that they may add to the worship a decency which is not needful by nature civil custom nor divine institution they become Religious Ceremonies their end being Religious and they being peculiar to Religion As I have shewn in another piece § 3. It seemeth to me very strange and not to be passed over in our Animadversions that in the prosecuting of this his hypothesis wherein he had ascribed a determining power to lawful Authority in the Church he taketh notice of no power or Authority seated in Church-men but speaketh only of the Magistrate for p. 38. shewing why there is need to prove this hypothesis he tells us of some that give no power and some that give little power to the Magistrate about Religion and then falleth upon a large debate of the Magistrate's power in Church-matters Which is an evident supposing that all Church-power is in the Magistrate and in none else otherwise this discourse should be very impertinent to his hypothesis But this supposition is a gross falshood as is fully proved by many worthy men against Erastus and his followers I shall not now ingage in that large debate If we should grant a determining power to any authority about the things in hand it should not be to the Civil Magistrate but to the Guides of the Chnrch met in a lawful Assembly And it is not only contrary to truth but a contradiction to what this Author writeth elsewhere in his Appendix about Excommunication where he taketh much pains to assert a power of Discipline in the Church-Guides and if so certainly the Magistrate is not the lawful Authority in the Church for that implyeth Church Authority I hope he will not say that Ministers have lawful Authority in the State because they have no Civil Authority why then should we say or suppose that the Magistrate hath lawful Authority in the Church except he think that the Magistrate hath Church-Authority against which he there disputeth especially seeing Respublica non est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica he that hath only Civil power hath no power in the Church whatever he hath about Church-matters and over Church-men § 4. In asserting the Magistrates power in these things he professeth that he will not so much make his way through any party as strive to beget a right understanding among them that differ how well he keepeth his promise may be seen by examining what he saith on which I will not much insist intending to meet with this his Doctrine elsewhere but only mark what is amiss with a short ground of our censure of it for this debate is somewhat extrinsecal to the indifferency of Church-Government it rather supposeth it than asserteth or proveth it In explicating his second distinction about the Magistrate's power p. 41. The internal formal elicitive power of order saith he lies in the Authoritative exercise of the Ministerial function in Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments but the external objective imperative power of jurisdiction lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the later to the Supream Magistracy Here several things are to be noted 1. That he maketh the power of Order to be all one with internal formal elicitive power about Church affairs and the power of Jurisdiction the same with external objective and imperative power about them This is instead of distinguishing to confound things most different for I hope he is not Ignorant that all the Assertors of Church-power against the Erastians do distinguish Church-power or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven for so is this power designed by Christ in the power or Key of Order and the power or Key of Jurisdiction Let the Author shew us one not Erastian who before himself did ever make the power of Order in the Church to comprehend all formal and elicitive Church-power Yea he doth by this most evidently contradict himself which I wonder to meet with so often in such a learned man for in his Appendix he maketh the power of Discipline to be in the Church and so to be formal internal and elicitive Church-power and sure the power of Discipline is the power of Jurisdiction not of Order not only because all that speak of this distinction do so understand it but also our Author doth here make the power of Order to respect only the word and Sacraments and so the power of Discipline must belong to Jurisdiction according to him now whereas he maketh the power of Jurisdiction there to be internal only in the Church and here to be external in the Magistrate only if this be not a contradiction let any man judge 2. Another thing that here I take notice of is that the power which he ascribeth to the Ministry is only Administration of the Word and Sacraments Then they have no power of Discipline for every one knoweth that that is some other thing than the Word and Sacraments Now this is contradictory to the whole of his own Appendix and also to Scripture which giveth to Church-Officers power of binding and loosing Mat. 18. 18. Jo. 20. 23. and of ruling the Lord's People 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. But I insist not on this it having been made evident by so many against the Erastians 3. He ascribed all power about Church affairs to the Magistrate except that of Administring the Word and Sacraments and so to the Magistrate as it is only belonging to him for he giveth him that which he called the power of Jurisdiction and that is to him all power but that of Word and Sacraments Now there was never any Erastian that gave more to the Magistrate than this for by this means he hath all the power of deciding controversies in Synods for that is not preaching of the Word of Ordination the exercise of Discipline c. and none but he hath any share in it Behold unto what absurdities this man runneth unawares while he maketh it his business to unhinge that Government which Christ hath setled in his Church And indeed I cannot but take notice of a necessary connexion between this putting all Church-power in the hands of the Magistrate and denying it to be juris divini For he knew well that if it had been left to be decided by Church-men among themselves it had not been easily determined amidst the interest of men clashing one with another the more conscientious and self-denied sort being ever the fewest § 5. Page 42. Speaking of the Subordination or Co-ordination of the Magistracy and Ministry there be some mistakes worthy of our notice Though he acknowledgeth the person of the Magistrate to be subject to the word of God yet he denieth it to be subject to the power of the Ministers This is the Doctrine of Court-preachers who love to flatter rather than speak truth But consider 1 It is to me an inconsistency that Ministers have power or authority of
Christ and yet will have the Church outwardly governed by his Laws 2. He saith the main original of mistakes here is the confounding of the external and internal government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward government of the Church of God which is intended of this internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men Reply We are willing to distinguish these and I believe he cannot shew any of ours who do confound them yea we will go further in distinguishing the outward and inward Government of the Church than he doth and I may retort this charge on himself hoping to make it appear that he confoundeth these two and that this is the ground of his mistakes The Government of the Church is then two-fold Inward and Outward both these may be distinguished according to divers objects of this Government for Inward Government is either that which is exercised in the conscience and so is invisible or that which is exercised in the Church or in matters that are properly spiritual 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 considerable 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
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 exercise 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 the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to them who are so appointed To this I reprove a few things briefly 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in terminis to what he taught Part. 1. c. 2. p. 41. and we refuted p. there he made the power of Order peculiar to Ministers and power of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Magistrate describing both powers no otherwise then he doth here and yet here he giveth the power of Jurisdiction as well as of Order to Ministers 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers quoad jus to be equally given by Christ to all Ministers it is strange that he should deny that men may restrain the one for he confesseth the actus secundus of it to be inseparably joined to the Office and yet doth boldly affirm that they may restrain the other without giving the least shew of permission that they have from Christ who gave both powers so to tamper with the one more then with the other If Christ hath made no difference between these and if he hath it should have been produced how dare men do it I confess Nature maketh a necessity of restricting the power of Jurisdiction for if every one should Rule when and where he pleased there would be confusion and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exercise this power over but this is common to the power of Order also though with some difference for it is not fit that every Minister should preach and baptize where and when he pleaseth without any limitation Neither could this be without confusion Also Christ hath made a limitation of the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for by giving it to many and making it relate to things of common concernment he hath eo ipso determined that none of these who have it shall exercise it by himself nor without the concurrence and consent of them who are equal in Commission with him This limitation of the exercise we confess to be warrantable but what reason there is I cannot understand why men should take away the exercise of ruling power from many and give it to one more than they can take away the exercise of preaching power and so give it to some as it shall not be lawful for them to preach but only to rule more than they can take away the exercise of both powers seeing Christ hath equally given them Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Author here furnisheth us with against himself men may not restrain the exercise of the power of order further than Nature maketh it necessary Ergo they may not any further restrain the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction because Christ hath not made such a difference in his giving these powers to men If it be said that the restraint of the power of Jurisdiction is sometimes necessary because Parity breeds Factions and many are unfit to rule Ans. Even so letting all preach doth often breed Heresie many preach false Doctrine and many are unfit to preach So this argument must either plead for the restraint of both powers or of neither Let us then see what must be the remedy of this abuse of the power of order and the remedy of the abuse of the other must be proportionable sure the remedy is not to restrain the exercise of the power of preaching except it be for a time in expectation of their amendment which holdeth also with reference to ruling power but to put such unfit men out of the Ministry Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Curate and let him still have the charge of the Flock though his Curate doth the work for him No but he should be removed and another put in his place Even so they who are unfit to rule must not have a Bishop do it for them but be removed that other fit men may be put in their place seeing ruling abilities are a necessary qualification of a Minister as well as preaching abilities as was shewed before If Parity breed Factions we must censure the guilty not cross Christs Institutions in the exercise of that power he hath given Sect. 21. 