of contempt and scandal which is his third Argument and the repealing of the law or ceasing of the authority commanding may free us of impositions made by meer will which is his fourth Argument Wherefore these Arguments prove that which the Author doth not own if they prove any thing which is a token that they prove nothing at all But that I may shortly answer them The first Argument is inconcludent for though radical liberty i. e. a right to do or not do be consistent with such commands as men without warrant from God lay on us their authority never being able to destroy that right given to us which is founded on the will of God yet these commands are an unlawful taking away of the exercise of our liberty for where neither Scripture nor Reason which are Gods law do bind mans will ought not to bind especially in the things of Religion He hath here p. 57. a gird by the way at them who hold one posture of receiving the Lords Supper to be necessary as more destroying liberty than doth the command of the Magistrate imposing one posture Answ. If they hold this without warrant from the word of the Lord I yield to what he saith but if they can prove that we ought in this to imitate Christ and keep a table-gesture as he did it is no destroying our liberty unless he think it less liberty to be bound to the will of Christ declared by his example than it is to be bound to the will of men Other falshoods I pass over it not being my intention to touch every thing but I wonder at a gross aspersion that he layeth on the Apostle Paul viz. that he did use the Jewish Ceremonies as that he circumcised Timothy when they were not only mortuae but mortiferae and that where there was no opinion of their necessity What is it I pray to say they were mortiferae but that it was sin to use them for when they were mortuae they were indifferent not as to the opinion of their necessity but as to their use then Paul used them when it was sin to use them I hope the Author will not own this when he is better advised but we see whither zeal for an errour will lead men His other Arguments run on the same mistake viz. they prove that radical liberty is not taken away whatever be commanded but they prove not that when men command without warrant from the Lord they hinder that exercise of liberty that the Lord alloweth us Wherefore I need not insist on any further Answer to them p. 59. He maketh this difference between laws concerning Ecclesiastical and Civil things that these bind extra casum scandali contemptus those not so whether this doth consist with his opinion that both these Laws are from the Magistrate let it be considered I thought that the different way of obligation had been from the different Authorities not from the things about which the Laws do converse and that violation of all the Magistrates Laws had been alike opposite to his Authority I mean where the things are of equal moment as certainly may be in things Civil and Ecclesiastical The wise advice of Ambrose to Augustine which he citeth p. 60 61. I do with Augustine reverence as coeleste graculum so it be understood of Customes truly indifferent but that the things we plead about and that the Author would permit to the will of the Magistrate are such we cannot yield Wherefore all this his pains about indifferent things is to small purpose what he saith p. 62. of superstition in the imagined necessity of things really indifferent I will elsewhere examine and what others also have alledged to that purpose § 10. His third step is to set bounds to the restraint of Christian liberty where his first rule is that nothing be imposed as necessary but what is clearly revealed in the word of God But what if it be revealed so as it is visible to them who read and search attentively though it be not clearly revealed must such things be slighted as no part of Gods will but of this we have said enough before The second rule is that nothing be determined but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The way to know what is such he maketh to be by taking the primitive Church and the reformed Churches to be Judges in this I confess their decision should have much weight but we dare make none Judge but God speaking in the Scriptures What if Christ hath in Scripture signified his will in a point and yet these Churches looked on it and used it as a thing indifferent must we then think it indifferent I hope not This is to lay too much weight on men especially considering that the mystery of iniquity which did prostitute all or most of Christs Institutions to mens will as if they had been indifferent things began early to work in the primitive Church 2 Thes. 2. 2. and few reformed Churches want their own Lees from which the Lord is yet daily purging them Wherefore I think with submission to better judgments a surer standard to know what is indifferent to be this what cannot be proved to be determined by the Lord in Scripture and is not of the Law of nature neither primarily nor secondarily that is to be thought indifferent Passing his other rules in prosecuting the last he openeth a door to humane ceremonies though he seem to speak against them by approving the Feast of Dedication the Jewish Ceremonies in the Passover sure these were some more than ordinary decency neither were to be esteemed of the same rank as he doth with building of Synagogues hours of prayer which are meer order the continuation of the Passover by Hezekiah which was transient no recurrent fast and had a reason then urgent and the feast of Purim which was a Civil solemnity and the fasts of the 4th 5th and 10th Months which were occasional for the captivity and expired with it But of this matter I treat at large elsewhere § 11. In his 5th Hypothesis there is an unwary expression viz. that things determined as aforesaid by lawful authority in the Church which to him is the Magistrate do bind the conscience I suppose he meaneth that we are bound to obey for conscience sake and not that Civil Authority by it self doth reach the Conscience which Protestants with good reason deny against the Papists The rest of his first part needeth not our Animadversions seeing it containeth nothing contrary to Presbyterial Government but rather asserteth several parts of it wherefore I shall only set down briefly his Assertions many of which are so many Concessions to us He Asserteth cap. 3. that the law of Nature dictates that there must be a society of men for the worship of God that is a Church And cap. 4. that there must be a government in this society Where he maketh 6 things in this Government to be
