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
Christ and yet will have the Church outwardly governed by his Laws 2. He saith the main original of mistakes here is the confounding of the external and internal government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward government of the Church of God which is intended of this internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men Reply We are willing to distinguish these and I believe he cannot shew any of ours who do confound them yea we will go further in distinguishing the outward and inward Government of the Church than he doth and I may retort this charge on himself hoping to make it appear that he confoundeth these two and that this is the ground of his mistakes The Government of the Church is then two-fold Inward and Outward both these may be distinguished according to divers objects of this Government for Inward Government is either that which is exercised in the conscience and so is invisible or that which is exercised in the Church or in matters that are properly spiritual and not civil though they be visible to men and so outward in respect of the conscience So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience and it is that we have now described or outward in respect to the Church viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil and concern the Church not as it is a Church but as it is a Society Or we may distinguish thus the Government of the Church is either invisible viz. in the conscience or visible and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical and so it is inward in respect to the Church or in things that are Civil and so it is outward The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ the second mediately and that by the Guides of the Church as his Deputies the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it But now let us see whether he himself who chargeth others with this confounding be not guilty of it and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal and the External Government of the Church It is very evident that it is so for 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience and so be meant of invisible and visible Government Or to the Church and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church We are to seek in this for all his distinction 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these as he here manageth the distinction or at least some things seem to draw the one way and some the other For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority spoken of in the Scripture to refer to the outward Government of the Church this must be meant of that Government which is Civil not of visible Ecclesiastical Government I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority Again where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience this must be meant of his invisible Government both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this But what-ever be his meaning this answer doth not take away the force of our argument for if he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christs power Kingdom and Authority to be meant of Civil power but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church this is all we desire for if Christ hath such a Kingdom then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church save that of Word and Sacraments as it followeth immediately and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate as do all the rest of the Erastians If he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience which is exercised by his Word and spirit in this first he is contrary to all men for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom but they would have it managed by the Magistrate whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church Secondly he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ denying that which is a considerable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office What is Christ a King not only of Angels but of Men united in a visible Society the Church and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them this is a ridiculous inconsistency Thirdly he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government such as Eph. 4. 10 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act and it is made an act of his Authority 1 Cor. 11. 3. Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship Also Psal. 2. 8. Psal. 22. 27. Psal. 110. 3. Col. 1. 13. and many other places which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul. Fourthly this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government as gathering a people to him Isa. 55. 4 5. Acts 15. 14 15 16 17. giving them laws Isa. 33. 2. Mat. 28. 20. Mat. 5. 17 19. Verses c. setting up Officers Eph. 4. 10. 11. giving them power of Discipline Mat. 16. 19. Mat. 18. 17 18. John 20. 23. Fifthly it is contrary to himself for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts if then Christ as King hath invested his Servants with this power which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church That which he addeth viz. that this is made known to us in the word but not the other viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form this I say 1. Beggeth the Question 2. Destroyeth his Answer wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government
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
this latter not the former must be his meaning because it is nothing to the purpose which I will not impute to so learned a man for what is not so revealed is not revealed at all seeing it is unintelligible by defect of objective light now to say that Christ's Laws must be thus revealed is to say that they must be promulgated some way or other which was never questioned by any and maketh nothing for his design viz. that Christs Laws must be so revealed as that the disputes about them shall be taken away Yea he cannot mean this for the change of any Circumstance of an old Law must at least be thus revealed else it is not revealed at all and yet he requireth another sort of Revelation of new Laws as appeareth from what hath been said § 12. 2. If this Assertion thus explained were true there should remain no more Controversie among serious and learned men about any of the Laws of Christ for such have their senses exercised in these things Wherefore they may if we believe this Author know such to be Christs Laws and therefore cannot be in an Errour about them But how absurd this is sad Experience maketh too evident Is it not a Controversie whether Christ hath appointed seven or but two Sacramentst whether he hath commanded us to pray to Saints departed whether Excommunication be by his Law c. We must then either say that Christ hath made no Law in these things or that men cannot mistake in them but that they who oppose the truth herein do oppose that which they know to be Christ's Law or that Christ hath made and revealed a Law about these things but these men cannot see it which is contrary to the Author's Assertion 3. Is it not enough to bind the Conscience of any who soberly seek to know what is the good and perfect and acceptable will of God that the Lord in his word hath given some intimation from which we may gather that such a thing is his will Sure seeing it is his will that bindeth the Conscience whatever way we come to the knowledge of this will we are obliged by it to our duty Now we may be able in some cases to deduce from Scripture such a thing to be the will of God though it be not set down in such evident terms as are here mentioned as is clear to any who do consider 4. There are many points of Truth or many Credenda in the Scripture which want such an Evidence of Revelation as is here required which yet we are to believe as the truths of God for it is clear that the Lord hath taught us many things in the Bible as it were on the bye and left them to be gathered from Scripture Assertions yea many times Truths are couched in Duties commanded as Commands also are comprehended in Assertions and Promises Now if this clearness of terms in the Revelation of the Credenda of Religion be not necessary to bind the Conscience to believe how is it imaginable that it should be necessary in the Revelation of the Agenda to bind the Will to act seeing the Lord doth as peremptorily require us to believe what he hath said as to do what he hath commanded 5. For the exception that he maketh of the changing some Circumstances of old Laws I see not on what Foundation of reason the difference between these and new Laws can stand but that this shift serveth his purpose For to take his own instance supposing