and not civil though they be visible to men and so outward in respect of the conscience So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience and it is that we have now described or outward in respect to the Church viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil and concern the Church not as it is a Church but as it is a Society Or we may distinguish thus the Government of the Church is either invisible viz. in the conscience or visible and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical and so it is inward in respect to the Church or in things that are Civil and so it is outward The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ the second mediately and that by the Guides of the Church as his Deputies the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it But now let us see whether he himself who chargeth others with this confounding be not guilty of it and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal and the External Government of the Church It is very evident that it is so for 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience and so be meant of invisible and visible Government Or to the Church and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church We are to seek in this for all his distinction 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these as he here manageth the distinction or at least some things seem to draw the one way and some the other For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority spoken of in the Scripture to refer to the outward Government of the Church this must be meant of that Government which is Civil not of visible Ecclesiastical Government I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority Again where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience this must be meant of his invisible Government both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this But what-ever be his meaning this answer doth not take away the force of our argument for if he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christs power Kingdom and Authority to be meant of Civil power but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church this is all we desire for if Christ hath such a Kingdom then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church save that of Word and Sacraments as it followeth immediately and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate as do all the rest of the Erastians If he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience which is exercised by his Word and spirit in this first he is contrary to all men for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom but they would have it managed by the Magistrate whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church Secondly he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ denying that which is a confiderable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office What is Christ a King not only of Angels but of Men united in a visible Society the Church and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them this is a ridiculous inconsistency Thirdly he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government such as Eph. 4.10 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act and it is made an act of his Authority 1 Cor. 11.3 Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship Also Psal 2.8 Psal 22.27 Psal 110.3 Col. 1.13 and many other places which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul Fourthly this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government as gathering a people to him Isa 55.4 5. Acts 15 14 15 16 17. giving them laws Isa 33.2 Mat. 28.20 Mat. 5.17 19. Verses c. setting up Officers Eph. 4.10.11 giving them power of Discipline Mat. 16.19 Mat. 18.17 18. John 20.23 Fifthly it is contrary to himself for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts if then Christ as King hath invested his Servants with this power which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church That which he addeth viz. that this is made known to us in the word but not the other viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form this I say 1. Beggeth the Question 2. Destroyeth his Answer wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government for this is a part of it which he granteth § 5. Another Answer he frameth to our Argument from Christ and Moses p. 177. That if the comparison of Christ and Moses infer an equal exactness of disposing every thing in the Church then we must be bound to all circumstances as the Jews were but there is this difference between the Old and New Testament that there all ceremonies and circumstances were exactly prescribed here there are only general rules for circumstantial things there the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded here it is not so but a liberty is left for times place persons c. Reply 1. We do not plead for an equal exactness in determining all things We know the Old and New Testament state of the Church requireth a diversity here but we plead for the equal faithfulness of Christ with Moses now Christ was intrusted with setting up a Government in the Church as well as Moses whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as Moses did seeing without this great matters in the Church even that whereon its Union and Being as a Society do hang are left at a great uncertainty
