other Nations, there would be no general concurrence or general council; and he has the same power to confine his own people from such general Assemblings within his own precincts, for there may be similar just reasons for that.

Argument 2.

That which is a merely civil act, belongs properly to the civil Magistrate.

And this is a merely civil act, to appoint such solemn and public Assemblings.

The first proposition is evident from the diversity of the Rules by which actions are put forth.

A civil act does not belong to an Ecclesiastical power, because what they do is only done by the Ecclesiastical policy.

Minor

The exercise (or implementation) [768] of a rule of policy is a merely civil act.

And this is such an exercise, for it’s contained under that rule: a proper sense of God, for the proper worship of God.[769]

Argument 3.

It’s lawful for a Prince to require the help of the faculties and abilities of his subjects, to consider and to advise for the good of the public.

His Royal place, and their homage, evidence this.

And to call which persons of the Churches he conceives are most fit to meet and concur for counsel, is, ergo, to improve the faculties and abilities of his subjects for the common good.

And if it was lawful for them to refuse, there must follow, not only rebellion on their part, but certain ruin to the whole.

Argument 4.

If the Magistrate is bound to maintain the peace of his subjects in godliness, and to know and judge about the ways of godliness, then he must have power to use such means, that he may both know and maintain it.

For Providence doesn’t require the end, unless it always allows with it, ways for attaining it, which are requisite and lawful.

But unless the Magistrate may require the concurrence of Councils and considerations, and so the determinations of Churches, touching what they hold and maintain in their profession to be according to the rule of godliness, there is no means left to know what profession they are of, and how far they either agree or disagree with it.

Argument 5.

If the Churches need and desire the protection of the Magistrate in their way of worship, then they must be ready to give him an account of their way when he requires it — and therefore to concur and assemble upon his appointment, so that he may know and lend them his patronage and protection.

This Conclusion in all its particulars, is made good by all the examples in the Old and New Testaments, such as that of Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Herod, in Matthew 2, calls upon all the Scribes, Pharisees, and Elders of the people.

FINIS.

Appendix I.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

“The foundation of authority is laid firstly in the free consent of people.”

That principle lies at the heart of the representative system by which the United States has governed itself for more than two centuries. But when the Reverend Thomas Hooker declared those words in a sermon in Hartford on May 31, 1638, they were a radical concept. In 1638 almost all the nations of the world were governed by monarchs, emperors, tsars, and others who wielded power secured by inheritance or conquest. Ordinary people had little, and usually no, voice in selecting their leaders or making their laws.

The Puritans whom Thomas Hooker had led to settle in Hartford just a few years earlier, based everything in their lives on the Bible. Thomas Hooker believed that in the Bible, God granted the people the right to select those who would govern them, and the power to establish limitations on those individuals. Less than a year later, those democratic concepts were put into practice. In January 1639, the settlements at Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield united under a government framework known as the Fundamental Orders. Citizens elected representatives to a legislature that would enact the laws of the land. The governor was elected as well.[770]

The Fundamental Orders, inspired by Thomas Hooker’s sermon of May 31, 1638, provided the framework for the government of the Connecticut colony from 1639 to 1662.

Background

For two years before the adoption of the Fundamental Orders, Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield cooperated under a simple form of government composed of magistrates and representatives from each town, but the towns had no formal instrument of government. Roger Ludlow of Windsor, the only trained lawyer in the colony, probably drafted the Fundamental Orders, although he may have been assisted by Hartford residents John Haynes (a former Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony), Edward Hopkins, and John Steel. The document consisted of a preamble and 11 orders or laws. The preamble was a covenant which bound the three towns to be governed in all civil matters by the Orders. The preamble, then, was a civil equivalent of a church covenant. (The model of the Biblical covenant served as the foundation for all Puritan organizations.) The Connecticut General Court adopted the Fundamental Orders on January 14, 1639. (The colonists did not follow current conventions for marking a year and, thus, the date on the document itself is listed as 1638.)

General Court held Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and Administrative Authority

The 11 orders clearly followed the Massachusetts government model, and were consistent with 17th-century trading company charters. The Orders called for the convening of general courts every April and September. At the April Court of Election, a governor and six magistrates were to be chosen. No man could serve as governor more than once every two years, a restriction that lasted until 1660. To prevent hasty, ill-considered choices, nominations for election were made at the September General Court by the deputies from each town. The governor and magistrates, who composed the nucleus for an Upper House, were to be elected by the freemen at the Court of Election. The other Orders prescribed regulations for nomination and election and set forth conditions for calling the General Court into special session. No religious test was established for voting, the Orders omitted all reference to the authority of the crown, and the General Court was given supreme authority over the towns and their inhabitants. The General Court was authorized to adopt and repeal laws, impose taxes, distribute land, apprehend and punish people for misdemeanors, and enact legislation to promote the general good. The General Court was granted, then, all legislative, executive, judicial, and administrative authority. The right to elect deputies and magistrates was, however, reserved to the freemen.

The matter of whether the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut should be considered a constitution in the modern sense, let alone honored as the first written constitution (as was once claimed), remains a matter of debate. Nevertheless, they served as the basis for government in Connecticut until 1662. They are also the reason why, in 1959, the General Assembly officially designated Connecticut as “the Constitution State.”

By Bruce P. Stark; excerpted from Connecticut History and Culture:

an Historical Overview and Resource Guide for Teachers (1985), edited by David Roth. [771]

THE FUNDAMENTAL ORDERS OF 1639

For as much as it has pleased Almighty God by the wise disposition of his divine providence so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and upon the River of Connecticut and the lands adjoining it; and well knowing where a people are gathered together the word of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all seasons as occasion shall require; do therefore associate and conjoin ourselves to be as one Public State or Commonwealth; and do for ourselves and our successors and such as shall be adjoined to us at any time hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us; as also in our civil affairs to be guided and governed according to such Laws, Rules, Orders and Decrees as shall be made, ordered, and decreed as follows:

1. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that there shall be yearly two General Assemblies or Courts, the one the second Thursday in April, the other the second Thursday in September following; the first shall be called the Court of Election, wherein shall be yearly chosen from time to time, so many Magistrates and other public Officers as shall be found requisite: Whereof one to be chosen Governor for the year ensuing and until another be chosen, and no other Magistrate to be chosen for more than one year: provided always there be six chosen besides the Governor, which being chosen and sworn according to an Oath recorded for that purpose, shall have the power to administer justice according to the Laws here established, and for want thereof, according to the Rule of the Word of God; which choice shall be made by all that are admitted freemen and have taken the Oath of Fidelity, and do cohabit within this Jurisdiction having been admitted Inhabitants by the major part of the Town wherein they live or the major part of such as shall be then present.

2. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the election of the aforesaid Magistrates shall be in this manner: every person present and qualified for choice shall bring in (to the person deputed to receive them) one single paper with the name of him written in it whom he desires to have Governor, and that he that has the greatest number of papers shall be Governor for that year. And the rest of the Magistrates or public officers to be chosen in this manner: the Secretary for the time being shall first read the names of all that are to be put to choice and then shall severally nominate them distinctly, and every one that would have the person nominated to be chosen shall bring in one single paper written upon, and he that would not have him chosen shall bring in a blank; and every one that has more written papers than blanks shall be a Magistrate for that year; which papers shall be received and told by one or more that shall be then chosen by the court and sworn to be faithful therein; but in case there should not be six chosen as aforesaid, besides the Governor, out of those which are nominated, than he or they which have the most writen papers shall be a Magistrate or Magistrates for the ensuing year, to make up the aforesaid number.

3. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the Secretary shall not nominate any person, nor shall any person be chosen newly into the Magistracy which was not propounded in some General Court before, to be nominated the next election; and to that end it shall be lawful for each of the Towns aforesaid by their deputies to nominate any two whom they conceive fit to be put to election; and the Court may add so many more as they judge requisite.

4. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that no person be chosen Governor above once in two years, and that the Governor be always a member of some approved Congregation, and formerly of the Magistracy within this Jurisdiction; and that all the Magistrates, Freemen of this Commonwealth; and that no Magistrate or other public officer shall execute any part of his or their office before they are severally sworn, which shall be done in the face of the court if they be present, and in case of absence by some deputed for that purpose.

5. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that to the aforesaid Court of Election the several Towns shall send their deputies, and when the Elections are ended they may proceed in any public service as at other Courts. Also the other General Court in September shall be for making of laws, and any other public occasion, which concerns the good of the Commonwealth.

6. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the Governor shall, either by himself or by the Secretary, send out summons to the Constables of every Town for the calling of these two standing Courts one month at least before their several times: And also if the Governor and the greatest part of the Magistrates see cause upon any special occasion to call a General Court, they may give order to the Secretary so to do within fourteen days’ warning: And if urgent necessity so required, upon a shorter notice, giving sufficient grounds for it to the deputies when they meet, or else be questioned for the same; And if the Governor and major part of Magistrates shall either neglect or refuse to call the two General standing Courts or either of them, as also at other times when the occasions of the Commonwealth require, the Freemen thereof, or the major part of them, shall petition to them so to do; if then it be either denied or neglected, the said Freemen, or the major part of them, shall have the power to give order to the Constables of the several Towns to do the same, and so may meet together, and choose for themselves a Moderator, and may proceed to do any act of power which any other General Courts may.

7. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that after there are warrants given out for any of the said General Courts, the Constable or Constables of each Town, shall forthwith give notice distinctly to the inhabitants of the same, in some public assembly or by going or sending from house to house, that at a place and time by him or them limited and set, they meet and assemble themselves together to elect and choose certain deputies to be at the General Court then following to agitate the affairs of the Commonwealth; which said deputies shall be chosen by all that are admitted Inhabitants in the several Towns and have taken the oath of fidelity; provided that none be chosen a Deputy for any General Court which is not a Freeman of this Commonwealth.

The aforesaid deputies shall be chosen in manner following: every person that is present and qualified as before expressed, shall bring the names of such, written in several papers, as they desire to have chosen for that employment, and these three or four, more or less, being the number agreed on to be chosen for that time, that have the greatest number of papers written for them shall be deputies for that Court; whose names shall be endorsed on the back side of the warrant and returned into the Court, with the Constable or Constables’ hand unto the same.

8. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield shall have power, each Town, to send four of their Freemen as their deputies to every General Court; and Whatsoever other Town shall be hereafter added to this Jurisdiction, they shall send so many deputies as the Court shall judge meet, a reasonable proportion to the number of Freemen that are in the said Towns being to be attended therein; which deputies shall have the power of the whole Town to give their votes and allowance to all such laws and orders as may be for the public good, and unto which the said Towns are to be bound.

9. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that the deputies thus chosen shall have power and liberty to appoint a time and a place of meeting together before any General Court, to advise and consult of all such things as may concern the good of the public, as also to examine their own Elections, whether according to the order, and if they or the greatest part of them find any election to be illegal they may seclude such for present from their meeting, and return the same and their reasons to the Court; and if it be proved true, the Court may fine the party or parties so intruding, and the Town, if they see cause, and give out a warrant to go to a new election in a legal way, either in part or in whole. Also the said deputies shall have power to fine any that shall be disorderly at their meetings, or for not coming in due time or place according to appointment; and they may return the said fines into the Court if it be refused to be paid, and the Treasurer to take notice of it, and to escheat or levy the same as he does other fines.

10. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that every General Court, except such as through neglect of the Governor and the greatest part of the Magistrates the Freemen themselves do call, shall consist of the Governor, or some one chosen to moderate the Court, and four other Magistrates at least, with the major part of the deputies of the several Towns legally chosen; and in case the Freemen, or major part of them, through neglect or refusal of the Governor and major part of the Magistrates, shall call a Court, it shall consist of the major part of Freemen that are present or their deputies, with a Moderator chosen by them: In which said General Courts shall consist the supreme power of the Commonwealth, and they only shall have power to make laws or repeal them, to grant levies, to admit of Freemen, dispose of lands undisposed of, to several Towns or persons, and also shall have power to call either Court or Magistrate or any other person whatsoever into question for any misdemeanor, and may for just causes displace or deal otherwise according to the nature of the offense; and also may deal in any other matter that concerns the good of this Commonwealth, except election of Magistrates, which shall be done by the whole body of Freemen.

In which Court the Governor or Moderator shall have power to order the Court, to give liberty of speech, and silence unseasonable and disorderly speakings, to put all things to vote, and in case the vote is equal, to have the casting voice. But none of these Courts shall be adjourned or dissolved without the consent of the major part of the Court.

11. It is Ordered, sentenced, and decreed, that when any General Court upon the occasions of the Commonwealth have agreed upon any sum, or sums of money to be levied upon the several Towns within this Jurisdiction, that a committee be chosen to set out and appoint what shall be the proportion of every Town to pay of the said levy, provided the committee be made up of an equal number out of each Town.

14th January 1639 the 11 Orders above said are voted.[772]

Appendix II.

Thomas Hooker: Preacher, Founder, Democrat

by George Leon Walker

VI. HOOKER IN CONNECTICUT. SEC. III. (excerpts)

1891

http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~tinako/genealogy/Hooker/Thomas%20Hooker-%20Preacher,%20Founder,%20Democrat%206-3.htm

THE turmoiled condition of affairs in England was felt in New England in relation to other than political matters only. The ecclesiastical ground-swell in the homeland had its responsive motions here. Puritanism had been taking possession more and more of the popular mind in the old country. And with the assembling of the Long Parliament in 1640, the downfall of the hierarchical system — whose arbitrary administration by Laud had been the main cause of the population of the new settlements in America — was assured.

But the course of Puritanism in England and in New England had been different. In England, the progress of dissent from the Establishment had taken its main direction toward Presbyterianism. In New England it had been almost exclusively toward Independency. The churches of the new settlements modelled themselves more or less intentionally after that of Plymouth, and of the exiles who had brought Congregationalism over with them from Scrooby and Leyden.

This adoption of principles of ecclesiastical procedure that were considerably divergent from those of the majority who, in England, were generally sympathetic with the American colonists in their Puritan views led to much correspondence between the leading men of the Puritan party there and here. In 1636 or 1637 “many ministers in Old England” sent inquiries to their “Reverend Brethren in New-England, concerning Nine Positions” supposed to be taken by the churches of the New England colonies, on important points of ecclesiastical usage. This inquiry was followed up in 1638 or 1639 by “Thirty-two Questions” of similar character from the same source. Answers to the first of these interrogatories were forwarded by Rev. John Davenport, of New Haven; and to the second, by Rev. Richard Mather, of Dorchester (now Windsor).

The points covered by these inquiries and answers embraced the whole scope of church organization, terms of membership, fellowship with English parishes, office and responsibility of the ministry, power of the laity, doctrinal standards, and authority of councils. It was in reference to the last point — the authority of councils, or synods, as they were then commonly called — that the divergence of views here and in English Puritanism most loudly manifested itself; although there was perhaps almost equal difference of judgment concerning the right of each church to institute its own ministry.

But as the conflict in England between the king and Parliament progressed, the tendency of English Puritanism toward Presbyterianism strengthened. It was deemed best to secure the aid of an ecclesiastical synod to settle the religious order of things on that basis. As early as 1641, the London ministers proposed to Parliament, the calling of an Assembly. And in December of that year, the Commons mentioned the matter as one of their desires in the Grand Remonstrance.[773] A bill was passed for the purpose in 1642, but it failed for lack of the royal assent. The final order for it, without the king’s concurrence, was June 12, 1643. The king, by proclamation, forbade the meeting, and threatened to deprive of their livings (i.e., their paid church offices) those who disobeyed. This substantially prevented the “loyal” portion of the Episcopalians from attending, and added to the certainty of the Presbyterian character of the result.

But an Assembly being determined, the American divines were not forgotten. A letter from the Earl of Warwick (Mr. Hooker’s old Chelmsford friend and protector), Lord Saye and Sele, Oliver Cromwell, and some thirty other minority members of Parliament, “who stood for the independency of churches,” was sent to New England, inviting Mr. Cotton, Mr. Hooker, and Mr. Davenport to “assist in the synod appointed to consider and advise about the settling of church government.” [774] Mr. Cotton and Mr. Davenport were inclined to go; the former more so, because in the course of his Scripture expositions at that time, he happened to come upon a passage in the Acts which “led him to deliver that doctrine of the interest that all churches have in each other’s members for mutual helpfulness.” Mr. Hooker, with characteristic sagacity, saw the possible complications that might arise from participation in a synod where the views of the New England churches were certain of rejection. And so he sent word by the messengers who came from Boston with the invitation, that he “did not like the business, nor thought it any sufficient call for them to go 3000 miles to agree with three men.” [775] The “three men” in the Assembly who “stood for independency,” were in fact five from the outset — Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye, Jeremiah Burroughs, William Bridge, and Sydrach Simpson. As the sessions went on, their numbers doubled; but they were in a hopeless minority.

