that it be not a patern for any other Office that should be the same Yea we can easily prove that that power as in the Apostles and making up the Complex of their Office was extraordinary because it cannot rurvive the Office it self under that notion and we can also prove that Christ never instituted any such power by it self and without the other parts of the Apostolick Office whence it clearly followeth that such a power by it self which is a clear description of the Episcopal Office is divers from all the Offices iustituted by Christ and so is a new Office What he saith of the ceasing of this power with the Apostles as to its necessity but not as to its lawfulness is most impertinent and a begging of the Question for the conclusion of the Argument is that it is unlawful because it hath no institution that institution which it had in the Apostles being ceased His confirmation of this his distinction containeth a manifest falshood viz. to make a thing unlawful saith he which was before lawful there must be an express prohibition forbidding the use of such a thing This I say applied to the matter in hand is most false for we speak of things which have their lawfulness only from institution viz. Authority given to one over others now that which is thus lawful becometh unlawful meerly by the withdrawing of the Institution though no express prohibition of it be made As is evident from the like case among men when a King giveth a Commission to a Judge it is lawful for him to act in that capacity now if the King shall call in his Commission though there be no express forbidding of the man I suppose it is now become unlawful for him to act Just so is our case one Pastor can have no authority over another unless it be given him by Christ who ascended up on high and received these gifts for men Eph. 4. Now Christ had given once such a power to men viz. the Apostles this he hath now withdrawn by not giving such Commission to any others but the Apostles for I suppose to follow the former example that when a Judge which had a Commission dieth it is a sufficient withdrawing of his Commission that the King doth not give it to any other who may succeed him wherefore any who take that power to them do it without Commission from Christ which is unlawful Sect. 16. Another Answer he bringeth to this argument p. 195. on which he insisteth much as a foundation tonding to establish his whole Cause but I hope it shall prove a ruinous foundation The Answer is this The extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any new but a determining the extent of that in actu secunâ—o which every Minister hath in actu primo For clearing this he undertaketh two things 1. To shew that the power of every Minister doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common which I do freely yield to him 2. P. 197. That the Officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power Before I come to examine what he saith to this purpose let me note 1. That he speaketh here in a new strain before he had at tributed this power of determining to the Magistrate now the Officers of the Church must have it which I confess is more fit But he soon repenteth and in the end of the same page maketh it lye between the Pastors and Magistrate whether he please It is strange to see how those who loose hold of the truth hang as Meteors and know not where to fix I take notice 2. That whereas the former part of his undertaking which he knew to be out of controversie among them against whom he disputeth he establisheth by five strong Arguments but for that part where the stress of the matter lieth he hath not brought so much as one reason to evince what he saith but some few bare Assertions for the clearing of it and indeed it is sometimes easier to prove the thing that is not than the thing that is denied even to such able men as Mr. Stillingfl But let us now attend to what he saith for his Opinion We have seen saith he that their power extendeth to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church Here are two things the former of which we have heard and seen solidly proved but the latter I have not yet seen where he hath done any thing but asserted it as he here doth but sure it being a matter of such concernment and controversie needed some more proof wherefore I cannot pass it so slightly as he hath done We may distinguish a twofold restraining the same holdeth in enlarging of the exercise of the power of Church-Officers viz. in respect of the Object of it and in respect of the acts of it Restraint in respect of the object of this power may be subdivided First when that power is permitted or appointed to be exercised over more or fewer objects of the same kind which it doth respect by the appointment of Christ as that a Minister should have a narrower or larger bounds for his Parish or more or fewer people to watch over and so of the limiting of Presbyteries Synods c. This