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 Government rather than leave the matter wholly at an uncertainty and the will of men But I observe that though the one of these he doth altogether slight yet the other he doth not pass out of any misregard to it for he laboureth to take all power by Christ's gift out of the hands of Presbyters and Bishops that the Magistrate might have it in solidum § 5. 2. I observe for further clearing the state of the Question that all other parts of these two forms of Government are confessed to be juris divini vel naturalis vel positivi as from his concessions have been manifest and will yet more appear only the matter of Parity or Superiority of Ministers is in question and it being so I propose this to be considered that Parity be of Divine Right it is sufficient 1. That Christ hath given power to all Ministers to rule the Church 2. That he hath not given a greater share of it to some than to others 3. That it is his will that as he hath distributed this power equally so that no man make it unequal seeing that cannot be
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 〈◊〉 endeavour the Peace and Vnity of it should suspend 〈◊〉 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 unreasonaly 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 truth 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 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
certainly the Magistrate personally considered is subject to the ruling power of Pastors in spiritual things as they are subject to him in civil things And to deny this what is it but to make the supream Magistrate head of the Church and not a Member of it Much more worthy to be received is the opinion of Crysostome who speaketh thus to Ecclesiastical persons in reference to abstention from the Lord's Supper Si dux igitur quispiam si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indigne adeat cohibe ac coerce majorem tu illo habès authoritatem § 6. He cometh afterward p. 43. to ascribe to the Magistrate not only a political power which he maketh to lie in the Execution and Administration of laws for the common good but also an Architectonical and Nomothetical power though not absolute and independent whereby he may make laws in things that belong to the Church His meaning in this he expresseth more fully in the end of p. 44. In matters saith he undetermined by the word of God concerning the external policy of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the word of God And because he knew that the Church-Guides would put in for this Power that here he giveth to the Magistrate therefore p. 45. he laboureth to reconcile these parties by a distinction or two viz. between declaring Christ's Laws and making new Laws and between advising what is fit and determining what shall be done The declaring and advising Power is given by him to the Church the Authoritative determining power to the Magistrate For p. 46. The great use saith he of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of the Church is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King as the Parliament is for matters of Civil Government And p. 47. but yet saith he When such men thus assembled have gravely and maturally advised and deliberated what is fittest to be done the force strength and obligation of the thing so determined doth depend on the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate Against this Doctrine before I come to examine the Reasons that he bringeth for it I have these things to say 1. It must be noted by passing over which in silence our Author hath confounded the matter that we are not here speaking of things that are properly Civil though belonging to the Church viz. as it is a Society and in the Common-Wealth such as Church-rents Meeting-places liberty of the use of them c. but of the Government of the Church as it is a Church of its Discipline which things are properly the external policy of that Church as our Author termeth that which he speaketh of Now the Question is whether the Power of determining these be in the Church-Guides or the Magistrate 2. That which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ground of most of this Author's mistakes is he supposeth that some things of this Church-policy are so left undetermined by the word that they are capable of a determination by men's Legislative power and that new Laws may be made about them This is not truth for if we speak of the Substantials of Church-Government even of a particular Form it is determined in the word and so not subject to men's Nomothetical Determinations if of the Circumstances of it neither are these left for men to make Laws about them but they are determined by the Lord in the general Rules that are in the word and the Dictates of right reason compared with them and the Obligation that lyeth on our Consciences in these things is not from the Magistrates Law though we do not deny but he may add his Sanction to both sorts of things and make them the Law of the Nation as Dr. Stillingsleet saith well that he may with any thing in Religion but from the will of God which ought to be searched out and held forth Authoritatively by the Guides of the Church that are acting in the name of Christ 3. It is false then that the Magistrate hath Power in determining what of the External Policy of the Church is undetermined in the word For if we speak of that which is not determined at all neither by particular Praecepts or Examples or otherwise signifying particularly the mind of Christ about such a thing viz. by the general rules of the word compared with right reason is not held forth to be the mind of Christ such things ought not to be determined by any man or men but are left to Christian Liberty for such things must be determined meerly by mans will but the Lord hath not left the matters of his Church to that crooked rule But if we speak of things not determined by particular praecepts c. yet in which the mind of Christ is deducible by general rules Neither here hath the Magistrate the determining Power but they whom the Lord hath made the Guides and Eyes of his Church they must declare what is the will of Christ not impose what is their own Will or Law And here the Obligation is from the will of Christ not the Authority of the Church nor the Magistrate neither the declaration of it from them whom Christ hath made his Embassadors For what I have said I give this brief reason The Affairs of the Church are to be managed by a Ministerial Power the farthest extent of which is to declare Christ's Laws and apply them as is generally confessed by Protestants against Papists but the Magistrate's Power is not Ministerial but Magisterial Ergo it is not his part to manage or determine the Affairs of the Church of which doubtless her external Policy is no small part which may be further enforced thus Church-Determinations must be the Declarations of the will of Christ but not the Magistrate but the Pastors are the Embassadors of Christ whose it is to declare his will ergo it is not his but their part to make such Determinations We speak not of the Judgment of Discretion which the Magistrate hath in these things in order to the adding his Sanction to them and that not only as others have theirs being private and his publick and with Authority But we speak of that determination of things which is the ordinary means of promulgating to us the mind of Christ in Church-matters 4. It is most false that the great use of Synods is to be the King's Church-Council as the Parliament is his Civil Council for 1. himself acknowledgeth another use of them while he ascribeth to the Church a power of declaring Christ's Laws is not this of great use but Contradictions are no rarity in this Author 2. Hence it followeth that as Parliamentary Acts have no sorce without the King's Sanction so likewise Church-Determinations have none without it and if the Church Excommunicate any person it is not valid nor his sins bound in Heaven till the King put his Seal to it for that such a person
much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290.