3. It is not good sense that he saith speaking of the power of Jurisdiction that though it belong habitually and in actu primo to all yet in a constituted Church some further Authority is necessary besides the power of order Whether this be the Printers fault or the Authors I know not but sure the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Jurisdiction is exercised 4. He leaveth us in suspence about the power of restraining the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for he implieth that it may be done by the consent of the Pastors or by the appointment of the Magistrate or both If this power that Christ hath given his Servants may be taken from them in its exercise it is very fit we should know to whom the Lord hath given leave to do this I believe and have proved that no man may do it but if it may be done sure it is not thus left at randome that it should be primi occupantis Pastors themselves cannot do it for they have got the charge and they not the Bishop whom they entrust must give an account The Magistrate may not do it for he is no ruler of the Church but this is the highest act of ruling the Church and of ruling and disposing of the Rulers of it as he pleaseth and if neither may do it both may not do it seeing the reasons brought exclude both from any measure of power in that thing I do not stand on the Authority of Camero which is all the proof
better gifted for that they served Tables but this is to jumble together what the Lord hath made an ordinary separation of 5. This Opinion maketh the different work that Church-Officers are employed in not to proceed from distinct Office or Power but from different gifts which would bring a Babel of confusion into the Church For 1. As Men think they are gifted so will they take up their Work and so most will readily incline to the easiest work and think their gift lieth that way to the great neglect of the difficult and main business and because Ruling is sweet to an ambitious mind and laborious preaching is painful we shall have abundance of Rulers but few Teachers 2. By the same reason one may neglect all the parts of his work that he may neglect one pretending that his gift is not for this nor for that and that they may be done by others If it must be said the Church must appoint them their work and not leave it to their choice Answ. If the Church appoint Timothy's work to be to Rule and exempt him from preaching ordinarily I see not how he differeth from the Ruling-Elders which this Author disputeth against notwithstanding his supposed power to Preach which to him is an idle Talent I mean if this be done warrantably otherwise it is not done especially if the Church give him no more power than Christ hath given to every Pastor that is to Rule over the flock with the equal concurrence of 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 censur'd 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 difuse 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 that 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
culorum 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 difused 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 they set up Metropolitans and at last a Pope Ergo it was so in the Apostles times We say then That diversity in after Ages flowed from this that Men following Mr. Stilling Principles did not follow divine Institution or Apostolick practice but their own Wit and Reason Beside the diversities he here instanceth in are not to the purpose for he doth not shew us that Parity was in one place and imparity in another but that in one place the Presbyters chused their Bishop in another not Sect. 19. We come at last to his 3d proposition about Apostolick practice p. 341. viz. That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of it self for the founding of an unalterable and perpetual Rite for the Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that Practice This doctrine he laid down before par 1 c. 1. p. 23. And we examined p. _____ where I stated that question far otherwise than he seemeth here to do and indeed thâ—s proposition as here laid down might be yielded by us neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch thâ— controversie which is andabatarum more pugnare We lay no obligation on any by a meer Apostolical Practice but by their Practice considered as done in the same case that we are in Neither 2. do we say that such practice is sufficient of it self to bind us for it hath Gods command of Imitation of which before and equal Morality of that action to us and then to concur with it in this Neither do we say 3. That their Practice doth found a Riet it doth but declare what is founded on the will of Christ as that which we must do Most of all his Arguments are obviated by what is already said The first that they did many things without intention of obliging others as going abroad to Preach the Gospel unprovided Pauls not taking wages c. This doth not touch the point seeing these things were for a peculiar reason To the same purpose is the 2d Argument p. 343. which indeed is but the same Argument that they did many things on particular occasions emergencies and circumstances as Pauls celebate Community of goods Preaching in private Houses Fields c. That which only is worth the noticing in this Argument is p. 344. That he requireth before Apostolical Practice be obligations that it be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason depending on the several circumstances of Time place and persons but from some unalterable Law of Christ. Answer This we are able to prove as to ruling the Churches by a Parity of Elders for they did ordinarily so practice and that where the place persons and times were not the same neither can it be shewed that ever they did otherwise i. e. set up a Bishop over Presbyters is not this sufficient ground der this Mystery of iniquity had begun to work 2 Thes. 2. 7. It is no wonder then that soon after it began to appear and when some had thus miscarried and others stuck to the Apostolical frame of things this might quickly breed a diversity 3. It will easily appear to any who readeth this Chap. that all the Authours discourse tendeth to prove that the ancient Churches thought not Episcopacy to be jure divino let them who are concerned answer him in this if they can I am convinced of the truth of what he saith But let us take a short view of the grounds on which he establisheth what he asserteth in this Chap. Sect. 2. The first is That the extent of the Power of Church-Officers did increase meerly from the enlargment of the bounds of Churches which he maketh out in 4 steps or periods The first is when Churches were the same with Christians in a whole City And here he handleth 3 things first he sheweth that the Primitive constitution of Churches was in a Society of Christians in the same City where he will have the name Church in Scripture to be only given to that not a particuler congregation meeting in one place I do not deny but the name is given as he saith because of that confederacy in discipline among divers congregations in one City yet neither the name nor the nature of a Church must be denied to a single congregation for a Church in Scripture-Language is a company met together to serve God now this agreeth well to a single Congregation seeing in it not only word and Sacraments are administred but also discipline is exercised as shall anon appear All that he saith proveth the former Use of the word but nothing against this latter 2. He speaketh of the Government of these Churches p. 352. And that 1. before Parishes or distinct Congregations were settled 2. after they were settled about which he largely disputeth when it began which is not to our purpose in both cases he saith they were ruled in common and p. 354. That it is a weak conceit to think that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct Presbytery to rule it and p. 356. this crumbling saith he of Church-Power into every Congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most Learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen in Calv. Beza Salmasius Blondel Gerson Bucer and others I do readily yield to him that it is most probable that in times of Persecution particular congregations could not be soon settled and