The wisdom of Mr. Hooker’s judgment was soon affirmed by letters from Hugh Peter and others “out of England,” advising the invited American divines “to stay till they heard further; so this care came to an end.” [776] This assembly, which has passed into history as the Westminster Assembly, was preponderantly Presbyterian; and that party grew stronger in it as its eleven hundred and sixty-three sessions advanced.

This growing, though temporary, dominance of Presbyterianism in England was not without its effect in this country. It gave new vigor and encouragement to a few ministers in the Massachusetts Colony, whose views were more in accordance with that polity than with the Congregational Way around them. The two excellent ministers of Newbury — Thomas Parker, the Pastor, and James Noyes, the Teacher — strongly sympathized with most of the Presbyterian principles; and their church was much disquieted by their advocacy of them. [777] Fearful of the spread of these dissensions, it was deemed best to hold a meeting of the ministers of the churches at Cambridge to emphasize Congregational principles. This assembly is sometimes erroneously called a synod. However, it lacked the character of a synod, being a meeting of ministers only, and these were non-delegated in their gathering. [778] It met in September 1643, and was composed of “all the elders in the country (about 50 in all), some of the ruling elders were also present, but none else.” [779] Here, again, as in the Hutchinsonian Council, Mr. Hooker was one of the moderators; his associate at this time being Mr. Cotton. “They sat in the college, and had their diet there in the manner of scholar’s commons, but somewhat better; yet it was so ordered as it did not come to above sixpence a meal per person... The assembly concluded against some parts of the presbyterial way, and the Newbury ministers took time to consider the arguments.” [780]

Consideration of the “arguments” was a chief part of the industry of the time on both sides of the Atlantic. A musketry-fire of pamphlets, and a heavier cannonade of bulkier volumes, answered one another on both sides of the controversy, and of the sea. Two or three lesser tractates by Mr. Cotton, published in 1641 and 1642, were followed about the latter date by the circulation in manuscript form of his “Way of the Churches of Christ in New England.” To these was added, from the same ever-ready pen, in 1644, Mr. Cotton’s celebrated treatise on the “Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven.” This was at once introduced to the English public by Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye — members of the Westminster Assembly then in session — as setting forth that “very Middle-way ... between that which is called Brownism and the Presbyterian-government” which they had contended for in the Assembly.[781] To some of these American tractates that were extant at the time of his writing, Professor Samuel Rutherford, also a member of the Assembly — and according to John Cotton a “chief part” of it — undertook a reply from the Presbyterian point of view. He directed his answer mainly against Cotton’s “Way;” Mather’s Reply to the “XXXII Questions;” Mather’s answer to Herle; and certain treatises of John Robinson’s. Mr. Rutherford was an able, courteous, and learned man, and one of the great lights of the Scottish church. He was familiar with a wide range of the literature of the controversy, and was the most competent man of the Presbyterian party to put the argument for that polity into cogent as well as conciliatory form. His book of nearly eight hundred pages, entitled “The Due right of Presbyteries,” [782] and a volume by Rev. John Paget, “A Defence of Church Government exercised in Presbyterial, Classical and Synodical Assemblies,” were deemed by our New England Congregationalists deserving of an answer. Notwithstanding that Cotton’s “Keyes” came out contemporaneously with Rutherford’s volume, a more explicit rejoinder to the Presbyterian treatises was deemed expedient. The task of replying to Rutherford appears to have been assigned to Mr. Hooker, and the answer to Paget to Mr. Davenport. The result of this partition of labor was the production of the two volumes — Davenport’s “Power of Congregational Churches,” and Mr. Hooker’s “Survey of the Summe of Church-Discipline.”

These books had a curious history. At a meeting held at Cambridge, July 1, 1645, “the elders of the churches through all the United Colonies... conferred their councils and examined the writings which some of them had prepared” — these of Hooker and Davenport among the number — “which being agreed and perfected, were sent over into England to be printed.” [783]

This is Winthrop’s contemporaneous account of what the meeting concluded upon. However, the books of Hooker and Davenport apparently were not fully completed, and in point of fact were not sent till the following January. They were then dispatched in a vessel sailing from New Haven, which was lost at sea and was never heard of after; save in that spectral phantom of a ship which two years and five months later appeared sailing into New Haven harbor, and which presently, in the sight of a crowd of witnesses, vanished into smoke. This vision Mr. Davenport declared had been given for the quieting of the hearts of those who wondered where the lost vessel and its precious conveyance of passengers had gone.[784] Convinced of the loss of their manuscripts, the two authors, Hooker and Davenport, re-wrote them. Though Hooker’s very reluctantly — as he had indeed reluctantly composed it at first — leaving it at last unfinished, to be sent over and printed only after his death. An “Epistle to the Reader,” by the hand of his Hartford friends, Edward Hopkins and William Goodwin, accompanies the reproduced treatise, and explains the circumstances of its origin.

Mr. Hooker’s “Survey” is a very able presentation of the early New England view of the church and its administration, as opposed to the Presbyterian conception advocated by his distinguished opponent, the Professor of Divinity at St. Andrews, as well as by Samuel Hudson, whose writings are also traversed in Mr. Hooker’s reply. The “Survey” suffers, however, in comparison with such a book as the reader easily sees might have been the product of the same pen, by the necessity the author’s task seemed to impose upon him. This was to reply to Rutherford in minute detail, rather than set forth a direct treatise of his own on the subject.

It was perhaps this controversial aspect of the matter which made him so reluctant to undertake the work at first. He says in the Preface of the book, which from various indications seems to have been also the preface of the book which was lost as well, “I can profess in a word of truth, that against my own inclination and affection, I was haled [785] by importunity to so hard a task.” And his friends Hopkins and Goodwin remark in their Epistle accompanying the published work: “Some of you are not ignorant with what strength of importunity he was drawn to this present service, and with what fear and care he attended it. The weight and difficulty of the work was duly apprehended by him, and he looked upon it as somewhat unsuitable to a Pastor, whose head and heart and hands, were full of the employments of his proper place.” It is matter for regret, that the task to which Mr. Hooker was thus “haled by importunity,” involved to such an extent, following the track of another’s argument instead of formulating — somewhat after the model of Cotton’s “Keyes” for example — a treatise of church polity untrammelled by the necessity of a polemic analysis and rejoinder. For in that case, we might have had a document unsurpassed and probably unequalled by any other of New England origin, as a clear and vigorous statement of early Congregational principles. This treatise as it stands, especially the Preface, abundantly shows that.

In this Preface occurs a kind of summary of the principles set forth in the body of the book. It is a paragraph of importance in more ways than one. It not only gives as succinct a presentation of Congregational principles then entertained, as was ever given, but it has the additional interest and value of being a statement of positions...

The elaborate volume was finally published in 1648, and remains a monument of its author’s most remarkable learning and great dialectic skill. The first two of the Parts into which the treatise is divided — “Ecclesiastical Policy Defined,” and “The Church considered as it is an Organic Body” — are probably wrought with about the fulness of the copy lost at sea. The other two — “Of the Government of the Church,” and “Concerning Synods” — and especially the latter of them, are wholly incomplete, and would doubtless have been greatly amplified and illustrated had the author lived to finish the re-writing of his book. The argument, however, is clear throughout. And the subtlety and strength of the presentation of the case for the Congregational Way, as held by the early fathers of New England, entitle the “Survey” to all the honor it has ever received as an authoritative exposition of the views of church government which it learnedly and powerfully maintains.

Before the re-writing of the books of Hooker and Davenport was attempted, however — and indeed, perhaps before their authors were perfectly assured of the loss of their first copies — the danger of the subversion of the ecclesiastical usages of the colonies seemed so imminent, that the Court of Massachusetts, in May 1646, moved for a General Synod “to discuss, dispute and clear up by the word of God, such questions of Church government and discipline” as had been spoken of before, and others, “as they think needful and fitting.” And they invited the ministers and churches of “Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven,” on the same terms of “liberty and power of disputing and voting” as the Massachusetts ministers and messengers.[786] The proposition was received with general acceptance, though with demurrer[787] on the part of the Boston, Salem, and Hingham churches, as a trespass of the civil authority upon the ecclesiastical domain.[788] But most of them finally withdrew opposition. September 1st found all but four of the Massachusetts churches, and a considerable number of those from the other colonies, in session at Cambridge, in what is now called by way of pre-eminence, the Cambridge Synod — the best-remembered of all the early New England assemblies, and from which the well-known Platform of church-polity receives its name. Mr. Hooker, however, was not there. His colleague, Mr. Stone the Teacher, was present, and Deacon Edward Stebbins, a delegate of the church; but the Pastor was absent. He had written his son-in-law, Thomas Shepard, the month before:

“My years and infirmities grow so fast upon me, as wholly disenable me for so long a journey; and because I cannot come myself, I provoke as many elders as I can to lend their help and presence. The Lord Christ be in the midst among you by his guidance and blessing.”

Mr. Hooker had made the journey from Hartford to Boston on public business four times certainly, and probably more. [789] It was still a roadless wilderness, to be traversed only on horseback, with a nightly encampment on the ground, under the open skies, by the way. It is not strange that though interested in the synod, he shrank from the repeated pilgrimages.

The synod continued in session at its first gathering only a fortnight. It appointed three of its members to draw up a Scriptural Model of Church-government, and adjourned till June 8 of the following year. Mr. Shepard wrote to his father-in-law, giving account of discussions arising in the synod about the extent of synodical authority, and the power of magistrates in summoning such assemblies.

The report received from his correspondent induced the ever democratically-inclined author of the “Survey” to write concerning the first of the two points: —

“I wish there not be a misunderstanding of some things by some, or that the binding power of synods not be pressed too much: for I say only to yourself, he that ventures far in that business will find hot and hard work, or else my perspective may fail, which I confess, it may be.”

A comparison of these expressions with the Result [790] of this preliminary session, agreed to “thus far only: that they should be commended to more serious consideration against the next Meeting.” This may perhaps indicate that some jealousy as to synodical authority was justifiable.

On the other point, however — of the magistrate’s power in calling a synod — Mr. Hooker writes to Shepard: -

“I find Mr. Rutherford and Apollonius to give somewhat sparingly to the place of the magistrate, to exercise power in the calling of synods, in which I perceive they go cross to some of our most serious and judicious writers.”

This implies the same view which Mr. Hooker maintained in his “Survey” on this matter, where he advocates the right of civil authority in summoning ecclesiastical assemblies. Democratic as Mr. Hooker was, he nevertheless had not arrived at the modern conception of the separate prerogatives of Church and State. And his doctrines on this matter of magisterial power in ecclesiastical affairs might have been, and probably were, a few years after his death, quoted in justification of a long series of meddlesome interferences of the General Court of the colony with the concerns of his own distracted church.

The synod re-assembled, according to adjournment, in June 1647, but was almost immediately forced to adjourn again by reason of an “epidemical sickness” which prevailed over the whole country among Indians and English, French and Dutch.[791]

Mr. Hooker was one of the victims of the disease. His colleague, Mr. Stone, arrived home from the dispersed synod in season to see him die. He wrote to Mr. Shepard, under date of July 19, 1647:

We shall do what we can to prepare Mr. Hooker’s answer to Rutherford, that it may be sent before winter ... If I have the whole winter, you may think whether it is not seemly for you, myself, and some other elders, to make a few verses for Mr. Hooker and inscribe them in the beginning of his book,[792] as if they had been his funeral verses. I do but propound it. [793]

As was natural, the death of so eminent a leader of the little Commonwealth prompted the remembrance by survivors of portents and supernatural tokens of it. The blow was indeed a great one, and felt not alone in the Connecticut Colony. Some sense of its importance to the whole group of cisatlantic settlements is expressed in the simple, noble language of Governor Winthrop in his account of the pestilence of that disastrous summer:

“That which made the stroke more sensible and grievous, both to them [of Connecticut] and to all the country, was the death of that faithful servant of the Lord, Mr. Thomas Hooker, pastor of the church in Hartford, who, for piety, prudence, wisdom, zeal, learning, and what else might make him serviceable in the place and time he lived in, might be compared with men of greatest note; and he shall need no other praise: the fruits of his labors in both Englands shall preserve an honorable and happy remembrance of him forever.” [794]

This wise and eloquent eulogy, written in the pages of a personal diary with no thought of public reproduction in a biography of the man whom the largehearted Massachusetts governor loved and honored above all differences which had ever risen between them, needs no amplification.

He is always spoken of by contemporary and by nearly succeeding writers with marked respect and veneration. He is said [795] to have been “a man of a choleric disposition,” which one can easily conjecture from the fervor of his oratorical temperament and the frequent vehemency of his rhetoric. But the same authority which affirms his possession of a fiery spirit also says that “he had ordinarily as much government of his choler, as a man has of a mastiff dog in a chain; he could let out his dog, and pull in his dog, as he pleased.” [796] Eulogiums of his benevolence, of his patience, his humility, as well as of his practical sagacity and wisdom in the management of the affairs of his own and of the neighboring churches, are preserved on various pages of the pedantic writer to whom, with all his faults and not infrequent inaccuracies, we are indebted for so much that would be otherwise unknown, not only of Hooker, but of most of the fathers of our New England history. One interesting and suggestive illustration of this practical and kindly wisdom in the management of the concerns of his own church must conclude our chapter:

“As for ecclesiastical censures, he was very watchful to prevent all procedures to them, as far as was consistent with the rules of our Lord; for which cause (except in grosser abominations) when offenses happened, he did his utmost, that the notice of it might be extended no further than it was when they first were laid before him; and having reconciled the offenders with sensible and convenient acknowledgements of their miscarriages, he would let the notice of it be confined to those who were acquainted with it beforehand; and hence there was but one person admonished in, and but one person excommunicated from the church of Hartford, in all the fourteen years, that Mr. Hooker lived there.” [797]

Notes

[←1]

At the start of Chapter 13, Hooker equates Generic and Universal Whole.

[←2]

Hooker grants the validity of this view (ch. 15. sec. 2); “determined by its particulars, and existing in them.” At the start of Part II, he says that the focus of Part I, is on the Church as an Essential Whole, though it is more than that. In Part II, ch. 3, he declares his own view, that the Church is a local, visible, Integral or Organic whole. The worldwide or universal church, as the genus, is the composite of all those local churches, which are the species. See chap. 15, sec.3.

[←3]

Conversation: our conduct or interaction with others in the world.

[←4]

And after them followed Sabellius, 257; Samosata, 269; Manichaeus, 281; and Arius, 324 (per Epiphanius, and Magedburgenses). – Hooker

[←5]

2Th 2:10-11 they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie.

[←6]

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 4.

[←7]

Augustine, Epistle 119.

[←8]

Isa 33:22 (For the LORD is our Judge, The LORD is our Lawgiver, The LORD is our King; He will save us);

[←9]

2Thes 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

[←10]

Phocas — Flavius Phocas Augustus (547-610) — Byzantine Emperor from 602 to 610. He usurped the throne from the Emperor Maurice, and was himself overthrown by Heraclius after losing a civil war. – WHG

[←11]

In AD 607 Pope Boniface III became the first bishop of Rome to be called “Pope.”

[←12]

The Italian pope who fought to establish the supremacy of the pope over the Roman Catholic Church and the supremacy of the church over the state (1020-1085). – WHG

[←13]

The “Investiture Conflict” developed out of the desire by secular rulers to expand their authority by having church officials be dependent upon them for their lands and religious offices. In 1073 Hildebrand became pope Gregory VII. He prohibited lay investiture. He also declared papal infallibility as the basis for appointing his own bishops over the king’s preferences. In 1075 Gregory forbade any further lay investiture, declaring it a form of simony. He also declared that any secular leaders who tried to invest someone with a clerical office would be excommunicated. Henry IV challenged Gregory. He deposed the bishop of Milan and invested someone else with the office. Gregory demanded that Henry appear in Rome to repent of his sins. Henry convinced German bishops loyal to him to declare Gregory a “false monk” and so strip him of being Pope. Gregory excommunicated Henry. This invalidated all oaths sworn to Henry and effectively stripped him of power. Dressed in the poor clothing of a penitent, Henry begged for forgiveness. Gregory was not willing to give it easily. He made Henry stand barefoot in the snow for three days until he allowed Henry to come in and kiss the papal ring. – WHG

[←14]

Vicegerent: someone appointed by a ruler as an administrative deputy.