a standing Law for a Sabbath and that the seventh day must be kept This Circumstance as he is pleas'd to call it that not the seventh but the first day be kept is really a new law yea there are here two new laws one abrogating what was before and making it no duty to keep the seventh day another establishing a new which was not before and making it a duty to keep the first day Now if this may be thought no obliging law of Christ without that evidence of revelation which he talks of why may not another thing that was not such before If we are to look to Apostolick practice as ground sufficient why we should think it Christs will that we should keep the first day of the week to the Lord which was not done before why should we not think the same ground sufficient why Ministers should rule the Church by a parity of Authority Yea reason would say that there is need of more clearness in the revelation of Christ's will for altering a standing law in such of it's circumstances as doth annul one duty and establish another than for setling that as duty which is altogether new seeing in the former we must both know the will of God in abrogating and establishing in the later we are to know only that he will stablish such a thing § 13. In his examination of what maketh an unalterable Divine right I agree to most that he teacheth only his Postulatum p. 14. one which he buildeth all his assertions needeth to be a little cleared He asserteth that nothing can be founded on Divine Right nor bind Believers as a positive Law but what may be certainly known to have come from God with an intention to bind Believers to the Worlds end Where I only take notice that though Plerophory in that case be very desirable yet such certainty is not necessary to our obligation But so much knowledge of the will of God as may satisfie the Conscience by Jnclining it to the one hand and not leaving it absolutely in suspence If this be not sufficient we shall take off all obligation of Gods positive laws from most men for few have plerophorie in most things I agree with him that a divine right is built on the law of nature and on the immutable positive laws of God also that these are three good marks of the immutability of divine positive laws which he bringeth viz. when the reason of the law remains when God hath declared such a law never to be changed when it conduceth to the being of a Society that he would have to continue Only I cannot see how these espeeially the former two marks do consist with the mutability of that Church government in these things we controvert about which the Apostles practised no doubt as being Christs will and law seeing there is the same reason for parity now that then was and Christ hath not said that he will have it altered in after ages § 14. Page 23. He comes to examine some pretences as he is pleased to call them for a divine right And first he laboureth to enervate the argument for the divine right of Church-Government taken from Apostolical practice of which he promiseth to say more after but what he here saith we shall examine I yield to him that all Scripture examples do not bind neither doth any example bind as an example also that the rule whereby we know what examples do bind is not immediately
obligatory but directive I grant likewise that in such examples that which bindeth us is either the moral nature of the action or the law commanding us to follow the example And yet all these concessions yield him no advantage neither bring our cause any loss for when he requireth us who plead for the divine right of a particular form of Church-Government from Apostolical example to shew either the morality of their actions or a law commanding us to follow them I Answer as to the first there needeth no particular demonstration of the morality of Apostolick actions but this we can say for them the nature and condition of the actions and the Apostles doing of them being considered reason will not suffer us to question the morality of them I mean it is certain that they are the will of Christ for we must think that in matters not light and occasional but weighty and of great concernment whether they be well or ill done and which were done on mature deliberation as the administration of the affairs of Christ's house in matters I say of this nature we are to think that the Apostles did that which was best and most approved of God they being infallibly guided by his spirit Now that which was best to them must certainly be best to us also we managing the same affairs except some diversity of our case from theirs can be shewn wherefore we are obliged to think that the parity of Ministers in ruling the Church is Christ's will and so a moral duty not a thing indifferent seeing it was so in the Apostolick Churches as I suppose is proved by the maintainers of that way and there is no reason why it should be otherwise with us than with them For the second we have also a law for following Apostolical example as we have for following Christ's example which our Author saith maketh it our duty viz. 1 Cor. 4. 16. Wherefore I beseech you be ye followers of me 1 Cor. 11. 1. Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ. And lest any think that this command of imitation is only in reference to duties otherways known to be such as faith love c. it is evident that this last place relateth to Church administrations for he prefixeth this exhortation to the doctrine of decency and purity in their worship Beside that the exhortation being general can suffer no exception but where imitation would not have the same morality in us that giving example had in them viz. where the case is different Other Scriptures to the same purpose are Phil. 3. 17. Heb. 6. 12. and this is commended which clearly supposeth a command 1 Thes. 1. 6. and 2. 14. 2 Thes. 3. 9. Ja. 5. 10. Wherefore if we can shew Apostolical practice for our way of Church-Government as I know we can it is incumbent on our adversaries to shew a reason why they did such things which doth not agree to our case or else to submit to that way as that which is Christ's law For the other grounds of divine right that he examineth we insist not on them as not being necessary to the defence of that truth which we maintain Wherefore I wave what might be said against what he there disputeth CHAP. II. § 1. IN the second chapter of the first part of his Irenicum he layeth some hypotheses for a foundation of his following discourse where I shall pass over in silence these things that have truth in them and these also the examining of which is not needful to the present purpose viz. defending Presbyterial Government to be juris divini Only I take notice that here and through his whole book he spendeth most of his pains and learning in proving these points which are either digressions from the present business or are not denied by any of his opposites which is magno conatu nihil agere § 2. In his fourth hypothesis p. 38. some things need our remark he setteth it down thus In things which are determined both by the law of nature and divine positive laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting of the performance of them in due manner Two things in this hypothesis I condemn 1. That he warranteth men to determine things undetermined in the Church so far as they judge needful he should have said so far as is needful for if we hold this his assertion in terminis superstitious men in lawful authority may bind us in all things where Christ hath left us free so that it shall not be lawful to speak look or act in the Church but as they think fit And indeed here is a foundation for almost all the Ceremonies that either Popes or Prelates ever burthened the Church of God with they are nothing but determinations of what is left undetermined and they judge them to tend to promote worship as it is not determined what Garment a Minister shall wear the Church judgeth a Surplice to tend to promote worship then by this hypothesis the Church may determine this which is not only against truth as might easily be shewed if that were now my work but also against this Author who declareth himself against Ceremonies of Mens appointing 2. That he extendeth this determining power so far that not only things undetermined and that must be determined otherwise the Ordinances cannot be gone about without defect or sin may be determined by lawful authority for this we grant and therefore do close with his example of appointing the place and hour for worship but also things that they judge tend to promote the due manner of the Ordinances may be thus determined which a little after he expoundeth of the decency and solemnity of worship This we cannot assent to For there is no pompous Ceremony that ever man devised but they judged it fit to promote the solemnity of worship And indeed the Scripture condemning the pompousness and gaudiness of worship and commending the simplicity of it saith plainly that it is not left to men to add their determinations to God's to make the worship as solemn as they judge meet but that we ought to be content with that solemnity which is made in worship by God's Institutions and the needful determination of circumstances Neither can this blow to his hypothesis be evited by saying that he speaketh only of circumstances which we confess may be determined by the Church For 1. All Ceremonies are also circumstances and he doth not here mention meer circumstances to exclude Ceremonies from the determing power of Authority in the Church 2. Though he should be understood of meer circumstances viz. which are such before they be determined as the habit in which we are to worship yet even such when they are determined by men without necessity only
