when a Bishop by himself who by Christs Institution hath only power over the people getteth power given him by man over his fellow Pastors and when a Presbyter who by Christs Institution hath a power over the Flock to rule them is hindred from the exercise of this power altogether and is set only to feed and this ruling power as to its exercise is wholly devolved upon another This we deny to be a matter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence Restraint and enlargement in respect of acts of power is when some acts which may be by Christs Institution exercised by all Presbyters are only permitted to be exereised by some and not by others as Ordination Church-censures and when some are authorized to do some acts of power that Christs Institution giveth them no Commission unto this together with that restraint mentioned in the second member of the subdivision we prove not to be matters of order left to the prudence of the Church but to be the setting up of a new Office in the Church 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after requireth the right circumstantiating of these acts which Christ hath appointed to be done in his Church as that they be done in fit time place method c. neither can this ordering of things reach beyond the determination of circumstances for whatever is more than this is not an ordering of that action unto which the circumstances do belong but an instituting of a new action because for example the right order of reading doth not require prayer or singing to be joyned with it but respecteth only the circumstances of reading it self now such restraining or enlarging of the exercise of power is no right circumstantiating of it but some other thing it being no circumstance of the exercise of Pastoral power whether he shall rule or not but an essential part I mean as to the integrality it being an integral part of that power which Christ hath given him as is confessed also giving the exercise of that power to one which belongeth to many is not adding of a circumstance but a supernumerary part of power as to its exercise above these parts that Christ hath given them ergo this is no ordering of the exercise of power but setting up of it a new 2. Order that belongeth to the prudence of the Church is that unto which confusion is opposite then is that order obtained when all confusion is avoided but confusion may be avoided without this restraining and enlarging of church-Church-power by men else it were in no case lawful to let power be exercised as it is instituted by Christ because we must always be careful to avoid confusion ergo I confess restraining of the exercise of power as to objects of the same kind as fixing of Parishes is necessary to avoid confusion but this cannot be said of taking power of ruling out of the hands of Presbyters and giving it to Bishops else we must say that Episcopacy is necessary which destroyeth this mans Hypothesis If it be said that sometimes it falleth out that this is necessary to avoid confusion and then Episcopacy is necessary Ans. If we should grant that it is sometimes useful to avoid confusion as that which may be the fruit of Parity yet it cannot be said that Parity it self is confusion now it is not in the Churches power to take her own way to avoid whatever may have a bad effect for the best things may be such but she must shun that which is evil by a right managing not by laying aside that which is good wherefore seeing Order is consistent with Parity and Parity with the Institution of Christ and Imparity goeth at least a step beyond the Institution and taketh that from men which Christ gave them and giveth it to some to whom he gave it not this cannot be a right ordering of his Institution but rather setting up some other thing in the place thereof 3. The right ordering of the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to men must consist in determining of these things which he hath not determined and yet are necessary to be determined as time place extent of Parishes c. for if men either take upon them to determine in these matters which he hath already determined by his Institution or to determine things that he hath left at liberty because the determination was not needful to his design they then would be wiser then he and do not order his Institutions but set up their own Now this which our Author calleth Ordering is guilty of both these for Christ by giving Ruling Power to all Presbyters hath declared his Will that they shall all Rule and especially by requiring an ability for this as a necessary qualification of them who should be put unto that Office do not men then by appointing who should Rule pass their determination on what he hath already determined and that contrary to what he hath appointed Again Christ hath not appointed any Superiority and Inferiority among Presbyters neither is it needful this be the Church may be without it and yet men take upon them to appoint it Is this then to order that Government that Christ hath appointed and not rather to set up new Officers that men have devised Sect. 17. Next he subjoyneth a strange assertion Now saith he in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most fit for edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is originally and fundamentally common to them all Answ. If it be so all this pains that our Author is at is needless and his Book to no purpose For I mistake much if the main business in it be not to prove the lawfulness of this which here he asserteth to be unquestionably lawful For he confesseth that ruling power is given by Christ to all Presbyters then we must either say that it is his institution that they all exercise it and so parity is his institution or that the executive part of it may be given to some or may be common to them all and so the form of Government may be left indifferent is the scope of this Book Now if it be unquestionable what needeth all this pains about it But I conceive this confident assertion is put instead of the Arguments whereby this undertaking of his should have been confirmed It is an easie thing when one cannot find proofs for their opinion to say it is out of Question but it is an unhandsome way of disputing especially unbeseeming the person who could not but know that this is denied by his Opposites and is the main hinge of the Controversie in hand We do maintain this Antithesis that it is the Question between us and them who are for the indifferency of Church Government whether the exercise of Ruling Power may be taken out of the hands of Ministers and given unto one to
said we may see what fit advice this healer giveth while he thus saith p. 3. The only way left for the Churche's setlement and peace under such variety of apprehensions concerning the means and method in order to it is to pitch upon such a foundation if possible to be found out whereon the different parties retaining their private apprehensions may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in Common in order to the peace and tranquillity of the Church of God Hitherto we consent with him and wish he would help us to such a Foundation so as it self be founded on the Word of God and not contrary to it But he goeth on Which saith he cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem This also we grant but that which follows we cannot agree to It must be then saith he by convincing men that neither of these ways to Peace and Order which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine command though some be as a means to an end but which particular way or form it must be is wholly left to the prudence of those in whose Power and Trust it is to see the Peace of the Church secured on lasting Foundations If this be a fit way of healing Church-rents then those Churches are in the best way to peace who cast away the Bible and will not look there what God hath commanded because some may say he hath commanded this and others he hath commanded that and so refer all controversies to be determined by men as supposing nothing to be determined by God And indeed this is the basis that the peace of the Popish Church standeth upon and I believe no Jesuit would have given another advice than this toward the setling of our divided condition What Must we say that neither way is commanded of God whether it be so or not when we can prove from Scripture that this is Christ's Institution that not but a device aud usurpation of men must we yield this our ground and leave the whole matter to men's wills as being the readiest way to peace If this be his cure for Church-Divisions I believe they who take the word of God for their rule especially in Church-matters will think it worse than the Disease Every way to peace is not a good way otherwise there were no duty at any time to contend for the truth once delivered to the Saints Jude 3. § 10. I do not dissent from the learned Author in his Determinations about the Nature of Right and Divine Right but must examine some of the Principles from which he will have a Divine Right to be inferred Wherefore as to the rest of the first Chapter I first take notice that what he largely discourseth from p. 6. to p. 11. concerning the lawfulness of that which is not forbidden by God however it may be granted sano sensu on which I now insist not yet it doth not reach his point unless he prove that Christ hath determined no species of Government for if he hath determined one then all other inconsistent with it are eo ipso prohibited Wherefore though we grant to him that ratio regiminis ecclesiastici is juris naturalis yet we cannot grant except he proves it that the modus of it is juris divini permissivi that is to say it is juris humani but we assert it to be juris divini partim naturalis partim positivi viz. in respect of the divers parts of which that Form is made up which are approved of God § 11. To make up an Obligation whereby we are bound to a thing as duty we assert with him that there is required Legislation and Promulgation of it But what he saith of the way of Promulgation of Divine Positive Laws that is necessary to lay an Obligation on us I cannot fully agree to P. 12. He asserteth that whatsoever binds Christians as an universal standing Law must be clearly revealed as such and laid down in Scripture in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern it to have been the will of Christ that it should perpetually oblige all Believers to the Worlds end