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. But to come to the Book it self My design is not a full Refutation but some brief Animadversions for private satisfaction and mine own establishment in these truths that he endeavoureth to shake Neither do I intend to meddle with the whole but only to cull out these passages that relate to Presbyterian Government and any that might infer the unsetling of that or any part of it § 3. The first thing that I meet with to be disproved is p. 2. where he asserteth a Principle that will not only shake our Faith if it be received in the point of Church-Government but which I hope he doth not intend will unsettle us in most points of Christian Religion His Principle is this That Difference in Opinion about a point and probable Arguments brought on both hands by wise and able men if it be not a matter of necessity to Salvation gives men ground to think that a final decision of the matter in Controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Vnity of the Church of God His Opinion in this he setteth down in fewer and clearer words in the Contents of ch 1. things saith he necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed the Form of Church Government is not so as appears by the remaining Controversie about it I shall first shew the danger and falsehood of this Principle and then try the strength of what he saith for the establishment of it And 1. I argue thus This Assertion destroyeth it self for if no point not necessary to Salvation be so sure that we must necessarily hold it in order to peace then this his Assertion falleth under the same condition and needeth not to be maintain'd for it is not needful to Salvation I hope they will go to Heaven that are not of his mind in this and I am confident he doth not think it so clear that no wise and able men will controvert with him about it and if it be needless in order to the Churches peace why is it here laid down as the first stone of the Foundation on which he buildeth his Irenicum but it fareth here with our Author as it doth with all other Abetters of Scepticism they attain at least so far their end as they make men question that Opinion that they labour to establish by perswading them to question every thing § 4. Secondly There is no cause at all why the Author should except from the uncertainty here asserted things that are of necessity to Salvation for if we are to think that the Lord hath so clearly revealed things not needful to Salvation which are needful to peace in the Church much rather are we to think so of things needful to Salvation which also cannot but be necessary to peace for we can have no peace with them that destroy the Foundation For it hath hitherto been a received Principle that things of necessity to Salvation are revealed with more clearness than other things And though Papists have laboured to cast a Mist upon Scripture discovery in both sorts of things that they might take all power to themselves over the Truths of God and Consciences of men in determining what is truth as Dr. Stillingfleet would darken the discovery of the circa-fundamentals of Religion that he might put the power of determining these things in the hand of the Magistrate yet Protestants have ever firmely maintained that however the Scripture speaketh darkly in some things not essential yet that the light of it is most clear in things necessary to Salvation They are not then of this mans mind who will have the things that do not so nearly relate to Salvation but are needful to peace so clearly revealed that there can remain no Controversie about them among wise and able men but excepteth from this necessity things of necessity to Salvation From what hath been said I argue thus against Dr. Stillingfleet's Principle If any things not necessary to Salvation be so necessary to be clearly revealed that we are to look upon them as not Christ's Truth if there remain a Controversie about them managed with specious Arguments on both sides among wise and able men much more things necessary to Salvation must be thus clearly revealed so that there is no truth in them if they be so controverted but the consequent is most false and absurd and overturneth all the Foundations of our Religion for have not the Arrian Soecinian Arminian and Popish Controversies been managed yea and are they not managed by the Adversaries of Truth with Learning even to admiration We must then according to this principle not take either part of these debates for truth but think that the Lord hath determined nothing in them and we must leave it to men to determine in them what they please and must embrace that Is not this a fine device to cast loose all to bring in Scepticism instead of Faith to make way for a subtle Sophister to nullifie any truth by disputing speciously against it Yet this we are to bless the Lord for that the overturners of the Government of Christ's house have no other means to cast it loose by but these that do also cast loose all our Religion which I hope will be a consideration to fix this truth the better in the minds of them who are serious and intelligent § 5. Thirdly If these things not necessary to salvation that speciously on both hands are controverted be not needful to be determined in our consciences in order to the Churches peace I ask the Author of this Assertion What things of that nature are needful to the Churches peace that we hold an opinion about them Or are there any things such or must we hesitate about all the circa-fundamentals in Religion and look on them as indifferences determinable by men if we will not be guilty of disturbing the peace of the Church I hope
said we may see what fit advice this healer giveth while he thus saith p. 3. The only way left for the Churche's setlement and peace under such variety of apprehensions concerning the means and method in order to it is to pitch upon such a foundation if possible to be found out whereon the different parties retaining their private apprehensions may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in Common in order to the peace and tranquillity of the Church of God Hitherto we consent with him and wish he would help us to such a Foundation so as it self be founded on the Word of God and not contrary to it But he goeth on Which saith he cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem This also we grant but that which follows we cannot agree to It must be then saith he by convincing men that neither of these ways to Peace and Order which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church secured on lasting Foundations If this be a fit way of healing Church-rents then those Churches are in the best way to peace who cast away the Bible and will not look there what God hath commanded because some may say he hath commanded this and others he hath commanded that and so refer all controversies to be determined by men as supposing nothing to be determined by God And indeed this is the basis that the peace of the Popish Church standeth upon and I believe no Jesuit would have given another advice than this toward the setling of our divided condition What Must we say that neither way is commanded of God whether it be so or not when we can prove from Scripture that this is Christ's Institution that not but a device aud usurpation of men must we yield this our ground and leave the whole matter to men's wills as being the readiest way to peace If this be his cure for Church-Divisions I believe they who take the word of God for their rule especially in Church-matters will think it worse than the Disease Every way to peace is not a good way otherwise there were no duty at any time to contend for the truth once delivered to the Saints Jude 3. § 10. I do not dissent from the learned Author in his Determinations about the Nature of Right and Divine Right but must examine some of the Principles from which he will have a Divine Right to be inferred Wherefore as to the rest of the first Chapter I first take notice that what he largely discourseth from p. 6. to p. 11. concerning the lawfulness of that which is not forbidden by God however it may be granted sano sensu on which I now insist not yet it doth not reach his point unless he prove that Christ hath determined no species of Government for if he hath determined one then all other inconsistent with it are eo ipso prohibited Wherefore though we grant to him that ratio regiminis ecclesiastici is juris naturalis yet we cannot grant except he proves it that the modus of it is juris divini permissivi that is to say it is juris humani but we assert it to be juris divini partim naturalis partim positivi viz. in respect of the divers parts of which that Form is made up which are approved of God § 11. To make up an Obligation whereby we are bound to a thing as duty we assert with him that there is required Legislation and Promulgation of it But what he saith of the way of Promulgation of Divine Positive Laws that is necessary to lay an Obligation on us I cannot fully agree to P. 12. He asserteth that whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing Law must be clearly revealed as such and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern it to have been the will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all Believers to the Worlds end as is clear in the case of Baptism and the Lords Supper But because the learned Author could not but see how obvious it was to every one to argue against this Assertion from the instances of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism which he acknowledgeth to be Christs Will and Law established and yet not thus revealed therefore he laboureth to obviate that Argument by this exception to wit that there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a Law unrepealed in some circumstances of it as there is for the establishing of a new Law The former saith he may be done by a different practice of persons infallibly guided as in the case of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism not so the latter To this I reply a few things 1. It had been good if in an Assertion so fundamental to his whole discourse and so positive for the clearness of Divine Laws he himself had used more clearness there is no small muddiness and ambiguity in his expressions which I must a little remove And first when he saith that Christs Laws must be revealed clearly as such either he meaneth as Hooker Eccles. polit defending this Opinion of our Author's expresseth it that they must be set down in the Form of Laws But it is too great presumption to prescribe to him how he should word the intimations of his will to his People or in what mode or form he should speak to them His will manifested to us is that which obligeth us and this may be without such a Form Or he meaneth that Christs Laws must be so clearly revealed as that we may come to know that this we are to do and that to forbear and that he would have us to take notice of it as his Will and this we agree to and do maintain that the Form of Church-Government is thus revealed Another ambiguity is that he requireth them to be laid down in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern them to be his will to oblige us If he mean that they who have competent understanding and means and do seriously search the truth in these things which I suppose is the meaning of having their senses exercised in them may for the objective evidence of the things come to know them this we do not deny if he mean that such will certainly be convinced of them and that there can be no impediment insuperable by them neither in the Object nor in their blindness or prejudice or other Infirmity or Disadvantage that they lye under which may make them that they cannot see that to be the will of Christ which is so revealed this we utterly deny Now