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-Church-Authority against which he there disputeth especially seeing Respublica non est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica he that hath only Civil power hath no power in the Church whatever he hath about Church-matters and over Church-men § 4. In asserting the Magistrates power in these things he professeth that he will not so much make his way through any party as strive to beget a right understanding among them that differ how well he keepeth his promise may be seen by examining what he saith on which I will not much insist intending to meet with this his Doctrine elsewhere but only mark what is amiss with a short ground of our censure of it for this debate is somewhat extrinsecal to the indifferency of Church-Government it rather supposeth it than asserteth or proveth it In explicating his second distinction about the Magistrate's power p. 41. The internal formal elicitive power of order saith he lies in the Authoritative exercise of the Ministerial function in Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments but the external objective imperative power of jurisdiction lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the later to the Supream Magistracy Here several things are to be noted 1. That he maketh the power of Order to be all one with internal formal elicitive power about Church affairs and the power of Jurisdiction the same with external objective and imperative power about them This is instead of distinguishing to confound things most different for I hope he is not Ignorant that all the Assertors of Church-power against the Erastians do distinguish Church-power or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven for so is this power designed by Christ in the power or Key of Order and the power or Key of Jurisdiction Let the Author shew us one not Erastian who before himself did ever make the power of Order in the Church to comprehend all formal and elicitive Church-power Yea he doth by this most evidently contradict himself which I wonder to meet with so often in such a learned man for in his Appendix he maketh the power of Discipline to be in the Church and so to be formal internal and elicitive Church-power and sure the power of Discipline is the power of Jurisdiction not of Order not only because all that speak of this distinction do so understand it but also our Author doth here make the power of Order to respect only the word and Sacraments and so the power of Discipline must belong to Jurisdiction according to him now whereas he maketh the power of Jurisdiction there to be internal only in the Church and here to be external in the Magistrate only if this be not a contradiction let any man judge 2. Another thing that here I take notice of is that the power which he ascribeth to the Ministry is only Administration of the Word and Sacraments Then they have no power of Discipline for every one knoweth that that is some other thing than the Word and Sacraments Now this is contradictory to the whole of his own Appendix and also to Scripture which giveth to Church-Officers power of binding and loosing Mat. 18. 18. Jo. 20. 23. and of ruling the Lord's People 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. But I insist not on this it having been made evident by so many against the Erastians 3. He ascribed all power about Church affairs to the Magistrate except that of Administring the Word and Sacraments and so to the Magistrate as it is only belonging to him for he giveth him that which he called the power of Jurisdiction and that is to him all power but that of Word and Sacraments Now there was never any Erastian that gave more to the Magistrate than this for by this means he hath all the power of deciding controversies in Synods for that is not preaching of the Word of Ordination the exercise of Discipline c. and none but he hath any share in it Behold unto what absurdities this man runneth unawares while he maketh it his business to unhinge that Government which Christ hath setled in his Church And indeed I cannot but take notice of a necessary connexion between this putting all Church-power in the hands of the Magistrate and denying it to be juris divini For he knew well that if it had been left to be decided by Church-men among themselves it had not been easily determined amidst the interest of men clashing one with another the more conscientious and self-denied sort being ever the fewest § 5. Page 42. Speaking of the Subordination or Co-ordination of the Magistracy and Ministry there be some mistakes worthy of our notice Though he acknowledgeth the person of the Magistrate to be subject to the word of God yet he denieth it to be subject to the power of the Ministers This is the Doctrine of Court-preachers who love to flatter rather than speak truth But consider 1 It is to me an inconsistency that Ministers have power or authority of
Preaching the Word and the Magistrate's person is subject to this Word and yet he is not subject to the power of Ministers When they teach rebuke exhort with all authority and command in the name of the Lord doth not this reach Magistrates as well as others if they be subject to the word of God I see not how they are subject to it if they be not subject to it as declared by Christ's Embassadors which is the ordinary way of dispensing it and if so then are they subject to the Preaching power of Ministers at least 2. Magistrates are also subject to the ruling power of Ministers for they rule over Christ's Flock the Members of the Church of which number if the Magistrate be I see no ground in Scripture for exempting him from the power of their Jurisdiction When Christ said Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained he did not add except the supream Magistrates May not I pray the Pastors of the Church debar him if he be a flagitious man from the Lord's Table as Ambrose did to Theodosius and if they may certainly the Magistrate personally considered is subject to the ruling power of Pastors in spiritual things as they are subject to him in civil things And to deny this what is it but to make the supream Magistrate head of the Church and not a Member of it Much more worthy to be received is the opinion of Crysostome who speaketh thus to Ecclesiastical persons in reference to abstention from the Lord's Supper Si dux igitur quispiam si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indigne adeat cohibe ac coerce majorem â—u illo habes authoritatem § 6. He cometh afterward p. 43. to ascribe to the Magistrate not only a political power which he maketh to lie in the Execution and Administration of laws for the common good but also an Architectonical and Nomothetical power though not absolute and independent whereby he may make laws in things that belong to the Church His meaning in this he expresseth more fully in the end of p. 44. In matters saith he undetermined by the word of God concerning the external policy of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the word of God And because he knew that the Church-Guides would put in for this Power that here he giveth to the Magistrate therefore p. 45. he laboureth to reconcile these parties by a distinction or two viz. between declaring Christ's Laws and making new Laws and between advising what is fit and determining what shall be done The declaring and advising Power is given by him to the Church the Authoritative determining power to the Magistrate For p. 46. The great use saith he of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of the Church is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King as the Parliament is for