as is clear in the case of Baptism and the Lords Supper But because the learned Author could not but see how obvious it was to every one to argue against this Assertion from the instances of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism which he acknowledgeth to be Christs Will and Law established and yet not thus revealed therefore he laboureth to obviate that Argument by this exception to wit that there is not the same necessity for a particular and clear revelation in the alteration of a Law unrepealed in some circumstances of it as there is for the establishing of a new Law The former saith he may be done by a different practice of persons infallibly guided as in the case of the change of the Sabbath and Infant Baptism not so the latter To this I reply a few things 1. It had been good if in an Assertion so fundamental to his whole discourse and so positive for the clearness of Divine Laws he himself had used more clearness there is no small muddiness and ambiguity in his expressions which I must a little remove And first when he saith that Christs Laws must be revealed clearly as such either he meaneth as Hooker Eccles. polit defending this Opinion of our Author's expresseth it that they must be set down in the Form of Laws But it is too great presumption to prescribe to him how he should word the intimations of his will to his People or in what mode or form he should speak to them His will manifested to us is that which obligeth us and this may be without such a Form Or he meaneth that Christs Laws must be so clearly revealed as that we may come to know that this we are to do and that to forbear and that he would have us to take notice of it as his Will and this we agree to and do maintain that the Form of Church-Government is thus revealed Another ambiguity is that he requireth them to be laid down in such evident terms as all who have their senses exercised therein may discern them to be his will to oblige us If he mean that they who have competent understanding and means and do seriously search the truth in these things which I suppose is the meaning of having their senses exercised in them may for the objective evidence of the things come to know them this we do not deny if he mean that such will certainly be convinced of them and that there can be no impediment insuperable by them neither in the Object nor in their blindness or prejudice or other Infirmity or Disadvantage that they lye under which may make them that they cannot see that to be the will of Christ which is so revealed this we utterly deny Now
that they may add to the worship a decency which is not needful by nature civil custom nor divine institution they become Religious Ceremonies their end being Religious and they being peculiar to Religion As I have shewn in another piece § 3. It seemeth to me very strange and not to be passed over in our Animadversions that in the prosecuting of this his hypothesis wherein he had ascribed a determining power to lawful Authority in the Church he taketh notice of no power or Authority seated in Church-men but speaketh only of the Magistrate for p. 38. shewing why there is need to prove this hypothesis he tells us of some that give no power and some that give little power to the Magistrate about Religion and then falleth upon a large debate of the Magistrate's power in Church-matters Which is an evident supposing that all Church-power is in the Magistrate and in none else otherwise this discourse should be very impertinent to his hypothesis But this supposition is a gross falshood as is fully proved by many worthy men against Erastus and his followers I shall not now ingage in that large debate If we should grant a determining power to any authority about the things in hand it should not be to the Civil Magistrate but to the Guides of the Chnrch met in a lawful Assembly And it is not only contrary to truth but a contradiction to what this Author writeth elsewhere in his Appendix about Excommunication where he taketh much pains to assert a power of Discipline in the Church-Guides and if so certainly the Magistrate is not the lawful Authority in the Church for that implyeth Church Authority I hope he will not say that Ministers have lawful Authority in the State because they have no Civil Authority why then should we say or suppose that the Magistrate hath lawful Authority in the Church except he think that the Magistrate hath Church-Authority against which he there disputeth especially seeing Respublica non est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica he that hath only Civil power hath no power in the Church whatever he hath about Church-matters and over Church-men § 4. In asserting the Magistrates power in these things he professeth that he will not so much make his way through any party as strive to beget a right understanding among them that differ how well he keepeth his promise may be seen by examining what he saith on which I will not much insist intending to meet with this his Doctrine elsewhere but only mark what is amiss with a short ground of our censure of it for this debate is somewhat extrinsecal to the indifferency of Church-Government it rather supposeth it than asserteth or proveth it In explicating his second distinction about the Magistrate's power p. 41. The internal formal elicitive power of order saith he lies in the Authoritative exercise of the Ministerial function in Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments but the external objective imperative power of jurisdiction lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the later to the Supream Magistracy Here several things are to be noted 1. That he maketh the power of Order to be all one with internal formal elicitive power about Church affairs and the power of Jurisdiction the same with external objective and imperative power about them This is instead of distinguishing to confound things most different for I hope he is not Ignorant that all the Assertors of Church-power against the Erastians do distinguish Church-power or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven for so is this power designed by Christ in the power or Key of Order and the power or Key of Jurisdiction Let the Author shew us one not Erastian who before himself did ever make the power of Order in the Church to comprehend all formal and elicitive church-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
juris naturalis 1. That there be a distinction of persons and a superiority both of power and order in some over the rest 2. That the persons so above others have respect paid them sutable to the nature of their imployment cap. 5. The third thing is that all things either pertaining to the immediate worship of God or belonging to the Government of the Church be performed with the greatest solemnity and decency that may be cap. 6. Fourthly that there be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all the controversies arising in the Church which immediately tend to the breaking of the peace and unity of it Where he pleadeth for the definitive sentence in the major part where power is equal and for liberty of appeals where there is subordination as being of natural right and that this subordination must be in a Society consisting of many Companies or Congregations cap. 7. Fifthly that all who are are admitted unto this Society must consent to be governed by the laws of that Society cap. 8. Sixthly that in a well-ordered Society and so in the Church every offender against the rules of that Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society and submit to the censures of it according to the Judgment of the Officers of it All this we accept of as truth but how this last doth consist with his putting all power of jurisdiction in the hand of the Magistrate and leaving the Church-Officers only power of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments of which before I cannot understand So much for the first part of his Irenicum PART II. CAP. 1 2. § 1. IN his second part we have also some concessions to be taken notice of as cap. 2. p. 154. that there must be a Form of Government as necessary not by Nature only but by a Divine Law This we receive as truth and do thus improve it ad hominem The Author cannot shew us any express Law in Scripture commanding that there be a Form of Government in the Church Neither can any Scripture ground of this truth be brought but what is drawn from Apostolick practice they had a Form of Government ergo so must we seeing it is as needful to us as it was to them Now if this be so why doth the Author dispute so much against our reasoning from Apostolick practice where the case is alike for this particular Form of Government as being established by Divine Law If their practice be a sufficient evidence of a Divine Law beside the Law of Nature for this that there be a Form why is it not as significant of a Divine Law for this that this is the Form where the case of them and us is alike § 2. We receive also as a concession p. 157. that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church and for a National Form of Church-Government Also cap. 2. he concedeth that the Government of the Church ought to be administred by Officers of Divine Appointment is of Divine Right Where in one word he destroyeth unawares all that he saith for maintaining the lawfulness of Episcopal Government for he doth not deny that Bishops as ruling over Presbyters and having more power than their Brethren are of Humane Constitution and so they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment If so then by this Concession the Church ought not to be ruled by them and so Episcopal Government is unlawful I know not if he did foresee this Argument taken out of himself But in explaining his Concession he would fain seem to say some other thing than he hath indeed said For he saith that he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church So that his meaning is there must be a standing perpetual Ministry And this he proveth largely This doth no ways explain what he hath said For it is one thing that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers and another thing that these Officers be such as God hath appointed Jeroboam when he made Priests of the lowest of the People kept Divine Institution so far that he made Priests and did make that work common to all And yet his Priests were not Officers of Divine Appointment So neither is the Church