restraint or enlargement of power in its exercise we acknowledge to be a matter of order and decency and may be determined by the prudence of the Church Secondly when it is extended to the objects of another kind or restricted from the whole Species of these objects that Christ hath appointed it for as when a Bishop by himself who by Christs Institution hath only power over the people getteth power given him by man over his fellow Pastors and when a Presbyter who by Christs Institution hath a power over the Flock to rule them is hindred from the exercise of this power altogether and is set only to feed and this ruling power as to its exercise is wholly devolved upon another This we deny to be a matter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence Restraint and enlargement in respect of acts of power is when some acts which may be by Christs Institution exercised by all Presbyters are only permitted to be exercised by some and not by others as Ordination Church-censures and when some are authorized to do some acts of power that Christs Institution giveth them no Commission unto this together with that restraint mentioned in the second member of the subdivision we prove not to be matters of order left to the prudence of the Church but to be the setting up of a new Office in the Church 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after requireth the right circumstantiating of these acts which Christ hath appointed to be done in his Church as that
certainly the Magistrate personally considered is subject to the ruling power of Pastors in spiritual things as they are subject to him in civil things And to deny this what is it but to make the supream Magistrate head of the Church and not a Member of it Much more worthy to be received is the opinion of Crysostome who speaketh thus to Ecclesiastical persons in reference to abstention from the Lord's Supper Si dux igitur quispiam si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indigne adeat cohibe ac coerce majorem tu illo habès authoritatem § 6. He cometh afterward p. 43. to ascribe to the Magistrate not only a political power which he maketh to lie in the Execution and Administration of laws for the common good but also an Architectonical and Nomothetical power though not absolute and independent whereby he may make laws in things that belong to the Church His meaning in this he expresseth more fully in the end of p. 44. In matters saith he undetermined by the word of God concerning the external policy of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the word of God And because he knew that the Church-Guides would put in for this Power that here he giveth to the Magistrate therefore p. 45. he laboureth to reconcile these parties by a distinction or two viz. between declaring Christ's Laws and making new Laws and between advising what is fit and determining what shall be done The declaring and advising Power is given by him to the Church the Authoritative determining power to the Magistrate For p. 46. The great use saith he of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of the Church is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King as the Parliament is for matters of Civil Government And p. 47. but yet saith he When such men thus assembled have gravely and maturally advised and deliberated what is fittest to be done the force strength and obligation of the thing so determined doth depend on the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate Against this Doctrine before I come to examine the Reasons that he bringeth for it I have these things to say 1. It must be noted by passing over which in silence our Author hath confounded the matter that we are not here speaking of things that are properly Civil though belonging to the Church viz. as it is a Society and in the Common-Wealth such as Church-rents Meeting-places liberty of the use of them c. but of the Government of the Church as it is a Church of its Discipline which things are properly the external policy of that Church as our Author termeth that which he speaketh of Now the Question is whether the Power of determining these be in the Church-Guides or the Magistrate 2. That which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ground of most of this Author's mistakes is he supposeth that some things of this Church-policy are so left undetermined by the word that they are capable of a determination by men's Legislative power and that new Laws may be made about them This is not truth for if we speak of the Substantials of Church-Government even of a particular Form it is determined in the word and so not subject to men's Nomothetical Determinations if of the Circumstances of it neither are these left for men to make Laws about them but they are determined by the Lord in the general Rules that are in the word and the Dictates of right reason compared with them and the Obligation that lyeth