thus moral and assert them to be left at liberty he doth at one blow cut of all the institutions of Christ and will have the Gospel-Church so perfect as to be under no law of God but the moral Law and what Laws men please to add unto it This I hope he will retract when he considereth what he hath here asserted For I perceive that even learned men can say sometimes they know not what § 7. His second reason p. 180. is this The Form of government among the Jews in the Tribe of Levy was agreeable to the form of Government among the other Tribes and their Ecclesiastical Government was one of their Judicial Laws Wherefore if in this we compare Christ with Moses we must hold it needful that he prescribe also a form of Civil Government Ans 1. When we compare Christ with Moses we have very good cause to make an exception where the Scripture hath evidently made it We compare them then as two Mediators entrusted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation among which are Church Administrations Hence there is Warrant for stretching that comparison made of them in Scripture to their faithfulness in appointing Church Government but as to Civil Government the Scripture maketh a plain exception when it evidently holdeth forth Moses a State Law-giver as well as a Church Law-giver and it doth as evidently testifie that Christ was not such when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World Joh. 18.36 And that he is a Judge and divider of inheritance among men Luk. 12.14 and his mean condition in the World unlike to Moses maketh this farther appear Wherefore there is no necessity of comparing them in Civil though we compare them in Church-Administrations The Lord was pleased to make the Government of Israel in respect of Church and State both to be Theocratia to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from himself That seeing he hath under the Gospel done otherwise as to State-Government he hath also done otherwise as to Church-Government what a mad kind of consequence is this And there is evident reason of this differing Dispensation under the Law and under the Gospel I suppose if the difference of cases that arise from variety of Circumstances did permit it were the happiest case for God's People to have all their actions and concernments particularly determined by the Lord who is wiser then men now the Lord doth thus with them so far as it hinders not their happiness by a load of multiplicity of Laws Wherefore seeing the Church and State of the Jews were commensurable being in one Nation it was as easie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws But it is far otherwise under the Gospel where the Church is spread over so many different Nations of divers dispositions and manners to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all these Nations which must be superadded To the Determinations of Natures Law would have made the Bible a burthen to men But it is not so in Ecclesiastical matters there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church or Religious Society but supposing what Nature Dictates may without burthening People with many Laws be determined and imposed upon all Hence is it that the Lord saw it for the good of the Jewish Church to give them both Civil and Church-Laws and for the good of the Gospel Church to give them Church-Laws but to leave Civil-Laws to prudence guided by the general Rules of Scripture and Nature Neither do I think as our Author seemeth sometime to think that it was any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God even in the least matters and that which is Christian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in these things when we are bound to the same by the Laws of men I should rather prefer their state to ours thus far but their bondage was to have many things determined and imposed upon them which were naturally indifferent and so free which the Lord hath now left free under the Gospel Answ 2. It is not to the purpose to tell us that the Government of the Tribe of Levy was like that of the other Tribes For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that viz. in this that it was in the hand of the Tribe of Levy and no other Tribe which was a positive Institution of God that it did cognosce of other matters than Civil Government did that it did inflict other censures But let it be never so co-incident with Civil Government yet it was of Gods Institution which is all that is needful to our purpose That the Form of Ecclesiastical Government took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws is a groundless Assertion Yea it is a begging of the Question and also taking away the Distinction of Church and State among the Jews which is not needful here to be insisted upon till some man Answer what Mr. Gillespie in his Aarons-rod hath written to this purpose § 8. His third Reason ib. is the People of the Jews were an entire People when their Church-Government was setled the Gospel Church was but in Forming in Christs and the Apostles times they settled what was for the present need of the Church in her first Constitution as in appointing Officers this will not serve when the Church is grown and spread her coat cut out for her Infancy must not be urg'd on her when grown Answ 1. This doth no way satisfie the comparing of Christ's faithfulness with Moses for Moses gave Laws in the Wilderness not only for that wandring condition but for their setled state in the Land of Canaan Must we then think that Christ took care that the Church in Infancy should have his Laws to be guided by but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men Sure our Lord was as careful to foresee future needs of his People as to provide for present wants 2. The Church in the Apostles days though not so far spread as now yet was so multiplyed and setled as that she was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy Might there not be a Bishop in Ephesus Corinth c. and especially in Galatia a National Church Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now Wherefore if the Apostles provided for present need they behoved either to determine either of these two ex are tuo 3. What is there in our case that maketh another kind of Government needful then what was needful in the Apostles times We have many Congregations which all need their several Officers and must be ruled in common either by all these Officers or by some set above the rest was not this their case too I would fain know where lyeth the difference may be in this there could not then be one Head over all the Churches which now may seeing the powers of the world profess Christ It is true there was