[←15]

caput ministeriale.

[←16]

Arrogates: demands as his due or property; asserts his right or title to it, sometimes by force.

[←17]

In 1534 King Henry VIII created the Anglican church with himself as its head. But, as Hooker points out, it was in all respects the Roman Catholic Church without the Pope of Rome. – WHG

[←18]

ministerium, non dominium.

[←19]

A pale is a fenced area; impaled here means enclosed, or restricted to the area within the pale. – WHG

[←20]

Impropriated: In ecclesiastical law, to place (ecclesiastical property) under the control or management of a layperson.

[←21]

Nihil dicit: the refusal or neglect by a defendant to plead or answer the charges, or the judgment that is rendered without it.

[←22]

ad melius inquirendum: a writ which is issued after an imperfect inquisition. This commands the sheriff to summon another inquest so that the value of lands, etc., may be better ascertained.

[←23]

scire est per causas scire.

[←24]

Isa 25.7; Zec 12.8; Isa 30.26; Eze 43.8, 11.

[←25]

Malleus Jesuitarum: “in the Mall of the Jesuits” – a colorful way to describe a place in which Roman Catholic doctrines are bought and sold, as for example, by the Arminians. – WHG

[←26]

megaj σεισmὸς (megas seismos).

[←27]

The Family of Love or Familists was a mystic religious sect founded by Hendrik Niclaes c. 1540. It appealed primarily to artists and intellectuals. The primary goal of the Familists was to reach a state of perfect love with God as revealed through the Family of Love, and the works of “N. H.”. This state of perfection would guarantee its members the salvation that the Church or Scriptures could not offer. Thus the Spirit was considered superior to the Scriptures in authority. Niclaes told his followers they had so much of God’s spirit in them that they were a part of the Godhead (as if Perfection could commingle with imperfection). Their outward practices were Anabaptist. Followers were accused of asserting that all things were ruled by nature and not directly by God, of denying the Trinity, of antinomianism, and of repudiating infant baptism. – WHG

[←28]

Prelate: a senior clergyman, such as an archbishop.

[←29]

sub forma pauperis.

[←30]

T. Shepard wrote in 1649, “as they are Members in their infancy, so they continue Members when they are grown up, till for their wickedness they are cast out; though they are Members, it doesn’t follow that they must come to the Lord’s Supper, unless they first appear able to examine themselves, and discern the Lord’s Body; though they do not manifest faith in the Gospel, yet they are to be accounted of Gods Church, until they positively reject the Gospel; Rom. 11. – WHG

[←31]

pace tanti viri.

[←32]

Casuist: one skilled in the process of answering practical questions via interpretation of rules, or of related cases.

[←33]

Cavil: An evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant distinctions or objections.

[←34]

Ciceronianus non Christianus: that is, his writings were more secular than Christian.

[←35]

lo>γω Iδιώthς, (logoo idiotes) 2Cor 11.6.

[←36]

ornari res ipsa negat.

[←37]

Qui non vult intelligi, debet negligi.

[←38]

ecclesia Catholica visibilis.

[←39]

totum universale or integrale.

[←40]

totum essentiale.

[←41]

Classis: a governing body of pastors and elders in certain Reformed churches, having jurisdiction over local churches.

[←42]

Mat 16.19 “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

[←43]

They become non-communicant members, under the umbrella of their parents’ membership. – WHG

[←44]

formaliter and juridice.

[←45]

Haled: caused to do something through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means.

[←46]

Rush candle: an ordinary candle that uses a piece of rush dipped in grease as its wick.

[←47]

Jehovah Shammah: The Lord is there; that is, in the City of God. Eze 48.35.

[←48]

Song 1.7-8.

[←49]

William Goodwin (1591-1673). He was born in England and sailed ... to New England on September 16, 1632. He immediately settled in the part of Cambridge, Massachusetts that is now Newton. In 1635-36, he was one of the company which removed to Connecticut and settled in Hartford ... He purchased large tracts of land up the Connecticut River, and was one of the agents of the town employed to purchase Farmington from the Native Americans. In 1659, he and a number of Hartford people settled Hadley, Massachusetts. In anticipation of his return to Connecticut, he sold some of his Hadley lands in January 1669, his wife Susanna - possibly the widow of Thomas Hooker - joining the deed. It was the first record of his wife in America.

https://hartford-genealogy.fandom.com/wiki/William_Goodwin_(founder_of_Hartford)

[←50]

Lessons learned in the death of Thomas Hooker, Pastor of the Church, Hertfordshire; New England, by his Colleagues.

[←51]

Dight: prepared or arrayed.

[←52]

Entombed most Reverend of men, beloved brother.

[←53]

Hooker’s treatise is being published posthumously; his formal manuscript was lost at sea; his untimely death kept him from completing a second draft – all of this, says Thomas Goodwin (the editor), is by God’s Providence. And the publication of this treatise, in its current form, he says, is likewise in God’s Providence. – WHG

[←54]

Clearing: the act of freeing from suspicion, refuting accusations, or substantiating the rightness of something.

[←55]

The first English Civil War was waged for five years, till 1646, when Hooker first tried to publish this. He died in 1647. It was now April 1648, during an uneasy peace. Unknown to Goodwin, the second war would begin shortly, in July 1648, as the Scots invaded England. The window of God’s providence was even narrower than he thought. – WHG

[←56]

Mr. Norton’s answer to all the queries of Apollonius in Latin. Mr. Shephard’s and Master Allen’s defense of the Nine Questions and Positions from New England. The Reasons and Answers of the Dissenting Brethren and the Assembly, and the transactions about Accommodation all that were given in writing. Mr. Cotton’s Answer to Mr. Basly, etc. The doctrinal part. – Goodwin.

[←57]

Jus Divinum: Divine Justice.

[←58]

The set of yarns placed crosswise in a loom, interlaced with the warp, and carried by the shuttle.

[←59]

pendente lite.

[←60]

Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680), member of Westminster Assembly, chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. He died in London, and did not settle in America. He is unrelated to the older William Goodwin who co-wrote, “To the Reader.” – WHG

[←61]

Or “polity” – the way in which a church is organized, and through which it exercises biblical authority and offices.

[←62]

1Tim 3.15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how [eido pos] you ought to conduct yourself [anastrepho] in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

[←63]

Col 2.5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.

[←64]

Metonymy: substituting an attribute or feature for the name of the thing itself (as in ‘they counted heads’).

[←65]

Eze 43.11 “And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple and its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, its entire design and all its ordinances, all its forms and all its laws. Write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its ordinances, and perform them.

[←66]

Phi 2.9; Joh 13.3; Mat 28.18; Joh 5.22.

[←67]

Est 8.4 “And the king held out the golden scepter toward Esther. So Esther arose and stood before the king” — where Esther is a type of the Church; Heb 1:8 But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.

[←68]

Hooker refers to the Pope here, as the ‘Man of Sin’ and the ‘Antichrist.’ The ‘two swords’ alludes to the Pope holding both ecclesiastical and civil authority, beginning with Charlemagne, the Holy Roman Emperor (742-814). – WHG

[←69]

in ordine ad spiritualia. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), the man who prosecuted Galileo, prescribed this indirect power of papal intervention whenever the good of the Church required it. Bellarmine’s theory of indirect power resulted in immediate church jurisdiction over the temporal order. Thus the Pope could depose princes and set up others in their place; he could make and abrogate civil laws; he could authoritatively summon secular princes to his tribunal whenever two went to war, or when a temporal judge failed to act in the Church’s interest. He claimed that such acts of indirect power were being exercised only for a spiritual end. But the power was temporal power, with direct and immediate effects on secular princes. The Roman Church sought a worldly sword under the pretense of seeking spiritual good. Bellarmine, De Pontif., lib. V. c. 6; Op. tom. i. p. 1062 D. See investiture conflict, note p. vi. – WHG

[←70]

Media cultus sunt immutabilia.

[←71]

Gen 17.13 “He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised; and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

[←72]

Deu 12.32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.

[←73]

1King 12.32-33; Jer 7.31; 19.5

[←74]

κτίσiς aνθρώpου.

[←75]

Ministerium: Latin for ministry. It also refers to a body of ordained ministers having the sole charge of examining, licensing, and ordaining candidates for the ministry, of conducting trials for clerical heresy, and of hearing all appeals from church councils for heresy. Hooker opposes it. Either way, its authority extends only to the Church. – WHG

[←76]

…for so was the commandment of the LORD by his prophets. (2Ch 29:25 KJV)

[←77]

That is, ceremonies intended to serve not as signs of other things, but as signs in themselves; it was condemned by the Reformers as superstitious nonsense. Hooker’s reasons for rejecting such “significant” ceremonies, follow. – WHG

[←78]

Signification: by assigning a meaning or effectiveness to a covenantal sign, which goes beyond what God intends for that sign, it turns the sign into an idol. And that promotes (it teaches) superstition, not faith. – WHG

[←79]

media cultus: a means of culture, or of enculturation.

[←80]

ars posterior utitur prioris opera.

[←81]

Adiaphora — doctrines or practices that are not essential to saving faith. The issue here is whether men’s consciences may be bound by civil or ecclesiastical authorities concerning inconsequential matters; these are things that reasonable men may disagree about, because Scripture is either unclear or silent about them. 1Cor 1.10; 3.3-5; 4.6; 11.18-19. – WHG

[←82]

Heb 7:18 For there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness.

[←83]

Crosses: that is, rejects, opposes, undermines, or conflicts with. – WHG

[←84]

totum essentiale, or totum integrale.

[←85]

Homogeneum: an entity that is uniformly the same in its composition, kind, or nature.

[←86]

Ecclesia Prima: the Primary or Foremost Church.

[←87]

totum Organicum – Ames. Medulla, l, I.c.33.18.

[←88]

The reference is Aristotelian Logic, used by William Ames, Hooker’s friend. In Aristotelian logic there are four causes of change: material, formal, efficient, and final. The material cause, is what something is made of – wood burns quickly because of its material (its matter). The formal cause, is what makes something one thing rather than another, as a result of its properties, functions, and particular arrangement – a log is wood, and a table is wood, but because of their properties and arrangement, they are different. Moreover, the log may be readily changed into a table, but the table cannot be turned back into a log, because of their characteristic properties and arrangements. The efficient cause, is what actually produces the change or effect. It explains what did it, but not how it was done; a saw is an efficient cause in making a table. He calls it the principal cause. The final cause is why efficient causes do what they do, and why formal causes do what they do; it is related to a thing’s purpose or its relation to other things; the final cause of a table might be to have a place to eat, or to put a lamp. – WHG

[←89]

Originally, “Ezekiel would limme out;” meaning outline, highlight, or limelight something.

[←90]

Eze 43.11 “And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple and its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, its entire design and all its ordinances, all its forms and all its laws. Write it down in their sight, so that they may keep its whole design and all its ordinances, and perform them.”

[←91]

Turks: of the Muslim Ottoman Empire (1229-1922), and thus enemies of England, and of Christ. – WHG

[←92]

Rev 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.

[←93]

1Cor 7.14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

[←94]

De occultis non judicat ecclesia. This phrase is said for a different purpose in Martin Luther’s 1523 Treatise, Secular Authority to What Extent It Should Be Obeyed:

“And I am surprised at the great fools, since they themselves all say, De occultis non judicat ecclesia — the Church does not judge secret things. If the spiritual rule of the Church governs only public matters, how dare the senseless secular power judge and control such a secret, spiritual, hidden matter as faith?” – WHG

[←95]

1Cor 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. Eph 1:22 He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church.

[←96]

Eph 4:11-12 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ...

[←97]

According to what has already been conceded; i.e., it follows from the premises granted earlier. – WHG

[←98]

Virtual: here it means done out of virtue; i.e., godly or righteous. – WHG

[←99]

Rom 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

[←100]

Originally meddling: not meaning interfering, but to gain an interest in, or engage oneself in something. – WHG

[←101]

The Keys are defined in Chapter 11, Section II, Proposition II. – WHG

[←102]

Samuel Rutherford, The Due Right of Presbyteries (London, 1644).

[←103]

ex concessis.

[←104]

That is, accepting non-believers as church members, simply because they’re residents of the parish. Hooker isn’t saying we must first be sanctified before we may enter the visible Church; only that we must repent with godly sorrow. “Go and sin no more.” Sanctification is the fruit of conversion, not the cause of it. And yet, those who would be members of the visible church, may not continue to live a profligate life (Rom 6.1). They must be visibly saints. – WHG

[←105]

That is, the Brownists.

[←106]

John Robinson (1576–1625) one of the Pilgrim Fathers who sailed on the Mayflower; an early leader of the English Separatists, or Brownists, and is regarded as one of the founders of the Congregational Church. – WHG

[←107]

Wheat and tares (which are darnel, not ‘weeds’) are indistinguishable until harvest time; then their fruits are visibly distinct. So long as the tares appear as wheat, they are not to be plucked up, says the Owner, but treated as wheat – lest true wheat be uprooted with them (Mat 13.25f.; 2Tim 2.25-3.5). Weeds, however, are obviously destructive plants, and must be plucked up for the health of the crop (Gal 5.19f). That’s the distinction being made here. – WHG

[←108]

punctulis ergo agamus.

[←109]

Rom 14.1 Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. Heb 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe.

[←110]

est tantum opinio, non scientia.

[←111]

Censorious.

[←112]

in subjecto capaci.

[←113]

1Joh 3.8; 5.19; 3.10; 2Tim 3.5; 2Th 2.12; Jas 4.4.

[←114]

Man of years: an adult.

[←115]

In other words, it’s not the act of baptism that makes a member, but the qualifications for baptism. Act 8:36 And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?” 37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” – WHG

[←116]

Mat 3.5-6 “Then Jerusalem, all Judea, and all the region around the Jordan went out to him and were baptized by him in the Jordan, confessing their sins.” Hooker will explain that it was not simply confessing their sins. But if he goes too far, it can easily be seen as a doctrine of works. Baptism is the point at which we publicly profess Christ, and pledge to put away our sinful habits. It’s when we begin sanctification, not when we reach it. That’s the crux of the contest between Hooker and Rutherford: must we be visibly righteous to be members of the Visible Church? Neither of them subscribe to a doctrine of works. – WHG

[←117]

Hooker alludes to Rutherford’s treatise, and so his answer is untethered, making it hard to follow. I added “Rutherford writes,” to clarify who is speaking. Similar clarifications are provided elsewhere, as breadcrumbs along the path. The key to this parable, is to recognize that the “wedding” is not about salvation, but about entering the Church. The guest is externally clothed like the others, but not internally transformed; which only the Master can discern. – WHG

[←118]

proprium quarto modo: A “property in the fourth mode” of the things of this world; that which enters into the nature of them, or expresses them in the highest degree; e.g., “vanity of vanities” (Ecc 1.2). – WHG

[←119]

Sensitiva facultas in homine.

[←120]

creare molestias, & serere lites sine causa.

[←121]

This term kata auto, “of itself,” is repeatedly used, so it’s important to understand it. If you say a mother is a woman, and that only women are mothers, it presumes there is a unique and exclusive class termed “women,” with distinctive qualities that define it. When you say only women are mothers, mothers are kata “of, or according to” that class: kata auto. Hooker will define the class of Church one way (visible), and Rutherford another (invisible). – WHG

[←122]

According to Mr. Rutherford’s mind and exposition, quod convenit kaq a<uto< convenit antistramenwv kai kaqolinw{v — means they do not belong to all of them, and only to them. – WHG

[←123]

Act 2.38-39 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.  39 For the promise (epaggelia, announcement, not diatheke, covenant) is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off...” – WHG

[←124]

Anabaptists were considered religious heretics and political insurrectionists. The London Baptist Confession of 1644 thus begins, “A Confession of Faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly, called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them.” – WHG

[←125]

John Piper explains it this way: “Affirming the will of God to save all, while also affirming the unconditional election of some, implies that there are at least ‘two wills’ in God, or two ways of willing. It implies that God decrees one state of affairs while also willing and teaching that a different state of affairs should come to pass. This distinction in the way God wills has been expressed in various ways throughout the centuries. It is not a new contrivance. For example, theologians have spoken of sovereign will and moral will, efficient will and permissive will, secret will and revealed will, will of decree and will of command, decretive will and preceptive will, voluntas signi (will of sign) and voluntas beneplaciti (will of good pleasure), etc.” https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-there-two-wills-in-god – WHG

[←126]

That is, does the visible Church have Scriptural warrant to create additional offices? – WHG

[←127]

Hooker is denying here the charge of universalism, held by the Arminians. But he is also asserting that the visible Church is comprised of both elect and non-elect, wheat and tares. – WHG

[←128]

in fore Ecclesia.