on our Consciences in these things is not from the Magistrates Law though we do not deny but he may add his Sanction to both sorts of things and make them the Law of the Nation as Dr. Stillingsleet saith well that he may with any thing in Religion but from the will of God which ought to be searched out and held forth Authoritatively by the Guides of the Church that are acting in the name of Christ 3. It is false then that the Magistrate hath Power in determining what of the External Policy of the Church is undetermined in the word For if we speak of that which is not determined at all neither by particular Praecepts or Examples or otherwise signifying particularly the mind of Christ about such a thing viz. by the general rules of the word compared with right reason is not held forth to be the mind of Christ such things ought not to be determined by any man or men but are left to Christian Liberty for such things must be determined meerly by mans will but the Lord hath not left the matters of his Church to that crooked rule But if we speak of things not determined by particular praecepts c. yet in which the mind of Christ is deducible by general rules Neither here hath the Magistrate the determining Power but they whom the Lord hath made the Guides and Eyes of his Church they must declare what is the will of Christ not impose what is their own Will or Law And here the Obligation is from the will of Christ not the Authority of the Church nor the Magistrate neither the declaration of it from them whom Christ hath made his Embassadors For what I have said I give this brief reason The Affairs of the Church are to be managed by a Ministerial Power the farthest extent of which is to declare Christ's Laws and apply them as is generally confessed by Protestants against Papists but the Magistrate's Power is not Ministerial but Magisterial Ergo it is not his part to manage or determine the Affairs of the Church of which doubtless her external Policy is no small part which may be further enforced thus Church-Determinations must be the Declarations of the will of Christ but not the Magistrate but the Pastors are the Embassadors of Christ whose it is to declare his will ergo it is not his but their part to make such Determinations We speak not of the Judgment of Discretion which the Magistrate hath in these things in order to the adding his Sanction to them and that not only as others have theirs being private and his publick and with Authority But we speak of that determination of things which is the ordinary means of promulgating to us the mind of Christ in Church-matters 4. It is most false that the great use of Synods is to be the King's Church-Council as the Parliament is his Civil Council for 1. himself acknowledgeth another use of them while he ascribeth to the Church a power of declaring Christ's Laws is not this of great use but Contradictions are no rarity in this Author 2. Hence it followeth that as Parliamentary Acts have no sorce without the King's Sanction so likewise Church-Determinations have none without it and if the Church Excommunicate any person it is not valid nor his sins bound in Heaven till the King put his Seal to it for that such a person
A MODEST ANSWER TO Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S IRENICUM By a Learned Pen. Sed hoc quidem affirmare non vereor quod heu nimium tristis Experientia jampridem docuit sensim inter eodem pari munere sacro fungentes ordinem Divinum in gradum humanum hunc gradum ruptis verorum purorum Canonum vinculis in tyrannidem manifestam si restitutam Ecclesiam malumus abolendam evasisse Theod. Bezae Resp ad Sarav de Ministr Evang. grad cap. 15. à calce LONDON Printed for Richard Janeway in Queens-Head-Alley in Pater-noster-Row 1680. ADVERTISEMENT THe Reader is desired to Correct the Mistake of the Printer in calling so Reverend an Antagonist by the name of Mr. Stillingfleet instead of Dr. Stillingfleet in so great a part of the Book And as for an Epistle though there was one provided by another hand yet an accident preventing its Publishing with the Book the Writer thereof is much better satisfied on second thoughts with its suppression finding it no easie matter to say any thing worthy of the renowned Author and so Learned a Work that hath had the perusal and approbation of as worthy and skilful Divines in the Controversie of Church-Government as are of their Age. Judicium sit penes lectorem Animadversions on Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum c. CHAP. I. THIS Book though set off with the specious Title of an Irenicum and carrying in its Face the pretence of a Laudable Design viz. the healing of the dangerous Wounds and sad Divisions of the Church at this time prevailing will upon due Examination I suppose be found an unsuitable Salve for these Sores and to mend our rents as they say Tinkers do by making a greater rent instead of mending a lesser For instead of a Debate