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-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
this good man will not say so and yet it would necessarily follow out of this principle maintained by him for I believe he cannot instance in many things scarce if any that are not of necessity to salvation which are not controverted and that with specious pretexts For learned men when they erre use not to come off so bluntly as barely to say it is so or I think so but they bring plausible Reasons and those often pretended to be drawn from Scripture for their foulest errours If then we receive this principle we must not think it needful to the Churches peace to determine whether there be two Sacraments or seven whether there be Purgatory whether we are to pray to Saints departed whether there be power of Censure in Church-men or if all Church-power be in the Magistrate whether the Pope be the head of the Church c. for all these and such-like are controverted and there are colourable Arguments for the Errours that men maintain in these points If this our Author will not assert what reason is there that he should maintain that the Form of Church-Government is not determined by men for the Churches peace and that because there are Controversies about what is the Form appointed by Christ. § 6. But I come now to examine what the Author hath to say for this Assertion of his We cannot saith he with any shew of reason imagine that Christ who hath made it a necessary duty for all the Members of the Church to endeavour the Peace and Vnity of it should suspend the performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion which when many have used their utmost endeavour to satisfie themselves about they yet find that those very grounds which they are most inclinable to build their Judgments upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as themselves or else it may be they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very same Foundations Ans. 1. The weakness if not wickedness of this Argument will easily appear by making an Assumption to the Proposition here set down and considering what will necessarily follow which I shall thus perform That Christ is true God is a matter of Opinion which when we have used our utmost endeavours to satisfie our selves about it we yet find that those very grounds which we are most inclinable to build our Judgments upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as we or else that they erect on them a far different Fabrick for it 's well known that the Socinians who are men of Wisdom and Ability though it be unsanctifyed and especially Grotius the wonder of his Age for Learning though yet he profess the truth in this point That I say they do wholly reject all the grounds on which we do build our Faith in this point and that on many of them they endeavour to erect a contrary Fabrick It doth then follow vi syllogisticâ supposing our Author's Proposition that we cannot with any shew of reason think that Christ would have us suspend the performance of our duty in endeavouring the peace of the Church on this That Christ is true God and so we must by this Argument yield this Truth as a matter determinable by men rather than hold an Opinion in it with the loss of peace in the Church I hope the Author will not own this Conclusion wherefore he ought not to own that his Assertion out of which it is clearly deducible § 7. Ans. 2. There is very great reason for that for which he denyeth all shew of reason for some matters of Opinion of that condition which he describeth are the Truths of God as is clear from what hath been said but we are to suspend the endeavouring of the Churches peace rather than part with any Truth of God or then we should yield it upto men's determinations as if it were none of his truths Ans. 3. When we are to judge of the validity of the grounds on which we build our opinion about truth it is not the thoughts of men as wise and able as we that must determine us for we know the wisest may mistake when they who are less wise may hit the truth through the grace of God but we must consider whether these grounds be the dictates of the Spirit of God in his word and if they be we must not be shaken in mind by the contrary assertions of men though never so wise yea and holy too I grant the opinions of such should make us search carefully but they must not hinder our assent to the truth of God And this is a valid reason why we are to suspend our endevours of peac on some matters of opinion though contradicted by wise and able men § 8. He addeth That it is not consistent with Christs Wisdom to leave the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions which are most uncertain for it is not expected that all men should be of the same mind Ans. 1. It is too great rashness to think that Christ cannot be a wise Governour of his Church unless he take courses for its setlement that our Wisdom thinketh meet I hope Christ may wisely govern his Church and yet not leave it to Men to determine what shall be the form of it's Government which yet cannot be if this reason prove that which it is brought for 2. We may easily grant the conclusion of this argument without giving the least advantage to the assertion which it is brought to prove It is true Christ hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions viz. So as that there can be no peace in the Church except all men agree in opinion about all things for peace may be maintained among dissenting