the one as true and not to hang between two But I prove that these Elders were the Elders of Ephesus not the Bishops of Asia 1. which Argument he mentioneth but he answereth not the Article in the Greek maketh it clear it being demonstratory doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had mentioned in particular where when it 's said that he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might well be translated of that Church it pointeth out that Church and no other It is an unheard of way of speaking when a particular thing or person is mentioned and the demonstrative Article joined to it that that Speech should be understood of any other but that 2. Paul sent to Ephesus for these Elders not through the several parts of Asia Ergo. They were at Ephesus not in other Churches That he did not send through other places to gather them together is evident both because the Text mentioneth sending to Ephesus not other places and it is strange if he sent through all Asia and mention be only made of sending to one place not to any other also because Paul was then in hast passing by them vers 16. wherefore 't is not like that he could stay for the convening of a Synod of Bishop from many remote parts That which is alledged by some that the Bishops of Asia did reside at Ephesus and thence were sent for by Paul is most absurd for 1. There is not the least shaddow of reason to think that non residence of fixed Officers did so soon creep into the Church Let us see any Instance or Warrant to think that any who had a fixed charge did leave it long or often or at all but upon some weighty and extraordinary emergent 2. What could be their business at Ephesus their work lay elsewhere and there they could do nothing except to meet and consult about matters of common concerment which will not infer ordinary residence there 3. The work of these Elders was particular inspection over their Flocks vers 28. over all the Flock which they could not have if they resided at Ephesus and had their charges lying up and down Asia for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary it is none at all viz. It is said vers 18. That he had been with them at all Seasons but he was not all the time in Ephesus but abroad in Asia as Act. 19.10 22 26. Answ at all Seasons must not be taken in such rigour as if he had never stirr'd a Foot out of Ephesus but that he had his residence and Preached most there which is evident from Act. 19.1 9.10 he disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus this was at Ephesus and it is said that it continued 2 years i. e. for the most part of the time he was there and yet might sometimes Preach elsewhere For the humane Testimonies he bringeth for either part I were then in the same ballance with him and shall be content to lay no stress upon them As for the 1 Tim. 3.1 which is his other place we make no Argument from it but maintain that it speaketh not of a Diocesan Bishop let them who assert the contrary prove it His discourse p. 293. is a very unsavory comparing of some Philosophical Problems which cannot well be determined and therefore we may hesitate about them with points of truth revealed in Scripture as if we might also be Sceptick in these But sure the Comparison is miserably lame for 1. These do not concerne our Faith or duty as these other do and therefore there is much less hazard in Scepticrsm about the one than the other 2. Even in those points the motion of the Earth or Heaven the Flux and Reflux of the Sea there is some truth in them though men through darkness cannot see it neither must we say that nothing there is because there is nothing certain to us in these things or that men may impose on our belief what they please in them hence men are the more studious in searching out these Secrets and give them not over as being destitute of all objective truth But he dealeth worse with the things of Church-Government he will have no objective truth in it and no duty to lye on us in searching out the truth but that we must believe what men say of it For conclusion of what I would say to this ground of his Scepticism about Church-Government I will but mention several Scriptures on which the truth in this is built viz. That the Apostolick form was parity which Mr. Still hath not so much as touched neither need I insist on them seeing Arguments from them are established by our writers and not enervated by him One place is 1 Tim. 4.14 where Tim. is said to be ordained by a Presbytery or company of Elders joyning with Paul in that Action this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power Another is 1 Cor. 5.4 5. where excommunication is transacted by the Authority of a Community not of a single Person and so is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 Cor. 2.8.10 Also 1 Thess 5.12 They who ruled that Church who were over them and must be obeyed were many not one Person yea that work and the work of labouring among the People and admonishing them are made to be the business of the same Persons which is a demonstration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in common and not a Bishop over them Heb. 13.7 17. proveth also the same thing most clearly Other places might be brought but these Instances may shew that Mr. Stilling undertaking to shew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apostolick Church doth not touch the most considerable places commonly brought to that purpose but hath mentioned a few and those which are least insisted on by them whom he opposeth and even to them he hath said nothing to scare any from using them as Arguments afterward His third Argument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apostolical Form of Government taken from the insufficiency of the Testimony of Antiquity is this I pass it because we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture and what he saith proveth no more but that antiquity is not sufficient to bear witness to it also because ali or most that he there discourseth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Episcopacy was the Apostolical form which we willingly yield Sect. 14. I come then to his 2d proposition mentioned before which he layeth down p. 322. Thus That the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but settled it according to the several circumstances of places and Persons which they had to deal with This assertion he layeth down ex abundanti not as a Foundation of his opinion but a doctrine of probability which may tend to