[←129]

Exo 12.48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

[←130]

Rom 11.17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the [true] olive tree...

[←131]

formalis ratio; referring to the four causes in Aristotelian logic (see the note at the start of chap. 2). Hooker is about to bring the essential cause into his argument, as well. – WHG

[←132]

Originally, “makes it agree to them.”

[←133]

Clear the coast: the definition is made easy or simple to understand, with all obstacles removed.

[←134]

Homo est animal rationale.

[←135]

Thus the covenantal relationship is tied to a local church, and it ends when you leave that church. – WHG

[←136]

Audi alter am partem.

[←137]

Cohabitation here is worshipping under the same roof — living life together, interacting with one another in community, caring for and supporting one another (1Cor 12; Eph 4.25; Jas 2.16). – WHG

[←138]

That is, correction and discipline for purposes of restoration to fellowship. – WHG

[←139]

Classis: a governing body of pastors and elders in certain Reformed churches, having jurisdiction over local churches.

[←140]

Si Petrus ipse remittitur ad Ecclesiam. Tanquam ad superius quoddam tribunal, & jubetur ad eam aliorum delicta deferre. Tune sequitur, Ecclesiam Petro, vel quoquam alio, authoritate majorem. Christum generaliter loqui si frater in te peccaverit, etc.

[←141]

Ergo fateamur oportet, per Ecclesiam, corpus multorum, non unum episcopum, coetum hominum, non unum aliquem hominem intelligere.

[←142]

And to remove all doubt that can be made, he adds, Et si particulars quaq Ecclesia maiorem habeat authoritatem in iudicus, quam Petrus, vel quivis homo particulars, tunc multo magis universalis Ecclesia qua in concilio generali repraesentatur.

[←143]

At primum verum. Ergo... – if the first is true, then it follows...

[←144]

Classical: ruled by a Classis; a hierarchical, judicatory, and presbyterial (or synod) style of Church. – WHG

[←145]

In other words, when an individual is being disciplined at a particular Presbyterian church, but that individual leaves to attend another particular Church, the Presbytery (the elders overseeing the churches in the Presbytery), may excommunicate him for his conduct at his previous church, and it will be effective at his current church. – WHG

[←146]

Induction (logic): reasoning from detailed facts to general principles.

[←147]

For relata mutuo se ponunt & tollunt.

[←148]

1Joh 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.”

[←149]

Because baptism doesn’t save, Hooker calls it a “severable adjunct” to the Covenant. – WHG

[←150]

capax subjectum remotè.

[←151]

Relata fecundum esse, not fecundum dici, or relata, kata< to le<gewv.

[←152]

Burgess ticket: a citizen of an English borough, possesses a certificate of borough citizenship.

[←153]

Relata constant ex mutua affectione.

[←154]

forma & formatum mutuò se ponunt & tollunt.

[←155]

The Lord Keeper maintains possession of and guards the royal seal, which stamps and seals a decree with the authority of the king. So if the Lord Keeper is replaced, he must return the seal to the King. – WHG

[←156]

At primum verum, Ergo.

[←157]

Or, sacraments are a means of grace, not the cause of grace. – WHG

[←158]

Gen 17:10-11 “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11 ... and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.”

[←159]

In the 1660s, a dispute arose over the necessity of believer baptism for membership in a local church. Those who argued it was unnecessary, were called “open-membership” churches; others were “closed-membership.” Almost all Particular Baptist churches were closed membership churches. Hooker distinguishes between attending a church and joining one. – WHG

[←160]

A credible profession requires unanimity in the essentials, not uniformity in all the particulars. – WHG

[←161]

Reprobation in massa corrupta (reprobation in mass is ended). – Christ’s active obedience was his perfect compliance to the Law of God on our behalf; his passive obedience was his willingness to pay the price of our violating that Law. The first he did; the second he submitted to. In the mass, only Christ’s atonement is considered, not his obedience. What is referred to here is apparently is the Roman Catholic view. – WHG

[←162]

Actual grace refers to the enabling help that God may give for a certain act. Actual grace is gratia gratis data or “grace freely given.” Protestants reject the other, the Roman Catholic doctrine of habitual or sanctifying grace, which allows the will to conform a believer to the holiness of Christ; it’s also called deifying grace, which allows for the divine life to dwell in the soul. This two-fold aspect of grace is drawn from Rom 5.5 (see Thomas Aquinas). – WHG

[←163]

existentia est tantum individuorum.

[←164]

Paralogism: an unintentionally invalid argument.

[←165]

ne quid gravius dicam?

[←166]

integrum est totum, cui partes sunt essentiales.

[←167]

genus cum formâ constituit speciem.

[←168]

Classis: an ecclesiastical body or judicatory in certain churches.

[←169]

habent se utres & res. (utres is a bottle or container, defining the bounds of what it contains).

[←170]

Deu 29:9-11 “Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. 10 All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, 11 your little ones and your wives — also the stranger who is in your camp”...

[←171]

Formalis ratio – the rationale of the formal relationship, and thus its arrangement. – WHG

[←172]

vide supra conclus. 1.

[←173]

The Syriac translations of the Bible are the oldest in any language, with the teachings of Christ in Aramaic. – WHG

[←174]

Non sequitur: it doesn’t logically follow from the premise(s).

[←175]

That is, the covenant is implicit and established, even if it isn’t explicitly stated. See chap. 4.2 – WHG

[←176]

Libenter amplexos eorum sermonem.

[←177]

Adjunctos Christi discipulis fuisse, vel in idem corpus insitos & perseverasse in doctrina.

[←178]

1Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

[←179]

Gen 17:10 “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. Gen 17:13 “He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

[←180]

Deu 29:9-13 “Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. 10 “All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel,  11 “your little ones and your wives-- also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water –  12 that you may enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath, which the LORD your God makes with you today, that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

Verse 12 in the Greek Septuagint: παρελθεῖν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ, to arrive in the covenant of the Lord your God. The Hebrew rendered “enter into” in the NKJ, indicates “to cross over.” Thus the Covenant pre-exists the individual’s covenantal relationship with God, who offers it to the elect, entire and non-negotiable. The Church-covenant then establishes the relationships and duties to be exercised by professed believers under this Covenant of Grace. – WHG

[←181]

Bona verba.

[←182]

Hooker may be referring to himself here. The “Apology” is mentioned in Answer 3, earlier in this chapter. – WHG

[←183]

Originally, “labors to decline the dint of the dispute.”

[←184]

Act 11:19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.

[←185]

That is, new matter (new converts) in the expanding churches of New England. – WHG

[←186]

From Aesop’s Fables, The Wolf and the Lamb, about bullies (tyrants) picking a fight upon any pretext. – WHG

[←187]

The contest is between having a loose association of independent churches, mutually recognized; or else to maintain One Church, to which all particular churches belong, even if not operating under one authority. – WHG

[←188]

intimae conjunctionis symbolum.

[←189]

Porrexerunt manum, quod symbolum esset nostrae in Evangelic doctinâ summa consensionis.

[←190]

Classical: ruled by a Classis; hierarchical, judicatory, and presbyterial. – WHG

[←191]

Rev 21:15 And he who talked with me had a gold reed to measure the city, its gates, and its wall.

[←192]

Totum homogeneum.

[←193]

Totum essentiale.

[←194]

That is, before the mutual respects or relationships among its members are established by covenant. – WHG

[←195]

Totum organicum.

[←196]

Unlike the previous chapter, these arguments are those of Mr. Hooker. – WHG

[←197]

Affectum ad arguendum: affected (pretended) just for the sake of argument.

[←198]

Totam naturam & definitionem hominis.

[←199]

Just as we can mistake a church building for a church, we can mistake the clergy for the church. – WHG

[←200]

Crypsis: the ability of an organism to avoid observation.

[←201]

Jurisdiction when it is taken the largest sense, sometimes respects the fraternal power of the community, which they may and do exercise according to their place, and the privilege that Christ has licensed them with. And therefore they are said to judge, 1Cor 5.12 (where we will treat fully when we come to the proper place for it; but I don’t intend it here). And therefore, when I speak of the power of the community, I call it judgment, following the phrase in Scripture. There is an official jurisdiction, the specification of which lies in this, that taken in the peculiar manner of dispensation, it issues only from the office, and can be enacted only by an officer. And so, here I look at it as ever having an eye to order, which is the phrase of the Scholastics, and it carries with it an Office. – Hooker

[←202]

Executio juris, or Dictio juris. A legal maxim: execution of a judgment or decree is fulfilling the provisions of law in a manner that satisfies the court’s judgment. Without execution, the provisions of law would not be fulfilled. – WHG

[←203]

Duns Scotus (1266-1308), Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

[←204]

4. Sent. Dist. 18, 19.

[←205]

I take here what serves my purpose in hand, to wit, jurisdiction taken in a narrow sense; but I do not mean to take all that they give, which is that it intends the exercise of all power thereby. – Hooker

[←206]

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

[←207]

quantum est de se.

[←208]

quorum remiseritis peccata remittuntur eis quorum retinueritis detenta sun. “Whose sins you remit, they are remitted to them; and whose sins you retain, they are retained.” (Joh 20.23)

[←209]

So says Durand: Per ordinationem Ecclesia factum est, ut quilibet sacerdos non possit absolvere (ubi supra contra secundam conclusionem – as above, against the 2nd conclusion). — Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, (1270-1334), French bishop known for his opposition to the ideas of Thomas Aquinas.

[←210]

Ordinationem Ecclesia & tyrannidem Papa.

[←211]

ad placitum.

[←212]

Pluralities: in canon law, it refers to the possession by one person of two or more ecclesiastical offices.

[←213]

Tot-quote: an exaction of annates already paid; annates are the first year’s profits of a Catholic benefice (a paid office), that were paid directly to the Pope; a sort of “office tax.”

[←214]

Non-residency: a cleric might occupy an office in a church, where he was not a resident; yet he received the income from that office, though doing no Church-work there.

[←215]

Quod suit demonstrandum. Thus it is demonstrated. This Latin phrase follows the next mini-proof as well.

[←216]

Consistory: a church tribunal or governing body.

[←217]

At verum primum.

[←218]

in foro Ecclesiae. Lit. in the market of the Church.

[←219]

A Burgess represented a borough (a city subdivision) in Parliament’s House of Commons. A Knight of the shire (Latin: milites comitatus) represented a county constituency, which land belonged to a Count. – WHG

[←220]

gradus non variant speciem.

[←221]

Where extensively means extending to other things, intensively means stretching to the bounds of the one thing.

[←222]

Arrogate: to assert one’s right or title to something.

[←223]

Relatorum unum uni tantum.

[←224]

formaliter in foro Ecclesiae.

[←225]

in suo more.

[←226]

Rom 12:7 ...let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 1Tim 3:5 for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?

[←227]

Evict: here it means to dispel or refute the objection.

[←228]

Clavum clavo pellere. That is, he struggles to prove a single point on which to hang his argument.

[←229]

Eze 10:12 “their wings ... were full of eyes all around.”

[←230]

Eph 4:13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting...

[←231]

In foro Dei.

[←232]

We are generally called to salvation (Rom 8.28-30) and to Christian charity (Rom 1.7; Gal 5.13). We are particularly called to exercise our gifts for the common good of a flock (Rom 1.1; 1Cor 9.16; 12.7). – WHG

[←233]

Qua sunt idem inter se, illa sunt idem tertio. These two being the same, the former is the same as the third. This is the transitive rule of math: if a=b and b=c, then a=c. – WHG

[←234]

Hooker is not arguing against ad hoc Councils — a gathering of existing Pastors to rule on doctrine and practice, like the one at Jerusalem. He is arguing against a permanent administrative layer, a hierarchical tier of rulers, comprised of Shepherds without a flock, Pastors without a congregation, Preachers who do not preach. – WHG

[←235]

operari sequitur esse. The work (the operation) follows the essence.

[←236]

Petere principium. Assuming the truth of something, especially the thing to be proved, to avoid a difficult point.

[←237]

species specialissimae — specific instances of a true Church.

[←238]

Integrum – a composite or united whole; e.g., an engine is more than the sum of its parts; but it cannot exist without those parts; they pre-exist it. The Latin means intact or complete. Hooker seems to use integrum and totum integrale (integral whole) interchangeably. – WHG

[←239]

Quis adeo ineptire sustinuerits – who was so firmly inept.

[←240]

Hooker takes this to mean the Sanhedrin, rather than a local synagogue, as he explains below. – WHG

[←241]

Originally, “evict” – but that seemed contradictory; it appears to have been a typo by the printer. – WHG

[←242]

Sanhedrin means an Assembly. Deu 17:12 “Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 2Chr 19:5, 8 He set judges in the land throughout all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city... 8 Moreover in Jerusalem, for the judgment of the LORD and for controversies, Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel [i.e., trial elders], when they returned to Jerusalem. – WHG

[←243]

Rutherford asserts that “Church” refers only to the clergy, not the laity. Hooker considers this a false dichotomy. But unless this is true, Rutherford’s argument fails, that a Classical or Presbyterial Church may be comprised of elders only. Hence Hooker argues that if there is no congregation (non-elders) to preach to and equip, then the Office and its duties don’t align with Scripture. Those in a Classis, therefore, either have another office which Scripture doesn’t allow, or another Covenant with different purposes than elders are called to. As such, they would have no authority over a local congregation, because they have no office that warrants it. – WHG

[←244]

“neither as Totum Essentiale, or ... Totum Integrale;” see note, chap. 9, sec. 4; par. 6. – WHG

[←245]

David Paraeus (1548-1622); also Pareus — German reformed theologian who studied under Ursinus. Pareus became the director of the Collegium Sapientiae at Heidelberg in 1591. Member of the Palatine church council. – WHG

[←246]

That is, how many elders, in Rutherford’s estimation, are required for jurisdiction? Can it be as few as one? If there is another church nearby, why would it be better for the elders of that other church to render a decision, than to have the one elder remaining upright, take it to the local church body per Matthew 18? Is Scripture the authority, or the elders? And may not the body render as authoritative a decision, based on Scripture, as these wayward elders? Hooker is asking a number of such questions between the lines. He didn’t attend the Westminster Assembly because he would be in an extreme minority, and Rutherford represents the Presbyterian majority. Hooker doesn’t want to prove him wrong about Presbyterianism, but only about Congregational churches, allowing for a “middle way.” – WHG

[←247]

That is, the keys to loose and bind were given only to the Apostles (or elders) – not to believers in general. Hence, “the Church” in this case (he says), is elders only, not elders with a body of believers. – WHG

[←248]

John Ball (1585-1640) — author of A Tryall of the New-Church Way in New-England and Old, written 1637, published in 1644. It was a reply to the responses of the New England Puritans to nine questions he posed to them concerning the constitution and doctrine of their churches. That is probably what Hooker refers to here. – WHG

[←249]

1The 5:12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves. 1Tim 5:20 Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the rest also may fear. Luk 10:16 “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”

[←250]

Tit 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. 1Tim 5:19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses. 2Tim 4:2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

[←251]

Expectants: those candidates who are being tested for an office they have not yet been elected to.

[←252]

Mat 16:19 “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” In Isa 22.22, it refers to the “key of David’s house,” which is as much about Rule, as about the Gospel that opens the gates of Heaven to those who believe. – WHG

[←253]

Rev 1.18 (keys of Hades and Death); 3.7 (key of David); Isa 9.6 (throne of David); Phi 2.9 (name above all names).

[←254]

It is a right generally, as an interest in Christ (Joh 1.12); but also a right specifically, as in rule (1Cor 9.12). – WHG

[←255]

potestas Judicii, or potestas Donationis. The 2nd is delegating power to someone by grant or election. – WHG

[←256]

potestas Offici. This power is inherent in the Office; to hold the Office, is to have the power of that Office. – WHG

[←257]

Ejusdem est recipere, rejicere. It is the same power, whether to receive or to reject. – WHG

[←258]

1Co 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside, God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

[←259]

ἐξαρεῖτε ἐξ ὑμῶν (1Cor 5.13)

[←260]

When he gets to addressing number (3) below, Hooker will assert that “The power of the Keys is committed to the Church of confederate Saints, as the first and proper subject of it.” – WHG

[←261]

That is, not acting autonomously, but accountable to others. - WHG

[←262]

Salus Populi suprema lex, The health (or good) of the people is the highest law.