Preaching the Word and the Magistrate's person is subject to this Word and yet he is not subject to the power of Ministers When they teach rebuke exhort with all authority and command in the name of the Lord doth not this reach Magistrates as well as others if they be subject to the word of God I see not how they are subject to it if they be not subject to it as declared by Christ's Embassadors which is the ordinary way of dispensing it and if so then are they subject to the Preaching power of Ministers at least 2. Magistrates are also subject to the ruling power of Ministers for they rule over Christ's Flock the Members of the Church of which number if the Magistrate be I see no ground in Scripture for exempting him from the power of their Jurisdiction When Christ said Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained he did not add except the supream Magistrates May not I pray the Pastors of the Church debar him if he be a flagitious man from the Lord's Table as Ambrose did to Theodosius and if they may 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 â—u illo habes 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
under different Obligations to the same thing 3. The same action may be a duty and a sin viz. Being forbidden by the one Power and commanded by the other Ans. 1. He supposeth which we will never yield to him that ceremonies may be indifferent and imposeable by men Nay all the Ceremonies of God's worship being worship themselves are Christ's institution otherwise but will-worship And so himself understandeth Ceremonies p. 68. It is like forgetting what he here said 2. It concerneth the Author as much as it doth us to answer his own Objection for he ascribeth to the Church an intrinsecal power of Discipline Now suppose one be excommunicated the Church commandeth it the Magistrate forbiddeth it if his prohibition doth not null the former Obligation the same absurdities follow that are mentioned in his reason if it doth then this doth as much destroy the power of Discipline in that Church which he asserteth as it destroyeth the Power of determining about other Church-matters which we assert 3. We deny that the Magistrate by his power can destroy the obligation to any Church-Act being otherwise warrantable laid on by the Church or rather by Christ the Church declaring his will for so the Church only commandeth otherwise 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 acknowledge 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
juris naturalis 1. That there be a distinction of persons and a superiority both of power and order in some over the rest 2. That the persons so above others have respect paid them sutable to the nature of their imployment cap. 5. The third thing is that all things either pertaining to the immediate worship of God or belonging to the Government of the Church be performed with the greatest solemnity and decency that may be cap. 6. Fourthly that there be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all the controversies arising in the Church which immediately tend to the breaking of the peace and unity of it Where he pleadeth for the definitive sentence in the major part where power is equal and for liberty of appeals where there is subordination as being of natural right and that this subordination must be in a Society consisting of many Companies or Congregations cap. 7. Fifthly that all who are are admitted unto this Society must consent to be governed by the laws of that Society cap. 8. Sixthly that in a well-ordered Society and so in the Church every offender against the rules of that Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society and submit to the censures of it according to the Judgment of the Officers of it All this we accept of as truth but how this last doth consist with his putting all power of jurisdiction in the hand of the Magistrate and leaving the Church-Officers only power of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments of which before I cannot understand So much for the first part of his Irenicum PART II. CAP. 1 2. § 1. IN his second part we have also some concessions to be taken notice of as cap. 2. p. 154. that there must be a Form of Government as necessary not by Nature only but by a Divine Law This we receive as truth and do thus improve it ad hominem The Author cannot shew us any express Law in Scripture commanding that there be a Form of Government in the Church Neither can any Scripture ground of this truth be brought but what is drawn from Apostolick practice they had a Form of Government ergo so must we seeing it is as needful to us as it was to them Now if this be so why doth the Author dispute so much against our reasoning from Apostolick practice where the case is alike for this particular Form of Government as being established by Divine Law If their practice be a sufficient evidence of a Divine Law beside the Law of Nature for this that there be a Form why is it not as significant of a Divine Law for this that this is the Form where the case of them and us is alike § 2. We receive also as a concession p. 157. that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church and for a National Form of Church-Government Also cap. 2. he concedeth that the Government of the Church ought to be administred by Officers of Divine Appointment is of Divine Right Where in one word he destroyeth unawares all that he saith for maintaining the lawfulness of Episcopal Government for he doth not deny that Bishops as ruling over Presbyters and having more power than their Brethren are of Humane Constitution and so they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment If so then by this Concession the Church ought not to be ruled by them and so Episcopal Government is unlawful I know not if he did foresee this Argument taken out of himself But in explaining his Concession he would fain seem to say some other thing than he hath indeed said For he saith that he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church So that his meaning is there must be a standing perpetual Ministry And this he proveth largely This doth no ways explain what he hath said For it is one thing that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers and another thing that these Officers be such as God hath appointed Jeroboam when he made Priests of the lowest of the People kept Divine Institution so far that he made Priests and did make that work common to all And yet his Priests were not Officers of Divine Appointment So neither is the Church ruled by Officers of Divine Appointment though there be Officers who rule which is Divine Appointment except these Officers be such as God hath Instituted and not such as men have devised And besides this the Law of Nature dictateth that there should be Rulers in the Church distinct from the Ruled as he had formerly observed Wherefore he must here either trifle or say some more viz. that the Lord must appoint these sorts of Officers that should govern his Church for the Author is here speaking of what is of Divine positive Right having formerly shewed what is of Divine Natural Right § 3. In the third Chap. we have the Question stated in speaking of the Church as comprehending many particular Congregations and so excluding the Independent way from this Competition he compareth these two forms of Government viz. 1. The particular Officers of several Churches acting in equality of power called a Colledge of Presbyters 2. A superiour order above the Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it Now the Question is not whether of these cometh nearest to the primitive pattern But whether either of them be setled by Divine Right so as that the Church is bound to obseeve it He holds the Negative We the affirmative and we say that the former of these two is Juris Divini § 4. For proving his opinion he undertaketh to enervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of these Five he proposeth viz. 1. A former Law standing in force under the Gospel 2. Some plain institution of a new Law under the Gospel 3. The obligatory Nature of Apostolical practice 4. The general sence of the primitive Church 5. The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation Of these he discourseth severally And we shall give our sence of them as in following him we come at them But first I must here note a few things 1. It is an injurious way of stateing the Question about this Divine Right to exclude any who put in for it from the liberty of Competition Now he knoweth that others besides these plead a Divine Right of their way as Erastians will have the keys given by Christ to the Magistrate Independents to the Community or at least the Officers of a particular Church Popery is not excluded seeing it standeth on the same bottom with Episcopacy though I think the Resolution of the question about Divine Right might have laid both these aside yet I think the stating of it might have taken them in and they might have a fair hearing lest some by seeing Presbytery and Episcopacy laid aside as of no Divine stamp might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Christs