matters of Civil Government And p. 47. but yet saith he When such men thus assembled have gravely and maturally advised and deliberated what is fittest to be done the force strength and obligation of the thing so determined doth depend on the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate Against this Doctrine before I come to examine the Reasons that he bringeth for it I have these things to say 1. It must be noted by passing over which in silence our Author hath confounded the matter that we are not here speaking of things that are properly Civil though belonging to the Church viz. as it is a Society and in the Common-Wealth such as Church-rents Meeting-places liberty of the use of them c. but of the Government of the Church as it is a Church of its Discipline which things are properly the external policy of that Church as our Author termeth that which he speaketh of Now the Question is whether the Power of determining these be in the Church-Guides or the Magistrate 2. That which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ground of most of this Author's mistakes is he supposeth that some things of this Church-policy are so left undetermined by the word that they are capable of a determination by men's Legislative power and that new Laws may be made about them This is not truth for if we speak of the Substantials of Church-Government even of a particular Form it is determined in the word and so not subject to men's Nomothetical Determinations if of the Circumstances of it neither are these left for men to make Laws about them but they are determined by the Lord in the general Rules that are in the word and the Dictates of right reason compared with them and the Obligation that lyeth on our Consciences in these things is not from the Magistrates Law though we do not deny but he may add his Sanction to both sorts of things and make them the Law of the Nation as Dr. Stillingsleet saith well that he may with any thing in Religion but from the will of God which ought to be searched out and held forth Authoritatively by the Guides of the Church that are acting in the name of Christ. 3. It is false then that the Magistrate hath Power in determining what of the External Policy of the Church is undetermined in the word For if we speak of that which is not determined at all neither by particular Praecepts or Examples or otherwise signifying particularly the mind of Christ about such a thing viz. by the general rules of the word compared with right reason is not held forth to be the mind of Christ such things ought not to be determined by any man or men but are left to Christian Liberty for such things must be determined meerly by mans will but the Lord hath not left the matters of his Church to that crooked rule But if we speak of things not determined by particular praecepts c. yet in which the mind of Christ is deducible by general rules Neither here hath the Magistrate the determining Power but they whom the Lord hath made the Guides and Eyes of his Church they must declare what is the will of Christ not impose what is their own Will or Law And here the Obligation is from the will of Christ not the Authority of the Church nor the Magistrate neither the declaration of it from them whom Christ hath made his Embassadors For what I have said I give this brief reason The Affairs of the Church are to be managed by a Ministerial Power the farthest extent of which is to declare Christ's Laws and apply them as is generally confessed by Protestants against Papists but the Magistrate's Power is not Ministerial but Magisterial Ergo it is not his part to manage or determine the Affairs of the Church of which doubtless her external Policy is no small part which may be further enforced thus Church-Determinations must be the Declarations of the will of Christ but not the Magistrate but the
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
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
but in this case Presbyters want that possibility or lawfulness of that exercise of Ruling and that so as the defect or hindrance ex parte causae is in themselves who should put forth the acts ergo they want not onely the exercise but the very power of Ruling which Christ gave them in such a case The Minor of the Argument is evident for such an alienation were a clear contradicting of Christ he saith it shall be lawful for you such a one being lawfully put into the Ministry to rule he by this alienating saith it shall not be lawful for me to rule If it be said that Christs gift maketh it lawful for such a one to rule but not in all cases as suppose the good of the Church requires that this power be taken from him his alienating maketh it onely unlawfull in this case when for the good of the Church he hath quit his right so that here there is no opposition Christ giveth him a jus in actu primo he alienateth onely this jus in actu secundo as Mr. Stillingfleet doth express it Answ. 1. However there may be some colour of reason why this may be done in some extraordinary cases when Christs institution which is calculated to ordinary cases and must ordinarily take place cannot reach the end of Government yet to say that it may be done ordinarily cannot but clash with Christs institution for when Christ giveth ruling power to Presbyters though we may think that it is not his will that they must needs exercise it in all cases yet must we think that he intendeth they should exercise it ordinarily for why giveth he them a power which they as readily never as ever act and that as men please to determine we must not think that it is the intent of Christs Commission to his Servants that men may without the force of necessity laid on by an extraordinary Providence and then God doth it and not men hinder the acts of it as as they will 2. It is supposed without ground that the good of the Church can ordinarily require the restraining power given by Christ for if we speak of what is ordinarily good for the Church how can we better discern that than by looking into Christs institution wherefore seeing by this equal power at least in actu primo is given to Presbytery we are to think that the exercise of this power is best for the Church though ambitious men and they who would flatter the Magistrate think otherwise yea though the best of men should dissent sure Christs giving such a power saith more for the goodness of the exercise of it then mens opinions though seeming to have a foundation on some inconveniencies of it can say against it especially considering what ever way beside men devise is attended with as great if not greater inconveniencies of another nature 3. I have already made it appear that this alienation of power given by Christ doth not only reach the actus secundus of it but even the actus primus seeing a man is not in capacity to recal his deed and reassume the exercise of his power though it were improved never so much against the end of Christs giving and his alienating of it Sect. 19. 5. Proof which is directly against enlarging the exercise of Church Power in the hands of any beyond what Christ hath given them if the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to all may be taken from the rest and given to one then that one getteth a power both in actu primo in secundo which he had not from Christ but this is unlawful ergo The Major I prove for it is clear he getteth power in actu secundo which he had not from Christ ergo he getteth such power in actu primo seeing actus secundus cannot be without primus nor lawful exercise of power without the jus or power it self If it be said that Christ giveth only the actus primus and that so as it extendeth to the whole Church and therefore no actus secundus of power can be given to one which doth extend further than this Answ. 1. It is true he giveth formally only the actus primus but the actus secundus doth result from it and therefore he giveth both 2. It is true the power that Christ giveth doth extend to the whole Church but this must be understood with a twofold distinction Dist. 1. Disjunctive it is true that is every Minister hath a power to rule whatever part of the Church this or that or another so that no part of it is without his Commission as that he should go beyond his bounds in being set over it Conjunctive it is false that is Christ hath not given so much of the actus primus of power to rule all or many Congregations Dist. 2. When Christ giveth the actus primus of power to a Minister extending to the whole Church it is to be understood in adequate i. e. that he hath a share in that power so extended and may in conjunction with other rule the whole Church not adequate i. e. Christ hath not given to any