[←263]

One might think that those who exercise the power of an Office, are de facto Officers. But Hooker points out that the power of the whole flows from the common consent of the whole, to be bound by the rule. It’s the same power by which the whole calls the Elder to the office ordained by Christ, and that power flows from the Covenant. – WHG

[←264]

See below, Proposition IV, Arg. 5. Hooker says, “it’s confessed that all the Rulers, who dispense the Keys, do not have equal power. The Teaching Elders, in degree and office, both differ from the Ruling Elders, and are superior to them.” See 1Cor 12.28, where Ruling Elders appear to have the gift of administrations. – WHG

[←265]

Lucas Trelcatius (1542-1602), theologian and writer from the Northern Netherlands.

[←266]

plebe consentiente.

[←267]

Unde concluditur, non absque consensu ecclesia quempiam excommunicari posse.

[←268]

A sensitive or sensory soul, has active senses, and is capable of receiving input from those senses. These are inherent and unique to that individual. No other can see in the exact same way as he sees, or hear as he hears, etc., even though others may see what he sees, and hear what he hears. He is the first subject of his senses. – WHG

[←269]

potestas judicii.

[←270]

in foro externo.

[←271]

potestas doni.

[←272]

Ejusdem est instituere & destituere.

[←273]

The power of judgment either belongs to the People (the Church), or else to the Elders. If it belongs to the Elders, and yet the people must consent to it (per Mat 18), then if the Elders are unjust, the people would be unjust to consent to it. Therefore, the power of judgment must reside in the People; it is merely acted out by the Elders. – WHG

[←274]

Refractory: stubbornly resistant to authority or control.

[←275]

Hooker argues that it creates classes of Elders within the same Office, having differing powers – a hierarchy for which there is no Scriptural support. The Savoy Declaration breaks with the WCF, chapters 30 and 31, specifying the Officers as “Pastor, Teacher, or Elder,” because these roles may be exercised by the same person in a congregational church, who holds the one Office. The London Baptist Confession of 1689, ch. 26.8 says, “bishops or elders” indicating these are interchangeable terms for that one Office. – WHG

[←276]

William Ames (1576-1633) English Puritan theologian, ministering and teaching in the Netherlands.

[←277]

Robert Parker (c.1564-1614) was an English Puritan. He became the minister of a separatist congregation in Holland, where he died in exile. Cotton Mather called him, “one of the greatest scholars in the English Nation, and in some sort, the father of all Nonconformists of our day.” – WHG

[←278]

Robinson, Justif. Separ., p. 134.

[←279]

Nibble of the key: the notched “bit” at the end of the key shank, which turns the tumblers in the lock.

[←280]

qua tales.

[←281]

Quod convenit kaq a<uto<, convenit antistrame>nwv.

[←282]

That is, unbending; it cannot pull the trigger (exercise its power).

[←283]

Potestatem Officii.

[←284]

Natural law asserts that man’s law is based on the divine; Positive law claims it is whatever lawmakers command. Aristotle held to Natural law, believing that men are capable of a higher level of thinking, and could judge for themselves whether laws are just according to divine rule. Thomas Hobbes, a contemporary of Hooker, felt that Natural law grants too much freedom to men, who are by nature violent and warlike. He held to Positive law, or rationalism: men can establish laws to control men’s baser appetites, and further their happiness, even against their will or consent. “The rights of the people were given and taken away by the state for their own good.” Socialism finds its roots in Hobbes’ Social Contract Theory. The American Declaration of Independence, by contrast, declared that men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” And its roots are found here, in Hooker’s book. For Adam too, the contest was between living under the law of God, or being a law unto himself — will we be ruled by God, or men? – WHG

[←285]

Proi{stamenov (proistamenos).

[←286]

Quatenus ad omne valet consequentia.

[←287]

Quod convenit kaq a<uto<, convenit antistrame>nwv.

[←288]

Interest: to gain an “interest” (a share) in Christ and the Covenant, as heirs and co-heirs (Rom 8.17). – WHG

[←289]

1Cor 5:2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, I have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed.

[←290]

Fescue: the grass of a pasture — the matter on which the flock feeds, and by implication, not the shepherd. – WHG

[←291]

Verses implying the letters were written to the congregation, not just to the elders: 1Th 5:11 Therefore comfort each other and edify one another, just as you also are doing. 12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves. 2Th 3:14 And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Heb 13:17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them.

[←292]

Hooker argues that if the duties of brotherly love aren’t limited to the elders, then the responsibilities of the Keys (in this case, judgment and discipline) aren’t limited to the elders either; it’s corporate. – WHG

[←293]

“when they had appointed elders.” The Greek for “appointed” is cheirotoneo, to vote by raising hands. – WHG

[←294]

See Chapter 2, The Constitution of a Visible Church.

[←295]

Isa 22:22 The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open. Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Rev 3:7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens” Rev 1:18 “I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death. Rev 9:1 Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth. To him was given the key to the bottomless pit.

[←296]

In Mat 16.19, “you” is singular. But in Mat 18.18, concerning the same power, “you” is plural. Jesus is speaking to more than just Peter and the apostles. He is surrounded by other believers and their children. – WHG

[←297]

Rutherford claims that Hooker is saying Peter does speak in the name of women and children. Hooker denies it. Hooker excludes women from suffrage by their sex, just as he does children by their age. He argues that the Keys belong to the Church as an Essential Whole. But if women are members of that whole, then the Keys would belong to them as well as to men, creating challenges with headship under 1Cor 11.3. – WHG

[←298]

The Congregation isn’t “over” the Elders, even though it chooses the elders, and may remove the elders for cause. And the Elders don’t work for the Congregation; they work for Christ, with the congregation as the beneficiary. – WHG

[←299]

Disquisition: an elaborate analytical or explanatory essay or discussion.

[←300]

See Part I, chap. 2, The Constitution of the Visible Church.

[←301]

Mat 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

[←302]

“My Rock” – Psa 18.2, 46; 28.1; 31.3; 42.9; 62.2, 6; 71.3; 92.15. – WHG

[←303]

Mat 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Compare Joh 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is translated, a stone). – WHG

[←304]

salvo meliori judicio.

[←305]

cum bonis bene agier oportet

[←306]

genus est totum partibus essentiale.

[←307]

Genus nec existit, nec operatur nisi in speciebus.

[←308]

Homino & bruto.

[←309]

genus cum forma constituit speciem. The species take their form from the nature of the whole (a man is of mankind); but the genus is also defined by the collective properties of the species (specific instances of the genus). Hooker will expand this concept further, in chapter 14. – WHG

[←310]

Corporation: an association between individuals, bestowing rights and duties on each party, having a continuous existence apart from those particular individuals. It is formed by a covenant recording their mutual promises, and the purposes of the relationship. Hooker is saying that marriage is a form of corporation; and so is a church. It is, literally, the embodiment of those promises and purposes. – WHG

[←311]

Originally, specificated; the general nature is instantiated or embodied in a particular instance. – WHG

[←312]

Species specialissima.

[←313]

Hooker defined “Guides” as Ruling Elders in chap. 9, arg. 4. He said they are inferior to Teaching Elders, Chap. 11, Prop. IV, Arg. 5, reflecting the order in 1Cor 12:28: “And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations...” – WHG

[←314]

proton de>ktikon (proton dektikon), lit. “first recipient.”

[←315]

Eph 4.13, “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God...” Whether it’s an oversight, or so worded to make a point, is unclear. It is correctly quoted below. – WHG

[←316]

2. Totum representativum, or 3. Totum integrale.

[←317]

unum genere.

[←318]

His fifth and seventh arguments are addressed, with others, in Chapter 13, next. – WHG

[←319]

Presumably referring to Conclusion 1 in Chapter 2, The Constitution of the Visible Church. – WHG

[←320]

totum representativum.

[←321]

totum genericum.

[←322]

Several: separate, distinct, and individual congregations.

[←323]

Materiale ex donis internis pendet, formale ex deligatione ecclesia.

[←324]

De concil. Controv. 3. qc. cec. nostr. William Whitaker (1548-1595) a prominent Protestant academic and theologian.

[←325]

Originally, the “casting difference” – referring to the mold from which a cast is made.

[←326]

Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) Jesuit Cardinal; an important figure in the Counter-Reformation.

[←327]

“Apostolos judicasse, Presbyteros consultasse, plebem audivisse tantum.” De concil. controv. 3.q.c. sec. nostr.

[←328]

Nostra vero haec sententia est, non solos praelatos habere jus definiendi in conciliis, sed homines quosvis idoneos eligi posse, qui ad concilium mittantur, eosque liberé pronunti are debere.

[←329]

eo nomine.

[←330]

Hooker rejects Rutherford’s claim above, that the Keys belong to the universal visible Church, and specifically to its Guides or Ministers. What follow are his own arguments for rejecting it. – WHG

[←331]

Quicquid convenit kaq a<uto< convenit antistrame>nwv kai kaqolinw{v.

[←332]

Definere in conciliis generalibus non potest esse pars muneris Pastorum, quia tum Pastor nullus ecclesia Primitivae, et pauci tantum sequentium saeculorum munus pastorale potuissent implere. Bell. Enerv. tom. 2.c.2. de concil, p. 10.

[←333]

vit. supra.

[←334]

quod kaq a<uto< convenit antistramenwv kai kaqolinw{v — they belong to all of them, and only to them.

[←335]

Risibility: a disposition to laugh.

[←336]

ad melius et optimum esse – for its better and optimum being.

[←337]

ad bene esse.

[←338]

kaq a<uto< antistramenwv – the keys belong to all of them, because all of them are of the same nature. – WHG

[←339]

This was deferred from chap. 12, where arguments 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were answered. – WHG

[←340]

Nonent is non est operatio.

[←341]

ex concessis.

[←342]

“Regularly” here means in accordance with regulations, or “by the rules.” – WHG

[←343]

a fortiori.

[←344]

Clave errante.

[←345]

That is, they have credible testimony in abundance. – WHG

[←346]

That is, that the universal Church is an integral whole (the title of this chapter). – WHG

[←347]

Totum Integrale.

[←348]

William Ames; Medulla is also known as the Marrow of Theology, or Marrow of Sacred Divinity, 1639. Ecclesia particularis respectu Ecclesia catholica, qua habet rationem integri, est membrum. lib.1.c.p. 32, par. 5.

[←349]

Ecclesia catholica.

[←350]

Totum universale.

[←351]

Totum integrale.

[←352]

That is, the election or call, and the resulting relation, are tied together. – WHG

[←353]

Act 14:23 So when they had appointed elders [Gr. cheirotoneo, to vote by raising hands] in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed. Act 6:5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas... Tit 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders [Gr. khatistemi, to set or put in place] in every city as I commanded you.

[←354]

Act 20:20-21 “how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 1Pe 5:2-3 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;  3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

[←355]

In chap. 12, arg. 1, Hooker describes the Apostles as “extraordinary persons” — i.e., unique to their time. – WHG

[←356]

Totum aggregatum.

[←357]

A Presbytery, Synod, or Council is a Representative Church. See Chapter 13, Arg. 1. – WHG

[←358]

A delegation of power is not an abdication or surrender of power. This is Hooker’s entire argument: that power exists first and primarily in believers. And by consent, under an explicit covenant, it is delegated to fit and qualified elders, under Christ’s order and rule. – WHG

[←359]

Samuel Hudson, The Essence and Unity of the Church-Catholic Visible (London, 1645)

[←360]

div kai teiv.

[←361]

It is stated below, in Section 1: “There is a catholic visible Church, as an Integral Whole, consisting of all the particular Churches, as its members.” Hooker rejects the very idea of a “catholic” (universal) visible Church. – WHG

[←362]

Integrum et membra.

[←363]

Primum in suo genere.

[←364]

partes similares.

[←365]

Originally, Pontifician Shibboleth.

[←366]

Ecclesia non potest deficere (i.e.) numerus eorum qui verum fidem profitentur, non est semper frequens & gloriosus. -- Whitaker de eccles. quest. tert.

[←367]

Ecclesia regimen est monarchicum: nempe opus est visibilis monarcha & summo judice. Whitaker de Rom. Pontif. q.i.c.

[←368]

Ecclesia catholica non potest â quoquam impio, imò, ne a quoquam pio videri. Whitaker de Eccles. q.2.c.2. p. 57.

[←369]

Ecclesia Catholica non est visibilis. Ecclesia visibilis potest deficere, i.e., ecclesia visibilis non est semper frequens et gloriosa. vid. ub. supra.

[←370]

Perhaps Antoine de la Roche Chandieu, French Huguenot (1534-1591), also known as Sadeel.

[←371]

Perhaps Francisco Torres known as Turrianus (c. 1509-1584), a Spanish Jesuit and polemicist.

[←372]

Ecclesia Catholica visibilis est aggregata ex omnibus particularibus ecclesiis, per totum terrarum orbem fusis.

[←373]

Ecclesia Catholica est invisibilis; i.e., nec ab impio imò ne a quoquam pio, videri potest.

[←374]

Ecclesia aggregata ex omnibus ecclesiis visibilibus.

[←375]

In rerum natura.

[←376]

Dolus latet in universalibus.

[←377]

Integrum est totum, cui partes sunt, essentiales.

[←378]

materialia & formulia principia.

[←379]

Or, the whole cannot exist without its parts; its very nature is the integration of its essential parts. – WHG

[←380]

simul naturâ.

[←381]

In Logic, relatum is a term in a proposition that is related to the referent of the proposition.

[←382]

symbolum effecti.

[←383]

insanire cum ratione.

[←384]

seclusa ratione, or not habitâ ratione.

[←385]

Conceit: a figment; a fanciful idea or concept.

[←386]

Christus igitur non degegat in terris ut visibilis monarcha, nec ideo venit in mundum ut monarchia visibilis fundamenta jaceret.

[←387]

Christus missus non est ut 4Regnum visibile occuparet, aut se tanquam Dominum et Monarcham in Ecclesia gereret.

[←388]

That is, it’s not like a sack of potatoes, where the nature of the sack is distinct from what it contains. – WHG

[←389]

integrum est totum cui partes sunt essentiales, non totum essentiale partibus.

[←390]

integri in membra.

[←391]

haec aqua est aqua.

[←392]

integrum in membra: the whole, as a unit, is the aggregate of its members, not a separate entity; they’re not incidental. As Hooker argued earlier (ch. 12), particular churches are species, and the catholic Church is the genus. – WHG

[←393]

Species specialissima.

[←394]

Nomen & naturam – in other words, it is unique unto itself, and not a genus of the species. – WHG

[←395]

tota natura generis conservatur in una species.

[←396]

i.e., the other two sons of Noah.

[←397]

Exo 12:42 It is a night of solemn observance to the LORD for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This is that night of the LORD, a solemn observance for all the children of Israel throughout their generations. Eph 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

[←398]

Exo 12:42 It is a night of solemn observance to the LORD for bringing them out of the land of Egypt. This is that night of the LORD, a solemn observance for all the children of Israel throughout their generations.

[←399]

in ipsis terminis.

[←400]

Gen 25:1 Abraham again took a wife, and her name was Keturah. 2 And she bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. 3 Jokshan begot Sheba and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. 4 And the sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abidah, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. 5 And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac. 6 But Abraham gave gifts to the sons of the concubines which Abraham had; and while he was still living he sent them eastward, away from Isaac his son, to the country of the east.

[←401]

in populo Israelitico; but now in populo catholico.

[←402]

Responsionis ... defensio contra confutationem Ioannis Duraei Scoti, presbyteri Iesuitse, London, 1583. “An answer to the ten reasons of Edmund Campian, the Jesuit, in confidence whereof he offered disputation to the ministers of the Church of England, in the controversie of faith. Whereunto is added in briefe marginall notes, the summe of the defence of those reasons by John Duraeus, the Scot, being a priest and a Jesuit, with a reply unto it.” – Note: obviously, this is not John Drury of Scotland (1596-1660), who tried to unite the Calvinists and Lutherans. – WHG

[←403]

Deinde ut Catholicam tuam ecclesiam in hoc seculum compingamus, tamen quousque particulares Ecclesiae aspectabiles sunt, Catholica aspectabilis non erit.