particularly what Form should be used we must not think that Christ hath left this undone To this he answereth 1. Faithfulness is the discharge of a Trust So that the faithfulness of Christ and Moses lyeth in doing the Work that the Lord laid on them and this was to be Mediators the one Typical the other True Moses had the Pattern shewed him in the Mount and therefore faithfulness required that he should settle that Form and no other But it cannot be made appear that Christ hath any Command from his Father of setling one Form of Government So he p. 176. To which I reply 1. Our Argument may be so laid as this Answer doth not at all touch it thus It is the Will of God and so entrusted to the care of Christ that there should be a Government in the Church as is confessed by our Author This Government must be managed hic nunc in some particular Form as sense and reason teacheth Now that Christ might be faithful as Moses was in the discharge of this Trust it was needful that he should set down a particular Form to be 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 Government 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 and not civil though they be visible to men and so outward in respect of the conscience So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience and it is that we have now described or outward in respect to the Church viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil and concern the Church not as it is a Church but as it is a Society Or we may distinguish thus the Government of the Church is either invisible viz. in the conscience or visible and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical and so it is inward in respect to the Church or in things that are Civil and so it is outward The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ the second mediately and that by the Guides of the Church as his Deputies the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it But now let us see whether he himself who chargeth others with this confounding be not guilty of it and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal and the External Government of the Church It is very evident that it is so for 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience and so be meant of invisible and visible Government Or to the Church and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church We are to seek in this for all his distinction 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these as he here manageth the distinction or at least some things seem to draw the one way and some the other For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority spoken of in the Scripture to refer to the outward Government of the Church this must be meant of that Government which is Civil not of visible Ecclesiastical Government I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority Again where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience this must be meant of his invisible Government both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this But what-ever be his meaning this answer doth not take away the force of our argument for if he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christs power Kingdom and Authority to be meant of Civil power but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church this is all we desire for if Christ hath such a Kingdom then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church save that of Word and Sacraments as it followeth immediately and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate as do all the rest of the Erastians If he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience which is exercised by his Word and spirit in this first he is contrary to all men for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom but they would have it managed by the Magistrate whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church Secondly he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ denying that which is a considerable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office What is Christ a King not only of Angels but of Men united in a visible Society the Church and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them this is a ridiculous inconsistency Thirdly he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government such as Eph. 4. 10 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act and it is made an act of his Authority 1 Cor. 11. 3. Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship Also Psal. 2. 8. Psal. 22. 27. Psal. 110. 3. Col. 1. 13. and many other places which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul. Fourthly this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government as gathering a people to him Isa. 55. 4 5. Acts 15. 14 15 16 17. giving them laws Isa. 33. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 5. 17 19. Verses c. setting up Officers Eph. 4. 10. 11. giving them power of Discipline Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 17 18. John 20. 23. Fifthly it is contrary to himself for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts if then Christ as King hath invested his Servants with this power which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church That which he addeth viz. that this is made known to us in the word but not the other viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form this I say 1. Beggeth the Question 2. Destroyeth his Answer wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government