say of this nature we are to think that the Apostles did that which was best and most approved of God they being infallibly guided by his spirit Now that which was best to them must certainly be best to us also we managing the same affairs except some diversity of our case from theirs can be shewn wherefore we are obliged to think that the parity of Ministers in ruling the Church is Christ's will and so a moral duty not a thing indifferent seeing it was so in the Apostolick Churches as I suppose is proved by the maintainers of that way and there is no reason why it should be otherwise with us than with them For the second we have also a law for following Apostolical example as we have for following Christ's example which our Author saith maketh it our duty viz. 1 Cor. 4.16 Wherefore I beseech you be ye followers of me 1 Cor. 11.1 Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ And lest any think that this command of imitation is only in reference to duties otherways known to be such as faith love c. it is evident that this last place relateth to Church administrations for he prefixeth this exhortation to the doctrine of decency and purity in their worship Beside that the exhortation being general can suffer no exception but where imitation would not have the same morality in us that giving example had in them viz. where the case is different Other Scriptures to the same purpose are Phil. 3.17 Heb. 6.12 and this is commended which clearly supposeth a command 1 Thes 1.6 and 2.14 2 Thes 3.9 Ja. 5.10 Wherefore if we can shew Apostolical practice for our way of Church-Government as I know we can it is incumbent on our adversaries to shew a reason why they did such things which doth not agree to our case or else to submit to that way as that which is Christ's law For the other grounds of divine right that he examineth we insist not on them as not being necessary to the defence of that truth which we maintain Wherefore I wave what might be said against what he there disputeth CHAP. II. § 1. IN the second chapter of the first part of his Irenicum he layeth some hypotheses for a foundation of his following discourse where I shall pass over in silence these things that have truth in them and these also the examining of which is not needful to the present purpose viz. defending Presbyterial Government to be juris divini Only I take notice that here and through his whole book he spendeth most of his pains and learning in proving these points which are either digressions from the present business or are not denied by any of his opposites which is magno conatu nihil agere § 2. In his fourth hypothesis p. 38. some things need our remark he setteth it down thus In things which are determined both by the law of nature and divine positive laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting of the performance of them in due manner Two things in this hypothesis I condemn 1. That he warranteth men to determine things undetermined in the Church so far as they judge needful he should have said so far as is needful for if we hold this his assertion in terminis superstitious men in lawful authority may bind us in all things where Christ hath left us free so that it shall not be lawful to speak look or act in the Church but as they think fit And indeed here is a foundation for almost all the Ceremonies that either Popes or Prelates ever burthened the Church of God with they are nothing but determinations of what is left undetermined and they judge them to tend to promote worship as it is not determined what Garment a Minister shall wear the Church judgeth a Surplice to tend to promote worship then by this hypothesis the Church may determine this which is not only against truth as might easily be shewed if that were now my work but also against this Author who declareth himself against Ceremonies of Mens appointing 2. That he extendeth this determining power so far that not only things undetermined and that must be determined otherwise the Ordinances cannot be gone about without defect or sin may be determined by lawful authority for this we grant and therefore do close with his example of appointing the place and hour for worship but also things that they judge tend to promote the due manner of the Ordinances may be thus determined which a little after he expoundeth of the decency and solemnity of worship This we cannot assent to For there is no pompous Ceremony that ever man devised but they judged it fit to promote the solemnity of worship And indeed the Scripture condemning the pompousness and gaudiness of worship and commending the simplicity of it saith plainly that it is not left to men to add their determinations to God's to make the worship as solemn as they judge meet but that we ought to be content with that solemnity which is made in worship by God's Institutions and the needful determination of circumstances Neither can this blow to his hypothesis be evited by saying that he speaketh only of circumstances which we confess may be determined by the Church For 1. All Ceremonies are also circumstances and he doth not here mention meer circumstances to exclude Ceremonies from the determing power of Authority in the Church 2. Though he should be understood of meer circumstances viz. which are such before they be determined as the habit in which we are to worship yet even such when they are determined by men without necessity only 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 Church 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 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 ramitted 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
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 so 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 potest atem 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 un less 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 Magistrat us 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 two-fold 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 absurditier would follow 1. That there are two Supream Powers in a Nation at once 2. That a man lyeth 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
used by all or appoint some who should determine what the particular Form should be But according to this mans opinion he hath done neither of these Not the first for that he pleadeth against Nor the second for our Author can shew us no Scripture where it is intrusted to any And if we should require a plain and direct Law for this in express and formal terms as he doth of us in the like case he would find it a hard task Besides if we consult Scripture there is far more to be said for the power of the Church than for the power of the Magistrate in such a determination And reason also may at least set them in equal competition if not cast the Scales in the favour of the Church it being a matter purely Ecclesiastical that is contended about and yet this man giveth the deciding power in this to the Magistrate It is strange if the Government of the Church under the Old Testament be so plain and that under the New be left at such uncertainty § 3. 