and not civil though they be visible to men and so outward in respect of the conscience So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience and it is that we have now described or outward in respect to the Church viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil and concern the Church not as it is a Church but as it is a Society Or we may distinguish thus the Government of the Church is either invisible viz. in the conscience or visible and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical and so it is inward in respect to the Church or in things that are Civil and so it is outward The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ the second mediately and that by the Guides of the Church as his Deputies the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it But now let us see whether he himself who chargeth others with this confounding be not guilty of it and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal and the External Government of the Church It is very evident that it is so for 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience and so be meant of invisible and visible Government Or to the Church and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church We are to seek in this for all his distinction 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these as he here manageth the distinction or at least some things seem to draw the one way and some the other For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority spoken of in the Scripture to refer to the outward Government of the Church this must be meant of that Government which is Civil not of visible Ecclesiastical Government I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority Again where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience this must be meant of his invisible Government both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this But what-ever be his meaning this answer doth not take away the force of our argument for if he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christs power Kingdom and Authority to be meant of Civil power but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church this is all we desire for if Christ hath such a Kingdom then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church save that of Word and Sacraments as it followeth immediately and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate as do all the rest of the Erastians If he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience which is exercised by his Word and spirit in this first he is contrary to all men for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom but they would have it managed by the Magistrate whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church Secondly he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ denying that which is a confiderable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office What is Christ a King not only of Angels but of Men united in a visible Society the Church and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them this is a ridiculous inconsistency Thirdly he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government such as Eph. 4.10 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act and it is made an act of his Authority 1 Cor. 11.3 Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship Also Psal 2.8 Psal 22.27 Psal 110.3 Col. 1.13 and many other places which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul Fourthly this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government as gathering a people to him Isa 55.4 5. Acts 15 14 15 16 17. giving them laws Isa 33.2 Mat. 28.20 Mat. 5.17 19. Verses c. setting up Officers Eph. 4.10.11 giving them power of Discipline Mat. 16.19 Mat. 18.17 18. John 20.23 Fifthly it is contrary to himself for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts if then Christ as King hath invested his Servants with this power which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church That which he addeth viz. that this is made known to us in the word but not the other viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form this I say 1. Beggeth the Question 2. Destroyeth his Answer wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government for this is a part of it which he granteth § 5. Another Answer he frameth to our Argument from Christ and Moses p. 177. That if the comparison of Christ and Moses infer an equal exactness of disposing every thing in the Church then we must be bound to all circumstances as the Jews were but there is this difference between the Old and New Testament that there all ceremonies and circumstances were exactly prescribed here there are only general rules for circumstantial things there the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded here it is not so but a liberty is left for times place persons c. Reply 1. We do not plead for an equal exactness in determining all things We know the Old and New Testament state of the Church requireth a diversity here but we plead for the equal faithfulness of Christ with Moses now Christ was intrusted with setting up a Government in the Church as well as Moses whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as Moses did seeing without this great matters in the Church even that whereon its Union and Being as a Society do hang are left at a great uncertainty