Brethren by harmony of affection mutual forbearance and a prudent managing and concealing of our opinion so far as it may be without sin and all this may be done without denying that which we differ about to be determined by Christ and asserting it to be a thing left indifferent And if this be not particable either through the Nature of the truth that we dissent about in that it is practical or so important that it cannot be concealed or through the obstinacy or wrong zeal of dissenters the Lord hath not left his Church without a Remedy even in this case viz. they who do unreasonably dissent must be censured or shunned and if this cannot be done without breach of peace it is our Lords Wisdom to provide that we should rather loose Peace then Truth 3. All that is here said will as well prove that there is no fixed trnth in any controverted point though of never so great concernment for it may be said also in these that Christ hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of Men's private opinions which are not the same in the most fundamental points But of this enough § 9. From what hath been
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
Pastors are the Embassadors of Christ whose it is to decalre his will ergo it is not his but their part to make such Determinations We speak not of the Judgment of Discretion which the Magistrate hath in these things in order to the adding his Sanction to them and that not only as others have theirs being private and his publick and with Authority Bnt we speak of that determination of things which is the ordinary means of promulgating to us the mind of Christ in Church-matters 4. It is most false that the great use of Synods is to be the King's Church-Council as the Parliament is his Civil Council for 1. himself acknowledgeth another use of them while he ascribeth to the Church a power of declaring Christ's Laws is not this of great use but Contradictions are no rarity in this Author 2. Hence it followeth that as Parliamentary Acts have no force without the King's Sanction so likewise Church-Determinations have none without it and if the Church Excommunicate any person it is not valid nor his sins bound in Heaven till the King put his Seal to it for that such a person be Excommunicated is not determined in Scripture 3. The Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. and all the Councils before Constantine's time were of no great use for they had not this use there being no Magistrate to own them as his Council 4. This destroys that received Axiom among all them who are not the avowed Followers of Erastus viz. that the Magistrate's power is cumulative to the Church not privative for it maketh his to swallow it up there being no Authority nor great use of Synods without the Magistrate 5. This taketh away from the Church entireness of power in her self in things that do concern her as such a Society and a Capacity to subsist without the Magistrate which I hope this Author when better advised will not own 5. It is also false that when Church-Guides Assembled have deliberated and determined the force strength and obligation of the things of determined doth depend on the Magistrate for it dependeth on the reason of them containing the Will of Christ and not on the Authority of men § 7. I come now to see what Arguments he bringeth for what he hath asserted 1. Saith he Taking the Church as incorporated into the Civil State though the Object of these things the matter of them and persons determining them be ecclesiastical yet the force and ground of the Obligation of them is wholly Civil Ans. That the Church is in the Republick we do not deny yet that must not be so understood as if either these two were not distinct Corporations or the Power of the one were subordinate to or swallowed up the other The saying of Optat Milev which he citeth that Ecclesia est in Republica non Respublica in Ecclesia will not bear that but the meaning is that either the Church is in the Rep. as the lesser society in the greater as a few Parishes are in a County so the Primitive Churches were in Rome Corinth c. or when the Church is aeque late patens with the Nation that the Church is in Protection of the Civil State not e contra seeing Kings must be Nursing Fathers to her and as it were keep house for her to be nursed in Or speaking of a National Church that it 's being a nation is Prior in order of Nature than it 's being a Church because it might be a Nation and not a Church but it cannot be a Church and not a Nation Now none of these do infer that the Obligation of determinations made by Church men about Church affairs is civil but it may be and is Ecclesiastical viz. from the will of Christ which the Church holdeth forth as his Embassadors Wherefore this Ratiocination is altogether inconsequent But he cometh to Authority to see if that will help him He citeth P. Martyr lo. com clas fig. 4. c. 5. s. 11. and in 1 Sam. 8. Nam quod ad potestatem ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim curare debet ut omnes officium faciant What he meaneth for citing both these places for these words I know not unless it be that they are to be found in them both But I am sure neither they nor any thing like them is in the former place for the later I have not that part of his works but the contrary of what this Author intendeth is there clearly and fully taught viz. he is refuting them who would have the Power of discipline in the Church to cease now when the Magistrate is Christian and