2. That Moses and Christ are compared as Mediators I do not deny but this maketh nothing for but against what he intendeth For their Mediatory Work taketh in the management of all the dealings that are between God and his People and as it is here spoken of is chiefly meant of outward Administrations of Teaching and Ruling For the inward Administrations of satisfaction for sin and communicating the Spirit to Believers are not applicable to Moses Now the setling the Government of the Church cannot but be a part of this Mediatory work it being of so much and so near concernment to the spiritual good of believers Wherefore Christ and Moses are here compared in their faithfulness in setling of Church-Government as well as in other things This is clearly confirm'd out of the 5th v. of that chap. where it is said that Moses was faithful in all his house Then the Law of Comparison saith that Christ is also there said to be faithful in all his House i. e. in all the matters of the Church Now it cannot be denyed but Church-Government is one and that a main one of the matters of the Church Wherefore Christ and Moses are here compared in their faithfulness in this Administration 3. His Answer doth not well hang together when first he will have them here compared as Mediators as if the matter of Church-Government were impertinent to that wherein they are compared and yet subjoyneth that Moses his faithfulness lay in keeping close to the pattern shewed him Whereas Christ had no such command laid on him nor pattern shewed him If the faithfulness of Moses did ly in keeping Gods command about Church-Government how is he only spoken of as a Typical Mediator and how is Christ's faithfulness compared with this faithfulness of Moses seeing he received no such command § 4. 'T is false that Christ received no Command about the Govenment of the Church for the Scripture is clear that he is made head of the Church hath the Government laid on his shoulders hath received all power in Heaven and in Earth c. If he be by his Office King of the Church sure it is his Office and Trust to settle the Government of his Church This reply he maketh to himself and answereth to it p. 177. in two or three things First he granteth that Christ is King of his Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by his Spirit but we must not therefore say that one Form of Government is necessary whether it be contained in his Laws or dictated by his Spirit or not To this I reply 1. Neither do we make any such Inference If we prove not one Form to be contained in his Laws we shall pass from this Argument That which we say is that because he is King and a faithful King as Moses was who setled a Form of Government therefore a Form is contained in his Laws Not that it is necessary whether it be contained in his Laws or not 2. If Christ be King and Governs the Church by his Laws and that outwardly how can it be that the particular Form of its Government is what many may think fit and not of Christs Institution For the Church is governed by a particular Form not by a general notion of a Government for universale non existit nisi in suis singularibus if then the particular form be of mans appointing the Church is not outwardly governed by Christs Laws but by mens for men make the Laws or Rule of its Government If a King should send a Deputy to Govern a Nation and give him leave to choose what Form of Government he would either by himself or by a Council where he should have but equal power with the rest it could not be said in proper speech that that Nation is Governed by the Kings Laws for he makes not the Laws of its Government but by the Laws of them who determines the particular Form of Government Yea suppose the King should make some Laws about it as that nothing should be acted contrary to his Will or Interest that there should be Government and not Anarchy that there should be Rulers and Ruled c. Yet the Nation may rather be said to be Governed by the Laws of him who determineth the particular Form seeing the Government doth essentially consist in the management of a particular Form and not in some general directions This is easily applicable to our case for our Author will have Christ to give some General directious about Church-Government and men to determine and contrive the Form Now let any judge then whether the Church in that case be Governed by the Laws of Christ or the Laws of men Wherefore I conclude that this Answer destroys it self while it denyeth a particular Form instituted by 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
a time when Government could not be fetled 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 e◠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 a◠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 cafes 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 we are ready to defend against what this Author will object For the second condition viz. that what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture as binding this is unlike Mr. Stillingfleet's ability to require such a ridiculous condition for if it be expresly set down in Scripture as binding then it is not a consequence but an express Law and so belongs to the former part of his disjunction And besides it is a hard task to put any one upon to find out a consequence so deduced in Scripture What if Anabaptist◠who deny consequences from Scripture in the point of Institution should put Mr. Stillingfleet to prove Infant Baptism by such a consequence a◠this where something is said in Scripture from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow and where it is expresly said in Scripture that it doth follow from this that Infants must be baptized he would find this an hard task and yet he requireth the same of us What he saith for the warranting of this strange Doctrine wanteth force It is true Consequences cannot make an Institution yet they may declare an Institution we may gather the Will of Christ in matters of Institutions by