about particular Forms of Government it bringeth in another Debate whether there be any Form instituted of Christ whether we must search the will of Christ about managing Church-Affaires in his Word or be content with what is the will of man Which Controversie is like to be harder in determining and more stiffly agitated than the other for sure it is harder to perswade them who would take the word of God for their rule that Christ hath not appointed any one Form of Government in his House than that he hath not appointed this or that By this device we are cast loose of all hold where we may fix and there shall be no end of Contention at least among them who consult so as to determine some one Form of all these which are thought to be lawful and when they have determined the People on whom they impose it have a very unsure bottom to settle their Consciences upon in this matter that doth so nearly concern Religion to wit nothing but the Judgment and Will of man which is often wrong and led by Interest and at best is fallible and cannot guide us certainly in that which pleaseth God Wherefore this Authors Opinion seems to be a cutting of the knot with Alexander and casting all loose when he cannot so untie it as to hold fast the exercise of Christ's Kingly Power in Governing his Church Neither is this Opinion new as the Author seemeth to imply for it was long since maintained and largely propugned by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity and solidly refuted by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government and indeed hath always been and still is the main Pillar to uphold Episcopacy in these Nations it being the most ready and plausible way for them who would wreath this Iron Yoke on the Necks of their Brethren when they cannot shew them Christ's Authority for it to take the determining of the Case out of his hand and to put it in the hand of the King and then to press it from his Authority with Fire and Sword And indeed this Opinion is a most colourable excuse for the unfaithful complyance of them who would fain hold their places under any Form of Church-Government that shall lye uppermost for so they shall be sure never to cross Authority and not to cross the Interest of their own Back and Belly and how much mischief this piece hath done this way is too evident seeing men that incline to comply are satisfyed with shadows instead of substantial reason to put off troublesome Conscience Yet among them who are conscientiously zealous for any one way of Government I suppose the Lot of this Author will be that which is ordinary to such unhappy Peace-Makers as sell truth or some part of it by an over-reach of condescendency and that in Gods matters not their own in which we must bargain as hard Merchants do in worldly things to redeem peace for I suppose men of all perswasions will be about his Ears For that which I am perswaded to be the truth of God in point of Church-Government viz. Government by Ministers acting in parity and ruling Elders met in Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies it is more easily upheld against his undermining Engines than any of the other Forms for the least of his Book is levelled against it in particular and what he saith against it I hope will appear not to have great strength yea I believe that out of what he hath said this truth may be strongly confirmed which I shall thus essay in a word He acknowledgeth and stifly maintaineth that Christ hath given power not only of teaching but of ruling his Church to all and every one of his Ministers and that he hath not given more power to one of them than another nor made them subject or subordinate to one another Whence it clearly followeth that Presbyterian Government I mean the parity of Ministers and their Association is jure divino ex confesso and that Prelacy is an addition to it made jure humano And hence it followeth that this addition is unlawful except he can prove that Christ hath given a power to men to make them unequal whom he hath made equal to subject one to another of them to whom Christ hath given equal power to restrain yea and take quite away the exercise of ruling power in some of them to whom Christ hath given it as much as to others and to enlarge that power in some to whom Christ hath given no more than to others Which I am sure he will never be able to do Yea further it 's confessed by him that Christ hath instituted the Office of Presbyters and that he hath not instituted the Office of Prelates ruling over Presbyters Wherefore he must either say that the Church hath power to institute new Offices which I hope he will not assert and I am sure he cannot prove or that Prelacy is unlawful For that a Prelate is another Officer than a Presbyter is undeniable because the one is ruled by the other Now these of the same Office cannot be ruled by or subordinate to one another as common sense and reason will teach § 2.