he asserteth Ecclesiastical Power and Civil as distinct and only says that the Magistrate should correct ministers if they do not carry as they ought but this is far from that quod ad potestatem Ecclesiae attinet satis est civilis Magistratus He refers for the judgment of the reformed Divines in this to Vedel de Episc. Const. Mag. et Offic. Magistratus annexed to Grot. de Imper. sum pot circa sacra But it is well known that Vedelius was an Erastian and as this Author doth did fowly abuse the reformed Divines making them speak what they never thought wherefore I refer to Apol. Triglandius Revius who have refuted that seducing Pamphlet of Vedelius For the other Author let his Citations be weighed they will never prove that any of the Reformers gave the Power of determining Church-Affairs to the Magistrate He addeth three reasons of his Allegation yet they are but two for the two former do coincide and the strength of them is that it is from the Authority of the Magistrate that obligation to obedience or penalty is or which is the same it is from him that the sanction or annexing of Penalties to the constitutions is that it is from him only that the force of obligation is in matters determined by advice of the Church and which do concern the Church Ans. All this is easily taken away by a well known distinction in things that are commanded by Christ and by his Church declared to be such and also are ratified by the sanction of the Magistrate there is a twofold Obligation one Spiritual this is from Christ as Law-giver and is laid on by the Instrumental intervention of the Church as his Herald Proclaiming his will Another civil whereby we are bound to external Punnishment if we contravene such a constitution this is from the Magistrate of this not of the former the Author's Assertion is to be understood otherwise it is false For that Obligation is no way from the Magistrate His third reason is the Magistrate can null any Obligation laid on by the Church representative as if they do prescribe some indifferent rites and ceremonies to be observed by all he forbidding them the former supposed Obligation is null otherwise these absurdities would follow 1. That there are two Supream Powers in a Nation at once 2. That a man lyeth
when a Bishop by himself who by Christs Institution hath only power over the people getteth power given him by man over his fellow Pastors and when a Presbyter who by Christs Institution hath a power over the Flock to rule them is hindred from the exercise of this power altogether and is set only to feed and this ruling power as to its exercise is wholly devolved upon another This we deny to be a matter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence Restraint and enlargement in respect of acts of power is when some acts which may be by Christs Institution exercised by all Presbyters are only permitted to be exereised by some and not by others as Ordination Church-censures and when some are authorized to do some acts of power that Christs Institution giveth them no Commission unto this together with that restraint mentioned in the second member of the subdivision we prove not to be matters of order left to the prudence of the Church but to be the setting up of a new Office in the Church 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after requireth the right circumstantiating of these acts which Christ hath appointed to be done in his Church as that they be done in fit time place method c. neither can this ordering of things reach beyond the determination of circumstances for whatever is more than this is not an ordering of that action unto which the circumstances do belong but an instituting of a new action because for example the right order of reading doth not require prayer or singing to be joyned with it but respecteth only the circumstances of reading it self now such restraining or enlarging of the exercise of power is no right circumstantiating of it but some other thing it being no circumstance of the exercise of Pastoral power whether he shall rule or not but an essential part I mean as to the integrality it being an integral part of that power which Christ hath given him as is confessed also giving the exercise of that power to one which belongeth to many is not adding of a circumstance but a supernumerary part of power as to its exercise above these parts that Christ hath given them ergo this is no ordering of the exercise of power but setting up of it a new 2. Order that belongeth to the prudence of the Church is that unto which confusion is opposite then is that order obtained when all confusion is avoided but confusion may be avoided without this restraining and enlarging of Church-power by men else it were in no case lawful to let power be exercised as it is instituted by Christ because we must always be careful to avoid confusion ergo I confess restraining of the exercise of power as to objects of the same kind as fixing of Parishes is necessary to avoid confusion but this cannot be said of taking power of ruling out of the hands of Presbyters and giving it to Bishops else we must say that Episcopacy is necessary which destroyeth this mans Hypothesis If it be said that sometimes it falleth out that this is necessary to avoid confusion and then Episcopacy is necessary Ans. If we should grant that it is sometimes useful to avoid confusion as that which may be the fruit of Parity yet it cannot be said that Parity it self is confusion now it is not in the Churches power