this place is not meant of Private Injuries but in so far as they are Scandals but of scandalous sins I say the context doth prove it because our Lord is there speaking of Scandals it is the very purpose that he is upon ver 1 2. The Text also proveth it for the first remedy to be applyed to this evil is Rebuke which is known to be a more proper remedy for Scandal than private wrong and then the fruit of this remedy Repentance doth relate to Scandals rather than to private wrongs Neither doth it follow that it is private injury because a private person may forgive it for we must understand it of private Scandal not such as is publick and a scandal to the whole Church as Mr. Still supposeth Now when the Offender repenteth upon private Rebuke the Rebuker may forgive him 3 ways 1. By not charging him any more with guiltiness but looking on him as one whom the Lord hath pardoned That this is called forgiveness in Scripture is clear 2 Cor. 2.7 10. where the whole Church is commanded thus to forgive the excommunicated man who had repented 2. By exercising that Christian familiar love toward him which we ought not to exercise towaad them who live in sin 3. By forbearing to bring the matter to any more publick hearing which had not the party repented had been his duty Now this giveth not a power of Excommunicating and releasing to a private person but only a power of the prudent use of our own charity His second Answer is the same only built on another Scripture Matth. 18.20 Where Christ in answer to Peter's Question bids us forgive our brother as oft as he repenteth The answer is also the same for we must forgive a scandalous Brother in the way but now laid down as oft as he repenteth and not bring him to publick Rebuke but in case of obstinacy His 3d. argument is this If this be matter of Scandal that is here spoken of then might a matter of Scandal be brought before the Church when there is no way to decide it there being but one privy to it who is the Accuser he affirmeth and the Offender denyeth Answ 1. Doth not this same inconvenience follow if the matter be a private Injury May there not in that case be no way for the Arbitrators to decide the matter the Offender denying and the injured party affirming and that where himself is the party The Objecter then is as much obliged to answer this argument as we are But 2dly This inconvenience is easily avoided thus if the grieved person be the only witness of the fact and the offender deny the fact it ought not to come before the Church neither is this injunction to be understood of such cases but where either the fact is known to more than one for even so it may be a private and no publick offence or where the Offender doth not deny the fact but denyeth that it is wrong in that case first two or three then the whole Church must endeavour to convince him It is a bad consequence some works of darkness for want of witness cannot be decided by the Church Ergo We are not commanded to bring scandals before the Church That which he addeth p. 223. That Christ here speaketh as to an ordinary case and in allusion to what was then in Use among the Jews which was to reprove one another commanded Lev. 19.17 and for neglect of which Jerusalem was thought to be destroyed by R. Chamna This I say is nothing to the purpose for I suppose these Reproofs Lev. 19.17 and which are mentioned by that Rabby were not only for private Injuries but mainly for sin against God wherefore this consideration maketh not a little against the design for which it was brought P. 224. He will not have the Church here spoken of to be the Christian Church because saith he Christ is speaking to a present case and layeth down a present Remedy Now if he lay down Rules for governing his Church this could not be because there were yet no Ecclesiastical Courts for them to apeal to if then the case had presently fallen out they were left without a redress having no Church to tell it unto Ans It cannot be proved that Christ here layeth down Rules for a case presently practicable more than he doth when he impowereth his Apostles and chargeth them concerning their work Matth. 16.19 John 20.23 Mal. 28.19 and yet will have them to delay a while before they should put all that power in act Luke 24.49 And indeed we have far better cause to think that he is telling his people what to do in the after and ordinary times of his Church than what they should do in that present and extraordinary case when the Church was not yet framed and when they had himself personably to go to for direction 2dly However we maintain that this Rule as it serveth for our time so might it serve for that time in which it was spoken for if the case had then fallen out though there were not the ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts to go to that now ought to be yet there wanted not a visible Church-power residing in the person of Christ and after in the Apostles to whom did succeed the ordinary Judicatures so that the offended party wanted never a Church to make his complaint unto I do not say that Tell the Church doth directly signifie any other to which the complaint was to be made but the ordinary guides of the Church for our Lord accommodateth his terms he useth to the ordinary cases in which this Law was to take place but by Analogie it is applicable to any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy cited by the Author that unless we understand the word Church as usually it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages 't is not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this that such as so argue would do well to consider how those to whom Christ spake should apprehend his meaning if he spake in a sense they never heard of before We confider that they may easily understand Christs words because he had often before spoken to them of the gospel-Gospel-church that was to be set up and even in this very term of a Church as Matth. 16.19 and frequently under the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven which they might easily apprehend to be meant by the Church Wherefore the Author did not well consider what he said when he supposed this language to be unknown to the Disciples Hence all that he saith of the way of understanding
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