thus moral and assert them to be left at liberty he doth at one blow cut of all the institutions of Christ and will have the Gospel-Church so perfect as to be under no law of God but the moral Law and what Laws men please to add unto it This I hope he will retract when he considereth what he hath here asserted For I perceive that even learned men can say sometimes they know not what § 7. His second reason p. 180. is this The Form of government among the Jews in the Tribe of Levy was agreeable to the form of Government among the other Tribes and their Ecclesiastical Government was one of their Judicial Laws Wherefore if in this we compare Christ with Moses we must hold it needful that he prescribe also a form of Civil Government Ans 1. When we compare Christ with Moses we have very good cause to make an exception where the Scripture hath evidently made it We compare them then as two Mediators entrusted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation among which are Church Administrations Hence there is Warrant for stretching that comparison made of them in Scripture to their faithfulness in appointing Church Government but as to Civil Government the Scripture maketh a plain exception when it evidently holdeth forth Moses a State Law-giver as well as a Church Law-giver and it doth as evidently testifie that Christ was not such when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World Joh. 18.36 And that he is a Judge and divider of inheritance among men Luk. 12.14 and his mean condition in the World unlike to Moses maketh this farther appear Wherefore there is no necessity of comparing them in Civil though we compare them in Church-Administrations The Lord was pleased to make the Government of Israel in respect of Church and State both to be Theocratia to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from himself That seeing he hath under the Gospel done otherwise as to State-Government he hath also done otherwise as to Church-Government what a mad kind of consequence is this And there is evident reason of this differing Dispensation under the Law and under the Gospel I suppose if the difference of cases that arise from variety of Circumstances did permit it were the happiest case for God's People to have all their actions and concernments particularly determined by the Lord who is wiser then men now the Lord doth thus with them so far as it hinders not their happiness by a load of multiplicity of Laws Wherefore seeing the Church and State of the Jews were commensurable being in one Nation it was as easie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws But it is far otherwise under the Gospel where the Church is spread over so many different Nations of divers dispositions and manners to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all these Nations which must be superadded To the Determinations of Natures Law would have made the Bible a burthen to men But it is not so in Ecclesiastical matters there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church or Religious Society but supposing what Nature Dictates may without burthening People with many Laws be determined and imposed upon all Hence is it that the Lord saw it for the good of the Jewish Church to give them both Civil and Church-Laws and for the good of the Gospel Church to give them Church-Laws but to leave Civil-Laws to prudence guided by the general Rules of Scripture and Nature Neither do I think as our Author seemeth sometime to think that it was any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God even in the least matters and that which is Christian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in these things when we are bound to the same by the Laws of men I should rather prefer their state to ours thus far but their bondage was to have many things determined and imposed upon them which were naturally indifferent and so free which the Lord hath now left free under the Gospel Answ 2. It is not to the purpose to tell us that the Government of the Tribe of Levy was like that of the other Tribes For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that viz. in this that it was in the hand of the Tribe of Levy and no other Tribe which was a positive Institution of God that it did cognosce of other matters than Civil Government did that it did inflict other censures But let it be never so co-incident with Civil Government yet it was of Gods Institution which is all that is needful to our purpose That the Form of Ecclesiastical Government took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws is a groundless Assertion Yea it is a begging of the Question and also taking away the Distinction of Church and State among the Jews which is not needful here to be insisted upon till some man Answer what Mr. Gillespie in his Aarons-rod hath written to this purpose § 8. His third Reason ib. is the People of the Jews were an entire People when their Church-Government was setled the Gospel Church was but in Forming in Christs and the Apostles times they settled what was for the present need of the Church in her first Constitution as in appointing Officers this will not serve when the Church is grown and spread her coat cut out for her Infancy must not be urg'd on her when grown Answ 1. This doth no way satisfie the comparing of Christ's faithfulness with Moses for Moses gave Laws in the Wilderness not only for that wandring condition but for their setled state in the Land of Canaan Must we then think that Christ took care that the Church in Infancy should have his Laws to be guided by but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men Sure our Lord was as careful to foresee future needs of his People as to provide for present wants 2. The Church in the Apostles days though not so far spread as now yet was so multiplyed and setled as that she was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy Might there not be a Bishop in Ephesus Corinth c. and especially in Galatia a National Church Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now Wherefore if the Apostles provided for present need they behoved either to determine either of these two ex are tuo 3. What is there in our case that maketh another kind of Government needful then what was needful in the Apostles times We have many Congregations which all need their several Officers and must be ruled in common either by all these Officers or by some set above the rest was not this their case too I would fain know where lyeth the difference may be in this there could not then be one Head over all the Churches which now may seeing the powers of the world profess Christ It is true there was