directions to them which are not applicable to Bishops governing because the managing of the work is the same in both ways except what Nature maketh necessary to a Society or a single person governing which also it doth teach 3. The matter is determined even in these Epistles viz. 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is not obscurely held forth that Tim. was ordained by a Presbytery which inferreth that Presbyters ought so to be ordained and not by a Bishop alone 4. Though the matter were not determined in these Epistles it is no wonder they being written to particular men but it is determined in other Scriptures viz. where Christ giveth the Keys not to one but to all the Apostles then the only Church Officers and where Paul committeth the care of the Church of Ephesus not to one Bishop but to the Elders in common Act. 20.28 Of this he saith p. 184. it is equally a duty whether we understand by Overseers some acting over others or all joyning in equality But by his leave when the Apostle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of Ephesus for to them he speaketh not to these of other Churches of Asia as he dreameth the Text may be understood upon what ground I know not there is no doubt left whether he maketh it the duty of them all in common or of some one set over the rest And may we not think that this Command is a standing Rule reaching even to us as he himself saith p. 185. of what is contained in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. and if so then all Pastors are Bishops or Overseers not one over the rest by Apostolick Authority He argueth thus p. 185. Tim. is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who might be able also to teach others 2 Tim. 2.2 Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them c. Ans 1. Yea he doth here commit power of Preaching and of governing joyntly to Timothy to be transferred by him to others for of both these I suppose Tim. had heard from Paul why then must we here understand the one rather then the other in that he mentioneth Teaching not Ruling it is because Teaching is the main business and hath the other power necessarily joined with it by divine Institution 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power where ever the power of a Minister is mentioned and here it cannot be deemed needful because the Apostle had formerly instructed Tim. that he choose none to be Pastors but they who are able to Rule too whence it followeth that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pastoral charge he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it else to what purpose should he require ability to Rule in them To the same purpose is what he saith of Tit. That he bid him ordain Elders but told not what Power did belong to them a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture is in concludent such as this is From the Superiority of Tim. and Tit. I pass his clearing of it from being an Argument for Episcopacy be inferreth two things p. 186.187 First that the Superiority of some Church Officers he should have said Presbyters for of Officers it is not Questioned on either hand over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel 2. That it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the Church in Apostolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation These saith he follow though their Office be supposed extroardinary and that they acted as Evangelists Ans It will follow indeed from these examples that Superiority is not contrary to Nature nor to the Nature of a Gospel Church Also it will follow that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that the Lord should immediately when he seeth cause appoint such Superiority and what if we say it followeth that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that in some extraordinary cases that Superiority may be allowed for a time But none of these are the thing in Question for this doth not follow that because the Lord did immediately call these men and gave them Extroardinary Power over others therefore he hath not instituted that the ordinary way of Church Government shall be by Pastors acting in Purity which is here disputed His third head of Laws formerly mentioned he toucheth p. 188. and bringeth instances of some General rules for Church Government which I confess are not peculiar to one form But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are such which himself instanceth as that complaints be made to the Church it is an odd exposition to say i. e. Tell the Bishop The Church implieth clearly a Plurality p. 187. had it been the will of Christ saith he that there should be no Superiority of Pastors there would have been some express and direct prohibition of it Ans 1. Might not a prohibition by Consequence serve turn This is very peremptorily spoken 2. What needeth any prohibition when Christ had instituted a way inconsistent with it this was a prohibition of it now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters as hath been already shewed Sect. 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Opposites p. 189. Viz. That it is of equal necessity that Christ should Institute a certain Form as that any other Legislator that moderates a Commonwealth should do His first Ans To this is that Christ hath instituted such an immutable Government in his Church as is sufcient for the succession and continuance of it which is all that founders of Republicks looked after viz. That there be such an order and distinction of Persons and subordination that 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 yeâ— 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
yield to them in circumcising Tim. a thing which might seem to cross the design of the Gospel would he scruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel Answ The Apostles at first did yield very far to the Jews because they could not at the beginning digest the taking down of the old frame of Worship and setting up a new hence they did conform to the Jews for that time as much as might be in their transient and occasional practices but this reason did no way oblige them to frame their constitutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward by the Jewish Patern because then the Gospel was fully promulgated and the Will of Christ known to the new Gospel-Church differing from the old and in this case we are rather to think that the Apostles did not conform to the Jewish way in things not necessary because as at first their work was to bring them to Christ and so they yielded to them as much as might be so afterwards now their work was tobring them from Moses and to this end it was fit to bring them off all those customes and waies which might keep that their I dol yet in their minds as sure he Jewish customes might do Here is more then a shew of reason which our Author requireth why the Apostle should slight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues and besides it is reason enough why they should do this if it be not proved that they did other wise seeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit not led by mens Customes in their Actions I find no further proof of this consideration but that they did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but that in probability whole Synagogues in some places were converted What ground there is for this probability I know not we read nothing of it as we read of whole Houses converted neither see I any reason to think that the Apostles did respect Synagogues in their reforming Churches they made the Churches of them who had before been in the Synagogues and that I believe they did according to the Peoples best conveniency for partaking of ordinances together but that their Synagogues were their Pattern I see not Another argument from the Jewish and Gentiles Coetus he would fain be helped by but finding it weak disputeth