be one way in one Church and another way in another except mans pleasure which is a bad Rule in the matters of Christ. 4. Whereas he saith that in the Gospel Church things moral remain in their force but circumstantials are left at more liberty I suppose he meaneth Natural morality or things contained in the moral Law and not things that have any morality or goodness by any Law of God for if he meant this latter he doth but trifle for his meaning must be that things which are not determined by any command and have neither good nor evil in them are left at liberty which who doth not know Neither can he say that it was otherwise in the Jewish Church as this his assertion must imply if that be his meaning If he mean the former as certainly he doth then 1. it is an ill division of things that belong to the Church in Morals and Circumstantials Be there not Christs positive institutions which belong to neither of these kind The Lord's Supper is no moral thing in this sence neither I hope is it a Circumstantial thing that is left at liberty 2. If he call all things Circumstantial which are not 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-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-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
obligatory but directive I grant likewise that in such examples that which bindeth us is either the moral nature of the action or the law commanding us to follow the example And yet all these concessions yield him no advantage neither bring our cause any loss for when he requireth us who plead for the divine right of a particular form of Church-Government from Apostolical example to shew either the morality of their actions or a law commanding us to follow them I Answer as to the first there needeth no particular demonstration of the morality of Apostolick actions but this we can say for them the nature and condition of the actions and the Apostles doing of them being considered reason will not suffer us to question the morality of them I mean it is certain that they are the will of Christ for we must think that in matters not light and occasional but weighty and of great concernment whether they be well or ill done and which were done on mature deliberation as the administration of the affairs of Christ's house in matters I 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
Preaching the Word and the Magistrate's person is subject to this Word and yet he is not subject to the power of Ministers When they teach rebuke exhort with all authority and command in the name of the Lord doth not this reach Magistrates as well as others if they be subject to the word of God I see not how they are subject to it if they be not subject to it as declared by Christ's Embassadors which is the ordinary way of dispensing it and if so then are they subject to the Preaching power of Ministers at least 2. Magistrates are also subject to the ruling power of Ministers for they rule over Christ's Flock the Members of the Church of which number if the Magistrate be I see no ground in Scripture for exempting him from the power of their Jurisdiction When Christ said Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained he did not add except the supream Magistrates May not I pray the Pastors of the Church debar him if he be a flagitious man from the Lord's Table as Ambrose did to Theodosius and if they may certainly the Magistrate personally considered is subject to the ruling power of Pastors in spiritual things as they are subject to him in civil things And to deny this what is it but to make the supream Magistrate head of the Church and not a Member of it Much more worthy to be received is the opinion of Crysostome who speaketh thus to Ecclesiastical persons in reference to abstention from the Lord's Supper Si dux igitur quispiam si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indigne adeat cohibe ac coerce majorem â—u illo habes authoritatem § 6. He cometh afterward p. 43. to ascribe to the Magistrate not only a political power which he maketh to lie in the Execution and Administration of laws for the common good but also an Architectonical and Nomothetical power though not absolute and independent whereby he may make laws in things that belong to the Church His meaning in this he expresseth more fully in the end of p. 44. In matters saith he undetermined by the word of God concerning the external policy of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the word of God And because he knew that the Church-Guides would put in for this Power that here he giveth to the Magistrate therefore p. 45. he laboureth to reconcile these parties by a distinction or two viz. between declaring Christ's Laws and making new Laws and between advising what is fit and determining what shall be done The declaring and advising Power is given by him to the Church the Authoritative determining power to the Magistrate For p. 46. The great use saith he of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of the Church is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King as the Parliament is for matters of Civil Government And p. 47. but yet saith he When such men thus assembled have gravely and maturally advised