to take her own way to avoid whatever may have a bad effect for the best things may be such but she must shun that which is evil by a right managing not by laying aside that which is good wherefore seeing Order is consistent with Parity and Parity with the Institution of Christ and Imparity goeth at least a step beyond the Institution and taketh that from men which Christ gave them and giveth it to some to whom he gave it not this cannot be a right ordering of his Institution but rather setting up some other thing in the place thereof 3. The right ordering of the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to men must consist in determining of these things which he hath not determined and yet are necessary to be determined as time place extent of Parishes c. for if men either take upon them to determine in these matters which he hath already determined by his Institution or to determine things that he hath left at liberty because the determination was not needful to his design they then would be wiser then he and do not order his Institutions but set up their own Now this which our Author calleth Ordering is guilty of both these for Christ by giving Ruling Power to all Presbyters hath declared his Will that they shall all Rule and especially by requiring an ability for this as a necessary qualification of them who should be put unto that Office do not men then by appointing who should Rule pass their determination on what he hath already determined and that contrary to what he hath appointed Again Christ hath not appointed any Superiority and Inferiority among Presbyters neither is it needful this be the Church may be without it and yet men take upon them to appoint it Is this then to order that Government that Christ hath appointed and not rather to set up new Officers that men have devised Sect. 17. Next he subjoyneth a strange assertion Now saith he in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most fit for edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is originally and fundamentally common to them all Answ. If it be so all this pains that our Author is at is needless and his Book to no purpose For I mistake much if the main business in it be not to prove the lawfulness of this which here he asserteth to be unquestionably lawful For he confesseth that ruling power is given by Christ to all Presbyters then we must either say that it is his institution that they all exercise it and so parity is his institution or that the executive part of it may be given to some or may be common to them all and so the form of Government may be left indifferent is the scope of this Book Now if it be unquestionable what needeth all this pains about it But I conceive this confident assertion is put instead of the Arguments whereby this undertaking of his should have been confirmed It is an easie thing when one cannot find proofs for their opinion to say it is out of Question but it is an unhandsome way of disputing especially unbeseeming the person who could not but know that this is denied by his Opposites and is the main hinge of the Controversie in hand We do maintain this Antithesis that it is the Question between us and them who are for the indifferency of Church Government whether the exercise of Ruling Power may be taken out of the hands of Ministers and given unto one to
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
he hath for his opinion cited p. 198. viz. Ordinatio non fit à Pastore quatenus Pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singulare authoritatem obtinet Neither shall I strive to strain it to a sound sense but be satisfied with the truth that we have upon better grounds than Camero's Authority established viz. that Ordination and other acts of Church-power are done by Pastors not by virtue of any superadded power or Delegation that they have from men above what Christ hath given them in their Pastoral Office but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pastors though the conveniency of exercising it hic nunc requires the concurring of some more circumstances Ergo that other Pastors joyn in Ordination that it be not without the limits which are fixed for order for the inspection of that Society of Pastors whereof such an one is a Member or if it be without these limits that it be not without a special Call from them who should there exercise their Authority The Conclusion of our Author needeth small Animadversion supposing what hath been already said By this saith he we may already understand how lawful the exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God yea by what we have said may be seen how unlawful it is supposing the equality of the power of order But we must also suppose and it hath been yielded the equality of the power of Jurisdiction at least in actu primo and that may shew us the unlawfulness of Episcopacy And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of the Church at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction Yea we have made it appear that they speak most congruously to the thing for it is Christs Office to give the exercise of power to such men by giving them the Office on which it followeth and therefore they who take it from them and give it to them to whom he gave it not do take his Office But it is a mincing of the matter to talk of a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction when indeed setting up of a Bishop is a laying others aside from the exercise of it at all and suffering them to