on by the Church or rather by Christ the Church declaring his will for so the Church only commandeth other wise we might as well say and it must needs be this Man's Opinion if he believe what here he writeth that when the Church ordaineth a Minister and commandeth him to preach Christ the Magistrate by forbidding him to speak any more in that name maketh null the former Obligation 'T is true the Magistrate may in some cases restrain the outward exercise of what we are so obliged to and also when he doth injuriously forbid such exercise we may be in some cases obliged to cede to this violence but neither of these destroyeth our Obligation to our duty neither the power by which it is laid on more than the Magistrate doth destroy my Obligation to obey my Father or his power over me when he putteth me in Prison and so I cannot do what my Father commandeth The Absurdities that he would fright us with do not follow from our opinion but from his own false supposition For the first it is not absurd that there should be two Supream Powers about things so different that one Power cannot have them both for it's formal Object Will not the Author grant that Ministers have the Supream preaching power that is not subordinate to the Magistrate and the Magistrate the Supream civil Power Why not then that they have the Supream ruling Power in Church affairs These Powers need not clash though they be not subordinate being about things so different as are this world and that which is to come the Soul and the Body But this man feareth that Caesar be dethroned if we confess Christ to be a King and so would have Christ's Kingdome subordinate to Caesar's For the second there cannot be two Obligations here for if the Church keep within her Limits her command is Christ's And so any contrary obligation must be null if not her Authority layeth on no Obligation For the Third it is the same Argument and it admitteth of the same Answer § 8. Having made the Magistrate the sole Judge and determiner in the matters of the Church even Ceremonies themselves our Author proceedeth p. 49. to examine the extent of his Power asserted in his former Hypothesis and here he proceedeth by three steps 1. That there are some things left undetermined by the Word This we assent to as it is here set down but cannot understand it as he doth which appeareth a little after of Ceremonies but rather of bare Circumstances of the worship of God if he take these for one he is very ignorant of the Nature of both neither of the species of Church-Government for which this indifferency of things is here asserted What he discourseth here of the Nature of indifferency I shall not insist upon intending to meet with it elsewhere Only I take notice of his concession p 53. that in things wholly indifferent both in respect of their common nature and their use and end that are neither commanded nor tend to the peace and order of the Church there can be no reason why the Nature of these things should be altered by humane Laws wherefore matters that are indifferent as to a command but are much conducing to the peace and order of the Church are the proper matter of humane constitutions concerning the Churches Policy Let it be here considered that these things are not properly indifferent but commanded viz. where the peace and order of the Church is injoyned and if it be so it is the part of the Church representative not of the Magistrate to Judge what things are thus conducible to peace and order and to hold forth the doing of these as the Laws of Christ § 9. His second step is that matters of this Nature may be determined and restrained and that it is not to the wronging of Christians liberty so to do And this he doth very largely prove against some as he pretendeth of great note and learning I wonder who they are For I never met with any who do deny what he asserteth It is true that many do and that warrantably maintain that where Christ hath left us free man hath no Power by his meer will to restrain us especially in things that belong to the worship of God but all do acknowled ge so far as I know that in things though not expresly commanded which by their nature or circumstances are made conducible to the ends that Christ hath enjoyned us to endeavour the Church may enjoyn us and that without making any new Laws but by declaring the will of God This and no more do all the arguments which the Author with much pains hath set down conclude And indeed if our author had once proved the Species of Church Government to be indifferent we should not deny it to be determinable and imposeable not by the Magistrate but by the Church In the prosecution of his Arguments there occur several things that I cannot assent to but they not being to the Question in hand and intending to touch some of them in a Treatise else-where I pass them here he hath some greedy hints after obeying whatever is commanded though unlawful the non-obligation of the Covenant c. which do discover his spirit Though the Author doth state the Question as hath been said yet all his reasons whereby from p. 56. he proveth the determination of indifferent things not to take away our liberty doth prove as much that determination grounded on mans meer will doth not take it away for in that case there may be left a liberty of judgment and there may be no necessity antecedent to the command as he saith in his first Argument also in that case the determining of the things supposeth them to be matters of liberty which is a second medium and the obligation in that case is only in respect of contempt and scandal which is his third Argument and the repealing of the law or ceasing of the authority commanding may free us of impositions made by meer will which is his fourth Argument Wherefore these Arguments prove that which the Author doth not own if they prove any thing which is a token that they prove nothing at all But that I may shortly answer them The first Argument is inconcludent for though radical liberty i. e. a right to do or not do be consistent with such commands as men without warrant from God lay on us their authority never being able to destroy that right given to us which is founded on the will of God yet these commands are an unlawful taking away of the exercise of our liberty for where neither Scripture nor Reason which are Gods law do bind mans will ought not to bind especially in the things of Religion He hath here p. 57. a gird by the way at them who hold one posture of receiving the Lords Supper to be necessary as more destroying liberty than doth the command of the Magistrate imposing one posture
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
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