against it wherefore we lay it aside and come to his 3d consideration p. 260. viz. the Synagogue-Model was most agreable to the State of the Churches in Apostolick times because it was so ordered as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government Answer Wherein the Synagogue-Model was in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Gospel we do not say that the Apostles would reject such a good thing because used by the Synagogue only we deny that they used it because the Synagogue used it so this proveth nothing Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Synagogue-Government in this general that both were such as might consist without Secular power but divers particular forms may be of this nature so that there is no need from this consideration that the Church and the Synagogues be governed by the same Model Sect. 8. We see how probable he hath made this his assertion he cometh p. 261. to shew what particular practices of the Synagogue the Apostles did take up and follow and first he speaketh of their publick service in the Church where all that he can attain to is this that there was in the Church as there had been in the Synagogue solemn Prayers Praises reading of Scripture and teaching of the People out of it all which are parts of Moral worship and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by he is forced to acknowledge a considerable difference viz. omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue and celebrating the Lords Supper which was not in it which one consideration destroyeth all that he is at so much pains to establish for if Christ and his Apostles had made the Synagogue their pattern they might easily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper from some of their customes as well as they did Baptism as this Author alledgeth Next he cometh p. 264. to ordination about which he maketh a great deal of do but to no purpose for Ordination i. e. a Solemn setting of men apart for the Office of the Ministry doth naturally follow as necessary to Order supposing that some should be in that Office and the work be not common to all which I believe should have been in the Church whatever had been done in the Synagogue as for the Rite of it laying on of hands whether it was used in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry for it will not thence follow that the Apostles took it from the confederate discipline of the Synagogue i. e. from their men-devised Customes as our Author confidently asserteth but all that he discourseth proveth not this but only if it prove any thing that it was used in the Synagogue I assert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Synagogue and by the Apostles from the ancient custâ—me of blessing or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony of this Judgment is Calv. Inst lib. cap. 4. Sect. hunc autem ritum fluxisse arbitror ab Hebraeorum more qui quod benedictum aut consecratum volebant manuum impositione deo quasi repraesentabant sic Jacob benedicens Ephraim Manasse eorum capitibus manus imposuit quod sequutus est dominus noster cum super infantes precationem faceret eodem ut arbitror significatu Judaei ex legis praescripto suis sacrificiis manus imponebant quare apostoli per manuum impositionem eum se deo offerro significabant quem initiabant in ministerium quanquam usui sit etiam super eos quibus visibilis spiritus gratias conferebant We see then it was not the practice in Synagogue-Ordination only but in many things else and it is most probable that this Rite so constantly used in all Ages of the Church in all cases of blessing or consecration hath something more in it then humane Institution in the Synagogue the constant use of it by men infallibly guided as Abraham the Apostles Christ himself the commanding of it in the like case of consecration under the Law cannot but give it a stamp of divine Authority Yea we find the Levites thus ordained Num. 8.10 wherefore all this his pains doth not prove that Gospel-Ordinance was taken up from the humane custome of the Synagogue A few things in this his discourse I shall further shortly take notice of p. 264 265. he will have Gospel-Ministers not to succceed no not by Analogie to the Priests and Levites but rather to
is That the places of Scripture most in controversie about the form of Government may be without any incongruity understood of either of the different Forms which he maketh out by going through the several places The first is Acts 11.30 where it is said That the relief for the Brethren of Judea was sent to the Elders There is nothing here saith he to shew whether there were the local Elders of Jerusalem or the Bishops of the several Churches of Judea Answ I wonder why he should have brought this as the first or as one of these few Scriptures that he undertaketh to answer for the most part of the most pungent Scriptures against his design he doth not so much as mention for I think it is very little insisted on by either party nor can I remember that I have met with it as brought to prove either Parity or imparity Yet I do not doubt but at least some probability may be hence brought that the Apostolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders for which I lay down briefly these grounds First The Elders here spoken of are the Governors of the Church this he doth not deny 2dly They were the Governors of the Church of Jerusalem This he saith is not sure for they might be the Bishops of the Churches of Judea But against this I argue 1. It is not enough to say they might be but what ground is there to think that they were the Bishops of Judea we bring probable grounds for what we assert but what can be said for the contrary It is a bold way of expounding Scriture to say such a sense it may have when there is no ground to think that it hath such a sense but some ground to the contrary 2. However the Relief ought to be sent to all the Churches of Judea yet it is delivered at Jerusalem to be sent abroad for it is delivered to these Elders by Barnabas and Paul whom it is not like they sent through the several Churches of Judea 't is spoken of as one single act of theirs delivering the others to a company of Elders met together Now it is not imaginable that all the Bishops of Judea were met together on this occasion for what needed such a Convention for receiving Alms Yea we have no ground to think that it was so natural to them before-hand as that they could meet about it Neither hath that conceit of some any probability that these Bishops did reside at Jerusalem such Men did not begin so soon to slight their particular Charge but of this after These Elders then were the Elders of Jerusalem 3. We find a company of Elders ordinarily at Jerusalem not only Acts 15.6 Which might be upon the solemn occasion of the Council but Act. 21.18 That these were the Elders of Judea come up with their