do nothing that way but by his Authority yea that which we have all this while disputed against is yet less intollerable than is our case where Bishops have most absolute and Lordly powers and delegate it to whom they will Lay-men or others and Presbyters have no power at all Sect. 22. Another Argument he propoundeth p. 198. from the perfection of Scripture from which it doth much derogate to say that in it Christ hath not laid down an immutable form of Church-Government This Argument he almost tusheth at but that is easier than to answer it solidly Unto it he bringeth three Answers all which will not make up a satisfactory one The first is the perfection of the Scripture here meant is in reference to its end this I grant which is to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners and sufficient to bring men to Salvation which is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God Now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any ways necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches liberty Reply I perceive it to be ordinary with this Author I observed it before to slight with confidence that which he hath little to say against in reason What a pittiful come off is this that the not determining the form of Government is not against the perfection of the Scripture because it is not a thing necessary but left to the Churches liberty What it is to beg the question if this be not I know not for the question is whether the form be determined in Scripture or left to the Churches liberty the latter he maintaineth we assert the former and prove it because otherwise the Scripture were imperfect He answereth it doth not follow that the Scripture is imperfect because the form of Government is left to the Churches liberty Is this the easie dispatch of this Argument which was promised 2. If the end of Scripture be to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners then sure in a special way of Religious manners or practises among which is the way of managing Church-Government being a Religious thing for we speak of Government as it is peculiar to the Church hence then it must belong to its perfection to lay down this especially seeing the Scripture hath told us that this is one of its particular ends to direct the Pastors of the Church how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. but this it cannot do compleatly without setting down a form of Government for general Rules will not tell a Pastor whether he must exercise his ruling power with others or lay it over on my Lord Bishop Ergo the want of this form in Scripture doth derogate from that perfection which our Author confesseth to be in it 3. By things necessary I hope he doth not mean only necessary to salvation but necessary to these particular ends propounded in the Scripture one of which is the right managing of Church-Government Now if all things necessary to this be laid down in Scripture there cannot want a form of Government in it for without that Government cannot be managed His second answer is that the doing of a thing not contained in Scripture with an opinion of its necessity doth destroy the Scriptures perfection and so in that sense every additio perficiens is corrumpens such are the Popish Traditions but the doing of a thing without the opinion of its necessity doth not destroy it Reply This is a poorer shift than the other For 1. It is not the adding of a form of Government to what is in Scripture that we make unlawful or against the Scriptures sufficiency for sure if it be not in Scripture it must be added seeing Nature maketh it necessary but it is the opinion of its not being in Scripture that we plead against and therefore this Answer doth not at all touch the Argument neither is the example of Popish Traditions to the purpose for we do not say that they are against Scripture perfection because they are held not to be found in it for that is most true but because they are thought needful to be added to it 2. It is against the perfection of Scripture to say any addition to it is necessary for attaining its end whether that particular thing added to it be necessary or its defect may be as well supplied by another thing of that kind as if any should maintain that we must have more Sacraments than are in Scripture and should
not think this in particular necessary but leave it to the Churches liberty what particular Sacrament should be superadded But Master Stillingfleet's Opinion maketh an addition necessary viz. that there be a form of Government which is not in Scripture though it leave the particular form to the Churches liberty Ergo it is against the perfection of Scripture and this addition being of a thing in its general nature necessary to an end that the Scripture aimeth at viz. the right governing of the Church and not being found in Scripture so much as that men may determine it it is such an additio perficiens as the Author confesseth to be corrumpens 3. By this Answer none of the Popish Traditions are additions to the Scripture or imply its imperfection for though they be held necessary in the general yet in particular they cannot so be held for either they were freely determined by the Church and so they might not have been and therefore are not necessary or the Church was necessitated to determine them by some antecedent objective truth in the things if so they must be the Dictates of Nature which are no additions to Scripture wherefore this Answer destroyeth it self 4. At least by