ruled by Officers of Divine Appointment though there be Officers who rule which is Divine Appointment except these Officers be such as God hath Instituted and not such as men have devised And besides this the Law of Nature dictateth that there should be Rulers in the Church distinct from the Ruled as he had formerly observed Wherefore he must here either trifle or say some more viz. that the Lord must appoint these sorts of Officers that should govern his Church for the Author is here speaking of what is of Divine positive Right having formerly shewed what is of Divine Natural Right § 3. In the third Chap. we have the Question stated in speaking of the Church as comprehending many particular Congregations and so excluding the Independent way from this Competition he compareth these two forms of Government viz. 1. The particular Officers of several Churches acting in equality of power called a Colledge of Presbyters 2. A superiour order above the Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it Now the Question is not whether of these cometh nearest to the primitive pattern But whether either of them be setled by Divine Right so as that the Church is bound to obseeve it He holds the Negative We the affirmative and we say that the former of these two is Juris Divini § 4. For proving his opinion he undertaketh to enervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of these Five he proposeth viz. 1. A former Law standing in force under the Gospel 2. Some plain institution of a new Law under the Gospel 3. The obligatory Nature of Apostolical practice 4. The general sence of the primitive Church 5. The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation Of these he discourseth severally And we shall give our sence of them as in following him we come at them But first I must here note a few things 1. It is an injurious way of stateing the Question about this Divine Right to exclude any who put in for it from the liberty of Competition Now he knoweth that others besides these plead a Divine Right of their way as Erastians will have the keys given by Christ to the Magistrate Independents to the Community or at least the Officers of a particular Church Popery is not excluded seeing it standeth on the same bottom with Episcopacy though I think the Resolution of the question about Divine Right might have laid both these aside yet I think the stating of it might have taken them in and they might have a fair hearing lest some by seeing Presbytery and Episcopacy laid aside as of no Divine stamp might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Christs
about which they are be of more weight and miscarriage in them more dangerous then mens commands All which make it more absurd to commit the exercise of our power that he giveth to others than for Servants to do so with their Masters work Sect. 20. For better understanding of what he had said our Author subjoyneth a distinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers viz. a Power of Order in preaching the word visiting the sick administring the Sacraments c. this he maketh to be inseparably joyned to the function and to belong to every ones personal capacity both in actu primo and actu secundo and a power of Jurisdiction in visiting Churches overseeing particular Pastors Ordination Church Censures making Rules for decency this he maketh to be in every Presbyter quoad aptitudinem and habitually so as he hath a jus to it in actu primo but the exercise and limitation of it and some further power of choise and delegation to it and some further Authority besides the power of Order And when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of the Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to them who are so appointed To this I reprove a few things briefly 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in terminis to what he taught Part. 1. c. 2. p. 41. and we refuted p. there he made the power of Order peculiar to Ministers and power of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Magistrate describing both powers no otherwise then he doth here and yet here he giveth the power of Jurisdiction as well as of Order to Ministers 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers quoad jus to be equally given by Christ to all Ministers it is strange that he should deny that men may restrain the one for he confesseth the actus secundus of it to be inseparably joined to the Office and yet doth boldly affirm that they may restrain the other without giving the least shew of permission that they have from Christ who gave both powers so to tamper with the one more then with the other If Christ hath made no difference between these and if he hath it should have been produced how dare men do it I confess Nature maketh a necessity of restricting the power of Jurisdiction for if every one should Rule when and where he pleased there would be confusion and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exercise this power over but this is common to the power of Order also though with some difference for it is not fit that every Minister should preach and baptize where and when he pleaseth without any limitation Neither could this be without confusion Also Christ hath made a limitation of the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for by giving it to many and making it relate to things of common concernment he hath eo ipso determined that none of these who have it shall exercise it by himself nor without the concurrence and consent of them who are equal in Commission with him This limitation of the exercise we confess to be warrantable but what reason there is I cannot understand why men should take away the exercise of ruling power from many and give it to one more than they can take away the exercise of preaching power and so give it to some as it shall not be lawful for them to preach but only to rule more than they can take away the exercise of both powers seeing Christ hath equally given them Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Author here furnisheth us with against himself men may not restrain the exercise of the power of order further than Nature maketh it necessary Ergo they may not any further restrain the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction because Christ hath not made such a difference in his giving these powers to men If it be said that the restraint of the power of Jurisdiction is sometimes necessary because Parity breeds Factions and many are unfit to rule Ans. Even so letting all preach doth often breed Heresie many preach false Doctrine and many are unfit to preach So this argument must either plead for the restraint of both powers or of neither Let us then see what must be the remedy of this abuse of the power of order and the remedy of the abuse of the other must be proportionable sure the remedy is not to restrain the exercise of the power of preaching except it be for a time in expectation of their amendment which holdeth also with reference to ruling power but to put such unfit men out of the Ministry Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Curate and let him still have the charge of the Flock though his Curate doth the work for him No but he should be removed and another put in his place Even so they who are unfit to rule must not have a Bishop do it for them but be removed that other fit men may be put in their place seeing ruling abilities are a necessary qualification of a Minister as well as preaching abilities as was shewed before If Parity breed Factions we must censure the guilty not cross Christs Institutions in the exercise of that power he hath given Sect. 21. 3. It is not good sense that he saith speaking of the power of Jurisdiction that though it belong habitually and in actu primo to all yet in a constituted Church some further Authority is necessary besides the power of order Whether this be the Printers fault or the Authors I know not but sure the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Jurisdiction is exercised 4. He leaveth us in suspence about the power of restraining the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for he implieth that it may be done by the consent of the Pastors or by the appointment of the Magistrate or both If this power that Christ hath given his Servants may be taken from them in its exercise it is very fit we should know to whom the Lord hath given leave to do this I believe and have proved that no man may do it but if it may be done sure it is not thus left at randome that it should be primi occupantis Pastors themselves cannot do it for they have got the charge and they not the Bishop whom they entrust must give an account The Magistrate may not do it for he is no ruler of the Church but this is the highest act of ruling the Church and of ruling and disposing of the Rulers of it as he pleaseth and if neither may do it both may not do it seeing the reasons brought exclude both from any measure of power in that thing I do not stand on the Authority of Camero which is all the proof