ordinary cases and must ordinarily take place cannot reach the end of Government yet to say that it may be done ordinarily cannot but clash with Christs institution for when Christ giveth ruling power to Presbyters though we may think that it is not his will that they must needs exercise it in all cases yet must we think that he intendeth they should exercise it ordinarily for why giveth he them a power which they as readily never as ever act and that as men please to determine we must not think that it is the intent of Christs Commission to his Servants that men may without the force of necessity laid on by an extraordinary Providence and then God doth it and not men hinder the acts of it as as they will 2. It is supposed without ground that the good of the Church can ordinarily require the restraining power given by Christ for if we speak of what is ordinarily good for the Church how can we better discern that than by looking into Christs institution wherefore seeing by this equal power at least in actu primo is given to Presbytery we are to think that the exercise of this power is best for the Church though ambitious men and they who would flatter the Magistrate think otherwise yea though the best of men should dissent sure Christs giving such a power saith more for the goodness of the exercise of it then mens opinions though seeming to have a foundation on some inconveniencies of it can say against it especially considering what ever way beside men devise is attended with as great if not greater inconveniencies of another nature 3. I have already made it appear that this alienation of power given by Christ doth not only reach the actus secundus of it but even the actus primus seeing a man is not in capacity to recal his deed and reassume the exercise of his power though it were improved never so much against the end of Christs giving and his alienating of it Sect. 19. 5. Proof which is directly against enlarging the exercise of Church Power in the hands of any beyond what Christ hath given them if the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to all may be taken from the rest and given to one then that one getteth a power both in actu primo in secundo which he had not from Christ but this is unlawful ergo The Major I prove for it is clear he getteth power in actu secundo which he had not from Christ ergo he getteth such power in actu primo seeing actus secundus cannot be without primus nor lawful exercise of power without the jus or power it self If it be said that Christ giveth only the actus primus and that so as it extendeth to the whole Church and therefore no actus secundus of power can be given to one which doth extend further than this Answ 1. It is true he giveth formally only the actus primus but the actus secundus doth result from it and therefore he giveth both 2. It is true the power that Christ giveth doth extend to the whole Church but this must be understood with a twofold distinction Dist 1. Disjunctive it is true that is every Minister hath a power to rule whatever part of the Church this or that or another so that no part of it is without his Commission as that he should go beyond his bounds in being set over it Conjunctive it is false that is Christ hath not given so much of the actus primus oâ— power to rule all or many Congregations Dist 2. When Christ giveth the actus primus of power to a Minister extending to the whole Church it is to be understood in adequate i. e. that he hath a share in that power so extended and may in conjunction with other rule the whole Church not adequate i. e. Christ hath not given to any such a power as that he by himself or with a few excluding the rest who are also in the Commission rule the whole Church So that when ever any one exerciseth authority by himself or excluding others who have the same power granted by Christ over more than his particular Congregation over which he may have personal inspection he taketh a power in actu secundo where Christ hath given him no jus nor actus primus of power The Minor of the argument is manifest for when both power and exercise of it is given to a man which Christ hath not given this is setting up a new Office which Christ hath not set up for what is an Office in the Church but a power and a lawful exercise of it but this our Author confesseth to be unlawful ergo 6. Proof 'T is presumption even among men for a servant to commit that work to another to do which his Master hath given him to do except he know that he hath his Masters leave so to do this is so well known that I need not insist on it ergo it is much presumption when Christ hath committed the ruling of his house to every Minister that some should devolve that work on a Bishop to do it for them unless they could shew Christs warrant for this which if Mr. Stillingfleet or any other will do we shall acquiesce If there be any disparity in this comparison I am sure it will tend to the strengthening not the weakening of our argument for we are more absolutely under Christs command than Servants are under their Masters his commands are more perfect and effectual to compass their end without our taking our own way in managing obedience to them then mens are also the there is a greater tie to cleave scrupulously to his injunctions than to mens also the matters about which they are be of more weight and miscarriage in them more dangerous then mens commands All which make it more absurd to commit the execise of our power that he giveth to others than for Servants to do so with their Masters work Sect. 20. For better understanding of what he had said our Author subjoyneth a distinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers viz. a Power of Order in preaching the word visiting the sick administring the Sacraments c. this he maketh to be inseparably joyned to the function and to belong to every ones personal capacity both in actu primo and actu secundo and a power of Jurisdiction in visiting Churches overseeing particular Pastors Ordination Church Censures making Rules for decency this he maketh to be in every Presbyter quoad aptitudinem and habitually so as he hath a jus to it in actu primo but the exercise and limitation of it and some further power of choise and delegation to it and some further Authority besides the power of Order And when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of the Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem
much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290.