such a power as that he by himself or with a few excluding the rest who are also in the Commission rule the whole Church So that when ever any one exerciseth authority by himself or excluding others who have the same power granted by Christ over more than his particular Congregation over which he may have personal inspection he taketh a power in actu secundo where Christ hath given him no jus nor actus primus of power The Minor of the argument is manifest for when both power and exercise of it is given to a man which Christ hath not given this is setting up a new Office which Christ hath not set up for what is an Office in the Church but a power and a lawful exercise of it but this our Author confesseth to be unlawful ergo 6. Proof 'T is presumption even among men for a servant to commit that work to another to do which his Master hath given him to do except he know that he hath his Masters leave so to do this is so well known that I need not insist on it ergo it is much presumption when Christ hath committed the ruling of his house to every Minister that some should devolve that work on a Bishop to do it for them unless they could shew Christs warrant for this which if Mr. Stillingfleet or any other will do we shall acquiesce If there be any disparity in this comparison I am sure it will tend to the strengthening not the weakening of our argument for we are more absolutely under Christs command than Servants are under their Masters his commands are more perfect and effectual to compass their end without our taking our own way in managing obedience to them then mens are also the there is a greater tie to cleave scrupulously to his injunctions than to mens also the matters
not think this in particular necessary but leave it to the Churches liberty what particular Sacrament should be superadded But Master Stillingfleet's Opinion maketh an addition necessary viz. that there be a form of Government which is not in Scripture though it leave the particular form to the Churches liberty Ergo it is against the perfection of Scripture and this addition being of a thing in its general nature necessary to an end that the Scripture aimeth at viz. the right governing of the Church and not being found in Scripture so much as that men may determine it it is such an additio perficiens as the Author confesseth to be corrumpens 3. By this Answer none of the Popish Traditions are additions to the Scripture or imply its imperfection for though they be held necessary in the general yet in particular they cannot so be held for either they were freely determined by the Church and so they might not have been and therefore are not necessary or the Church was necessitated to determine them by some antecedent objective truth in the things if so they must be the Dictates of Nature which are no additions to Scripture wherefore this Answer destroyeth it self 4. At least by this Answer all the Popish and Prelatical Ceremonies and whatsoever superstitious men can devise to bring into the worship of God is no addition to the Scripture nor a blot upon its perfection for these are not held for necessary things but indifferent and only necessary when commanded by Authority which necessity I suppose Mr. Stilling will plead for to his form of Government Now this Consequence I hope he will not own wherefore he may be ashamed to own that from which it doth so clearly follow His third Answer is yet of less weight viz. that the Essentials of Church-Government are in Scripture not the Circumstantials Reply If he meaneth as sure he doth the Essentials of Government in its general and abstract notion in which it is not practicable without a particular form he saith nothing to the purpose The Scripture may be an imperfect rule for Church-Government though it have these if he mean the Essentials of a particular form he destroyeth his own cause Now we maintain that to the perfection of Scripture there is required not only a general notion of Government but so much as is sufficient light to direct the practice of Government this cannot be without the institution of a particular form for Government otherwise is not practicable If it be said that the general rules in Scripture about Government want nothing requisite for the compleat practise of Government but the determination of circumstances which cannot belong to Scripture perfection Ans. This we deny if by general Rules he means as sure he doth such as do not determine a particular form it is some more than a circumstance whether Pastors exercise that power Christ hath given them or commit it to a Bishop I hope it is more than a bare circumstance in Civil Government whether the power be in the hand of one or a few or all the people even so 't is here yea herein lieth the very Essence of a form of Government if this then be not found in Scripture the Essentials of a form are wanting but a form is essential to Government considered as practicable Ergo some of the Essentials of Government are wanting CHAP. V. HAving refuted as he supposed the general Arguments for a particular Form of Church-Government to have been laid down in Scripture he cometh now to particular Arguments which are brought for some one Form and many he taketh much pains to refute in this Chapter which I am confident never any did make Use of to prove what he opposeth We shall let him pass with his supposed Victory over these and only take notice of what opposeth the Truth we hold or the Arguments by which it is established I shall only note not insist upon his large Harangue by which in the beginning of this Chapter he chargeth all who are not as Sceptical about Church-Government as himself with prejudice and following custome and education rather than truth and being loth to quit that opinion though false which once they have been engaged in To which I say nothing but let every one search his own Conscience and see what grounds is Perswasion standeth upon I hope the sincerity of many will be able to bear them out before God and the solid Reasons they are able to produce will make them stand before men against such reproaches of this Adversary Neither shall I retaliate this his charity with the Jealousies of many who fear that they who cast Church-Government thus loose that the Magistrate may dispose of it at his Pleasure do fetch the strength of their Arguments and the life of their perswasion from no better Topicks then design to please them who can reward this their pains or to hold fast that which is good as some have spoken of their fat Beneficts what ever side of the World be uppermost to which end this opinion is a notable mean I desire to judge no man the Lord will ere long judge our opinions and motives too but this I am sure of we have no Worldly baits to allure us at this time to plead for the Divine Right of Presbyteral Government and if the Interest of Christ did not more move us than our own we might with much Worldly advantage yield the cause We do not insist on any of Christs acts towards the Apostles in calling them sending them out either first or last as Arguments for the Form of Church-Government knowing that their Office being Extraordinary and Temporal can be no Rule for the ordinary cases of the Church Wherefore I pass over all that he writeth in this Chap. till p. 218. Where he undertaketh to vindicate two places of Scripture from determining Parity or Imparity in the Church The first is Mat. 20. 25. to which is parallel Luk. 22. 25. The Kings of the Gentiles exercise Authority over them and they that exercise authority over them are called Benefactors but ye shall not be so Though I confess there be other places more unquestionable to our purpose yet I see not the weight of what he hath said against this place being brought as an Argument against Imparity His Answer is made up of two First he asserteth and solidly proveth against Papists that it is not the abuse of Power that is here forbidden but that the Power it self spoken of is forbidden as incompetent to Church-Officers his Proofs for this I need not repeat I accept it of him as a Concession Secondly He saith it is only Civil Power that is here forbidden and so it doth not make against Imparity in Church-Officers Reply He keepeth his wonted way here which is to take much pains to prove what is least in debate with the adversaries he dealeth with we do not question but the Power it self not the abuse of it is here
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