flocks to keep the Feast of Pentecost as Mr. Still guesseth is a most irrational conceit for though many of the Jews were zealous of the Law shall we think that the Apostles had set Teachers over them who were no better instructed in the Gospel than so And besides these believing Jews ver 20 who are said to be zealous of the Law can neither be proved to have been then present at Jerusalem for they might hear of Paul's condescendency to their Customs though they were not there neither that they were those of the Country of Judea they might be of Jerusalem it self but I incline rather to the first Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of Judea met in one place these were then the Elders of Jerusalem 4. It is then observed both by the ordinary gloss and by Lyra in loc That this famine was mainly like to be in Jerusalem the Believers there being spoiled of their movable goods in the persecution about Stephen and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them Ergo they are the Elders of Jerusalem which here received it Now from these grounds it easily followeth what we intend viz. If there was a company of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at Jerusalem then this Church of the rest there is the same reason was not governed by a Bishop but by Presbyters acting in Parity It is strange if the Elders of the Church should be spoken of and no notice taken of My Lord Bishop if there were any such person in such a matter Sect. 13. The 2d place is Act. 14.23 when they had ordained them Elders in every Church to which he joineth the 3d Tit. 1.5 that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City Of which places he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie no more but Ecclesiatim and oppidatim so that the places may well be understood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City or of more but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them But granting all that he alledgeth a strong Argument for our purpose may be brought from these places thus there was at least in every Church one Elder in the Apostles times and such an Elder as was also a Bishop and had governing Power over the Church as appeareth by comparing vers 7. of Tit. 2. with this vers 5. But there could not be in every Church a Diocesan Bishop ruling over Presbyters for one of these are over many Churches Ergo. The Church was then governed by the Elders of the several Churches acting in Parity for if every Church had its Elder or Elders and these all were Rulers then the Rule was not in the hand of one Superiour over many Churches Nothing can be questioned in this Argument except it be said that every Church here is not every congregational but Diocesan Church But this can in no wise be for there was a necessity of an Elder or Elders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples Instruction if these then did rule the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches The next place is Act 20.17 And from Miletus Paul sent and called the Elders of the Church These say we were Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom in common Paul committeth the ruling of the Church vers 28. not to one Bishop over the rest so that Church was governed by Parity of Elders To this place he answereth by shewing some Probabilities for both meanings viz. That these were the Elders of Ephesus and that they were the Bishops of Asia but taketh no pains to Answer what is said on either hand only concludeth that because there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either which is most detestable Scepticism for if there be Arguments for both parts sure both cannot be true seeing they are contradictory neither can both be false for the same reason for contradictoriarum altera semper est vera altera semper est falsa then it was his part either to shew that neither of the arguments prove any thing by answering to them or to hold to
of Presbyters acting in a Society where they could be had and singly where more could not be and that they never setled it in the hand of a Bishop Ruling over Presbyters All this is evident from what hath been said He taketh occasion p. 336 c. to speak against the Office of Ruling-Elders in the Church in which Dispute he toucheth not any except one Scripture of those arguments which are brought by the Defenders of that Office which is but a slight way of disputing against any Opinion It is not needful to our Design to handle this Debate fully till that be answered which is writen by the Author of the Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland by the Author of the Treatise of Ruling-Elders and Deacons by the London Ministers in their jus divinum Reg. Eccles and in their Vindication of Pres Gov. by Smect by Calv. Just lib. 4. c. 4. sect 8. and lib. 4. c. 11. sect 6. by Peter Martyr Loc. com clas 4. c. 1. num 11. and many others Wherefore I shall only answer what this Author hath said against the Truth in this Point Whereas among many other Scriptures proving this Office 1 Tim. 5.17 is brought as one there being implied there a distinction of Elders that Rule well and are to be honoured with double Honour into such as labour in the Word and Doctrine and another member of the distinction not expressed which can be none else but Elders who rule and do not labour in the Word and Doctrine i. e. whose Office it is only to Rule not to Teach publickly as Pastors Of this Scripture he pretendeth to bring a full clear and easie understanding viz. That of the Elders that were ordained in great Churches who had power to discharge all Pastoral acts but did not all attend equally the same part of the work some did most attend the Ruling of the Flock already converted others laboured most in converting others by Preaching and that according to their several abilities now these last deserved greater Honour both because their burthen was greater and their sufferings more This is no new though it be a false interpretation for the Author of Asser Govern Ch. of Scotl. p. 48 46. bringeth it as one of Dr. Fields Answers to the same place or rather two of them which by our Author are put together But against this exposition of the Text I thus argue 1. This Gloss supposeth that there were Elders whose Office it was to Teach and to Rule and yet they did ordinarily neglect the one part of this their work and contented themselves with doing the other Is it imaginable that the Lord allows any Honour at all upon such and yet the Text alloweth double Honour even on unpreaching Elders though the Preachers have it more especially This Reason is strongly enforced if we consider that Church Power communicated by Christ to the Officers of his house is not only a Licence or Permission as we noted before but a charge of which they must give an account as it is said of Church-rulers Heb. 13.17 Neither do I see how any who by their