Laws to be guided by but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men Sure our Lord was as careful to foresee future needs of his People as to provide for present wants 2. The Church in the Apostles days though not so far spread as now yet was so multiplyed and setled as that she was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy Might there not be a Bishop in Ephesus Corinth c. and especially in Galatia a National Church Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now Wherefore if the Apostles provided for present need they behoved either to determine either of these two ex ore tuo 3. What is there in our case that maketh another kind of Government needful then what was needful in the Apostles times We have many Congregations which all need their several Officers and must be ruled in common either by all these Officers or by some set above the rest was not this their case too I would fain know where lyeth the difference may be in this there could not then be one Head over all the Churches which now may seeing the powers of the world profess Christ. It is true there was a time when Government could not be setled viz. When first a Church was planted and Believers very few But I am sure it was otherwise in many places before the Apostles departed this life 4. Must we say then that the Directions in the Epistles to Tim. and Pet. and elsewhere concerning Church-Administration do not concern us but their force expired with that time I must see stronger Arguments than any that this Author hath brought ere I be perswaded of this and yet it doth clearly follow out of what he he saith Yea we must say that these Scriptures which tell us what Officers should be in the Church as Eph. 4. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. do not reach us but it is lawful for the Magistrate in this mans opinion to appoint what Church-Officers he thinketh fit for this time as the Apostles did for their time For he saith p. 181. the Apostles looked at the present state of the Church in appointing Officers This I hope sober men will not readily yield to Yea he is against himself as we have seen before and may have occasion further to shew afterward § 9. His fourth and last Reason is p. 181. the Jews lived under one civil Government according to which the Church Government was framed and contempered but Christians live under different civil Governments therefore if we compare Christ with Moses in this we must say that Christ did frame the Church Government according to the Civil and so it must not be one but divers Ans. It is here boldly supposed but not proved that the form of the Jewish Church Government was framed according to the Civil which we deny and so raze the foundation of this Reason And whereas his assertion wants proof our denial shall stand on surer ground for the Civil Government among the Jews was often changed they had Judges Kings Governors under their Conquerors but we read not of changing their Church Government which behoved to have been had it been framed according to the Civil Wherefore neither must Christian Church-Government be formed by the Civil but by Christs Institution § 10. To these answers to our Argument he addeth ex abundanti as he speaketh some Arguments to prove the Antithesis viz. that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government He might have spared this his supererrogation except he had had more to say for taking off the strength of our Argument then we have met with But to his Arguments the first p. 181 and 182. he frameth thus what binds the Church as an Institution of Christ must bind as an Universal standing Law one Form of Government cannot so bind ergo prob min. what binds as a Law must either be expressed as a Law in direct terms or deduced by necessary consequence as of an universal binding nature The first cannot be produced The second is not sufficient except the consequence be necessary and also the obligation of what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture for consequences cannot make Institution but apply it to particular cases because positives being indifferent Divine Institution must be directly brought for their binding so that no consequence can bind us to them without express declaration that it shall so bind This is no new Argument it is proposed by him p. 12. and answered by us p. to what is said there I shall add a little applyed to his Argument as here framed his major is not so evident but that it needeth a distinction to clear it What bindeth as Christs Institution must bind as an universal Law i. e. in all times and places negatur for there are cases in which the Lord will admit and necessity will impose a dispensation with some of God's Institutions as I exemplified before in the case of Hezekiah keeping the Passeover i. e. in all times where God or Nature doth not make a clear exception or where the present case doth not exempt it self from the intent of that as being given in a far different condition conceditur Hence there were some of Christs Laws for the Church temporal some peculiar to some cases these do not bind us all the rest do where they are possibly practicable That the Laws for parity of Offices in the Church are of the latter sort we maintain For his Miner we deny it and for the disjunctive proof of it we are ready to maintain both the parts which he impugneth And First That there is express Law of Christ for parity which I wonder he should so barely deny that it can be produced when he knoweth or might know that it is brought by our Writers out of Mat. 20. 25 26. Lu. 22. 25 26. But what he hath to say against the evidence brought from these and other places we shall examine when we come at them 2. Though there were no express Law for it we maintain that there is abundant evidence drawn by consequence from Scripture to shew that this is the Will and Law of Christ as for these two conditions that he requireth in such a consequence the first we own and maintain that it is inferred by clear consequence from Scripture that there ought to be a parity among Ministers thus what was the practice of the Apostles in framing Church Government should be ours also except the case be different but the Apostles did settle the Ministers in equal power without a Bishop over them neither is there any difference in our case that should cause us to do otherwise ergo we ought so to practice It is not needful to insist here on the confirmation of this Argument seeing we are here only asserting that this conclusion may be proved not undertaking the proof of it which is fully done by Presbyterian Writers and which
a Society may be preserved among them Till then it be proved that one form is necessary for the being of a Church this Argument can prove nothing Reply it is false that Legislators looked after no more but that we find none of them who setled not a particular Form yea this was necessary for these Generals could not be practised but in some particular Form this or that and of these we find they choosed what they thought fittest even so Christ not only appointed Generals but knowing a particular Form is only practicable he chose that which he thought fittest mans choise in this is alterable because other men may have as much wisdom and authority as they Christs choise is not so for the contrary reasons His second Ans. p. 190. Is what is not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church is in Christs liberty whether he will determine it or not even as when I hear that Lycurgus and others did form a Republick I conclude there must be Government But not that they Institute Monarchy c. this must be known by taking a view of their Laws Reply we acknowledge that Form of Government to be in Christs liberty whether he will determine it or not but we think it like that he hath determined it as for other reasons so because even men have not appointed the Generals of Government without a form in which they should subsist much less would the wise God do so if they being wiser then others did think it fitter to choose the Form then to leave it at other mens will much more would he What he saith of inferring that they did appoint this or that Form from their modelling a Common Wealth is not to the purpose for that they did appoint a Form we know by History and I suppose that every one thinketh that they did wisely in so doing and that their doing so was for the good of the Republick hence we infer that it is like Christ did so seeing he sought his peoples good more then they and the Church is less able to choose for her self then those Republicks were seeing Church Matters are of spiritual concernment and so lie further out of the Road of mens Wit then the affairs of State do I yield to him that we could not know what Form Christ hath instituted but by looking into his Laws yea and but that way we could not certainly know that he hath determined any one form yet this doth not hinder but such Arguments as this may have their own weight The Testimony he bringeth out of Mr. Hooker is answered from what hath been said and I am to meet with it elsewhere He mistaketh our intent in such Arguments and falsly supposeth that the form we plead for is not found in the Bible Sect. 14. He bringeth another argument p. 191. from the similitude of a Vine which must have its Dressers and a House and a City which must have Government it was very easie for him to answer the Argument thus propounded I know not who ever did so manage it But it might have been thus improved a wise Master of a Vineyard will not let his servants do what they please but will appoint them his work in his Vineyard and a Master of a Family or a King in a Country or City will not let the Servants or Subjects chuse in what they shall be governed Ergo if the Church be a Vine a House a City and Christ be the Head and Ruler of it it is not like that he hath left the choise of the way of governing it to men but hath appointed it himself If he had thus propounded the Argument it had not been so easily answered The same way he useth the next Argument p. 192. taken from the difference of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the one of which is called the Ordinance of man and the other is Gods Ordinance therefore though that be mutable this is not I chuse rather to frame the Argument otherwise out of his own Concession he maketh difference between these two Governments the one is for a Political the other for a spiritual end the one for a temporal the other for an eternal end the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians the one to preserve Civil Right the other to preserve an Eternal Interest c. Then however the Lord let men chuse the way of attaining political and temporal ends and provide for their own standing as men and preserve their Civil Rights yet it is strange to think that he hath left it to mens choise to take this or that way for attaining their spiritual and eternal end for procuring their standing as Christians for preserving their spiritual rights though the one be the Ordinance of man sure the other must be the Ordinance of God But the form of Church-Government is the way to attain these because Church-Government is the mean as is confessed and it cannot be acted but in a particular form and the form is the way of managing that mean and so attaining the end yea it is such a way as hath exceeding influence upon attaining these ends seeing a wrong form may more hinder than promote them man I suppose may chuse a way that may do more hurt than good it is strange then if Christ hath left this which is of such high concernment to such high ends to the will of corrupt men and this Argument may have the more weight ad hominem because this Author is often endeavouring to shape Church-Government according to the Civil which is very unsuitable to what he asserteth of their differences Sect. 15. Another argument p. 194. is if the form of Church-Government be not in Scripture determined immutably then it is in the power of the Church to make new Officers which Christ never made To this he answereth 1. These Officers are only said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointment of Christ but one set over many Pastors is not such for besides the general practice from the first Primitive times Christ himself laid the foundation of such an Office in appointing Apostles Reply Here are many things hudled together to excuse Episcopacy from Novelty which we must examine severally 1. They are not a new Office would he say because Christ instituted such an Office viz. Apostles Reply I hope he will not say that the Office of an Apostle and of a Diocesan Bishop is the same Office for the Apostles had much power which Bishops have not and were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God so are not Bishops and however there may be some resemblance between them yet if they be not the same Office it must be a new Office from what Christ appointed It is not the want of Similitude but the want of Identity with what hath been before that maketh a thing new neither need we enter the dispute with him what way extraordinary and what not