proceeding but here the matter is to be established by Witnesses Ergo it is a matter not to be transacted in such a way as this Author would have these private Injuries 5. It is unimaginable that Christ would have us count our Brother a Heathen or a Publican and would have him bound in Heaven for persisting in a fact that either is no sin against God or which is not considered as a sin against God doth the Holy Ghost any where speak so of private injuries considered as such no sure but if private injuries are to be thus noted with censure by God and Men it is under the notion of heinous sins as they offend God and scandalize his people and if so then Scandals are here meant for if such injuries be here spoken of for that which is common to other Scandals and especially private injuries not particularly mentioned but set down under the general name of Sin what a boldness is it to exclude other sins and make these only to be here spoken of Sect. 5. Next I come to consider his Notion about the Church to which these offences must at last be brought for remedy It is saith he no juridical Court but a select company called together by the party offended who by arbitration may compose and end the difference Against this Conceit I bring these Reasons 1. This company is to be called together by the offended party for the Text carrieth the whole managing of the business to be by him and it is very like the stubborn offender will not be active in this now is this a way that our Lord would prescribe for taking away the distemper of a galled mind that his Adversary so the stubborn offender looketh upon the other should chuse the persons before whom he is to be convented and who should judg him this I cannot be induced to believe except I see more proof of it than our Author 's bare saying it is so 2. We must conceive that these three steps of proceeding here prescribed have some notable difference one from another and are remedies of different Vertues and operations applyed to this stubborn Disease Now the first step is secret Admonition the second is Private and Charitable not Judicial the third then must be different from both which I cannot conceive how it is if it be not authoritative In this Authors opinion it is no more but this when two or three Friends cannot accommodate the matter then take a few more having no more but the same power the former two or three had now what great influence can 5 or 6 or 10 have to persuade a stiff offender more than 2 or or 3 using the same motives 't is not to be imagined that the difference can be such as Christ intendeth when he prescribeth this as a remedy of that evil the other could not cure 3. When Christ is here prescribing a cure for offences which may fall out among his people and is so exact in describing all the steps of it and final result thereof we must conceive that his last cure will be such as will effectually root out that evil so as that it do not any more hurt his Church or those who are harmed by it Now if the last mean be only arbitration and no juridical authoritative act this end can never be attained for neither is the stubborn offender gained nor is he taken away that he may not the same way trouble the other party as before What great matter is gained if the wilful party will not hear this advising Church our Author dreameth of he is still a Church-member enjoying the publick fellowship of the people of God for all that these arbitrators can do and suppose some do withdraw private intimacy with them yet we cannot think that all are obliged to it by the authority of private arbitrators declaring him stubborn when all do not know the causes which made them so determine nor the proofs that did convince them of the truth of what was alledged against him It is then evident that this last Remedy of the miscarriage be what it will of a stubborn offender which Christ here prescribeth is an authoritative act and therefore the Church here is no company of private men for arbitration 4. Though we grant that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any company called together yet here it must be of more restricted signification and must needs signify a company called out of the World by the Gospel to worship God and to serve him in the managing of his affairs and institutions which is not applicable to a company of arbitrators called by a man not by the Gospel to agree contending parties which is a work of duty common to all the World and none of the special works of the Church as distinguished from other Societies Now that the word Church must be thus understood and not as Mr. Stilling would have it I prove 2dly It is constantly so used by the Writers of holy Scripture neither can an instance be brought in all the New Testament where any ever put Ecclesia for a company met about any business save that the Town-Clerk of Ephesus used it otherwise Acts 19. 39. and Luke speaking of him in his own dialect useth it as he did ver 40. But when Christ here speaketh of a Church to which he sendeth his offended people by a standing Law for the redress of their grievances we must certainly conceive that he will have them by the Church to understand that which is ordinarily known by that name in the New Testament for how should they know the meaning of an ambiguous word but by the constant Use of it in the Scripture 2. The demonstrative article added in the Greek putteth the matter beyond all question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth a particularly designed Church which they to whom it is said have pointed out unto them not any Church this or that an individuum vagum or such a Church as themselves may particularize or pitch upon it is not a Church but the Church Now a company of Arbitrators chosen ad libitum by the grieved party are not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church particularly as individuum determinatum designed by Christ they are at best but a Church and should be here designed only confusè or vage huic aut illi ecclesiae which the word cannot bear Now if we take it for a Ruling-church or whatever Church in Scripture-sense it is here determined what Church we should bring the matter to viz. that particular Church we live in at least in prima instantia and it is not left to our liberty to chuse what Church of many particulars we will complain unto Or if we take the article here prefixed to denote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of that Church here spoken of and to determine the word to its famosius significatum it hath the same strength of an argument for not a company of private
any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy cited by the Author that unless we understand the word Church as usually it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages 't is not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this that such as so argue would do well to consider how those to whom Christ spake should apprehend his meaning if he spake in a sense they never heard of before We consider that they may easily understand Christs words because he had often before spoken to them of the Gospel-church that was to be set up and even in this very term of a Church as Matth. 16. 19. and frequently under the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven which they might easily apprehend to be meant by the Church Wherefore the Author did not well consider what he said when he supposed this language to be unknown to the Disciples Hence all that he saith of the way of understanding Scripture in the sence of the words then common is not to the purpose for Christ had made this sense common among them Neither must we understand the word as it was then commonly apprehend among the Jews but as it was apprehended among Christs ordinary Hearers who were in expectation of another Church and another way of Government in it to be set up than was then among the Jews I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either against our opinion of this Text or for his own He concludeth p. 228. that this place though it speaks not of Church-government yet it may have some influence on it by way of Analogy viz. in proving 1. Gradual Appeals 2. Church-censures 3. The lawfulness of Excommunication This he yieldeth at least that something of Church-Government may be inferred from this place then ex concessis it is not so impertinent to this purpose as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter Sect. 8. But let us see if we can draw any more out of it than he will yield us We have already proved it to be directly meant of Church-Government and to give Rules for the right managing of it now I assert that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Government viz. That it ought to be by Parity not Episcopacy which I thus make out The first Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought is the Church and it is also the last but if the Church were governed