he hath for his opinion cited p. 198. viz. Ordinatio non fit à Pastore quatenus Pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singulare authoritatem obtinet Neither shall I strive to strain it to a sound sense but be satisfied with the truth that we have upon better grounds than Camero's Authority established viz. that Ordination and other acts of Church-power are done by Pastors not by virtue of any superadded power or Delegation that they have from men above what Christ hath given them in their Pastoral Office but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pastors though the conveniency of exercising it hic nunc requires the concurring of some more circumstances Ergo that other Pastors joyn in Ordination that it be not without the limits which are fixed for order for the inspection of that Society of Pastors whereof such an one is a Member or if it be without these limits that it be not without a special Call from them who should there exercise their Authority The Conclusion of our Author needeth small Animadversion supposing what hath been already said By this saith he we may already understand how lawful the exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God yea by what we have said may be seen how unlawful it is supposing the equality of the power of order But we must also suppose and it hath been yielded the equality of the power of Jurisdiction at least in actu primo and that may shew us the unlawfulness of Episcopacy And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of the Church at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction Yea we have made it appear that they speak most congruously to the thing for it is Christs Office to give the exercise of power to such men by giving them the Office on which it followeth and therefore they who take it from them and give it to them to whom he gave it not do take his Office But it is a mincing of the matter to talk of a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction when indeed setting up of a Bishop is a laying others aside from the exercise of it at all and suffering them to do nothing that way but by his Authority yea that which we have all this while disputed against is yet less intollerable than is our case where Bishops have most absolute and Lordly powers and delegate it to whom they will Lay-men or others and Presbyters have no power at all Sect. 22. Another Argument he propoundeth p. 198. from the perfection of Scripture from which it doth much derogate to say that in it Christ hath not laid down an immutable form of Church-Government This Argument he almost tusheth at but that is easier than to answer it solidly Unto it he bringeth three Answers all which will not make up a satisfactory one The first is the perfection of the Scripture here meant is in reference to its end this I grant which is to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners and sufficient to bring men to Salvation which is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God Now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any ways necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches liberty Reply I perceive it to be ordinary with this Author I observed it before to slight with confidence that which he hath little to say against in reason What a pittiful come off is this that the not determining the form of Government is not against the perfection of the Scripture because it is not a thing necessary but left to the Churches liberty What it is to beg the question if this be not I know not for the question is whether the form be determined in Scripture or left to the Churches liberty the latter he maintaineth we assert the former and prove it because otherwise the Scripture were imperfect He answereth it doth not follow that the Scripture is imperfect because the form of Government is left to the Churches liberty Is this the easie dispatch of this Argument which was promised 2. If the end of Scripture be to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners then sure in a special way of Religious manners or practises among which is the way of managing Church-Government being a Religious thing for we speak of Government as it is peculiar to the Church hence then it must belong to its perfection to lay down this especially seeing the Scripture hath told us that this is one of its particular ends to direct the Pastors of the Church how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. but this it cannot do compleatly without setting down a form of Government for general Rules will not tell a Pastor whether he must exercise his ruling power with others or lay it over on my Lord Bishop Ergo the want of this form in Scripture doth derogate from that perfection which our Author confesseth to be in it 3. By things necessary I hope he doth not mean only necessary to salvation but necessary to these particular ends propounded in the Scripture one of which is the right managing of Church-Government Now if all things necessary to this be laid down in Scripture there cannot want a form of Government in it for without that Government cannot be managed His second answer is that the doing of a thing not contained in Scripture with an opinion of its necessity doth destroy the Scriptures perfection and so in that sense every additio perficiens is corrumpens such are the Popish Traditions but the doing of a thing without the opinion of its necessity doth not destroy it Reply This is a poorer shift than the other For 1. It is not the adding of a form of Government to what is in Scripture that we make unlawful or against the Scriptures sufficiency for sure if it be not in Scripture it must be added seeing Nature maketh it necessary but it is the opinion of its not being in Scripture that we plead against and therefore this Answer doth not at all touch the Argument neither is the example of Popish Traditions to the purpose for we do not say that they are against Scripture perfection because they are held not to be found in it for that is most true but because they are thought needful to be added to it 2. It is against the perfection of Scripture to say any addition to it is necessary for attaining its end whether that particular thing added to it be necessary or its defect may be as well supplied by another thing of that kind as if any should maintain that we must have more Sacraments than are in Scripture and should
spoken against but that it is Civil Power only we question and that he hath not spent one word to prove We affirm that Christ is here making a difference between his Apostles and Civil Governors in this that one of them should not have Authority over another as it is among Rulers of States and Kingdoms and so that there should be no Imparity of Power among them to prove this I borrow the 3d reason by which Mr. Still militateth against the abuse of Power being here meant viz. This only can answer the Scope of the Apostles contention which was about Primacy The Sons of Zebedee would have been set over the rest Mat. 20. and their Strife was which should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so Drusius cited by Leigh Crit. Sac. that is who should be Pope over the rest now though we deny not but theirs might be upon a Civil and Coactive Power they dreaming of an earthly Kingdome of Christ yet sure this was neither mainly nor only in their design not only because they could not but know that Christs Kingdome in which they were to be Officers should be Spiritual and conversant about the things of another life though they thought it might be Worldly to and therefore it could not be but they designed a Supremacy in that respect also not mainly both because they could not but know that their main work both in teaching and ruling was to be about the things of Eternity as also it is evident from Luk. 22. 24. that their contention was about Supremacy in a Power that then they had begun to be partakers of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they knew very well that yet they had not Civil Power seeing then they contended about Ecclesiastical Supremacy and Christs answer is suted to their Intention and doth wholly discharge that Power whereof it speaketh the first of which I have proved the two latter Mr. Still hath confessed it followeth that Christ doth here forbid all Superiority of the Apostles one over another so that not only Christ had not set one over the rest but he will not permit themselves to do it if they would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Simple forbidding of it Hence I inferre the Argument to our purpose thus if the Apostles who had received equal power from Christ might not delegate that Power to one whom they might set up as chief then Presbyters may not do this neither Ergo Imparity of Presbyters is unlawful The consequence is evident the antecedent I prove from parity of Reason it is not immaginable that Presbyters may set one of themselves over themselves and that Bishops may not do the like and Apostles the like seeing order may require the one as well as the other Yea Secondly if there be a disparity of reason it maketh much for us for sure the Apostles had more liberty of managing that Power they had received from Christ by prudence than Pastors now have wherefore they might far rather restrain the exercise of it in themselves if they saw cause than we may do 3. I hope it will not be denied that what is here said to the Apostles is not said to them as Apostles but as Officers of the Church who have received the same Power from Christ that it is no Temporary but an abiding precept and therefore if it forbid superiority among the Apostles so doth it among Presbyters Mr. Still p. 220. objecteth thus `this place doth no waies imply a Prohibition of all inequality among Governours of the Church for then the Apostles Power over ordinary Pastors should be forbidden Ans. concedo totum we also grant inequality among Pastors and Elders But that which we plead is that here is forbidden an inequality among them who are of the same Order that when Christ hath given men the same Power and Office as he did to the Apostles they may not usurp power one over another nor take it though others would give it them This is clearly proved from what hath been said And further it may be hence also concluded that the inequality which is among Church-Officers ought not to be such as is among the Governours of the World where a single Person may have his under-Officers at his command but that inequality must be of one order above another in place and rank both which do concur jointly to the ruling of the Church and thus also Episcopacy is here made unlawful That Pride and Ambition is here forbidden I readily grant him but that these are not only forbidden is clear from what hath been said Sect. 2. The next place that he considereth is Mat. 18. 15 16 17. Where after private admonition is used in vain we are commanded to tell the Church and they who do not hear the Church are to be counted as Heathens and Publicans That which he first bringeth for an Answer to this place is That because men of all Opinions about Church-Government make Use of it to establish their Opinions therefore no Argument may be drawn from it for any opinion This unhappy way of reasoning I have met with before and insist not now on it It is the Devils way I perceive to raise contentions about truth among some and having done this to tempt others by these contentions to Schism and slighting of truth But we must not quit the light held forth in this Scripture because men have darkened it by their raising dust about it let us search the more soberly and carefully not cast away the truth for this Yet for all divers Opinions that have been broached about this place Mr. Stilling hath a new one of his own which I shall briefly examine The difficulty of the place he saith well lyeth in these two 1. What are the offences here spoken of 2. What is the Church mentioned For the first he asserteth with more confidence than strength of Reason when he saith it is evident to any unprejudicated mind that the matters are not of scandal but of private offence and injurie this he proveth p. 222. his Arguments we shall consider after For the Church he proposeth at length the Erastian opinion as very plausible yet at last rejecteth it p. 224 225. and returns to the Offences p. 226. which though he makes to be private differences and quarrels yet he will not have them to be law-suits nor Civil causes but such differences as respect persons and not things And then he determineth p. 227. that the Church is not here any Juridical Court acting by Authority but a select Company who by arbitration may compose and end the difference and so concludeth p. 228. that here is nothing about Church-Government though by Analogie some things about it may be hence drawn This is the sum of this opinion which I shall first refute and then consider his grounds for it Sect. 3. And first of all I cannot but wonder that this learned Author should with so much cofidence deny this place