proceeding but here the matter is to be established by Witnesses Ergo it is a matter not to be transacted in such a way as this Author would have these private Injuries 5. It is unimaginable that Christ would have us count our Brother a Heathen or a Publican and would have him bound in Heaven for persisting in a fact that either is no sin against God or which is not considered as a sin against God doth the Holy Ghost any where speak so of private injuries considered as such no sure but if private injuries are to be thus noted with censure by God and Men it is under the notion of heinous sins as they offend God and scandalize his people and if so then Scandals are here meant for if such injuries be here spoken of for that which is common to other Scandals and especially private injuries not particularly mentioned but set down under the general name of Sin what a boldness is it to exclude other sins and make these only to be here spoken of Sect. 5. Next I come to consider his Notion about the Church to which these offences must at last be brought for remedy It is saith he no juridical Court but a select company called together by the party offended who by arbitration may compose and end the difference Against this Conceit I bring these Reasons 1. This company is to be called together by the offended party for the Text carrieth the whole managing of the business to be by him and it is very like the stubborn offender will not be active in this now is this a way that our Lord would prescribe for taking away the distemper of a galled mind that his Adversary so the stubborn offender looketh upon the other should chuse the persons before whom he is to be convented and who should judg him this I cannot be induced to believe except I see more proof of it than our Author 's bare saying it is so 2. We must conceive that these three steps of proceeding here prescribed have some notable difference one from another and are remedies of different Vertues and operations applyed to this stubborn Disease Now the first step is secret Admonition the second is Private and Charitable not Judicial the third then must be different from both which I cannot conceive how it is if it be not authoritative In this Authors opinion it is no more but this when two or three Friends cannot accommodate the matter then take a few more having no more but the same power the former two or three had now what great influence can 5 or 6 or 10 have to persuade a stiff offender more than 2 or or 3 using the same motives 't is not to be imagined that the difference can be such as Christ intendeth when he prescribeth this as a remedy of that evil the other could not cure 3. When Christ is here prescribing a cure for offences which may fall out among his people and is so exact in describing all the steps of it and final result thereof we must conceive that his last cure will be such as will effectually root out that evil so as that it do not any more hurt his Church or those who are harmed by it Now if the last mean be only arbitration and no juridical authoritative act this end can never be attained for neither is the stubborn offender gained nor is he taken away that he may not the same way trouble the other party as before What great matter is gained if the wilful party will not hear this advising Church our Author dreameth of he is still a Church-member enjoying the publick fellowship of the people of God for all that these arbitrators can do and suppose some do withdraw private intimacy with them yet we cannot think that all are obliged to it by the authority of private arbitrators declaring him stubborn when all do not know the causes which made them so determine nor the proofs that did convince them of the truth of what was alledged against him It is then evident that this last Remedy of the miscarriage be what it will of a stubborn offender which Christ here prescribeth is an authoritative act and therefore the Church here is no company of private men for arbitration 4. Though we grant that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any company called together yet here it must be of more restricted signification and must needs signify a company called out of the World by the Gospel to worship God and to serve him in the managing of his affairs and institutions which is not applicable to a company of arbitrators called by a man not by the Gospel to agree contending parties which is a work of duty common to all the World and none of the special works of the Church as distinguished from other Societies Now that the word Church must be thus understood and not as Mr. Stilling would have it I prove 2dly It is constantly so used by the Writers of holy Scripture neither can an instance be brought in all the New Testament where any ever put Ecclesia for a company met about any business save that the Town-Clerk of Ephesus used it otherwise Acts 19. 39. and Luke speaking of him in his own dialect useth it as he did ver 40. But when Christ here speaketh of a Church to which he sendeth his offended people by a standing Law for the redress of their grievances we must certainly conceive that he will have them by the Church to understand that which is ordinarily known by that name in the New Testament for how should they know the meaning of an ambiguous word but by the constant Use of it in the Scripture 2. The demonstrative article added in the Greek putteth the matter beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a particularly designed Church which they to whom it is said have pointed out unto them not any Church this or that an individuum vagum or such a Church as themselves may particularize or pitch upon it is not a Church but the Church Now a company of Arbitrators chosen ad libitum by the grieved party are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church particularly as individuum determinatum designed by Christ they are at best but a Church and should be here designed only confusè or vage huic aut illi ecclesiae which the word cannot bear Now if we take it for a Ruling-church or whatever Church in Scripture-sense it is here determined what Church we should bring the matter to viz. that particular Church we live in at least in prima instantia and it is not left to our liberty to chuse what Church of many particulars we will complain unto Or if we take the article here prefixed to denote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Church here spoken of and to determine the word to its famosius significatum it hath the same strength of an argument for not a company of private
any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy cited by the Author that unless we understand the word Church as usually it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages 't is not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this that such as so argue would do well to consider how those to whom Christ spake should apprehend his meaning if he spake in a sense they never heard of before We consider that they may easily understand Christs words because he had often before spoken to them of the Gospel-church that was to be set up and even in this very term of a Church as Matth. 16. 19. and frequently under the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven which they might easily apprehend to be meant by the Church Wherefore the Author did not well consider what he said when he supposed this language to be unknown to the Disciples Hence all that he saith of the way of understanding Scripture in the sence of the words then common is not to the purpose for Christ had made this sense common among them Neither must we understand the word as it was then commonly apprehend among the Jews but as it was apprehended among Christs ordinary Hearers who were in expectation of another Church and another way of Government in it to be set up than was then among the Jews I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either against our opinion of this Text or for his own He concludeth p. 228. that this place though it speaks not of Church-government yet it may have some influence on it by way of Analogy viz. in proving 1. Gradual Appeals 2. Church-censures 3. The lawfulness of Excommunication This he yieldeth at least that something of Church-Government may be inferred from this place then ex concessis it is not so impertinent to this purpose as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter Sect. 8. But let us see if we can draw any more out of it than he will yield us We have already proved it to be directly meant of Church-Government and to give Rules for the right managing of it now I assert that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Government viz. That it ought to be by Parity not Episcopacy which I thus make out The first Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought is the Church and it is also the last but if the Church were governed by Bishops this should not be Ergo The Church ought not to be governed by Bishops The Major is clear for after secret and private admonition which are not authoritative immediately succeedeth Tell the Church sure this Church must be that Authority which we must go to prima instantia and also that which must finally decide the matter seeing Excommunication doth immediately so low upon Disobliging this Authority