Office are Preachers of the Gospel can free themselves of that wherewith the Apostle chargeth himself 1 Cor. 9.16 Necessity is laid upon me yea wo is unto me if I Preach not the Gospel and of that charge laid on Timothy who was as much taken up with ruling as any 2 Tim. 4.2 that he should Preach the word be instant in Season out of Season May men when Christ hath put them in Office and given them a charge choose what part of the work of that Office and Charge they will do and what not But I perceive this Man's principles lead him to subject all Christs Institutions to Mens will to cut and carve of them as they please Christ hath given Pastors a charge that they should Teach and Rule his Church He had pleaded before the Ruling-power may be taken from some and laid on others now he affirmeth the same of Teaching-power this is intolerable boldness 2. We have no better ground for judging of the diversity of Officers in the Church than by considering divers sorts of work which some did ordinarily with the Lord's approbation that others did not but were employed in other work What better Note can we have to know what is a Mans Office than his work which he is ordinarily employed in and that with God's own approbation Wherefore if some Elders Preached others preached not but Ruled we must think that these were distinct Officers and that their Office led them only to do what they did 3. This learned Author should have brought some reason for what he alledgeth viz. That these unpreaching Eledrs who Ruled had power to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not persuade us of it neither is there the least shew of warrant for such an Assertion If it be said that they preached sometimes and therefore could not be without Preaching-power Answ It cannot be proved that there were any Officers in the Apostolick Church who had Preaching power or did sometimes Preach and yet were so taken up with Ruling that they did not ordinarily Preach 4. We may with as much yea the same reason say That every Officer in the Church had all Church-power and might occasionally exert it though some according to their gift did ordinarily exert one part others another and that Deacons might preach and do all the work of the Pastors though ordinarily being 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
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 this proposition as here laid down might be yielded by us neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch the 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 to think that they did this not occasionally but by a Law of Christ His 3d Argument is That the Office of Deaconesses is of Apostolick practice and yet now laid aside as not binding Answer 1. It is the opinion of some Learned men as Peter Martyr Loc. Com. clas 4. c. 1. num 11. and the Author of Asser Gov. Ch. Scot. par 1. c. 5. p. 38 who citeth also Aretius that though women might be taken into that part of the Office of the Deacon that concerneth caring for the Sick yet men also might exercise it which is gathered from Ro. 12.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that sheweth mercy and 1 Tim. 5.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Widows be there spoken of yet the best interpreters turn these words in the masculine gender and our translation thus If any provide not for his own House which they would not do if they thought that Widows only were they to whom that Office belonged 2. Supposing them to be used in the Apostolick Church there may be a peculiar reason for it in those daies of persecution many were strangers others cast off by their Parents and Friends for the profession of the truth when such were sick none could so well attend them as women the case is not so now and if it were sure this example might shew us our Duty 4. If it can be proved to have been the constant Use of Apostolick Churches and that with out such extraordinary necessity then the neglect of it is a great defect in the Church His fourth Argument is that some Apostolick rites and Customes are out of use Ergo their example doth not bind He instanceth dipping in Baptism love-Feasts community of goods the Holy Kiss Answer We deny the antecedent being understood of Customes not built on a reason peculiar to them His Instances prove nothing dipping cannot be proved to have been only used and if it were to us it is not false because of the coldness of our Climate We deny the love Feasts to have been Apostolical Yea they are expresly condemned as used in the Church 1 Cor. 11.22 and if they were used elsewhere it was a Civil Custome and so not falling in within the present debate Kissing was the Civil custome in Salutation this the Apostle 1 Thes 5.26 would have them to use holily neither can it be proved that ever it was religiously observed in the Apostolical Church Community of goods was built on a peculiar reason suting those times of persecution and so not to the purpose Whatever can be proved to be Apostolical and falleth not under the exceptions before mentioned we shall bear the blame if we observe them not CHAP. VII THE Medium by which he here proveth the Form of Church-Government to be indifferent is taken from the practice of the antient Churches in Ages succeeding that of the Apostles he taketh much pains to prove that the Primitive Church did not conceive it self obliged to observe one individual Form but settled things as it judged them tend most to peace and edification without any antecedent obligation binding to one course and thence inferreth that no certainty can be brought from their practice to prove one Form to be juris divini We are not concerned here to enter the lists with him it shall be sufficient to our purpose to animadvert a few things in general 1. It is no great matter if we yield him the conclusion seeing we have sufficient ground to build the divine Right of Presbyterial Government upon in Scripture and so may spare any Argument that may be brought for it from antiquity 2. It is no wonder that the one Primitive and Apostolical yea divine Form of Government was not every where stuck to in after ages seeing the ambition of many men began soon to carry them beyond the boundaries Christ had set to devise what might best suit their own humours rather than what was for the Churches good the Apostle telleth us that even in his daies which was a wonder 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 to 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 that 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 Ireneus have nothing of the different degree 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 Papish 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 against 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 confideration I shall lay down to take off the strength of it Neither Mr. Still nor any man else ought to lay