and deliberated what is fittest to be done the force strength and obligation of the thing so determined doth depend on the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate Against this Doctrine before I come to examine the Reasons that he bringeth for it I have these things to say 1. It must be noted by passing over which in silence our Author hath confounded the matter that we are not here speaking of things that are properly Civil though belonging to the Church viz. as it is a Society and in the Common-Wealth such as Church-rents Meeting-places liberty of the use of them c. but of the Government of the Church as it is a Church of its Discipline which things are properly the external policy of that Church as our Author termeth that which he speaketh of Now the Question is whether the Power of determining these be in the Church-Guides or the Magistrate 2. That which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ground of most of this Author's mistakes is he supposeth that some things of this Church-policy are so left undetermined by the word that they are capable of a determination by men's Legislative power and that new Laws may be made about them This is not truth for if we speak of the Substantials of Church-Government even of a particular Form it is determined in the word and so not subject to men's Nomothetical Determinations if of the Circumstances of it neither are these left for men to make Laws about them but they are determined by the Lord in the general Rules that are in the word and the Dictates of right reason compared with them and the Obligation that lyeth on our Consciences in these things is not from the Magistrates Law though we do not deny but he may add his Sanction to both sorts of things and make them the Law of the Nation as Dr. Stillingsleet saith well that he may with any thing in Religion but from the will of God which ought to be searched out and held forth Authoritatively by the Guides of the Church that are acting in the name of Christ. 3. It is false then that the Magistrate hath Power in determining what of the External Policy of the Church is undetermined in the word For if we speak of that which is not determined at all neither by particular Praecepts or Examples or otherwise signifying particularly the mind of Christ about such a thing viz. by the general rules of the word compared with right reason is not held forth to be the mind of Christ such things ought not to be determined by any man or men but are left to Christian Liberty for such things must be determined meerly by mans will but the Lord hath not left the matters of his Church to that crooked rule But if we speak of things not determined by particular praecepts c. yet in which the mind of Christ is deducible by general rules Neither here hath the Magistrate the determining Power but they whom the Lord hath made the Guides and Eyes of his Church they must declare what is the will of Christ not impose what is their own Will or Law And here the Obligation is from the will of Christ not the Authority of the Church nor the Magistrate neither the declaration of it from them whom Christ hath made his Embassadors For what I have said I give this brief reason The Affairs of the Church are to be managed by a Ministerial Power the farthest extent of which is to declare Christ's Laws and apply them as is generally confessed by Protestants against Papists but the Magistrate's Power is not Ministerial but Magisterial Ergo it is not his part to manage or determine the Affairs of the Church of which doubtless her external Policy is no small part which may be further enforced thus Church-Determinations must be the Declarations of the will of Christ but not the Magistrate but the
Pastors are the Embassadors of Christ whose it is to decalre his will ergo it is not his but their part to make such Determinations We speak not of the Judgment of Discretion which the Magistrate hath in these things in order to the adding his Sanction to them and that not only as others have theirs being private and his publick and with Authority Bnt we speak of that determination of things which is the ordinary means of promulgating to us the mind of Christ in Church-matters 4. It is most false that the great use of Synods is to be the King's Church-Council as the Parliament is his Civil Council for 1. himself acknowledgeth another use of them while he ascribeth to the Church a power of declaring Christ's Laws is not this of great use but Contradictions are no rarity in this Author 2. Hence it followeth that as Parliamentary Acts have no force without the King's Sanction so likewise Church-Determinations have none without it and if the Church Excommunicate any person it is not valid nor his sins bound in Heaven till the King put his Seal to it for that such a person be Excommunicated is not determined in Scripture 3. The Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. and all the Councils before Constantine's time were of no great use for they had not this use there being no Magistrate to own them as his Council 4. This destroys that received Axiom among all them who are not the avowed Followers of Erastus viz. that the Magistrate's power is cumulative to the Church not privative for it maketh his to swallow it up there being no Authority nor great use of Synods without the Magistrate 5. This taketh away from the Church entireness of power in her self in things that do concern her as such a Society and a Capacity to subsist without the Magistrate which I hope this Author when better advised will not own 5. It is also false that when Church-Guides Assembled have deliberated and determined the force strength and obligation of the things of determined doth depend on the Magistrate for it dependeth on the reason of them