[←404]

Ecclesiam Catholicam adversarii dicunt esse omnes Ecclesias particulares, pertotum terrarum orbem fusas, quae quia sunt visibiles, ecclesiam Catholicam exhis aggregatam visibilem esse affirmant.

[←405]

Sed hoc nihil absurdius dici potest. Nothing could be more absurd.

[←406]

Totum aggregatum.

[←407]

Aggregatum: added to a flock; a cluster or collection; what something is joined to, or included in.

[←408]

totum universale.

[←409]

integri in membra.

[←410]

particulares istae congregationes sunt partes similares ecclesiae catholicae.

[←411]

Hooker argues that the catholic Church is not its own entity, as if different than or superior to a collection of particular churches. It is not like an engine, which is more than the sum of its parts. Indeed, it’s not a church at all; it doesn’t have its own officers with their own powers, except as granted by the particular churches it represents. Besides, the catholic Church is generally equated to the Church Universal — which is not a centralized ruling body. – WHG

[←412]

ecclesia quae in terris agit, non est tota simul visibilis.

[←413]

Ubi omnes partes existunt simul compactae, ibi totum existit.

Sed omnes partes ecclesiae catholicae visibilis existunt simul compactae.

Therefore ecclesia catholica visibilis existit.

[←414]

Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

[←415]

Totum genericum existens.

[←416]

in toto integrali.

[←417]

1Cor 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

[←418]

Act 8:3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison. Gal 1:13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it.

[←419]

Synecdoche: substituting a more inclusive term for a less inclusive one or vice versa, a whole for the part – fifty head of cattle (a part for the whole, the head for the animal), the police arrested him (the whole for the part, the officers).

[←420]

Act 9:2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues of Damascus, so that if he found any who were of the Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

[←421]

Act 5:13 Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly. 14 And believers were increasingly added to the Lord, multitudes of both men and women;

[←422]

1Pet 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia; Jas 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

[←423]

Johannes Piscator (1546-1625) German Reformed theologian and Bible translator.

[←424]

Totum universale.

[←425]

Or, catholica ecclesia tanquam integrum.

[←426]

That is, no limits in the duties and powers of their offices. – WHG

[←427]

The gift of helps. See also Act 6.8; 1Tim 3.8. – WHG

[←428]

Tot-quote: an exaction of annates already paid; annates are the first year’s profits of a Catholic benefice (a paid office), that were paid directly to the Pope; a sort of “office tax.” Pluralities: in canon law, it refers to the possession by one person of two or more ecclesiastical offices.

[←429]

more forensi : in Latin, more is a norm or a law; forensi refers to a legal forum. Here it means the truth received, taught, and upheld in a Church — which in Greek, is its orthodoxy. – WHG

[←430]

That is, it is no proof of the catholic Church as an integral whole, distinct from the particular Church. – WHG

[←431]

Totum genericum.

[←432]

Totum aggregatum.

[←433]

non entis non est notio.

[←434]

Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

[←435]

Metonymy: substituting the name of an attribute or feature for the thing itself (as in ‘they counted heads’).

[←436]

Conceit: something conceived in the mind; an idea, a thought.

[←437]

Luk 7:28 For I say to you, among those born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

[←438]

Mat 3:12 His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. Mat 13:24-25 The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way.

[←439]

Impropriate: to appropriate for private use.

[←440]

unum genere.

[←441]

Mat 16:18 “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

[←442]

attonitos tenet interpretes.

[←443]

nunquam deficit.

[←444]

Originally: “But the first is true; there are no visible, who are not invisible also.” That’s false on its face, as if to say all church members are wheat, and none are tares. Knowing Hooker’s reasoning given immediately below, I changed the wording to convey what I believe was his intended sense of it. – WHG

[←445]

3Joh 1:10 Therefore, if I come, I will call to mind his deeds which he does, prating against us with malicious words. And not content with that, he himself does not receive the brethren, and forbids those who wish to, putting them out of the church.

[←446]

per synecdochen generis pro specie.

[←447]

Act 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

[←448]

Hooker agrees that excommunication from one congregation, is excommunication from all congregations, presumably because it is excommunication from the Lord’s Table; and that Table isn’t specific to any one congregation. That excommunicated person isn’t merely barred from local fellowship (communion of the saints) by church discipline, in hopes of restoring him to fellowship. Rather, that local church has determined that the individual’s actions and/or beliefs have barred him from fellowship with the Lord Jesus Christ. He is apostate. He has excepted himself from the Covenant of Grace, and is lost. He isn’t lost because he has lost membership in a local church, but because he has denied membership in Jesus Christ. He is cut off from the True Vine, and thus from life itself. Not all hold this view of excommunication; it is rejected by many Protestant churches, which consider it a weapon of Roman Catholicism. The WCF provides for it, chap. 30.4, on weak grounds (1Th 5.12; 2Th 3.6,14,15; 1Co 5.4, 5,13; Mt 18.17; Tit 3.10). But this argument explains why Mr. Hudson would assert that if someone is not only excommunicate from a local visible church, but from the wider catholic Church, then surely there is a catholic visible Church. However, Hooker equates catholic with a universal organic Church; and so he rejects the causal premise, not the conclusion. – WHG

[←449]

Eph 2:22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. [The original printing had “Eph 3 and last,” which seemed a typo.] Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

[←450]

Adventitious: associated by chance and not an integral part.

[←451]

The Dutch community founded a church in Colchester in 1563 on the corner of Head Street and Church Street. It operated from 1563-1728. The wooden framework of the front and other parts of which were sent from Holland, cut and made ready to put together. The chapel forms one side of a quadrangular court, with a minister’s house and various offices and outbuildings. It burned down in 1835. (Burn’s History of Foreign Refugees, p. 215). – WHG

[←452]

This revisits the argument in chapter 2, that someone does not belong to that local body merely by living in the area and attending; the civil right of residence does not convey an ecclesiastical right of membership or fellowship. – WHG

[←453]

Unchurch: to exclude from a church, or from a religious community.

[←454]

membra integrantia.

[←455]

Disquisition: an elaborate analytical or explanatory essay or discussion.

[←456]

This isn’t about whether this is a Church action, but whether this is Church communion. Hooker says this is not Communion — not because civil authorities and Indians are present and participating — but because the Indians initiated the meeting. He says that if Church Officers initiated the meeting, and called for participation by the various congregations, that’s Communion among themselves, even though outsiders are present. Yet he says the first instance is not a Church action, but an action by Christians, ostensibly for evangelism in response to the Indians’ request for further information. – WHG

[←457]

ut supra.

[←458]

At primum verum ex concessis.

[←459]

Ordinarily means as a matter of order – merely hearing, without applying belief or faith to what is heard.

[←460]

Caviller: a quibbler; someone who raises baseless objections to everything that is said.

[←461]

1Cor 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

[←462]

in genere notiorum visibilium.

[←463]

ex concessis: this follows from the premises already granted by Mr. Rutherford.

[←464]

Totum Essentiale.

[←465]

Eph 4:13, 16 the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

[←466]

Corpus Organicum.

[←467]

est animal rationale.

[←468]

Hooker’s point is that “visible” is only practical in the context of a local particular Church. – WHG

[←469]

1Cor 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Gal 1:12 For I neither received [the gospel] from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

[←470]

durante beneplacito.

[←471]

Mat 13.28-30 forbids plucking them up; what Hooker refers to aren’t the people, but practices and offices. – WHG

[←472]

membra dividentia; εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων, εἴτε ὁ παρακαλῶν.

[←473]

οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πρᾶξιν.

[←474]

ἔχοντες δὲ χαρίσματα ... διάφορα (charismata diaphora). Rom 12:6 Having then gifts differing, etc.

[←475]

Quo simplicius, eo prius.

[←476]

George Gillespie (1613-1648), Minister at Edinburgh, author of One Hundred Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church, London, 1642.

[←477]

A pursuivant of arms is a junior officer of arms, or an armed guard, who has the authority to execute warrants.

[←478]

Rom 12:5-8 ...so we, being many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. 6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; 7 or ministry, let us use it in our ministering; he who teaches, in teaching; 8 he who exhorts, in exhortation; he who gives, with liberality; he who leads, with diligence; he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness.

[←479]

τὰ δὲ μέλη πάντα οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει πρᾶξιν; οὕτως οἱ πολλοὶ ἓν σῶμά.

[←480]

εἴτε ὁ διδάσκων; εἴτε ὁ παρακαλῶν.

[←481]

Gr. antilempsis, to lay hold of; i.e., hands-on assistance or aid. In Rom 12.7, a similar gift or office of serving, is called diakonein (deacons), translated “waiting tables.” – WHG

[←482]

ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις.

[←483]

οὓς μὲν.

[←484]

a>nantati>daton.

[←485]

μὴ πάντες χαρίσματα ἔχουσιν ἰαμάτων.

[←486]

1Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

[←487]

Factor: a wholesaler; a businessman who buys or sells for another in exchange for a commission.

[←488]

For example, Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Tyndale, et al. – WHG

[←489]

Officium & beneficium.

[←490]

tractatur collatione imparium, a majoribus.

[←491]

comparata imparia.

[←492]

Hooker’s aim here is not to prove that the Office exists, so much as to prove that it is undermined by those who would exalt themselves above Teaching Elders, contra 1Tim 5.17, which opens the door to a hierarchy of Ruling Offices, that cannot be justified from Scripture. That’s his next point. – WHG

[←493]

Ambrose of Milan (340?-397). Bishop of Milan; the first Church Father born and raised in the Christian faith; composer of hymns and antiphonal choirs; also, an ascetic. His preaching greatly influenced Augustine of Hippo. He is considered one of the four great Doctors of the Church, who defended church orthodoxy against the Arians. Ambrose wrote, “Virtues without faith are leaves, flourishing in appearance, but unfruitful.” – WHG

[←494]

Apud omnes ubique gentes honorabilis est senectus, unde & Synagoga, & postea Ecclesia Seniores babuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesiâ, quod quâ negligentiâ obsoleveri, nescio, nisi forte Doctorum desiniâ, aut magis superbiâ, dum soli volunt aliquid videri. — From Ambrose’ Commentary on 1Tim 6.

[←495]

Prelates are high-ranking clergy, such as Archdeacons, Diocesans, Cardinals, etc. – offices not found in Scripture. Hooker’s concern is that such Ruling Elders exalt themselves above Teaching Elders, contradicting this command to honor most highly “those who labor in the word and doctrine.” Those ruling offices still existed in the Anglican Church. That put Hooker at odds with many Presbyterians who claimed that such offices facilitate efficient government of the national Church. Hence Hooker, an Independent, didn’t attend the Westminster Assembly when invited. — WHG

[←496]

προεστῶτες (1Ti 5:17), as distinct from archon, ἄρχοντα (Act 18:17). In the Church we rule from in front, by example, not from above by rank. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.” (Mat 20:25-26) – WHG

[←497]

Heb 13:17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. 1Cor 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues. Act 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God...

[←498]

Idion e{rgon.

[←499]

1Cor 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness.

[←500]

Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.”

[←501]

1The 2:11 as you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children, 12 that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

[←502]

Eph 4:11 He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.

[←503]

partem sollicitudinis.

[←504]

plenitudine potenstatis.

[←505]

Tit 1:5, 7 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you – For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money;

[←506]

ἐπισκόπους (superintendents), to shepherd the church, ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (poimainein, to shepherd)

[←507]

in foro externo.

[←508]

Eph 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers. At the start of the chapter, Hooker said that in his estimation, apostles, prophets, and evangelists were extraordinary offices of the first century, thus leaving Pastors and Teachers (Doctors). – WHG

[←509]

Operari sequitur esse. The operations follow [i.e., from the offices]. – WHG

[←510]

1Tim 4:14 Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership (or presbytery).

[←511]

unum ex se electum in altiori gradu collocarunt, quem Episcopum nominaverunt.

[←512]

prout me misit Pater, ego mitto vos.

[←513]

Mat 13:52 Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.” 1Tim 4:13 Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. 2Tim 4:13 Bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas when you come-- and the books, especially the parchments. — 2Tim 4:1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. Act 20:34 “Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me.

[←514]

Patrimony: a church endowment (a paid office), often funded by the government or a rich benefactor. – WHG

[←515]

1Cor 16:18 For they refreshed my spirit and yours. Therefore acknowledge such men. — Hooker assumes it’s a monetary acknowledgement. – WHG

[←516]

Gr. koinoneo, to share or fellowship in these things.

[←517]

πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς. pasin agathos.

[←518]

Act 4:36-37 And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus, 37 having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

[←519]

1Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: 2 On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. 3 And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem.

[←520]

1Cor 12:28 And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, varieties of tongues.

[←521]

Distributes is the Geneva Bible translation; the Gr. word is metadidomi, gives or imparts. – WHG

[←522]

1Tim 3:8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.

[←523]

Act 5:3-4  But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 “While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart?”

[←524]

Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), an opponent of Protestantism. Bellarmine said, Disputabimus primò de ordinatione, tum de vocatione, postremo de electione. To which Ames replied, Hoc non est distincte et ordine, sed praeposterè et confusè disputare ordinationem praeponere vocationi et electioni, est equis praeponere curorum. Ames, Anti Bellarmine, book 2. l.3, c. de ordinat., page 76.

[←525]

Cyprian (c.200-258), Bishop of Carthage.

[←526]

Videmus de divinâ authoritate descendere, ut sacerdos, plebe praesente, sub omnium oculis delegatur, et dignus et idoneus publico judicio et testimonio compro qetur. Cyprian li.1, Epist. 4.

[←527]

Martin Chemnitius (or Chemnitz) (1522-1586), Lutheran theologian.

[←528]

Ne citó manus alicui imponas, ne communices peccatis alienis, approbando scilicet electionem aut vocationem non rectè factam. Chemnitz, Exam., p.2, de Sacram. ord.

[←529]

Wolfgang Musculus, (1497-1563), Reformed theologian.

[←530]

Legitimè electi, ab episcopis et senioribus, qui electioni aderant, oratione et impositione manuum confirmabantur et ordinabantur, et haec forma electionis ad Cypriani tempora duravit. Musculus, loc com.8, Ministr. Ordin.

[←531]

Centuriators of Magdeburg (Latin Centuriatores Magdeburgenses) is the common name for a team of Lutheran scholars gathered together to produce the Magdeburg centuries, the first Protestant church history (pub. 1559-74).

[←532]

Delegebatur episcopus et plebe, cujus episcopus futurus erat, praesente, et accessi manuum impositio.  Magdeburg, cent. 3. cap. 8, de retib. Circa ordin.

[←533]

Probably Philippe de Mornay, also called Duplessis-Mornay (1549-1623). He took an active part in the negotiations concerning the Edict of Nantes, pleading with the King in favour of the Protestants. – WHG

[←534]

Semper tamen priusquam ordinatur et collocantur in ministerio suo in universum concurrere populi ordinisque ecclesiastici consensum; idque deduci probationis cuasa per omnia saecula posse, si controversum foret.  Pless de Euchorist l.2.c.7.

[←535]

Superest ritus ordinandi, cui ultimum locum in vocatione dedimus. Justif. Lib. 4, cap.3.b 16.

[←536]

libro nunquam satis laudato.

[←537]

Electionis adjunctum consequens et consummans est ordinatio, quae nihil aliud est, quam solemnis quaedam introductio ministri jam electi in ipsius functionis liberam executionem. Ames Med. Theol. li.i.cap.39 par.34.

[←538]

Tom.2., li 3. cap.2 de vocat. Minist. p.76, lib 3.

[←539]

jus ad rem is a right without possession (remotely); and jus in re is a right with possession (in reality). – WHG

[←540]

A Dutch theologian born in the late 16th c., well versed in Hebrew and Church government. He wrote De Gubernatione Ecclesiae, in opposition to Dorman, a famous English divine. This book drew the hatred of James I, but was so popular at home, it had four editions. He died in 1631. He was one of the company appointed by the Synod of Dort to translate the Old Testament for the famous Staatenbijbel, or States’ Bible. (B.P.) – WHG

[←541]

Postquam Praesbyterio consensus Ecclesiae innotuit, succedit ad extremum Ordinato. — differt. De Guber. p. 334.