this Answer all the Popish and Prelatical Ceremonies and whatsoever superstitious men can devise to bring into the worship of God is no addition to the Scripture nor a blot upon its perfection for these are not held for necessary things but indifferent and only necessary when commanded by Authority which necessity I suppose Mr. Stilling will plead for to his form of Government Now this Consequence I hope he will not own wherefore he may be ashamed to own that from which it doth so clearly follow His third Answer is yet of less weight viz. that the Essentials of Church-Government are in Scripture not the Circumstantials Reply If he meaneth as sure he doth the Essentials of Government in its general and abstract notion in which it is not practicable without a particular form he saith nothing to the purpose The Scripture may be an imperfect rule for Church-Government though it have these if he mean the Essentials of a particular form he destroyeth his own cause Now we maintain that to the perfection of Scripture there is required not only a general notion of Government but so much as is sufficient light to direct the practice of Government this cannot be without the institution of a particular form for Government otherwise is not practicable If it be said that the general rules in Scripture about Government want nothing requisite for the compleat practise of Government but the determination of circumstances which cannot belong to Scripture perfection Ans. This we deny if by general Rules he means as sure he doth such as do not determine a particular form it is some more than a circumstance whether Pastors exercise that power Christ hath given them or commit it to a Bishop I hope it is more than a bare circumstance in Civil Government whether the power be in the hand of one or a few or all the people even so 't is here yea herein lieth the very Essence of a form of Government if this then be not found in Scripture the Essentials of a form are wanting but a form is essential to Government considered as practicable Ergo some of the Essentials of Government are wanting CHAP. V. HAving refuted as he supposed the general Arguments for a particular Form of Church-Government to have been laid down in Scripture he cometh now to particular Arguments which are brought for some one Form and many he taketh much pains to refute in this Chapter which I am confident never any did make Use of to prove what he opposeth We shall let him pass with his supposed Victory over these and only take notice of what opposeth the Truth we hold or the Arguments by which it is established I shall only note not insist upon his large Harangue by which in the beginning of this Chapter he chargeth all who are not as Sceptical about Church-Government as himself with prejudice and following custome and education rather than truth and being loth to quit that opinion though false which once they have been engaged in To which I say nothing but let every one search his own Conscience and see what grounds is Perswasion standeth upon I hope the sincerity of many will be able to bear them out before God and the solid Reasons they are able to produce will make them stand before men against such reproaches of this Adversary Neither shall I retaliate this his charity with the Jealousies of many who fear that they who cast Church-Government thus loose that the Magistrate may dispose of it at his Pleasure do fetch the strength of their Arguments and the life of their perswasion from no better Topicks then design to please them who can reward this their pains or to hold fast that which is good as some have spoken of their fat Beneficts what ever side of the World be uppermost to which end this opinion is a notable mean I desire to judge no man the Lord will ere long judge our opinions and motives too but this I am sure of we have no Worldly baits to allure us at this time to plead for the Divine Right of Presbyteral Government and if the Interest of Christ did not more move us than our own we might with much Worldly advantage yield the cause We do not insist on any of Christs acts towards the Apostles in calling them sending them out either first or last as Arguments for the Form of Church-Government knowing that their Office being Extraordinary and Temporal can be no Rule for the ordinary cases of the Church Wherefore I pass over all that he writeth in this Chap. till p. 218. Where he undertaketh to vindicate two places of Scripture from determining Parity or Imparity in the Church The first is Mat. 20. 25. to which is parallel Luk. 22. 25. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and they that exercise authority over them are called Benefactors but ye shall not be so Though I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose yet I see not the weight of what he hath said against this place being brought as an Argument against Imparity His Answer is made up of two First he asserteth and solidly proveth against Papists that it is not the abuse of Power that is here forbidden but that the Power it self spoken of is forbidden as incompetent to Church-Officers his Proofs for this I need not repeat I accept it of him as a Concession Secondly He saith it is only Civil Power that is here forbidden and so it doth not make against Imparity in Church-Officers Reply He keepeth his wonted way here which is to take much pains to prove what is least in debate with the adversaries he dealeth with we do not question but the Power it self not the abuse of it is here