The Minor I prove thus in the Episcopal way the complaint must be brought to the Bishop or to his Delegate or Delegates which is all one as to the matter of Authority and he must be the last that must determine and on disobedience to him followeth Excommunication but the Bishop is not the Church Ergo In the Episcopal way complaints cannot be made to the Church nor doth the Church finally decide the matter The Minor of this last Syllogism is evident for neither the naâ—ure of the word nor Scripture-Use will bear that one Man shall be called the Church If it be said that Episcopacy be so modelled as the Bishop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence and they may well be called the Church Answ. In that case either the Presbyters have a decisive Vote as well as the Bishop or they be only his Advisers In the first case the Bishop is only a Praeses which is not that Episcopacy pleaded against though we judg it inconvenient In the 2d the Bishop is the only Power and therefore there is no such Church as here meant for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority whom the party ought to hear i. e. obey and for contumacy against which he is Excommunicated but the Bishop and his counsel is not such a Church for his counsel hath no Authority and himself cannot make a Church and therefore both taken together make no Church having Authority CHAP. VI. HERE Mr. Stilling doth undertake to lay aside Apostolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government What success he hath in this attempt we now examine His two main scopes in this Chapter are that it cannot be known what the practice of the Apostles was in this and that if it were known it is no binding example to us which desperate assertions do not a little reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the casting loose the Government of the Church The latter of them I have spoken to before and purpose to examine what he saith for it Concerning the former I shall premise but this to our trying of his proofs that it is very strange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written so much of their practice both Historically and implied it in Doctrinal assertions and Precepts if for all this we cannot know what it was which if it do not accuse the Scripture-relation of things of great imperfection I know nothing for I am sure the Scripture doth purposely set down much of their practice both in Preaching administration of Sacraments ordination of Officers directing these Officers in their behaviour in the House of God censures and other parts of Government if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling the account given of these things must be very imperfect I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the History of a Church if out of his History could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church shall we then think that the Sacred Writers who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apostles are so deficient especially many of the writings of the Apostles themselves being added by the same Spirit out of which much may be gathered to this purpose But let us hear how he makes out this his strange opinion I insist not on what he writeth of the Apostles Commission I confess the form of Government is not expressed in it though we have ground to think that when Christ chargeth them to teach his People to observe all he commanded them Matth. 28. 20. that it was his Will that they should not leave so great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will but that his
lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so 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
than then where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place they were ruled only in Common yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could Also we grant that when Congregations were settled the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion to call this a weak conceit-seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom for ability I think Mr. Still modesty will not suffer him to compare himself But what ever be of the ability of them who own it there is reason for it so weighty as may excuse it from weakness which is this Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper rebuking them consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration c. 'T is very unfit to bring all these things in prima instantia to the Presbytery that ruleth in common This I confirm out of what himself hath written p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them though with subordination to those in the City is there not the same reason why particular Congregations though in City should have their Rulers 't is as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation at the first hand to the common Presbyters as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of the Church neither if we should yield all that he saith is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations we have cause to suspend our belief of it till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it which he hath not so much as essaid It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations not their subordinate Power for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common not that they had no particular Government in each of them as any may easily see by considering them Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment such as use not often to be so much taken notice of The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches is what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another and to the lesser City that were under them and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right to which we agree I add that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar Damasc. c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Jreneus have nothing of the different degrees of Bishops and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity The second step is p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie he saith that the City-Presbyters did Preach in these places and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church till after when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them who did rule them yet with subordination to the City-Church This last I only dislike neither do I see it proved by him for the Titles of matrix ecclesia et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction What he saith of that Eulogie sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread doth not prove the point and also it was a superstitious custome the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Popish adoration of their Hostia His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another but that their Honour depended on their Sees Thence he cometh to the last step when the whole World became Christians and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did strive for the place of Universal Bishop I hope it appeareth to any who consider that there is nothing yet said by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity even to have been maintained in the Primitive times I mean not of the last step he speaketh of when Papacy it self began to appear for all that hath been said sheweth that Imparity was never judged of necessity and that the Imparity which was used was rather of Order than of Jurisdiction which is nothing against the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for Sect. 3. His 2d Argument p. 374. is That the same Form was not of old observed in all Churches where he sheweth that in many places there were no Bishops as he proveth of Scotland and other places This we accept of and add that where there were Bishops it is not nor cannot be by him proved that they had any Superior Jurisdiction but only Precedency and so the Divine Rite of Parity may stand for all this His 3d Argument p. 377. is That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government which he saith is insisted on by Learned Persons on all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire And he giveth some Instances of it in the correspondency of Civil Prefects and Arch-Bishops in several places To all this let me say a few words 1. This Argument destroyeth it self for in the first antiquity which was the surest the Powers of the World were not Christian and so the Church could not conform to the state in her Offices 2. It is here confessed that this Conformity was especially I believe it may be said only after that division of the Roman Empire but those were the times when the man of Sin had almost got into his chair and therefore their practice can prove nothing of the mind of the Primitive Church 3. If this notion hold then it must be looked upon as a lawful and prudent expedient that there be one Pope as there was one Emperor This Mr. Still must maintain or he saith nothing 4. If this was their Rite of old then the Church behoved to be under two chief Bishops when the Roman Emperor was divided into two But this he doth not alledge but rather sheweth how it was divided into 13 Diocesses 5. If we receive this opinion then in a Kingdome there must be one head who must have