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
under different Obligations to the same thing 3. The same action may be a duty and a sin viz. Being forbidden by the one Power and commanded by the other Ans. 1. He supposeth which we will never yield to him that ceremonies may be indifferent and imposeable by men Nay all the Ceremonies of God's worship being worship themselves are Christ's institution otherwise but will-worship And so himself understandeth Ceremonies p. 68. It is like forgetting what he here said 2. It concerneth the Author as much as it doth us to answer his own Objection for he ascribeth to the Church an intrinsecal power of Discipline Now suppose one be excommunicated the Church commandeth it the Magistrate forbiddeth it if his prohibition doth not null the former Obligation the same absurdities follow that are mentioned in his reason if it doth then this doth as much destroy the power of Discipline in that Church which he asserteth as it destroyeth the Power of determining about other Church-matters which we assert 3. We deny that the Magistrate by his power can destroy the obligation to any Church-Act being otherwise warrantable laid on by the Church or rather by Christ the Church declaring his will for so the Church only commandeth otherwise we might as well say and it must needs be this Man's Opinion if he believe what here he writeth that when the Church ordaineth a Minister and commandeth him to preach Christ the Magistrate by forbidding him to speak any more in that name maketh null the former Obligation 'T is true the Magistrate may in some cases restrain the outward exercise of what we are so obliged to and also when he doth injuriously forbid such exercise we may be in some cases obliged to cede to this violence but neither of these destroyeth our Obligation to our duty neither the power by which it is laid on more than the Magistrate doth destroy my Obligation to obey my Father or his power over me when he putteth me in Prison and so I cannot do what my Father commandeth The Absurdities that he would fright us with do not follow from our opinion but from his own false supposition For the first it is not absurd that there should be two Supream Powers about things so different that one Power cannot have them both for it's formal Object Will not the Author grant that Ministers have the Supream preaching power that is not subordinate to the Magistrate and the Magistrate the Supream civil Power Why not then that they have the Supream ruling Power in Church affairs These Powers need not clash though they be not subordinate being about things so different as are this world and that which is to come the Soul and the Body But this man feareth that Caesar be dethroned if we confess Christ to be a King and so would have Christ's Kingdome subordinate to Caesar's For the second there cannot be two Obligations here for if the Church keep within her Limits her command is Christ's And so any contrary obligation must be null if not her Authority layeth on no Obligation For the Third it is the same Argument and it admitteth of the same Answer § 8. Having made the Magistrate the sole Judge and determiner in the matters of the Church even Ceremonies themselves our Author proceedeth p. 49. to examine the extent of his Power asserted in his former Hypothesis and here he proceedeth by three steps 1. That there are some things left undetermined by the Word This we assent to as it is here set down but cannot understand it as he doth which appeareth a little after of Ceremonies but rather of bare Circumstances of the worship of God if he take these for one he is very ignorant of the Nature of both neither of the species of Church-Government for which this indifferency of things is here asserted What he discourseth here of the Nature of indifferency I shall not insist upon intending to meet with it elsewhere Only I take notice of his concession p 53. that in things wholly indifferent both in respect of their common nature and their use and end that are neither commanded nor tend to the peace and order of the Church there can be no reason why the Nature of these things should be altered by humane Laws wherefore matters that are indifferent as to a command but are much conducing to the peace and order of the Church are the proper matter of humane constitutions concerning the Churches Policy Let it be here considered that these things are not properly indifferent but commanded viz. where the peace and order of the Church is injoyned and if it be so it is the part of the Church representative not of the Magistrate to Judge what things are thus conducible to peace and order and to hold forth the doing of these as the Laws of Christ. § 9. His second step is that matters of this Nature may be determined and restrained and that it is not to the wronging of Christians liberty so to do And this he doth very largely prove against some as he pretendeth of great note and learning I wonder who they are For I never met with any who do deny what he asserteth It is true that many do and that warrantably maintain that where Christ hath left us free man hath no Power by his meer will to restrain us especially in things that belong to the worship of God but all do acknowledge so far as I know that in things though not expresly commanded which by their nature or circumstances are made conducible to the ends that Christ hath enjoyned us to endeavour the Church may enjoyn us and that without making any new Laws but by declaring the will of God This and no more do all the arguments which the Author with much pains hath set down conclude And indeed if our author had once proved the Species of Church Government to be indifferent we should not deny it to be determinable and imposeable not by the Magistrate but by the Church In the prosecution of his Arguments there occur several things that I cannot assent to but they not being to the Question in hand and intending to touch some of them in a Treatise else-where I pass them here he hath some greedy hints after obeying whatever is commanded though unlawful the non-obligation of the Covenant c. which do discover his spirit Though the Author doth state the Question as hath been said yet all his reasons whereby from p. 56. he proveth the determination of indifferent things not to take away our liberty doth prove as much that determination grounded on mans meer will doth not take it away for in that case there may be left a liberty of judgment and there may be no necessity antecedent to the command as he saith in his first Argument also in that case the determining of the things supposeth them to be matters of liberty which is a second medium and the obligation in that case is only in respect
they were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God being Evangelists therefore they were to have no Successors unless the Lord did so call them Further they were not fixed in these places but for a time they did not live and die there which shewed that there was no need of Successors to them in that Office Again he argueth that the Apostle did not determine how the Pastors of several Churches should order things of common concernment which considered with the former would seem a strange omission were either of these forms necessary Ans. This is no strange omission nor should it so be esteemed by this Author who maketh all that is requisite for the right managing of affairs by the Pastors of several Churches to be of the Law of Nature viz. that they should meet that one should moderate that there should be Appeals c. as I observed out of him before 2. We deny that it is omitted yea this Author in saying otherwise contradicteth himself for he will not deny but there are directions in these Epistles for Church-Government and he affirmeth that they are applicable to either form Ergo to Pastors acting in Parity neither was it needful that there should be 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 he 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