compose differences about Church-Government To clear our way in this dispute with him let it be observed 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose 2. It helpeth not him nor harmeth our cause if we should grant that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course for it is what they did ordinarily and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise that we inquire about 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers Taking these considerations along with us I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition The first is taken p. 323. from the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles and here he premiseth 3 things viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers and in order thereto in some great places About these I shall not controvert with him only the 2d must be understood with this distinction else we cannot grant it that a fewer number if formed into a Church-Society though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind as Teachers Elders Deacons yet would it need as many sorts of Officers and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations they must be taught ruled and their Poor cared for and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were I mean where such Officers could be had for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches On this conclusion before I come to his Proofs of it I shall make these remarques 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters if where more Presbyters could not be had one was to do the work this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did or that we may set one over the rest where many may be had to rule the Church This conclusion then proveth nothing 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not if he say the first I doubt if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches where the Deacons work was to serve not to rule that Church and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly which maketh nothing against Presbyterians If the second first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles 2. If it was so it was necessity not choice that made them be without ruling Elders Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement Epiph. and others What hath he so soon forgot himself he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed Phil. 1.1 That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity and therefore by his own Argument of which before it is not to be laid weight upon but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this in sum that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was neceility for Presbyters and Deacons and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it there was a Bishop appointed but where there were not many to be Presbyters they were content with a Bishop and Deacons Here are 3 cases Presbyters and Deacons a Bishop and Deacons this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be had this Bishop as hath been shewn before could be nothing above a Presbyter none of those cross our design for the third viz. a Bishop set over Presbyters first Epiphanius doth not say it was so appointed by the Apostles but it was done it is like he meaneth by succeeding Ages 2. He doth not say that this Bishop was set over Presbyters with jurisdiction he might be meerly a praeses so there is nothing here to prove that the Apostles ever setled any thing contrary to Parity of Presbyters The Testimony out of Clem. Alexan. even with Salmasius his commentary proveth no more but that in some places were more Presbyters in some fewer in some but one His last Testimony saith nothing at all to the purpose only that the Apostles settled things by degrees not that ever they set up Bishops Sect. 16. The 2d Conclusion that he inferreth p. 332. That in Churches consisting of a multitude of Believers or where there was a probability of a great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a College of Presbyters whose Office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in converting more This we close with and from it and the former Conclusion which make up his whole Argument infer the quite contrary to his design viz. That the Apostles kept a most uniform course so far as necessity did permit in setling the Government of Churches and that they setled the Government in the hands
his fellow-Presbyters not to rule over Presbyters by himself singly for that they cannot give him this Power I have before proved 6. If the Elders that preach because of the greatness of their work and sufferings have more honour than they who only Rule then the Bishop being of this last sort must be inferiour in honour to those other Presbyters especially this must hold in the opinion of this Author who holdeth That Bishop and Presbyter differ not jure divino but this I suppose will not well please his Lordship and indeed is very unsuitable to the dignity of one who Ruleth over others sure the dignity of Church-Officers is to be reckoned by the dignity of their place where it is different as it is by the discharge of their work where their place is the same Sect. 17. To strengthen this his Conceit he brings a testimony out of Chrysost affirming that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were inferiour to them who preaching the Gospel travelled abroad into divers places Answ This is not at all to the purpose for they who so travelled abroad were Evangelists no fixed Officers but of the former the Apostle doth not at all speak here It rather appeareth saith the Author Asser 1. Gover. Ch. Scotl. that Elders were ordained in every City there to abide with their particular charges Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.5 He argueth also thus against Ruling-Elders These Elders are not the Bishops Paul speaketh of 1 Tim. 3. For these must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 2. l. Answ The Author now cited answereth this Argument brought by Dr. Field and citeth Beza answering to Sarav who had used it Passing his first Answer I make use of the 2d which is Beza's That the Ruling-Elder though he ought not to Teach publickly as a Pastor yet he ought to Teach privately and occasionally according as the need of every one requireth it is his part to oversee the manners of the people and to bring miscarriages to the Church to be censurd but first he is to labour to reclaim the Offender by private admonition according to Christ's Rule Matth. 