his Councel of Bishops without a charge of the several Diocesses for the Kings Council hath not Precedency of several parts of the Country and they must authorize their deputies like Sheriffs yearly c. And in a Common-wealth there must be Independant Government but this I hope the Author will not own 6. It is most unreasonable to say that the Church-Government should be conform to the Civil because they are conversant about things and aim at ends so different the one respecteth things that are most different in several Nations viz. Mens Civil Interest and Customes and Inclinations the other respecteth that which ought to be every where the same viz. Religion His 4. Argument p. 379. is That other Episcopal Government was settled in the Church yet Presbyterian Ordination was looked on as valid This is not againt us His last Argument p. 382. is That several restraints were laid on by Councils about the Observation of Rites and Customes and something of Church-Discipline but what is this I pray to Parity or Imparity we are not against determinations of Indifferent things that concern order and decency though we think that the Form of Government is determined by Christ not left to the will of man CHAP. VIII IN this Chapter our Author would make us believe that all the world was ever of his Opinion and indeed this is so common for men to alledg whatever be their singular notions of things that we are not to lay much weight upon it Videlius took as much pains to make all reformed Divines to speak for Erastianism I might excuse my self from medling any further with this last Chapter of his 1. From the needlesness of the thing because we do not build the Divine Right of Presbytery on mens Opinions who we know can err and therefore if all the world were against it if the Scripture be for it so must we 2. From the disadvantage I lie under as to this part of the dispute with him If I had been of Mr. Still opinion in this point in controversie I might through compliance with courses have been furnished with a good Library and other conveniencies of studying the want of which doth incapacitate me to search into the opinions of those worthy men which he citeth in doing whereof I hope it would not be difficult to shew that some of their Testimonies are made to speak otherwise than they thought and others of them are irreconcilable with what themselves have elsewhere written Sect. 2. Notwithstanding we shall essay briefly to say as much to his allegations as may take off that edge they seem to have for cutting asunder the cause which we maintain P. 384. he hath a confident assertion I believe saith he there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth embrace any form of Government because it looked upon that form as only necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that form of Government which was judged most sutable to the state and condition of the several Churches I wonder to see this so confidently asserted without proof It had been incumbent on Mr. Still for confirming this his dream to have gone through the confession of the several reformed Churches and let us see on what ground they then built their Church-Government for it will not sufficiently prove what was the judgment of these Churches that some eminent men in them did assert such things which latter of the two he only insisteth on and that to little purpose too as I hope shall appear But the falsehood of this Allegiance I will make appear afterwards when I have tried the strength of the Testimonies he bringeth for his opinions Sect. 3. He beginneth with them who have asserted the mutability of the form of Government in Thesi where he maketh it his chief business to shew that the Church of England of old was of this opinion To which I answer That those worthy men having nothing in their eye but Episcopacy their work was to oppose the Divine Right of that there was never an other form brought in competition with it nor much minded by them and therefore we agree with them in their design Of Foreign Divines his first Testimony is of Chemnitius to which I cannot give a particular answer because not having his book I cannot try it only this consideration I shall lay down to take off the strength of it Neither Mr. Still nor any man else ought to lay weight on this Testimoney to the purpose it is brought for for either he meaneth that the degrees of Church-Officers in respect of precedency are left free or in respect of Jurisdiction if the first it is nothing contrary to what we hold for we acknowledg it indifferent whether there be a standing Precedent 〈◊〉 Presbytery or not If the second he is directly contrary to Mr. Stillingfleet who maintains that the Church may set up no new Officers but what Christ hath instituted as we have seen before now an order of Officers with jurisdiction above what Christ hath instituted cannot but be a sort of Officers that he hath not instituted wherefore Mr. Still could not make Use of this Testimony neither ought any else for it crosseth the Scripture which Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Ephes. 11. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. doth on purpose enumerate the Officers of the Church in all their degrees I dispute not now what they are but sure they are not left at liberty seeing the Lord hath so often declared his mind in this Point to what purpose is it said that the Lord hath in his Church such and such Officers if men may at their pleasure set these or others more or fewer of them in the Church Sect. 4. His next Testimony is the Centuriators of Magdeburge but it containeth an answer in its forehead viz. That it speaketh not to the thing for they say no more but that it is neither Recorded nor Commanded how many Ministers should be in each Church but that their may be more or fewer according to the number of the Church What is this to their parity or imparity 't is a token that he is very scant of Witnesses when he calleth in them who say so little to his purpose The next Testimony is of Zanchy which he maketh to speak very fair for him but he hath unhandsomly concealed that which is the Key to understand the meaning of this Author for the Reader may evidently see his drift if he first look into Sect. 9. de Relig. c. 25. where he asserteth that Christ hath only given to his Church two sorts of ordinary Teachers viz. Pastors and Doctors the same he asserteth Sect. 10. and yet which is his modesty he will not condemn the Fathers who had other Orders of Officers but what his meaning is in this his condescendency he explaineth Sect. 11. That whereas in after Ages one Pastor was set over the rest non ut Dominus sed
ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist. ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispease himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull
constitution Concerning those I premise 2 general Remarques 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood not of Episcopus Princeps but Praeses according to that distinction very common among them This we must hold as only consistent with their principles till the contrary be proved out of their own writings 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines they did often as Smect saith of Spanhem to the same purpose p. 65. deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment But to come to particulars he beginneth with Cracanthorp who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianism because they held not Imparity to be unlawful But this man was a Son of the Church of England as they speak and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken being willing to have them all think as he did They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect p. 79. where it is proved that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity and that Jerome Augustus Sedulius Primatius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aerius in this Next he bringeth the Augustane confession of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches but of the Lutherans for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart by themselves wherefore it is no wonder if these worthy men who were a reforming but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius who Mellifie Histor. par 3. p. 336. saith thus Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontifioiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magisque ne spiritum extingueret limabat poliebat et duriuscula fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet 3. All that is said in this confession is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood that they could yield to that so that even the furthest they go in their complemental condescendency doth not help Mr. Still 's cause who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful Sect. 7. In the next place he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy which he could never comport with while he lived He bringeth his Instit. lib. 4. c. 4. sect 1. 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God and that they used no other form of Governing the Church than was prescribed in the Word What doth this help his Cause The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment were no more but Praesides These he saith were not constituted beside the word of God This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind At present let it suffice to observe that the very words cited by Mr. Still do make against him For when Calvin saith Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit It is not evident that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government And 2dly That he asserteth that the Ancient Bishops if we look to the thing and do not understand the name Bishop as now it is used for the Prelate did stick close to this Form what could be more directly against Mr. Still Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known in Divinus i. e. Presbyter Humanus i. e. c. a President or constant Moderator Diabolicus i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva which was without such a fixed President to other Churches but what is this to the purpose It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains and lose his labour It being so as hath been shewed Mr. Still doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time it was not as he alledgeth whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop or giving him power over his Brethren were lawful Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anhalt Luther Melancton and Calvin professing their readiness to submit to Bishops if they would do the duty of Bishops All which amounts to no more than this That if Bishops would keep within bounds not usurp Authority over their Brethren nor use it to the destruction of Religion they might be born with but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy which these Men did ever detest For Jacobus Heerbrandus I am not acquainted with his Principles nor his Book Hemingius who cometh next speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines not authoritatis and so cometh not up to the thing in Question For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis for if it be necessary it is not indifferent If in any case such a thing be necessary it is in that case lawful nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit in other cases it is unlawful What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches as Sweden Denmark c. doth not weigh with us knowing that they err in greater matters also What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy We think their way lawful and whether it be convenient to them or not we judg not but to us sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient The next thing that he insisteth on viz. Episcopal Divines holding Episcopacy not necessary it doth not concern us to Answer and so we see to what amounteth the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as