by Bishops this should not be Ergo The Church ought not to be governed by Bishops The Major is clear for after secret and private admonition which are not authoritative immediately succeedeth Tell the Church sure this Church must be that Authority which we must go to prima instantia and also that which must finally decide the matter seeing Excommunication doth immediately so low upon Disobliging this Authority The Minor I prove thus in the Episcopal way the complaint must be brought to the Bishop or to his Delegate or Delegates which is all one as to the matter of Authority and he must be the last that must determine and on disobedience to him followeth Excommunication but the Bishop is not the Church Ergo In the Episcopal way complaints cannot be made to the Church nor doth the Church finally decide the matter The Minor of this last Syllogism is evident for neither the naâ—ure of the word nor Scripture-Use will bear that one Man shall be called the Church If it be said that Episcopacy be so modelled as the Bishop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence and they may well be called the Church Answ. In that case either the Presbyters have a decisive Vote as well as the Bishop or they be only his Advisers In the first case the Bishop is only a Praeses which is not that Episcopacy pleaded against though we judg it inconvenient In the 2d the Bishop is the only Power and therefore there is no such Church as here meant for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority whom the party ought to hear i. e. obey and for contumacy against which he is Excommunicated but the Bishop and his counsel is not such a Church for his counsel hath no Authority and himself cannot make a Church and therefore both taken together make no Church having Authority CHAP. VI. HERE Mr. Stilling doth undertake to lay aside Apostolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government What success he hath in this attempt we now examine His two main scopes in this Chapter are that it cannot be known what the practice of the Apostles was in this and that if it were known it is no binding example to us which desperate assertions do not a little reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the casting loose the Government of the Church The latter of them I have spoken to before and purpose to examine what he saith for it Concerning the former I shall premise but this to our trying of his proofs that it is very strange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written so much of their practice both Historically and implied it in Doctrinal assertions and Precepts if for all this we cannot know what it was which if it do not accuse the Scripture-relation of things of great imperfection I know nothing for I am sure the Scripture doth purposely set down much of their practice both in Preaching administration of Sacraments ordination of Officers directing these Officers in their behaviour in the House of God censures and other parts of Government if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling the account given of these things must be very imperfect I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the History of a Church if out of his History could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church shall we then think that the Sacred Writers who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apostles are so deficient especially many of the writings of the Apostles themselves being added by the same Spirit out of which much may be gathered to this purpose But let us hear how he makes out this his strange opinion I insist not on what he writeth of the Apostles Commission I confess the form of Government is not expressed in it though we have ground to think that when Christ chargeth them to teach his People to observe all he commanded them Matth. 28. 20. that it was his Will that they should not leave so great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will but that his
had commanded to the Jews or such as they without his command did take up The former he doth not alledg that the Apostles followed the Jews in The latter he asserteth and we deny it and shall anon hear what he bringeth for his Assertion But for further clearing this and the whole matter I lay down a fourth consideration viz. to make it out that the Apostles did imitate the Jews there are two things required 1. To shew the co-incidency of their practice 2. To shew that this co-incidency did proceed from a design of conformity viz. that the Apostles were determined in such things by the Jewish Example for the former without the other is no imitation because in imitation the former practice must have some influence on that which followeth such as the exemplary cause hath on the exemplatum Now if the Apostles did in some of these the same things with the Jewish Church only accidentally or upon other motives and did not as Mr. Stilling phraseth it copy out the Jewish way of Government 't is no imitating of them Sect. 4. From what hath been said it will be easie to maintain against Mr. Stilling large Discourse that the Apostles did not in the Government of the Church imitate the Jewish Synagogue as their Pattern I shall touch such things in his Discourse as seem to prove it And 1. I take notice of that which was occasionally touched before p. 240 viz. That Christ delighted to take up the received practices among the Jews as the Postcoenium he turned to the Lords Supper Baptism of Proselytes imitated to Christian Baptism casting out of the Synagogue to Excommunication And this he saith he did with Rites not which were originally founded on Moses's Law but which were brought in by a confederate Discipline among themselves This saith he hath been abundantly manifested by many learned men of which he cited some in his Margin I confess many learned Men especially such as have spent their pains in Critical Learning have done but bad service to Christ and his institutions while to serve their Phoenomena and make their critical Conjectures the more plausible they have made Mens devices like Maezentius his bed to curtail or stretch out Christs Institutions by them at their pleasure But the Authority of such Men though never so learned shall not perswade me what their Reasons may do I say not till I hear and consider them to think that Christ had such delight in Mens inventions in the Worship of God as to make them the Pattern of his Gospel-institutions and that rather than the Ceremonies which of old were of divine Authority shall we think that he who condemneth Mens Doctrines in Gods Worship as vain Mal. 15. 9. and especially in that Chapter condemneth a Ceremony brought in by confederate Discipline which in it self was as harmless as any of these mentioned viz. often Washing shall we think I say that he had such pleasure in these things sure he cannot be so unlike himself Neither I am sure can the Assertors of this Paradox shew any such difference between that Ceremony and these here instanced as that Christ should hate the one and delight in the other For that often alledged that the Pharisees placed much Religion in their often Washings besides that the thing simply not their opinion is condemned in the place cited it cannot be made out that they placed more Religion in this than they did in their Postcoenium washing of Proselytes c. For further Answer to this Assertion of our Authors I add that supposing Christ did make his Institutions to consist of some material acts like to these of the Jewish uncommanded observations for this is the furthest that the Authors consideration can pretend to prove it doth not follow that he approved of these inventions neither that we may mould the affairs of the Church by our Reason and skill without Scripture and that for these Reasons 1. From Christs Wisdom 2. From his Authority which did warrant him to do such things and doth not make it lawful for the Church now to do them 1. I say from his Wisdom he is an able and competent Judg of what is suted to Gospel-worship and what not and therefore of these unwarranted Observations in Use among the Jews he could chuse what was fittest for his designs the things being indifferent in themselves and appoint them in his Church we cannot so well judg of the fitness of a thing to his design in the Gospel-model of affairs and therefore must not take such liberty in doing what Man hath done without a special institution of Christ. Moreover he knew well how in the depth of his Wisdom to make such a choice in his institutions serve unto two great ends viz. the gaining of the Jews by making as little diffrrence between the old way to which they were wedded and the new Gospel-way