18.15 16 17. and that not only ex charitate as every Christian ought to do but virtute Officii and authoritatively and for this cause he ought to be a Man of Understanding above the common sort both able and willing to Teach so the word beareth so far as his place requireth Again he argueth from Act. 20.28 All the Elders of Ephesus had a Pastoral charge for they are bid take heed to the Flock as Overseers but this is inconsistent with the Notion of a Lay-Elder Ergo there were none such at Ephesus Answ The Major is false they had a charge and oversight but every oversight is not Pastoral Ruling also falleth under this Notion which is the Office of the Elder we plead for He confesseth p. 338. the weakness of that argument from Maintenance which he saith brought Blondel quite off from Ruling-Elders in that place of 1 Tim. 5 17. It is true Blondel de jur Pleb in Reg. Eccl. p 77 c. alledgeth That these Elders are not there meant because Maintenance implied in double Honour as is clear from ver 18. compared is due to these but not to Ruling-Elders Yet the Argument with all the enforcements of that learned Author will not prove what he designeth For 1. Some famous Interpreters understand this double Honour only of a degree of Honour beyond these spoken of before viz. Widows so Calv. in loc 2. How shall it be proved that Maintenance is not due to Ruling-Elders or the seniores plebis as Blondel calleth them His arguments taken from the disuse of it will not conclude this neither what he saith of the want of Power in any to remit it for where it cannot be had for them necessity excuseth the withholding of it where it cannot be had let the Inhauncers of Church-Rents answer for it if such necessaries be not supplied to the Church neither do I blame him for blaming p. 83. these Protestant Nations who have cast out Abbacies which abounded in Riches have rather taken the Revenues into the State-Treasury than allowed it for such good Uses as this I add for further answer out of Asser Gover. Ch. Scotl. p. 105. That a stipend though due is not essential to the Office either of Elders or Ministers and therefore the want of the one can be no argument against the other But neither is Blondel against the Office of Ruling-Elders though he deny them to be spoken of in 1 Tim. 5.17 but disputeth strongly for it yea and groundeth it on the Apostles practice p. 85 which is an evidence of Divine Right The next thing Mr. Stilling saith against Ruling-Elders is That if we remove from the Scripture to the Primitive Church we shall find the greatest difficulty to trace the footsteps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of Authority for the first 3 Centuries especially Answ 1. We look on the Scripture as a surer Word of Prophecy and therefore are unwilling to pass from it to that which Mr. Stilling hath above proved to be utterly so insufficient to determine in matters of Church-Government 2. Others are of another mind than this Author Blondel de jur pleb in Reg. Eccl. p. 85. aliis igitur saith he firmamentis iis nimirum qui nobis Apostolorum primamque per trium saeculorum periodum antiquitatis praxin stravit seniorum plebis Institutio functio ut sic dicam vitae à protestantibus per Gallias Scotiam Belgiam instituta statuminanda est And Asser Grov Ch. Scot. par 1. c. 8 9. Unpregnable and abundant Testimonies out of Antiquity are brought for this Office which seeing Mr. Stilling hath not Answered it is needless to insist on them 3. But and if in many places in the Primitive times this Office was disused it was their fault and taken notice of by the better sort Calv. in 1 Tim. 5.17 speaking of this Office saith Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevisse conqueritur doctorum Ignavia vel potius superbia dum soli volunt eminere See Testimonies for the Antiquity of it Smect sect 15. Sect. 18. His second proof of his second Proposition viz. That the Apostles took diverse courses in Ruling Churches is p. 340. from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the affairs of the Church in chief during their residence such were Apostles and Evangelists In some places saith he these were others not and in some places no Officers but these Answ This is obviated by our 3d Observ For the Question is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers and that only where they could be had of whom this proof doth not speak His 3d Proof ibid. is from the different customs observed in the Church after the Apostles times This is most inconsequent yea one might as well reason thus In after-times
Popish and Prelatical Ceremonies and whatsoever superstitious men can devise to bring into the worship of God is no addition to the Scripture nor a blot upon its perfection for these are not held for necessary things but indifferent and only necessary when commanded by Authority which necessity I suppose Mr. Stilling will plead for to his form of Government Now this Consequence I hope he will not own wherefore he may be ashamed to own that from which it doth so clearly follow His third Answer is yet of less weight viz. that the Essentials of Church Government are in Scripture not the Circumstantials Reply If he meaneth as sure he doth the Essentials of Government in its general and abstract notion in which it is not practicable without a particular form he saith nothing to the purpose The Scripture may be an imperfect rule for Church-Government though it have these if he mean the Essentials of a particular form he destroyeth his own cause Now we maintain that to the perfection of Scripture there is required not only a general