in the Apostolick Office nor doth the Question lie in that as he alledgeth for we maintain and I think it will not be deni'd by him that the Office in complexo viz. as it did subsist in rerum naturâ was extraordinary and is ceased and therefore whatever Office is made up of some part of the power they had without the rest of it must be a different Office from that and so new Indeed if Christ had given them their power by halves and made the one half of it common to some Officer appointed by him to continue in the Church viz. power over Presbyters and the other half of it peculiar to them then Bishops having power over Presbyters though they had been a new Office from the Apostles and not the same yet should they have had the same Office with these others that we supposed and so had not been new simply but there being no such thing they must be in another Office than Christ ever appointed and so simply new Wherefore it is an unreasonable demand of the Author p. 195. that we must prove power over Presbyters to be extraordinary before we say it must cease For it is enough that the whole Office be extraordinary that it be not a patern for any other Office that should be the same Yea we can easily prove that that power as in the Apostles and making up the Complex of their Office was extraordinary because it cannot survive the Office it self under that notion and we can also prove that Christ never instituted any such power by it self and without the other parts of the Apostolick Office whence it clearly followeth that such a power by it self which is a clear description of the Episcopal Office is divers from all the Offices iustituted by Christ and so is a new Office What he saith of the ceasing of this power with the Apostles as to its necessity but not as to its lawfulness is most impertinent and a begging of the Question for the conclusion of the Argument is that it is unlawful because it hath no institution that institution which it had in the Apostles being ceased His confirmation of this his distinction containeth a manifest falshood viz. to make a thing unlawful saith he which was before lawful there must be an express prohibition forbidding the use of such a thing This I say applied to the matter in hand is most false for we speak of things which have their lawfulness only from institution viz. Authority given to one over others now that which is thus lawful becometh unlawful meerly by the withdrawing of the Institution though no express prohibition of it be made As is evident from the like case among men when a King giveth a Commission to a Judge it is lawful for him to act in that capacity now if the King shall call in his Commission though there be no express forbidding of the man I suppose it is now become unlawful for him to act Just so is our case one Pastor can have no authority over another unless it be given him by Christ who ascended up on high and received these gifts for men Eph. 4. Now Christ had given once such a power to men viz. the Apostles this he hath now withdrawn by not giving such Commission to any others but the Apostles for I suppose to follow the former example that when a Judge which had a Commission dieth it is a sufficient withdrawing of his Commission that the King doth not give it to any other who may succeed him wherefore any who take that power to them do it without Commission from Christ which is unlawful Sect. 16. Another Answer he bringeth to this argument p. 195. on which he insisteth much as a foundation tending to establish his whole Cause but I hope it shall prove a ruinous foundation The Answer is this The extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any new but a determining the extent of that in actu secundo which every Minister hath in actu primo For clearing this he undertaketh two things 1. To shew that the power of every Minister doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common which I do freely yield to him 2. P. 197. That the Officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power Before I come to examine what he saith to this purpose let me note 1. That he speaketh here in a new strain before he had attributed this power of determining to the Magistrate now the Officers of the Church must have it which I confess is more fit But he soon repenteth and in the end of the same page maketh it lye between the Pastors and Magistrate whether he please It is strange to see how those who loose hold of the truth hang as Meteors and know not where to fix I take notice 2. That whereas the former part of his undertaking which he knew to be out of controversie among them against whom he disputeth he establisheth by five strong Arguments but for that part where the stress of the matter lieth he hath not brought so much as one reason to evince what he saith but some few bare Assertions for the clearing of it and indeed it is sometimes easier to prove the thing that is not than the thing that is denied even to such able men as Mr. Stillingfl But let us now attend to what he saith for his Opinion We have seen saith he that their power extendeth to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church Here are two things the former of which we have heard and seen solidly proved but the latter I have not yet seen where he hath done any thing but asserted it as he here doth but sure it being a matter of such concernment and controversie needed some more proof wherefore I cannot pass it so slightly as he hath done We may distinguish a twofold restraining the same holdeth in enlarging of the exercise of the power of Church-Officers viz. in respect of the Object of it and in respect of the acts of it Restraint in respect of the object of this power may be subdivided First when that power is permitted or appointed to be exercised over more or fewer objects of the same kind which it doth respect by the appointment of Christ as that a Minister should have a narrower or larger bounds for his Parish or more or fewer people to watch over and so of the limiting of Presbyteries Synods c. This restraint or enlargement of power in its exercise we acknowledge to be a matter of order and decency and may be determined by the prudence of the Church Secondly when it is extended to the objects of another kind or restricted from the whole Species of these objects that Christ hath appointed it for as
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
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 offerre 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 succeeed no not by Analogie to the Priests and Levites but rather to the Officers in the Synagogues for the Priests were not admitted by Solemn Ordination but judged of their fitness as to birth and body by the same ordination but the Rulers of the Synagogues were admitted by Ordination and if any of the Priests came to that Office they as well as others had their peculiar designation and appointment to it Here I reply 1. I believe that Gospel-Ministers did not properly succeed to either of these but stand upon another foundation viz. Christs Institution and so it is needless to enquire which of them they should succeed to I yield also that the name of Priests under the Gospel hath brought in the thing it self and even the Mass which ought not to be 2. What can he design by this Discourse Would he make the Office of the Ministry stand on no other bottom but imitation of the Synagogues Rulers and these Rulers to be brought in by a confederate Discipline i. e. to be a humane invention If he say not this he saith nothing to the purpose but I hope he will not say it 3. It is false that the Priests were not solemnly set apart for their Office though they had it by birth yet they behoved to be solemnly initiated to it and I am sure Mr. Still would not have said that they were no otherwise set apart but by the judgment of the Sanhedrim of their birth and body if he had not in this so consulted Antiquity as that he forgot to look into the Bible I do not deny but there was such a Judgment to pass on them neither ought Ministers be now admitted without tryal yea the Scripture which is surer than the Talmud telleth us so much Ezr. 2. 62 63. Yet we find also their solemn setting apart to the Office described Exod. 28. 41. and 29. 1. Lev. 8. 2 c. And spoken of 2 Chron. 26. 18. Yea the very Idol-Priests would not want this solemn setting apart 2 Chron. 13 9. Jud. 17. 5 12. Yea our Authors opinion everteth it self for to what purpose was a publick judging of them before their entry on the exercise of their Office if there was no solemn admission of them to it sure a solemn declaring them such as God had appointed his Priests to be if there had been no more they being kept from exercising the Office till this was done was a solemn admission 4. I would know who these others were who were Rulers of the Synagogue and so Teachers of the people at least Superintenders over Gods publick Worship as he elswhere phraseth it beside the Priests if they were only Levites or others also as he seemeth to imply and if any other but Priests and Levites were admitted to that Office I would know quo warranto sure the Scripture speaketh of these as old Testament-Teachers Neh. 8. 9. 2 Chron. 17. 8 9. and of none else but immediately inspired Prophets But I see Mr. Stilling looketh more to Rabinical stories in these matters than to the Bible and to the customs of the Synagogue in the days of the Apostacy than to the commands of God as he gave them though they be rare who are made mad by too much Learning yet there are whom too much reading without holding to the Scripture as the Rule maketh to dote I need not insist on what he writeth p. 268 c. of the Rite of laying on of Hands enough hath been said to shew that it proveth not what he intendeth nor on the persons ordaining in the Synagogue and in the Church of which he pa. 272 c. for in both he confesseth abomination to have been done in common by those in Power and afterward without divine Warrant restrained to one if Christ hath given power to all Presbyters to do it we must have some warrant to restrain this Power ere we dare do it but of this enough before Sect. 9. In his further prosecuting the correspondence of the Apostolick Church with the Synagogue he speaketh p. 285. of the Order setled by the Apostles in the Churches planted by them for ruling of them and first he maketh a work about the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Synagogue but from his own Discourse it 's clear how little weight is to be laid on this consideration as to what he intendeth seeing that name was ever used to denote Power and Dignity whether in Church or State and so doth no more belong to the Synagogue than other things I take notice of what he saith in the end of p. 286. If his design is not to dispute the Arguments of of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in absolute purity or else by Superiority and subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down these principles which may equally concern both in order to accommodation But I humbly conceive it was very incumbent upon him to answer the arguments of both parties and they must be answered to us before we be obliged to receive his Doctrine of which anon that we cannot know what form the Apostles setled and that they setled not any one form For as long as arguments brought by either of the controverting parties do stand untaken away to prove that the Apostles setled this or that form the Judgment can never acquiesce in his opinion that they setled none or that we cannot know what they setled This is a strange way of disputing especially when the design is to satisfie the Conscience in order to peace and yielding up its opinion to
lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans. 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ. 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two
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 all 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 compose differences about Church-Government To clear our way in this dispute with him let it be observed 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose 2. It helpeth not him nor harmeth our cause if we should grant that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course for it is what they did ordinarily and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise that we inquire about 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers Taking these considerations along with us I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition The first is taken p. 323. from the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles and here he premiseth 3 things viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers and in order thereto in some great places About these I shall not controvert with him only the 2d must be understood with this distinction else we cannot grant it that a fewer number if formed into a Church-Society though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind as Teachers Elders Deacons yet would it need as many sorts of Officers and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations they must be taught ruled and their Poor cared for and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were I mean where such Officers could be had for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches On this conclusion before I come to his Proofs of it I shall make these remarques 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters if where more Presbyters could not be had one was to do the work this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did or that we may set one over the rest where many may be had to rule the Church This conclusion then proveth nothing 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not if he say the first I doubt if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches where the Deacons work was to serve not to rule that Church and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly which maketh nothing against Presbyterians If the second first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles 2. If it was so it was necessity not choice that made them be without ruling Elders Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement Epiph. and others What hath he so soon forgot himself he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed Phil. 1. 1. That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity and therefore by his own Argument of which before it is not to be laid weight upon but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this in sum that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was necessity for Presbyters and Deacons and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it there was a Bishop appointed but where there were not many to be Presbyters they were content with a Bishop and Deacons Here are 3 cases Presbyters and Deacons a Bishop and Deacons this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be
than then where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place they were ruled only in Common yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could Also we grant that when Congregations were settled the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion to call this a weak conceit-seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom for ability I think Mr. Still modesty will not suffer him to compare himself But what ever be of the ability of them who own it there is reason for it so weighty as may excuse it from weakness which is this Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper rebuking them consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration c. 'T is very unfit to bring all these things in prima instantia to the Presbytery that ruleth in common This I confirm out of what himself hath written p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them though with subordination to those in the City is there not the same reason why particular Congregations though in City should have their Rulers 't is as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation at the first hand to the common Presbyters as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of the Church neither if we should yield all that he saith is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations we have cause to suspend our belief of it till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it which he hath not so much as essaid It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations not their subordinate Power for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common not that they had no particular Government in each of them as any may easily see by considering them Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment such as use not often to be so much taken notice of The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches is what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another and to the lesser City that were under them and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right to which we agree I add that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar Damasc. c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Jreneus have nothing of the different degrees of Bishops and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity The second step is p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie he saith that the City-Presbyters did Preach in these places and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church till after when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them who did rule them yet with subordination to the city-City-Church This last I only dislike neither do I see it proved by him for the Titles of matrix ecclesia et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction What he saith of that Eulogie sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread doth not prove the point and also it was a superstitious custome the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Popish adoration of their Hostia His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another but that their Honour depended on their Sees Thence he cometh to the last step when the whole World became Christians and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did strive for the place of Universal Bishop I hope it appeareth to any who consider that there is nothing yet said by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity even to have been maintained in the Primitive times I mean not of the last step he speaketh of when Papacy it self began to appear for all that hath been said sheweth that Imparity was never judged of necessity and that the Imparity which was used was rather of Order than of Jurisdiction which is nothing against the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for Sect. 3. His 2d Argument p. 374. is That the same Form was not of old observed in all Churches where he sheweth that in many places there were no Bishops as he proveth of Scotland and other places This we accept of and add that where there were Bishops it is not nor cannot be by him proved that they had any Superior Jurisdiction but only Precedency and so the Divine Rite of Parity may stand for all this His 3d Argument p. 377. is That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government which he saith is insisted on by Learned Persons on all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire And he giveth some Instances of it in the correspondency of Civil Prefects and Arch-Bishops in several places To all this let me say a few words 1. This Argument destroyeth it self for in the first antiquity which was the surest the Powers of the World were not Christian and so the Church could not conform to the state in her Offices 2. It is here confessed that this Conformity was especially I believe it may be said only after that division of the Roman Empire but those were the times when the man of Sin had almost got into his chair and therefore their practice can prove nothing of the mind of the Primitive Church 3. If this notion hold then it must be looked upon as a lawful and prudent expedient that there be one Pope as there was one Emperor This Mr. Still must maintain or he saith nothing 4. If this was their Rite of old then the Church behoved to be under two chief Bishops when the Roman Emperor was divided into two But this he doth not alledge but rather sheweth how it was divided into 13 Diocesses 5. If we receive this opinion then in a Kingdome there must be one head who must have