containing the Will of Christ and not on the Authority of men § 7. I come now to see what Arguments he bringeth for what he hath asserted 1. Saith he Taking the Church as incorporated into the Civil State though the Object of these things the matter of them and persons determining them be ecclesiastical yet the force and ground of the Obligation of them is wholly Civil Ans. That the Church is in the Republick we do not deny yet that must not be so understood as if either these two were not distinct Corporations or the Power of the one were subordinate to or swallowed up the other The saying of Optat Milev which he citeth that Ecclesia est in Republica non Respublica in Ecclesia will not bear that but the meaning is that either the Church is in the Rep. as the lesser society in the greater as a few Parishes are in a County so the Primitive Churches were in Rome Corinth c. or when the Church is aeque late patens with the Nation that the Church is in Protection of the Civil State not e contra seeing Kings must be Nursing Fathers to her and as it were keep house for her to be nursed in Or speaking of a National Church that it 's being a nation is Prior in order of Nature than it 's being a Church because it might be a Nation and not a Church but it cannot be a Church and not a Nation Now none of these do infer that the Obligation of determinations made by Church men about Church affairs is civil but it may be and is Ecclesiastical viz. from the will of Christ which the Church holdeth forth as his Embassadors Wherefore this Ratiocination is altogether inconsequent But he cometh to Authority to see if that will help him He citeth P. Martyr lo. com clas fig. 4. c. 5. s. 11. and in 1 Sam. 8. Nam quod ad potestatem ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim curare debet ut omnes officium faciant What he meaneth for citing both these places for these words I know not unless it be that they are to be found in them both But I am sure neither they nor any thing like them is in the former place for the later I have not that part of his works but the contrary of what this Author intendeth is there clearly and fully taught viz. he is refuting them who would have the Power of discipline in the Church to cease now when the Magistrate is Christian and he asserteth Ecclesiastical Power and Civil as distinct and only says that the Magistrate should correct ministers if they do not carry as they ought but this is far from that quod ad potestatem Ecclesiae attinet satis est civilis Magistratus He refers for the judgment of the reformed Divines in this to Vedel de Episc. Const. Mag. et Offic. Magistratus annexed to Grot. de Imper. sum pot circa sacra But it is well known that Vedelius was an Erastian and as this Author doth did fowly abuse the reformed Divines making them speak what they never thought wherefore I refer to Apol. Triglandius Revius who have refuted that seducing Pamphlet of Vedelius For the other Author let his Citations be weighed they will never prove that any of the Reformers gave the Power of determining Church-Affairs to the Magistrate He addeth three reasons of his Allegation yet they are but two for the two former do coincide and the strength of them is that it is from the Authority of the Magistrate that obligation to obedience or penalty is or which is the same it is from him that the sanction or annexing of Penalties to the constitutions is that it is from him only that the force of obligation is in matters determined by advice of the Church and which do concern the Church Ans. All this is easily taken away by a well known distinction in things that are commanded by Christ and by his Church declared to be such and also are ratified by the sanction of the Magistrate there is a twofold Obligation one Spiritual this is from Christ as Law-giver and is laid on by the Instrumental intervention of the Church as his Herald Proclaiming his will Another civil whereby we are bound to external Punnishment if we contravene such a constitution this is from the Magistrate of this not of the former the Author's Assertion is to be understood otherwise it is false For that Obligation is no way from the Magistrate His third reason is the Magistrate can null any Obligation laid on by the Church representative as if they do prescribe some indifferent rites and ceremonies to be observed by all he forbidding them the former supposed Obligation is null otherwise these absurdities would follow 1. That there are two Supream Powers in a Nation at once 2. That a man lyeth
be Bishop over them and we maintain the Negative as that which should be out of Question and this we shall not barely assert as Mr. Stilling f. hath done his Opinion 1. Then this taking the exercise of that power from men which Christ hath given them is unwarrantable ergo it is unlawful I hope the consequence will not be denied for what we lawfully do must be some way warranted either by a Command or a Permission The Antecedent I prove because a warrant for such a practice cannot be shewed and further if there were any warrant for it it must either be from Christs command or 2. From his express Permission or 3. From the Law of Nature or 4. From want of a Law forbidding it But none of these do warrant it not the First nor Second for our Opposite cannot produce such Command or Permission either directly let down or drawn by consequence from it Nor the Third for then they must produce some dictate of the Law of Nature which giveth leave to do this but what that shall be I understand not Nature indeed teacheth that a Society may use means for its own Peace and Order but this may be without hindering the exercise of that power the Supreme Governour giveth to any of his Officers there may be this in the Church where Presbyters Rule in