notion of Government but so much as is sufficient light to direct the practice of Government this cannot be without the institution of a particular form for Government otherwise is not practicable If it be said that the general rules in Scripture about Government want nothing requisite for the compleat practise of Government but the determination of circumstances which cannot belong to Scripture perfection Ans This we deny if by general Rules he means as sure he doth such as do not determine a particular form it is some more than a circumstance whether Pastors exercise that power Christ hath given them or commit it to a Bishop I hope it is more than a bare circumstance in Civil Government whether the power be in the hand of one or a few or all the people even so 't is here yea herein lieth the very Essence of a form of Government if this then be not found in Scripture the Essentials of a form are wanting but a form is essential to Government considered as practicable Ergo some of the Essentials of Government are wanting CHAP. V. HAving refuted as he supposed the general Arguments for a particular Form of Church-Government to have been laid down in Scripture he cometh now to particular Arguments which are brought for some one Form and many he taketh much pains to refute in this Chapter which I am confident never any did make Use of to prove what he opposeth We shall let him pass with his supposed Victory over these and only take notice of what opposeth the Truth we hold or the Arguments by which it is established I shall only note not insist upon his large Harangue by which in the beginning of this Chapter he chargeth all who are not as Sceptical about Church-Government as himself with prejudice and following custome and education rather than truth and being loth to quit that opinion though false which once they have been engaged in To which I say nothing but let every one search his own Conscience and see what grounds his Perswasion standeth upon I hope the sincerity of many will be able to bear them out before God and the solid Reasons they are able to produce will make them stand before men against such reproaches of this Adversary Neither shall I retaliate this his charity with the Jealousies of many who fear that they who cast Church-Government thus loose that the Magistrate may dispose of it at his Pleasure do fetch the strength of their Arguments and the life of their perswasion from no better Topicks then design to please them who can reward this their pains or to hold fast that which is good as some have spoken of their fat Benefices what ever side of the World be uppermost to which end this opinion is a notable mean I desire to judge no man the Lord will ere long judge our opinions and motives too but this I am sure of we have no Worldly baits to allure us at this time to plead for the Divine Right of Presbyteral Government and if the Interest of Christ did not more move us than our own we might with much Worldly advantage yield the cause We do not insist on any of Christs acts towards the Apostles in calling them sending them out either first or last as Arguments for the Form of Church-Government knowing that their Office being Extraordinary and Temporal can be no Rule for the ordinary cases of the Church Wherefore I pass over all that he writeth in this Chap. till p. 218. Where he undertaketh to vindicate two places of Scripture from determining Parity or Imparity in the Church The first is Mat. 20.25 to which is parallel Luk. 22.25 The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and they that exercise authority over them are called Benefactors but ye shall not be so Though I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose yet I see not the weight of what he hath said against this place being brought as an Argument against Imparity His Answer is made up of two First he asserteth and solidly proveth against Papists that it is not the abuse of Power that is here forbidden but that the Power it self spoken of is forbidden as incompetent to Church-Officers his Proofs for this I need not repeat I accept it of him as a Concession Secondly He saith it is only Civil Power that is here forbidden and so it doth not make against Imparity in Church-Officers Reply He keepeth his wonted way here which is to take much pains to prove what is least in debate with the adversaries he dealeth with we do not question but the Power it self not the abuse of it is here spoken against but that it is Civil Power only we question and that he hath not spent one word to prove We affirm that Christ is here making a difference between his Apostles and Civil Governors in this that one of them should not have Authority over another as it is among Rulers of States and Kingdoms and so that there should be no Imparity of Power among them to prove this I borrow the 3d reason by which Mr. Still militateth against the abuse of Power being here meant viz. This only can answer the Scope of the Apostles contention which was about Primacy The Sons of Zebedee would have been set over the rest Mat. 20. and their Strife was which should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Drusius cited by Leigh Crit. Sac. that is who should be Pope over the rest now though we deny not but theirs might be upon a Civil and Coactive Power they dreaming of an earthly Kingdome of Christ yet sure this was neither mainly nor only in their design not only because they could not but know that Christs Kingdome in which they were to be Officers should be Spiritual and conversant about the things of another life though they thought it might be