[←542]

In Part I, chap. 1, Hooker describes essentials this way: “Essentials required for completing Church-government are partly in the persons who dispense, and partly in the ordinances that are dispensed. In the persons who dispense, the kinds of officers who are appointed to that work — the nature, bounds, and limits of their offices — all of these are essentials. The ordinances which they are to dispense — such as preaching, prayer, seals (i.e., sacraments), church censures, etc. — all of these are to be found in the word; and they should be fetched from the word.” Hooker’s concern is that the “essentials” or number of offices, have been expanded beyond the warrant of Scripture. – WHG

[←543]

The frenzy of some Familists and Anabaptists alone are excepted [see note on Familists in the Author’s Preface]. They cashier all Governments and Governors or Rulers out of Churches and Commonwealths. But this madness and folly labors almost with the loathsomeness of itself. – Hooker

[←544]

Heb 5.4, “unless he is called by God” – an inward call, which is then confirmed by an outward call. – WHG

[←545]

οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἀνθρώπων, οὐδὲ δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου.

[←546]

Mediato subjecti, or mediatas subjecti.

[←547]

Designatio personae: a legal term; the persons described in a contract as being parties to it.

[←548]

Gal. 1.1, Paul’s call was not of man nor by man; it was immediately from God. And yet Ananias was sent to him; and Barnabas “called” him to Antioch; and the Church sent Paul and Barnabas to Antioch; these were mediate. – WHG

[←549]

As a concession.

[←550]

1The 5.12; Heb 13.17, ἡγουμένοις (hegemony); 1Tim 5.17, Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι (ruling elder).

[←551]

Lord Brooks’ Book, English Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer.

[←552]

To guard or cover the flame so closely, that the candle stops giving light (i.e., to over-analyze). – WHG

[←553]

Scotus 4, sentent. distinct. 6, quaest. 9.

[←554]

non multum antiquam. – Cajetan.

[←555]

Gabriel Biel (1425-1495), 4.sent. dist. 6.

[←556]

Ibid.

[←557]

Guillaume Durand (1275-1334), French scholastic theologian (Dominican); opposed some views of Aquinas.

[←558]

Vasquer 3: qu. 63. Disp. 154; Thomas Aquinas, 3. qu. 63. Art. 4; Altiodorens. l.4.Art.3.c.2; Marsilin. 4.qu.4.Art.I.

[←559]

Quod ad omnes spectat, ab omnibus debet approbari.

[←560]

1Tim 4:14  Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given (didomi, to give or grant) to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership.

[←561]

Daniel Chamierus, or Chamier (1564-1621) headed the French Protestants in the reign of Henri IV. De Sacram. in genere, lib.2,c.I.4. p.102, p.24.

[←562]

Oecumenius, Bishop of Trikka (now Trikkala) in Thessaly about 990 (according to Cave). NT commentator. It seems he copied some of the work of Andrew of Cæsarea (6th c.), and was himself copied by Theophylactus (11th c.).

[←563]

Gerson Bucer, differt. de Gubernat. Eccles. p. 340.

[←564]

Relation est adjunctum adherens, non inhaerens qualitas.

[←565]

quod affirmat Calvin, non humano suffragio (not of human election); sed divinâ revelatione inquit Theodoretus (but by divine revelation); spiritus mandate, interpretatur Oecumenius (by mandate of the Spirit).

[←566]

Cap. 7, 120, and cap. 9, 167. Thomas Bilson (1547-1616) Bishop of Worcester and Winchester. With Miles Smith, he oversaw the final edit and printing of the King James Bible.

[←567]

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them...

[←568]

διὰ προφητείας (dia propheteias), not dia profhtwn (dia prophetoon).

[←569]

dia ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν (dia epitheseus toon cheiroon), and

[←570]

Edwardus Didoclavius; a pseudonym for David Calderwood (1575–1650), a Scottish minister and theologian. When King James tried to introduce Prelacy into the church of Scotland, Calderwood staunchly opposed it. He was exiled to Holland, where he wrote Altare Damascenum, ‘the great storehouse from which the prelatic arguments were subverted, and conversions to presbyterianism effected during the period of the second Scottish reformation.’ He returned to Scotland after James’ death in 1625. In 1640 he helped write the Directory for Public Worship. His primary work was the History of the Kirk of Scotland. – (from Dict. of Nat’l Biography 1885-1900). – WHG

[←571]

It seems that Hooker had a sense of humor, and intended the pun here. – WHG

[←572]

διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν μου.

[←573]

μετὰ ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ πρεσβυτερίου.

[←574]

That is, indicative perfect middle, or passive deponent, προσκέκλημαι (proskeklemai). – WHG

[←575]

Act 9:16-17 “For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.” 17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.”

[←576]

Chamierus, lib.4. de Sacram. N.T. cap.24, p.25, Non putamus hanc impositionem manuum, ullam fuisse ordinationem ad novum munus Ecclesiasticum, sed confirmationem missionis, etc.

[←577]

May refer to Chamier’s work above; or Didoclavius’ work, Altare Damascenum (Altar of Damascus). That title is from 2Kings 16. Ahaz went to Damascus to meet the Assyrian king. There he saw the altar the Assyrians used and sent a model to Uriah the priest in Jerusalem, ordering him to build a replica. Ahaz then commanded the daily offerings be made on this new altar. That’s how Prelacy was seen by the Scots: a mock altar of the Papacy. – WHG

[←578]

Individuum vagum – literally, a vague individual; someone uncommitted or detached; a floater of sorts.

[←579]

Quid verba audiam cum videam facta? Does their practice shame their profession? Hooker quotes Tertullian here, commenting on Psa 50.16, “What right have you to declare My statutes, Or take My covenant in your mouth?”

[←580]

Quod fuit demonstrandum?

[←581]

Pro 9:3-6 She has sent out her maidens, She cries out from the highest places of the city, 4 “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” As for him who lacks understanding, she says to him, 5 “Come, eat of my bread And drink of the wine I have mixed.  6 Forsake foolishness and live, And go in the way of understanding. 1Cor 14:24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all.

[←582]

Franciscus Junius the Elder (1545-1602) Reformed scholar; studied under Calvin and Beza.

[←583]

Allotri epi>skopov, or panta epi>skopov.

[←584]

At the start of Chap. 16, Hooker asserts that “Church communion is a peculiar privilege of the members of a Church.” And in 16.1.II, he says, “The Communion of the Church lies either in the things which they enjoy, such as Sacraments or Censures, or else the special manner appropriated to them in their dispensations.” Thus he ties sacraments to local membership. He said earlier that discipline is a local church matter; other congregations, in a sense, lack jurisdiction. But not so with the Lord’s Supper; membership in any visible church is sufficient to receive the sacrament. But unless you are a pastor of that local church, says Hooker, you have no right to give it. – WHG

[←585]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[←586]

adjunctum consummans.

[←587]

Relata sunt, quorum unum constat e mutuâ alterius affectione.

[←588]

Episcopalis ordinatio sine titulo, este aeque ridicula (says Ames, Medul. Th. l.i. ch.39, par. 35) ad siquis maritus figeretur esse absque uxore.

[←589]

Ejusdem est instituere, destituere.

[←590]

sublato uno relatorum, tollitur alterum.

[←591]

One may assume that if a Pastor is removed from Office for just cause, it is only by excommunication. And that would explain why he cannot simply move from the pulpit to the pew, or from one church to another. – WHG

[←592]

Cure refers to a Curate, who administers worship over the whole of the Diocese.

[←593]

The Council of Basil, 1431, denied the Pope’s right to dissolve it, against the contention by the Bishop of Tarentum that the pope had plena potestas and the bishops in partem solicitudinis only. Hooker again contrasts a Protestant view with this holdover from Roman Catholicism. – WHG

[←594]

Originally, Devotiatory – a word found only in this book.

[←595]

Fee: an interest in land capable of being inherited.

[←596]

Sentent. 40, qu.

[←597]

Vocationis essentia este in election ecclesiae, & acceptione electi, Ames, Medul. Lib. 1. ch. 39, par. 32.

[←598]

This may be an allusion to Oliver Cromwell’s New Model Army, which worked on a meritocratic system. The best of the rank and file soldiers were chosen as officers, presumably recognized as such by their fellow soldiers. – WHG

[←599]

Whitaker, Controv. 4.ch. 15. sec 2..

[←600]

Mat. 18.15-17; 1Tim 5.19-20.

[←601]

episkopus genera patres.

[←602]

It won’t pass as valid currency; meaning it won’t be acceptable. – WHG

[←603]

Manus impositio, quid est aliud, juxta Canonem, nisi oratio super hominem? – Bucer, differt. de Gubern. Eccl. 337.

[←604]

Ordinare, quid este aliud nisi orare?

[←605]

ferme nihil.

[←606]

Reader, whether it is right, or rite, or right use, we could not discern by the copy, it being not fairly written for that word. – Thomas Goodwin, ed.

[←607]

jus & potestas ordinandi.

[←608]

Girolamo Zanchi (1516-1590), or Jerome Zanchi; Italian Protestant theologian who helped develop reformed doctrine after Calvin’s death.

[←609]

Haec potestas (loquiter de potestate constituendi publicos Ecclesiae Ministros) penes omnem ecclesiam est, authoritas Ministerii penes Presbyteros & Episkopos; ita ut Romae olim potestas Popili fuit, authoritas Senatus.

[←610]

Quum Episcopi ordinarii fiunt hostes Ecclesiae, aut nolunt impertire Ordinationem, Ecclesiae retinent just suum. Nam ubicunque est Ecclesia, ibi est just administrandi Evangelii. Quare necesse est Ecclesiam retinere jus vocandi, eligendi, & ordinandi Ministros: & hos jus est donum datum Ecclesiae, quod nulla humana authoritas Eccelsiae eripere potest, sicut Paulus testatur ad Ephes: cum ait, Ascendite, dedit dona hominibus, & enumerat inter dona propria, Ecclesiae Pastores & Doctores, & addit, dari tales ad ministerium, ad aedificationem corpus Christi; ubi igitur est vera Ecclesia, ubi esse necesse est jus eligendi, & ordinandi Ministros. De potestate Episcoporum argumento secundo. – [Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, Doctors and Preachers, par. 67 – WHG].

[←611]

Ecclesiae potestas data est suos episcopos & pastores nominandi & curandi: & quanquam tota non potest fungi hoc munare, potest tamen eligere & ordinare, qui eo fungatur. Whitaker, contr. 4. q.2. c.15. p.2.

[←612]

ecclesia orta.

[←613]

Jerome, or Eusebius Hieronymus, (c. 347-420), translator of the Jerome Bible. He lived for a time as a hermit, became a priest, and served as secretary to Pope Damasus I. In 389 he established a monastery at Bethlehem.

[←614]

Hierum ad evagrium, unum ede se electium in altiori gradu collocarunt.

[←615]

At primum ex concessis.

[←616]

It implies not only a nonconformist attitude (which would be acceptable), but of claiming to be superior, bordering on insubordination and anarchy – refusing all order and rule. Hooker must disavow such radicalism. – WHG

[←617]

Ames, Medul. cap. 33, par. 18, “From the Ministry there arises a third state of the Church; for as by Faith it has its essential state, and by a Combination it has its integral state, so also by the Ministry it has a certain organic state; because it is now made fit to exercise all those operations which pertain to the good of the whole.” – WHG

[←618]

For example, carpentry, embroidery, weaving, etc. are sufficient arts to attain their ends; but their products, depending on the needs and circumstances of their customers, may be subordinate to those of another art. – WHG

[←619]

Originally, “It was the old kind of reasoning...” But it seems clear that Hooker didn’t mean it is no longer a valid kind of reasoning. The meaning appears to be more, “We’ve always thought this...” – WHG

[←620]

praedicare potest, corpus Domini conficere potest, ergo, potest etiam consecrare. Plesseus apud Gers. Bucer, differt. de Gubern. Eccles.

[←621]

Shift: a flimsy excuse, or vacuous argument.

[←622]

Barnabas and Paul at Derbe, “appointed (cheirotoneo, by a show of hands) elders in every church.”

[←623]

Act 20:17 From Miletus [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. Act 20:28 “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

[←624]

Phi 1:1 Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

[←625]

Col 4:17 And say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it.” Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

[←626]

See Hooker’s reply to Rutherford’s Argument 1, allegation (2). – WHG

[←627]

Thomas Brightman (1562-1607) English nonconformist and biblical commentator. He opposed the eschatology of John Foxe, the Separatists, and the Prelacy.

[←628]

See Part I., ch. 9. – WHG

[←629]

1Pet 2:17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. Eph 4:16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

[←630]

1Cor 5:7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

[←631]

Col 4:17 say to Archippus, “Take heed to the ministry which you have received in the Lord, that you may fulfill it.”

[←632]

“To interest” is to give someone an interest in, to give ownership or a share in the corporate body. To have an interest in Christ is to be united to Him, to be a member of Him, acting in concert with His other members. – WHG

[←633]

See Part I. ch. 2., The Constitution of a Visible Church.

[←634]

Here, “unblameable” doesn’t mean sinless; it means their conduct is not (or is no longer) notorious. Paul was a known persecutor of the Church (Act 9.13, 21); it took a while to prove he was repentant and faithful. – WHG

[←635]

See Part I. chap. 2.

[←636]

1Cor 14:34-35 Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.

[←637]

Exo 12:48 And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

[←638]

Hooker is discussing only the Lord’s Supper here, as you’ll see. In his Preface he agreed with Rutherford about infant baptism: “That infants of visible churches, born of wicked parents, being members of the church, ought to be baptized. In these and several other particulars, we fully accord with Mr. R.” – WHG

[←639]

Lubricus hic locus & difficilis.

[←640]

Shrive: to confess for purposes of being granted a remission of sin. Here it simply means to unburden. – WHG

[←641]

cotis vicem supplere.

[←642]

. a quatenus ad omne.

[←643]

Quosvis Infantes ad Baptismum admitti in toto vetere ecclesiâ in auditum esse, etc. —Beza, in cap. 7. Primae ad Corinth. v. 14.

[←644]

That is, next previous in line, or the immediate parent. – WHG

[←645]

kaq a<uto< (kata auto), of themselves; here it means as the original right-holders. – WHG

[←646]

Paterna potestas.

[←647]

Causa adaequata.

[←648]

Hooker appears to say that grandparents who are members of a Church, cannot have a grandchild baptized, if the child’s parents have custody. Hooker assigns federal holiness of infants to their biological parents, not to their legal custodians (note: this is about membership privileges, not election to salvation). – WHG

[←649]

1Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

[←650]

Gen 25:23 And the LORD said to her: "Two nations are in your womb, Two peoples shall be separated from your body; One people shall be stronger than the other, And the older shall serve the younger."

[←651]

in secundum praeceptum.

[←652]

ubi standum, while abiding.

[←653]

Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree...

[←654]

Collection: what you collect, take away, or conclude from the given premise(s). – WHG

[←655]

1Kng 15.4; 2Kng 19.34; 20.6; Isa 37.35.

[←656]

a non habente potestatem.

[←657]

Deu 29:9-10 “Keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel.”

[←658]

Act 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

[←659]

Speak daggers: to kill with words; or in this case, to kill the meaning of words. The phrase was used in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Act III, sc. 2. “I will speak daggers, but use none.” – WHG

[←660]

Conceit: a fantasy; an elaborate poetic image, or a far-fetched comparison of very dissimilar things.

[←661]

Joh 12:42 Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue;

[←662]

It’s not clear which author and book Rutherford refers to; nor in Obj. 2, who “the Writers” are. – WHG

[←663]

Gen 17:10 “This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;

[←664]

Gen 17:7 “And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.

[←665]

Exo 12:48 “And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as a native of the land. For no uncircumcised person shall eat it.

[←666]

Rutherford makes this akin to a parent covenanting for a home that his children may enjoy with him. Now, although eternal salvation is by faith, not blood, the blessings and privileges of the Church (the means of grace) are temporal; and so they are available to all who are members, elect or not. For Hooker, the question is not whether children can enjoy those blessings as non-believers under their believing Parent’s Covenant; they can. Rather, it is whether they can enjoy them when there is no Covenant of membership with the parent. Membership in the Church does not make one a Member of Christ. But membership in Christ requires membership in a local Church. Why? Because membership in a local Church is needed to convey the privileges of membership. And membership in a local church isn’t by attendance alone. It requires a covenant between a believer and that local Church, mutual consent and commitment. - WHG

[←667]

Pro 8:2 She takes her stand on the top of the high hill, Beside the way, where the paths meet. 3 She cries out by the gates, at the entry of the city, At the entrance of the doors.

[←668]

1Cor 11:20 Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper. 21 For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.

[←669]

Act 19:4  Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.”

[←670]

ἐβαπτίσθημεν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν.