Common Nature also teacheth that when more have a Common power they may consult about the best way of Managing it but it doth not teach that they may mannage it otherwise then it is committed to them by him who gave it which they must do if they put it into the hands of one which is given to more especially when it may be managed well without such crossing the Institution of it Besides all this Nature can never warrant this alienation of the Power that Christ hath given to his Servants because Nature doth only warrant us to step beside Christs Institution in his matters where Institution is not sufficient to attain that which is naturally necessary or when the Acting only by Institution would cross Nature but there is no natural necessity of giving all power to a Bishop which Christ hath given to Presbyters neither doth leaving the exercise of it in common cross Nature Ergo Nature doth not warrant this practice Neither can the fourth warrant it for then it should be in the power of men to take all the power that Ministers have from Christ out of their hands and give it to one so that only my Lord Bishop might preach baptise c. as well as that he only may rule for their is no Law forbidding the Church to lay all the parts of Pastoral power on one more then forbidding to lay one part of it on one Sure sobriety and due reverence to the Institutions of Christ would teach us to think that while he hath given equal power to many it should be a sufficient forbidding that any be so bold as to lay the exercise of that power on one taking it from the rest Sect. 18. 2. I prove it thus When Christ giveth a power to his Servants to manage the affairs of his Church it is not only a Licence whereby they are authorized to do such work if they think fit but it is a trust they get it as a charge that they must give account of as is evident from the command to this purpose given them Act. 20. 28. take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers here is a Command to Overseers to do that work and they must give an account of this their charge Heb. 13. 17. Rulers who must be obeyed are such who must give an account Now it is not lawful for one who getteth such a Trust to lay it on another neither may any take it out of his hands to bestow it upon another without his leave who gave that trust when Christ hath Commanded Ministers to rule and will seek account of them may they lay their work on a Bishop will it be well taken in the day of Account to say they committed their Flock to another to keep who left them to the Wolf or scattered and slew them will not the Lord say to them why did not ye feed them your selves Sure Christ will require account of them to whom he gave the charge and that is of Pastors neither will he ask Account of Bishops except for their Usurpation Ergo it is not lawful to take the exercise of Church Power out of the hands of Ministers and give it to a Bishop 3. Proof If Presbyters who have received Power from Christ may put the exercise of it into the hands of a Bishop alienating it from themselves why may not Bishops devolve their Power on one who shall be over them and so we shall have an Universal Bishop the Pope in whom shall rest all Church Power and at whose direction it shall be exercised If that may be done there is no shadow of Reason why this may not be done for if once the Power be taken out of the hand of them to whom Christ hath given it then prudence must be the only Director to teach us who must have it now prudence will as well say that Bishops must have one over them to keep them in Order and peace as that Presbyters must have one over them Neither is there here any inconvenience that is not there for that one may turn to tyranny as well as the other and a Bishop cannot oversee his charge without substitutes more then the Pope can do the one may substitute Bishops Cardinals c. as well as the other may substitute Dean Prebends Archdeacon c. Now I hope Mr. Stillingfleet is not come to that to think the Papal Office an indifferent Ceremony ergo neither should he think so of Episcopacy 4. If Presbyters may devolve the exercise of that power that Christ hath given them into the hands of a Bishop then they may also give away with their power the very Office that Christ hath given them But this they may not ergo I prove the Major for when they devolve the exercise of their ruling power on the Bishop they not only consent that they shall rule the people which they might do But they make it unlawful for themselves to rule yea they give up themselves to be ruled and commanded by them so that he is their Judge and cannot be judged by them in case of male-administration at least this is true de singulis if not de omnibus but this is to give away the very power for if I may not act how have I a power to act if both I and the people be under the command of another so that I may not act any thing in reference to the People but by his authority how have I power to rule sure a power is the possibility of the act quantum est ex parte causae and a moral power is such a lawfulness of the act