yield to them in circumcising Tim. a thing which might seem to cross the design of the Gospel would he scruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel Answ The Apostles at first did yield very far to the Jews because they could not at the beginning digest the taking down of the old frame of Worship and setting up a new hence they did conform to the Jews for that time as much as might be in their transient and occasional practices but this reason did no way oblige them to frame their constitutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward by the Jewish Patern because then the Gospel was fully promulgated and the Will of Christ known to the new Gospel-Church differing from the old and in this case we are rather to think that the Apostles did not conform to the Jewish way in things not necessary because as at first their work was to bring them to Christ and so they yielded to them as much as might be so afterwards now their work was tobring them from Moses and to this end it was fit to bring them off all those customes and waies which might keep that their I dol yet in their minds as sure he Jewish customes might do Here is more then a shew of reason which our Author requireth why the Apostle should slight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues and besides it is reason enough why they should do this if it be not proved that they did other wise seeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit not led by mens Customes in their Actions I find no further proof of this consideration but that they did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but that in probability whole Synagogues in some places were converted What ground there is for this probability I know not we read nothing of it as we read of whole Houses converted neither see I any reason to think that the Apostles did respect Synagogues in their reforming Churches they made the Churches of them who had before been in the Synagogues and that I believe they did according to the Peoples best conveniency for partaking of ordinances together but that their Synagogues were their Pattern I see not Another argument from the Jewish and Gentiles Coetus he would fain be helped by but finding it weak disputeth against it wherefore we lay it aside and come to his 3d consideration p. 260. viz. the Synagogue-Model was most agreable to the State of the Churches in Apostolick times because it was so ordered as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government Answer Wherein the Synagogue-Model was in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Gospel we do not say that the Apostles would reject such a good thing because used by the Synagogue only we deny that they used it because the Synagogue used it so this proveth nothing Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Synagogue-Government in this general that both were such as might consist without Secular power but divers particular forms may be of this nature so that there is no need from this consideration that the Church and the Synagogues be governed by the same Model Sect. 8. We see how probable he hath made this his assertion he cometh p. 261. to shew what particular practices of the Synagogue the Apostles did take up and follow and first he speaketh of their publick service in the Church where all that he can attain to is this that there was in the Church as there had been in the Synagogue solemn Prayers Praises reading of Scripture and teaching of the People out of it all which are parts of Moral worship and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by he is forced to acknowledge a considerable difference viz. omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue and celebrating the Lords Supper which was not in it which one consideration destroyeth all that he is at so much pains to establish for if Christ and his Apostles had made the Synagogue their pattern they might easily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper from some of their customes as well as they did Baptism as this Author alledgeth Next he cometh p. 264. to ordination about which he maketh a great deal of do but to no purpose for Ordination i. e. a Solemn setting of men apart for the Office of the Ministry doth naturally follow as necessary to Order supposing that some should be in that Office and the work be not common to all which I believe should have been in the Church whatever had been done in the Synagogue as for the Rite of it laying on of hands whether it was used in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry for it will not thence follow that the Apostles took it from the confederate discipline of the Synagogue i. e. from their men-devised Customes as our Author confidently asserteth but all that he discourseth proveth not this but only if it prove any thing that it was used in the Synagogue I assert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Synagogue and by the Apostles from the ancient custâ—me of blessing or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony of this Judgment is Calv. Inst lib. cap. 4. Sect. hunc autem ritum fluxisse arbitror ab Hebraeorum more qui quod benedictum aut consecratum volebant manuum impositione deo quasi repraesentabant sic Jacob benedicens Ephraim Manasse eorum capitibus manus imposuit quod sequutus est dominus noster cum super infantes precationem faceret eodem ut arbitror significatu Judaei ex legis praescripto suis sacrificiis manus imponebant quare apostoli per manuum impositionem eum se deo offerro significabant quem initiabant in ministerium quanquam usui sit etiam super eos quibus visibilis spiritus gratias conferebant We see then it was not the practice in Synagogue-Ordination only but in many things else and it is most probable that this Rite so constantly used in all Ages of the Church in all cases of blessing or consecration hath something more in it then humane Institution in the Synagogue the constant use of it by men infallibly guided as Abraham the Apostles Christ himself the commanding of it in the like case of consecration under the Law cannot but give it a stamp of divine Authority Yea we find the Levites thus ordained Num. 8.10 wherefore all this his pains doth not prove that Gospel-Ordinance was taken up from the humane custome of the Synagogue A few things in this his discourse I shall further shortly take notice of p. 264 265. he will have Gospel-Ministers not to succceed no not by Analogie to the Priests and Levites but rather to