his Councel of Bishops without a charge of the several Diocesses for the Kings Council hath not Precedency of several parts of the Country and they must authorize their deputies like Sheriffs yearly c. And in a Common-wealth there must be Independant Government but this I hope the Author will not own 6. It is most unreasonable to say that the Church-Government should be conform to the Civil because they are conversant about things and aim at ends so different the one respecteth things that are most different in several Nations viz. Mens Civil Interest and Customes and Inclinations the other respecteth that which ought to be every where the same viz. Religion His 4. Argument p. 379. is That other Episcopal Government was settled in the Church yet Presbyterian Ordination was looked on as valid This is not againt us His last Argument p. 382. is That several restraints were laid on by Councils about the Observation of Rites and Customes and something of Church-Discipline but what is this I pray to Parity or Imparity we are not against determinations of Indifferent things that concern order and decency though we think that the Form of Government is determined by Christ not left to the will of man CHAP. VIII IN this Chapter our Author would make us believe that all the world was ever of his Opinion and indeed this is so common for men to alledg whatever be their singular notions of things that we are not to lay much weight upon it Videlius took as much pains to make all reformed Divines to speak for Erastianism I might excuse my self from medling any further with this last Chapter of his 1. From the needlesness of the thing because we do not build the Divine Right of Presbytery on mens Opinions who we know can err and therefore if all the world were against it if the Scripture be for it so must we 2. From the disadvantage I lie under as to this part of the dispute with him If I had been of Mr. Still opinion in this point in controversie I might through compliance with courses have been furnished with a good Library and other conveniencies of studying the want of which doth incapacitate me to search into the opinions of those worthy men which he citeth in doing whereof I hope it would not be difficult to shew that some of their Testimonies are made to speak otherwise than they thought and others of them are irreconcilable with what themselves have elsewhere written Sect. 2. Notwithstanding we shall essay briefly to say as much to his allegations as may take off that edge they seem to have for cutting asunder the cause which we maintain P. 384. he hath a confident assertion I believe saith he there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth embrace any form of Government because it looked upon that form as only necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that form of Government which was judged most sutable to the state and condition of the several Churches I wonder to see this so confidently asserted without proof It had been incumbent on Mr. Still for confirming this his dream to have gone through the confession of the several reformed Churches and let us see on what ground they then built their Church-Government for it will not sufficiently prove what was the judgment of these Churches that some eminent men in them did assert such things which latter of the two he only insisteth on and that to little purpose too as I hope shall appear But the falsehood of this Allegiance I will make appear afterwards when I have tried the strength of the Testimonies he bringeth for his opinions Sect. 3. He beginneth with them who have asserted the mutability of the form of Government in Thesi where he maketh it his chief business to shew that the Church of England of old was of this opinion To which I answer That those worthy men having nothing in their eye but Episcopacy their work was to oppose the Divine Right of that there was never an other form brought in competition with it nor much minded by them and therefore we agree with them in their design Of Foreign Divines his first Testimony is of Chemnitius to which I cannot give a particular answer because not having his book I cannot try it only this consideration I shall lay down to take off the strength of it Neither Mr. Still nor any man else ought to lay weight on this Testimoney to the purpose it is brought for for either he meaneth that the degrees of Church-Officers in respect of precedency are left free or in respect of Jurisdiction if the first it is nothing contrary to what we hold for we acknowledg it indifferent whether there be a standing Precedent 〈◊〉 Presbytery or not If the second he is directly contrary to Mr. Stillingfleet who maintains that the Church may set up no new Officers but what Christ hath instituted as we have seen before now an order of Officers with jurisdiction above what Christ hath instituted cannot but be a sort of Officers that he hath not instituted wherefore Mr. Still could not make Use of this Testimony neither ought any else for it crosseth the Scripture which Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Ephes. 11. 1. 1 Cor. 12. 28. doth on purpose enumerate the Officers of the Church in all their degrees I dispute not now what they are but sure they are not left at liberty seeing the Lord hath so often declared his mind in this Point to what purpose is it said that the Lord hath in his Church such and such Officers if men may at their pleasure set these or others more or fewer of them in the Church Sect. 4. His next Testimony is the Centuriators of Magdeburge but it containeth an answer in its forehead viz. That it speaketh not to the thing for they say no more but that it is neither Recorded nor Commanded how many Ministers should be in each Church but that their may be more or fewer according to the number of the Church What is this to their parity or imparity 't is a token that he is very scant of Witnesses when he calleth in them who say so little to his purpose The next Testimony is of Zanchy which he maketh to speak very fair for him but he hath unhandsomly concealed that which is the Key to understand the meaning of this Author for the Reader may evidently see his drift if he first look into Sect. 9. de Relig. c. 25. where he asserteth that Christ hath only given to his Church two sorts of ordinary Teachers viz. Pastors and Doctors the same he asserteth Sect. 10. and yet which is his modesty he will not condemn the Fathers who had other Orders of Officers but what his meaning is in this his condescendency he explaineth Sect. 11. That whereas in after Ages one Pastor was set over the rest non ut Dominus sed
ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist. ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispease himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull
constitution Concerning those I premise 2 general Remarques 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood not of Episcopus Princeps but Praeses according to that distinction very common among them This we must hold as only consistent with their principles till the contrary be proved out of their own writings 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines they did often as Smect saith of Spanhem to the same purpose p. 65. deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment But to come to particulars he beginneth with Cracanthorp who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianism because they held not Imparity to be unlawful But this man was a Son of the Church of England as they speak and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken being willing to have them all think as he did They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect p. 79. where it is proved that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity and that Jerome Augustus Sedulius Primatius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aerius in this Next he bringeth the Augustane confession of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches but of the Lutherans for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart by themselves wherefore it is no wonder if these worthy men who were a reforming but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius who Mellifie Histor. par 3. p. 336. saith thus Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontifioiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magisque ne spiritum extingueret limabat poliebat et duriuscula fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet 3. All that is said in this confession is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood that they could yield to that so that even the furthest they go in their complemental condescendency doth not help Mr. Still 's cause who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful Sect. 7. In the next place he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy which he could never comport with while he lived He bringeth his Instit. lib. 4. c. 4. sect 1. 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God and that they used no other form of Governing the Church than was prescribed in the Word What doth this help his Cause The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment were no more but Praesides These he saith were not constituted beside the word of God This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind At present let it suffice to observe that the very words cited by Mr. Still do make against him For when Calvin saith Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit It is not evident that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government And 2dly That he asserteth that the Ancient Bishops if we look to the thing and do not understand the name Bishop as now it is used for the Prelate did stick close to this Form what could be more directly against Mr. Still Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known in Divinus i. e. Presbyter Humanus i. e. c. a President or constant Moderator Diabolicus i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva which was without such a fixed President to other Churches but what is this to the purpose It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains and lose his labour It being so as hath been shewed Mr. Still doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time it was not as he alledgeth whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop or giving him power over his Brethren were lawful Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anhalt Luther Melancton and Calvin professing their readiness to submit to Bishops if they would do the duty of Bishops All which amounts to no more than this That if Bishops would keep within bounds not usurp Authority over their Brethren nor use it to the destruction of Religion they might be born with but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy which these Men did ever detest For Jacobus Heerbrandus I am not acquainted with his Principles nor his Book Hemingius who cometh next speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines not authoritatis and so cometh not up to the thing in Question For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis for if it be necessary it is not indifferent If in any case such a thing be necessary it is in that case lawful nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit in other cases it is unlawful What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches as Sweden Denmark c. doth not weigh with us knowing that they err in greater matters also What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy We think their way lawful and whether it be convenient to them or not we judg not but to us sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient The next thing that he insisteth on viz. Episcopal Divines holding Episcopacy not necessary it doth not concern us to Answer and so we see to what amounteth the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as
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