as could be and the adorning of his Gospel-service with most fit and excellent Ceremonies this cannot be pretended for devices of Men in Gods Worship whether found out by themselves or wherein they imitate others 2. For his Authority however these Observations being uncommanded were on that account unlawful to the Jews yet the things materially considered being indifferent and Christ having absolute Authority to institute particulars in his Church he might well chuse these and seal them with his Authority and so make them both lawful and duty to us this no Man can do they must have his Command for Institution and not make them by their own authority Wherefore Christ taking the Jewish Customs for Patterns to his Institutions if he did so maketh nothing for Men's setting up their institutions in the Church or for the indifferency of things belonging peculiarly to the Church Sect. 5. That which he saith ibid maketh little to his purpose viz. That even when God did determine the positives of Worship he left the Morals to the wisdom and discretion of his People which he instanceth in building and ruling Synagogues Ans. this is true of such things as are of common concernment to Religion and other Actions we also allow such parts of Church-Government to be managed by Christian Prudence his instance proveth no more for we permit also the building of Churches to prudence But the question is about things proper to the Church as it is a Religious Society these things we deny to have been left to prudence among the Jews or to be now so left among Christians I cannot yield to what he seemeth to aim at when he saith that though the reason of erecting Synagogues was builded on a command viz. Of having holy Convocations yet they were not built for a long time after they came to the Land I cannot think that the building of Synagogues was indifferent though the place and manner was for the same command that requireth holy Convocations requireth that there be a place fit for them If they were at first long of building it was either
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
better gifted for that they served Tables but this is to jumble together what the Lord hath made an ordinary separation of 5. This Opinion maketh the different work that Church-Officers are employed in not to proceed from distinct Office or Power but from different gifts which would bring a Babel of confusion into the Church For 1. As Men think they are gifted so will they take up their Work and so most will readily incline to the easiest work and think their gift lieth that way to the great neglect of the difficult and main business and because Ruling is sweet to an ambitious mind and laborious preaching is painful we shall have abundance of Rulers but few Teachers 2. By the same reason one may neglect all the parts of his work that he may neglect one pretending that his gift is not for this nor for that and that they may be done by others If it must be said the Church must appoint them their work and not leave it to their choice Answ. If the Church appoint Timothy's work to be to Rule and exempt him from preaching ordinarily I see not how he differeth from the Ruling-Elders which this Author disputeth against notwithstanding his supposed power to Preach which to him is an idle Talent I mean if this be done warrantably otherwise it is not done especially if the Church give him no more power than Christ hath given to every Pastor that is to Rule over the flock with the equal concurrence of his fellow-Presbyters not to rule over Presbyters by himself singly for that they cannot give him this Power I have before proved 6. If the Elders that preach because of the greatness of their work and sufferings have more honour than they who only Rule then the Bishop being of this last sort must be inferiour in honour to those other Presbyters especially this must hold in the opinion of this Author who holdeth That Bishop and Presbyter differ not jure divino but this I suppose will not well please his Lordship and indeed is very unsuitable to the dignity of one who Ruleth over others sure the dignity of Church-Officers is to be reckoned by the dignity of their place where it is different as it is by the discharge of their work where their place is the same Sect. 17. To strengthen this his Conceit he brings a testimony out of Chrysost. affirming that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were inferiour to them who preaching the Gospel travelled abroad into divers places Answ. This is not at all to the purpose for they who so travelled abroad were Evangelists no fixed Officers but of the former the Apostle doth not at all speak here It rather appeareth saith the Author Asser. 1. Gover. Ch. Scotl. that Elders were ordained in every City there to abide with their particular charges Acts 14. 23. Tit. 1. 5. He argueth also thus against Ruling-Elders These Elders are not the Bishops Paul speaketh of 1 Tim. 3. For these must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 2. l. Answ. The Author now cited answereth this Argument brought by Dr. Field and citeth Beza answering to Sarav who had used it Passing his first Answer I make use of the 2d which is Beza's That the Ruling-Elder though he ought not to Teach publickly as a Pastor yet he ought to Teach privately and occasionally according as the need of every one requireth it is his part to oversee the manners of the people and to bring miscarriages to the Church to be censur'd but first he is to labour to reclaim the Offender by private admonition according to Christ's Rule Matth. 18. 15 16 17. and that not only ex charitate as every Christian ought to do but virtute Officii and authoritatively and for this cause he ought to be a Man of Understanding above the common sort both able and willing to Teach so the word beareth so far as his place requireth Again he argueth from Act. 20. 28. All the Elders of Ephesus had a Pastoral charge for they are bid take heed to the Flock as Overseers but this is inconsistent with the Notion of a Lay-Elder Ergo there were none such at Ephesus Answ. The Major is false they had a charge and oversight but every oversight is not Pastoral Ruling also falleth under this Notion which is the Office of the Elder we plead for He confesseth p. 338. the weakness of that argument from Maintenance which he saith brought Blondel quite off from Ruling-Elders in that place of 1 Tim. 5 17. It is true Blondel de jur Pleb in Reg. Eccl. p. 77 c. alledgeth That these Elders are not there meant because Maintenance implied in double Honour as is clear from ver 18. compared is due to these but not to Ruling-Elders Yet the Argument with all the enforcements of that learned Author will not prove what he designeth For 1. Some famous Interpreters understand this double Honour only of a degree of Honour beyond these spoken of before viz. Widows so Calv. in loc 2. How shall it be proved that Maintenance is not due to Ruling-Elders or the seniores plebis as Blondel calleth them His arguments taken from the difuse of it will not conclude this neither what he saith of the want of Power in any to remit it for where it cannot be had for them necessity excuseth the withholding of it where it cannot be had let the Inhauncers of Church-Rents answer for it if such necessaries be not supplied to the Church neither do I blame him for blaming p. 83. these Protestant Nations who have cast out Abbacies which abounded in Riches have rather taken the Revenues into the State-Treasury than allowed it for such good Uses as this I add for further answer out of Asser. Gover. Ch. Scotl. p. 105. That a stipend though due is not essential to the Office either of Elders or Ministers and therefore the want of the one can be no argument against the other But neither is Blondel against the Office of Ruling-Elders though he deny them to be spoken of in 1 Tim. 5. 17. but disputeth strongly for it yea and groundeth it on the Apostles practice p. 85 which is an evidence of Divine Right The next thing Mr. Stilling saith against Ruling-Elders is That if we remove from the Scripture to the Primitive Church we shall find the greatest difficulty to trace the footsteps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of Authority for the first 3 Centuries especially Answ. 1. We look on the Scripture as a surer Word of Prophecy and therefore are unwilling to pass from it to that which Mr. Stilling hath above proved to be utterly so insufficient to determine in matters of Church-Government 2. Others are of another mind that this Author Blondel de jur pleb in Reg. Eccl. p. 85. aliis igitur saith he firmamentis iis nimirum qui nobis Apostolorum primamque per trium saeculorum