[←671]

The Seventy: the LXX or Septuagint version of the OT; it was translated from Hebrew into Greek by 70 Jewish scholars about 250 B.C. It was sometimes quoted by Jesus (e.g., in Mar 7.6-7, Isa 29.13; in Luk 3.5-6, Isa 40.4-5). – WHG

[←672]

Mat 3:13 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him.”

[←673]

1Pet 3:21 There is also an antitype [of Noah’s ark] which now saves us – baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[←674]

ἐβάπτισεν ὕδατι (baptized [with] water; there’s no preposition but water is in the dative case, receiving the action of the verb. Hooker’s text has ἐβάπτισεν e{n ὕδατι (baptized in water), implying that this is how it’s being read, but it’s not what the verse actually says; hence his explication about the grammar. – WHG

[←675]

βαπτισθήσεσθε ἐν Πνεύματι Ἁγίῳ, you will be baptized in (i.e., by/with) the Spirit – a causal instrument. – WHG

[←676]

Luke is the writer of the Acts of the Apostles. – WHG

[←677]

Act 2:33 Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.

[←678]

Act 1:5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

[←679]

Phi 3:12 Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me.

[←680]

Originally, “Bread and Food.”

[←681]

Purgative: A purging medicine, a laxative to stimulate and evacuate the bowels.

[←682]

Apothecary: a pharmacist; a health care professional trained in preparing and dispensing medicines.

[←683]

Lev 19:17 `You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him.

[←684]

ἔλεγξον (elegcho); convict (refute, confute, correct) your brother, between you and him alone.

[←685]

This was too fascinating a phrase to miss by modernizing it. To wimble and wind out devices: a reference to trussing hay with a wimble, which is a boring device. Here it means to wrap an offense in such convolutions of fact, fiction, and circumstance, that it’s buried like a needle in a haystack. An examination is needed to extract the relevant facts from the stories that offenders often weave, hoping to hide or justify their sin. Dint is the indent left by a forceful blow, which here would be the impact of an accusation. – WHG

[←686]

There are cases of physical abuse where no witnesses exist except the victim; and the evidence may be ambiguous, in the sense that it can be explained by other causes. A marriage in trouble, where one spouse wants out, can lead to fabrications of evidence, or false testimony. Telling the difference between truth and lies, sincerity and subterfuge, sin and sickness, requires wisdom and discernment, and the experience of age. – WHG

[←687]

Distemper: a disagreeable mood, such as anger, bitterness, resentment, jealousy, distrust, fear, hurt, etc.

[←688]

Extravagances: exceeding the appropriate limits of decorum, probability, or truth; conjectures or irrelevancies.

[←689]

That is, clearly explaining the rule of Christ in Scripture, and how it has been broken, specifically. – WHG

[←690]

In other words, it doesn’t require disowning a child, or throwing out a tenant who has a valid lease. – WHG

[←691]

1Cor 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-- not even to eat with such a person. 12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from yourselves the evil person. Mat 18:17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.

[←692]

Meaning, the elders are to show how the word applies to and governs this particular offense, in its proper context. And from the text, they are to clearly state the biblical rule or principle that has been violated (the sin). – WHG

[←693]

In essence, a jury trial. This is in contrast to what was known as the Star Chamber, ended in 1641, in which the trial was secret, the evidence was forged, and the rules were arbitrary. – WHG

[←694]

See Part I, chap. 12.

[←695]

Mat 18:17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church.

[←696]

consentiente plebe.

[←697]

Gulielmus Bucanus (William Bucanus) (c. 1544-1603) Swiss-French Calvinist theologian.

[←698]

sine consensu. Peter Martyr goes further, Unde concluditur non absque consensu ecclesiae quempiam excommunicari posse, loc. Com. De excom. sent. 9. Jus hic ad ecclesiam pertinet, nec ab illa eripi debet, sent. 10. Cartwright on 1Cor 5, against Rhemists: Magdeburg, Cent. i. lib. 2. c.4 Claves toti ecclesiae sunt traditae.

[←699]

In other words, says Hooker, the power of the Congregation doesn’t merely complement the power of the Elders, as if adding to or confirming it; but if necessary, it supersedes it — because that power “lies firstly in the Congregation” and not in the Elders. Whatever power and authority the Elders have, is delegated to them by the Congregation. – WHG

[←700]

Impropriator: in English ecclesiastical law, a layman who holds possession of the lands of the church or of an ecclesiastical living, and treats them as their own. Simply put, someone who misappropriates something. – WHG

[←701]

Plus vident oculi, quàm oculus. (ancient proverb)

[←702]

Originally, apparently; today that word is taken as “only appearing to be so,” rather than “obvious to all.” – WHG

[←703]

Here, ecclesiastically means on behalf of the Church, as its appointed representatives and agents. – WHG

[←704]

jus singulare and jus commune.

[←705]

2Pet 1:21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

[←706]

1Cor 1:10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. Rom 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

[←707]

Mandatum quà tale.

[←708]

ὑπὸ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου φερόμενοι.

[←709]

Act 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things. Act 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered to them the decrees to keep, which were determined by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

[←710]

See footnote in Part I, chap. 11, Sec. 3, Arg. 5. Natural vs. Positive Law.

[←711]

Jus Naturale, and Positivum.

[←712]

Membra dividentia.

[←713]

That is, the Ten Commandments, Exo 20.1-17. – WHG

[←714]

Connatural: co-natural, or correspondingly and similarly natural. – WHG

[←715]

Communia non distinguunt. What is common is not distinguishable.

[←716]

non datur tertium.

[←717]

eupoleteu>ewv.

[←718]

Eph 4:14-16 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ-- 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

[←719]

Omnis actio in individuo est moraliter bona vel mala.

[←720]

nondum constat; is not yet fully resolved

[←721]

That is, he does so by way of counsel, not authority; they obey by way of conscience, not jurisdiction. – WHG

[←722]

Hooker asserts that you cannot be bound by any body in which you have no representation, no voice or vote. Hence, at the Boston Tea Party in 1773, the battle cry would be, “No taxation without representation.” – WHG

[←723]

Parker, l.3. cap. 18, Rut. page 213.

[←724]

τινας ἄλλους ἐξ αὐτῶν.

[←725]

Standum in aliquo primo.

[←726]

ex terminis.

[←727]

Hooker argues that if we allow for such a Jurisdictional Tribunal in the Church, we would also have to allow the King to overrule it, should the Tribunal exceed its biblical authority. And who would make the determination that the highest Tribunal in the Church is faulty, and so appeal to the King? It’s untenable (Luk 20.25). – WHG

[←728]

imis sedibus ruere.

[←729]

pendente appellatione reus debet pro non judicato haberi.

[←730]

Paphnutius of Thebes. Most of the bishops present at the Council wanted to follow the precedent of the Council of Elvira, prohibiting conjugal relations to those bishops, priests, deacons, and sub-deacons who were married before ordination. Paphnutius convinced them that, in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Church, only those who were celibates at the time of ordination should continue to observe continence. – WHG

[←731]

Col 4:16 Now when this epistle is read among you, see that it is read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that you likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

[←732]

1Cor 16:1 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I come. 3 And when I come, whomever you approve by your letters I will send to bear your gift to Jerusalem. 2Cor 8:1 Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia.

[←733]

recitare est confutare.

[←734]

As Hooker has previously pointed out, we must not (in fact, we cannot) give power and authority to another, which we do not possess ourselves. That’s why excommunication is in the hands of the Congregation as a body, and not in the hands of the elders as a power of their office, nor in the hands of any single congregant. Elders are empowered to investigate; and if they determine it is warranted, to present the case to the Congregation for judgment. – WHG

[←735]

As Hooker will point out, believers are never “in communion” with such assemblies (2Cor 6.14). – WHG

[←736]

The original sequence of Hooker’s refutations below, was changed to match the sequence of instances here. – WHG

[←737]

nor vola, ne vestigium quidem.

[←738]

Totquot: a dispensation permitting the holding of an unlimited number of benefices (a paid church office).

[←739]

2Cor 11:28 besides the other things, what comes upon me daily: my deep concern for all the churches.

[←740]

τῷ ποιμνίῳ, “all the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” As Hooker repeatedly points out, Paul is speaking only to the elders of the Church at Ephesus. – WHG

[←741]

This point is seldom considered in the debate over cessation of the extraordinary gifts and offices. – WHG

[←742]

It’s unclear what that third inference is. Perhaps it was listed in Rutherford’s book. – WHG

[←743]

Legally, such a person lacks capacity, or is incompetent to fulfill his obligations; e.g., child lacks capacity. – WHG

[←744]

Deu 23:21 When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you. Ecc 5:5 Better not to vow than to vow and not pay.

[←745]

Originally, abstemious: sparing in consumption of especially food and drink.

[←746]

Meaning as distinct from the Synod itself. For the person(s) excommunicated are members of a local Church or churches, and those churches are represented at the Synod, which was assembled for that purpose. – WHG

[←747]

i.e., The matter is given into the hands of the messenger, to be resolved by consensus of the Assembly. – WHG

[←748]

formalis ratio.

[←749]

jus suffragi.

[←750]

Hooker removes any clergy-laity distinction, so that qualified laymen may be equal representatives. – WHG

[←751]

Regularly: according to regulations; that is, under rule, and thus, with authority. – WHG

[←752]

Potestatem accumulativam, non privativam.

[←753]

Potestas est Authoritativa, or Consultativa.

[←754]

Antioch was in Syria. Jerusalem was over 300 miles south, some 13 days travel. – WHG

[←755]

Gal 2:9 when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

[←756]

That is, a Synod is not a separate entity with inherent power. Rather, its power is delegated to it by the participating Churches, through their appointed representatives, limited to the ends for which it was called. – WHG

[←757]

Praetoria, or Æquatoria; to enforce the law, or to bind to the law. – WHG

[←758]

Potestas conficiendi Canones; the power to establish laws. – WHG

[←759]

instigendi censuras, ut pote excommunicationis.

[←760]

The censure is not against the Elders themselves, but against someone in their congregation. – WHG

[←761]

dogmaticum decisivum judicium. Therefore Junius calls them ¾diataxeij ek entolav [commanders out of commands] or Non praecepta sed Ordinationes [non-rulers or regulators].

[←762]

Convocare.

[←763]

auxilium & consilium.

[←764]

quà Ethicus, quà Oeconomicus, and so quà Christianus

[←765]

u>politeuesqai.

[←766]

Commissio & justa permissio.

[←767]

Homage: not only respectful deference; but a pledge of allegiance, to honor the rights and power of the Magistrate.

[←768]

pratgo>menon (pratgomenon).

[←769]

rectus de Deo sensus, de Deo cultus.

[←770]

https://connecticuthistory.org/the-free-consent-of-the-people-thomas-hooker-and-the-fundamental-orders/

[←771]

https://connecticuthistory.org/the-fundamental-orders-of-connecticut/

[←772]

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/order.asp

[←773]

Forster’s Grand Remonstrance, pp. 268, 269.

[←774]

Winthrop, ii, 91,92.

[←775]

Ibid.

[←776]

Ibid.

[←777]

Coffin’s History of Newbury. pp. 72, 115.

[←778]

See Richard Mather’s characterization of it, in his “Reply to Rutherford,” pp. 77, 78.

[←779]

Winthrop, ii. 165.

[←780]

Winthrop, ii. 165.

[←781]

“Prefatory Letter” to the “Keyes.”

[←782]

London, 1644.

[←783]

Winthrop, ii 304.

[←784]

Bacon’s Historical Discourses, p. 107; Atwater’s New Haven Colony, pp. 208, 209, and Appendix III. to that volume.

[←785]

Haled: caused to do something through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral, or intellectual means.

[←786]

Mass. Col. Rec., ii. 155.

[←787]

Demurrer: a formal objection to an opponent’s pleadings.

[←788]

Winthrop, ii. 329-332.

[←789]

In Aug 1637; in May 1639; in Sep 1643; and Jul 1645. See Winthrop, i. 281, 360; ii. 165, 304.

[←790]

Result of a Synod at Cambridge in New England, anno 1646, pp. 63-66.

[←791]

The synod gathered for the third time, August 15, 1648, and after a fortnight’s discussion adopted the Platform substantially drafted by one of its three members designated for the purpose at its first meeting, — Rev. Richard Mather, of Dorchester. The principles of the Cambridge Platform are too familiar to need explication here.

[←792]

This was done with more friendship than poetic fire, and verses by Stone, Cotton, and Rogers were printed, with the letter of Hopkins and Goodwin, in the “Survey,” which was published in 1648.

[←793]

Mass. Hist. Coll., viii. 544-546.

[←794]

Winthrop, ii. 378.

[←795]

Magnalia, i. 313.

[←796]

Ibid.

[←797]

Magnalia, i. 316, 317.

Table of Contents

Modernization and Overview

A Preface by the Author

TO THE READER

Testimonials

Editor’s Preface

Part I. Ecclesiastical Policy

Chapter 1. Ecclesiastical Policy Defined.

Chapter 2. The Constitution of a Visible Church.

Chapter 3. The Invisible Church as the Subject of the Seals and Privileges.

Chapter 4. The Formal Cause of a Visible Church: the Church Covenant.

Chapter 5. Whether Baptism gives formality, or makes a member of a visible Church?

Chapter 6. Whether Profession makes a member of a Congregation?

Chapter 7. An Answer to Arguments made against the Church Covenant.

Chapter 8. The Precedency of a Church, as a Homogenous Whole.

Chapter 9. The Nature and Being of a Presbyterial Church.

Section 1. The Essence of a Presbyterian Church

Section 2. The Grounds of such a Constitution.

Section 3. Reasoning from such grounds, against it.

Section 4. The Nature of a Church and a Classis.

Section 5. Particular Churches Meeting in One Place.

Chapter 10. Answers to Mr. R.’s Arguments for Confirming a Presbyterial Church.

Chapter 11. The Subject of Ecclesiastical Power – the Keys.

Section I. Its Nature.

Section II. Where this Power is Seated.

Section III. Rutherford’s Arguments for Who Holds the Keys, Book 1.

Section IV. Rutherford’s Arguments for Who Holds the Keys, Book 2.

Propositions

Chapter 12. To Whom the Keys to the Visible Church are Committed.

Rutherford’s Arguments

Chapter 13. The catholic Church as it is a Representative Whole.

Chapter 14. The Universal Church as an Integral Whole.

In Summary

Chapter 15. Answer to Mr. Hudson re: the Visible Church as an Integral Whole.

Section 1. Conclusions

Section 2. A catholic visible Church examined

Section 3. Examining the Alleged Scripture Proofs

In Closing

Chapter 16. Church Communion as a Peculiar Privilege to the Members of a Church.

I. The Sense of Communion.

II. The Things and Manner of Communion.

III. Ordinance, Dispensation, and Hearing of it.

IV. Set, Ordinary, Professed, and Resolved Hearing of it.

Part II. The Church Considered as an Organic Body.

Chapter 1. The Number of Officers in it, and the Nature of it.

Of the Ruling Elder

Of the Pastor’s Office

Of the Teacher’s Office

The Manner of Their Work.

The Reward for Their Work.

Tithing and Maintenance

Of Deacons

The Limits of the Office of Deacon

Chapter 2. The Nature of Ordination, and a Pastor’s Power over other Congregations.

1. Whether Ordination is by nature before Election.

2. Whether Ordination gives all the Essentials to an Officer.

3. What Ordination Is.

4. To whom the right of dispensing the Ordinance pertains.

Chapter 3. The Right Meaning of an Independent Church.

Part III. Church Government

Chapter 1. Of the Government of the Church.

Chapter 2. Of the Dispensation of the Sacraments.

1. The Parties to the Sacraments

2. The Manner of Dispensing the Sacraments

Chapter 3. Of Censures and Excommunication.

Excommunication

Part IV. Concerning Synods.

Chapter 1. The Nature of a Synod and its Power to Bind.

Of Acts 15.

Chapter 2. Alleged Superiority of Classes and Synods above Particular Congregations.

Mr. Rutherford’s 7th and 9th Arguments.

Mr. Rutherford’s 8th Argument.

Mr. Rutherford’s 10th Argument.

Mr. Rutherford’s 11th Argument.

Mr. Rutherford’s 12th Argument.

Chapter 3. An Appendix to the Former Treatise Concerning Synods.

Ques. 1. What is a Synod?

Ques. 2. How are Synods proved to be Scriptural?

Ques. 3. What is the Power of a Synod?

Ques. 4. To whom does the power of calling Synods pertain?

Appendix I.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut

Appendix II.

Thomas Hooker: Preacher, Founder, Democrat