to speak of Church-Government and not say something in answer to the many Arguments for establishing a Form of Government which are drawn from it by many Learned men as Gillespy in his Aarons Rod. Rutherford in his Jus Divin Reg. Eccles. Beza de Excom Presbyt Cawdry of Church-reformation and other Presbyterians beside many Authors of other judgments What are all their Arguments unworthy to be taken notice of and easily blown away with Mr. Still his bare Assertion for what he saith of the matters of offence spoken of in this place he seemeth to aim at a new opinion but I cannot see wherein it differeth from what the Erastians hold save in its obscurity for when he hath with them made them to be no Scandals nor Sins against God but private injuries against our Neighbours he will not have them to be Civil causes or Law-suits but such differences as respect Persons not things What these can be I cannot understand for what wrong can I do to my Neighbour besides scandalising him by Sin against God for which he may not Sue me at Law if he mean not matters of Money or meum tuum but other injuries against ones Person as beating reproaches slanders c. as I guess he doth so far as I can see his opinion through the midst of his words these are yet Civil causes and matters of Law-Suit and this is the one part of what the Erastians here understand neither do I see any reason for understanding these here and not other private Injuries as the Erastians do for is it imaginable that Christ would prescribe this course for redress of wrongs in our own Persons and names and not also for wrongs in our Estates but it may be he meaneth that though the injuries here meant be in matters Civil yet the design of the place is not to prescribe a way of making up the injury but of taking away the animosities and quarrels that these injuries breed among Christians but this cannot hold for sure the best way of allaying the animosities that arise about injuries done by one to another must be by determining what is the due of each and who doth and who sustaineth the wrong and so making reparation of the injury done We must not then think that Christ hath appointed one course for repairing the wrong and another for taking away contention about it but it is his Will that Christians in such cases either let their wrongs be judged by the arbitration of Friends or if that cannot be by that law and whethersoever of these waies the matter be determined that they should acquiesce and not contend any more Besides this when I receive a private injurie from another it is my duty to lay aside all grudge and animosity against him which if I be willing to do why should the matter be brought before others or to the Church if I be not willing to do it it is not like that I will bring it thus to others who may persuade me to lay aside animosity against him I cannot understand how I can bring a matter of private wrong to be judged by others except it be in reference to the getting of some reparation of that wherein I conceive my self to be wronged If he mean that I should bring the matter before others not that my animosity may be laid aside that being my duty without such adoe but that they may persuade him who hath wronged me to lay aside his grudg and be reconciled to me sure this cannot be the Scope of the place both because Christ giveth another rule in that Case which will sooner attain that end viz. Forgive him Lu. 17. 3. and indeed it is a more compendious way to allay his fury to carry it dutifully friendly and kindly to him than to convent him before others Also because it is a strange reflection of the Sence of the expression Trespass against thee i. e. refuse to be reconciled to thee sure there is no Warrant in Scripture or reason from the notation of the word thus to expound it And besides all this this exposition destroys the Authors opinion viz. that this place is not meant of Scandals for when one hath wronged me and I am willing to forgive him and be at peace with him and he refuseth to be reconciled to me this is a Sin against God and a Scandal of an high nature Now why the place should be meant of taking away this sort of Scandal and no other seeing other Scandals also are Sins against the Scandalized as is clear 1 Cor. 8. 12. I think it is hard to conjecture except Mr. Still must say so to make up the opinion that he intendeth to defend Sect. 4. But I shall now prove that this place speaketh purposely of Scandals or Sins against God whereby the Consciences of others are offended and not of private Injuries And that briefly because this is largely and fully performed by all our Authors who write against Erastians 2. Our Lord had spent the former part of the Chapter about Scandals especially in pressing your shunning to give offence and in shewing the danger of offences both to the offended and especially to the offender vers 7. Now in all this discourse he had said nothing of the means of taking away of Scandals wherefore seeing he joyneth these words we dispute about to the former discourse of Scandal it may be out of question that he is here laying down that way of removing these Scandals when they should arise in his Church that the evils he had spoken of may not ensue upon them 2. The design of this Remedy here prescribed is to gain the faulty Person now this expression of gaining Men from that which is Evil is in Scripture only used in reference to Sins against God which are apt to destroy men and whereby they are lost 3. this evil from which the Person is to be gained is Sin or Scandal If it be said that it is gaining of a brother when he is Persuaded to lay aside animosity against a brother and to be reconciled to him this is true only and so far as such animosity is Sin for on no other account freeing of one from it can be called gaining him in Scripture-Phrase and if there animosities be here spoken of only as they are Scandals then the Scope of the place is to redress Scandals for à quatenus ad omne valet consequentia 3. To sin against a brother is in the Phrase of the New Testament mainly if not only to wrong his Conscience or Spiritual Estate by Scandal 1 Cor. 8. 12. or to be guilty of Sin against God in his sight or conscience Luk. 15. 18 21. so Luk. 17. 3 4. Neither can any instance be brought where it signifies a private injury as such therefore it must be meant of Scandal 4. In redressing of private Injuries in a charitable way it is not usual to lead Witnesses but these belong to a judicial