Scripture consequences as well as in points of Truth And though Positives be indifferent it is not needful that Divine Institution be directly declared for their binding seeing it is the Will of God revealed that bindeth us not his Will revealed in such or such terms He were a bad Servant that would do nothing of his Masters Will but what he declareth to him directly and in the Imparative Mood such Servants to God this Author would have us that so we may have the greater latitude to be the Servants of Men taking their Will instead of Divine Institution § 11. His second Argument p. 182. is this All the standing Laws for Church Government in Scripture may be applyed to several forms ergo there is no one Form prescribed For proof of this he reduceth all the Laws about Church Government to these three heads 1. Such as set down the qualification of Officers 2. Such as require a right managing of their Office 3. Such as lay down Rules for the managing their Office On these he insisteth distinctly Before I come to what he saith on these three Heads let me answer generally to the Argument And first by standing Laws I suppose he meaneth such as are expresly set down in the form of Laws and then we deny his consequence for though these do only respect Government in its more general consideration yet that doth not hinder but the species of it may be determined another way viz. by Apostolick practices or consequences drawn from Scripture 2. Though we should grant that all the Laws set down in Scripture are equally applicable to either form yet the one Form viz. Parity may be determined in Scripture thus Parity and Episcopacy do agree in many things suppose then they agree in all that is commanded in Scripture and that Episcopacy be so far warrantable no wonder that they be not discriminated by these Laws but then here comes the differences Parity requireth no more for its establishment but these Scripture Laws and so it holdeth it self within the bounds of Divine Institution but Episcopacy goeth beyond this boundary by setting up a new Officer in the Church which the Scripture knoweth not and so one Form is determined though not by any Law condemning the other expresly yet by the Laws that warrant it and the want of any Law to warrant the other 3. We deny that all the Scripture Laws reducible to these three Heads do relate to either Form in that wherein they differ But let us hear his proofs He beginneth with the first Head p. 183. where I confess that all the qualifications of Persons which he mentioneth may be applied to either Bishop or Presbyter But then 1. This is an Argument that Bishop and Presbyter are one or rather that there is no such distinction by the Will of Christ for sure there are distinct qualifications required the one being to Rule the other to Obey wherefore if the Apostles had thought there might be both Bishops and Presbyters in the Church surely he would have set down the qualities of a Bishop as he is distinguished from a Presbyter as well as he setteth down the qualities of a Presbyter Confirmatur a man may be a well qualified Presbyter acting under a Bishop and yet not qualified to be a Bishop wherefore if the Apostle had thought it lawful to set the one over the other his qualifications of Church Officers are very lame seeing he doth not shew us who among the Presbyters is fittest to be made my Lord Bishop as well as he sheweth who among the People are fit to be Presbyters 2. The Laws concerning qualifications do require in all Presbyters an ability to rule the Church and do suppose them to be rulers of the Church as is clear 1 Tim. 3.4 5. this is not applicable to Episcopacy for in Episcopacy it is not needful that Presbyters be able to rule seeing they have no exercise of that Faculty as God createth nothing in vain so he doth not require any qualifications of men in vain Is it imaginable that if a man be well qualified to Preach c. and yet unfit to rule that the Lord will have that man kept out of the Ministry for that want of a ruling ability seeing he should have no use of that faculty if he had it Ergo these qualifications are not applicable to Episcopacy where the Bishop alone ruleth If it be said that this maketh the sole Jurisdiction of Bishops unlawful not their being Rulers together with the Presbyters Ans If Bishops be set over Presbyters they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity for we speak of Parity or Imparity of Jurisdiction or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren and if so they may rule without their Brethren seeing they may command them and make that power void which Christ hath given his Servants and so the force of what I have said doth return Again if Presbyters under a Bishop have Ruling Power either they may determine without or against his consent or not if so the Bishop is but a President if not the Presbyters are but Cyphers seeing the Bishop may do in the Church what he pleaseth Sect. 12. He cometh p. 184. to the Laws concerning a right managing of their work which I do not deny to be applicable to either form and no wonder for faithfulness is a commanded duty in what ever station God putteth a man But our Author taketh occasion here to infer the indifferency of either form 1. Because Paul did not determine in his Epistles to Tim. and Tit. which chiefly concern Church-Government whether any should succeed to Timothy and Tit. in Ephesus and Creet Ans It is a bad consequence for the thing did determine it self for they were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God being Evangelists therefore they were to have no Successors unless the Lord did so call them Further they were not fixed in these places but for a time they did not live and die there which shewed that there was no need of Successors to them in that Office Again he argueth that the Apostle did not determine how the Pastors of several Churches should order things of common concernment which considered with the former would seem a strange omission were either of these forms necessary Ans This is no strange omission nor should it so be esteemed by this Author who maketh all that is requisite for the right managing of affairs by the Pastors of several Churches to be of the Law of Nature viz. that they should meet that one should moderate that there should be Appeals c. as I observed out of him before 2. We deny that it is omitted yea this Author in saying otherwise contradicteth himself for he will not deny but there are directions in these Epistles for Church-Government and he affirmeth that they are applicable to either form Ergo to Pastors acting in Parity neither was it needful that there should be
directions to them which are not applicable to Bishops governing because the managing of the work is the same in both ways except what Nature maketh necessary to a Society or a single person governing which also it doth teach 3. The matter is determined even in these Epistles viz. 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is not obscurely held forth that Tim. was ordained by a Presbytery which inferreth that Presbyters ought so to be ordained and not by a Bishop alone 4. Though the matter were not determined in these Epistles it is no wonder they being written to particular men but it is determined in other Scriptures viz. where Christ giveth the Keys not to one but to all the Apostles then the only Church Officers and where Paul committeth the care of the Church of Ephesus not to one Bishop but to the Elders in common Act. 20.28 Of this he saith p. 184. it is equally a duty whether we understand by Overseers some acting over others or all joyning in equality But by his leave when the Apostle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of Ephesus for to them he speaketh not to these of other Churches of Asia as he dreameth the Text may be understood upon what ground I know not there is no doubt left whether he maketh it the duty of them all in common or of some one set over the rest And may we not think that this Command is a standing Rule reaching even to us as he himself saith p. 185. of what is contained in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. and if so then all Pastors are Bishops or Overseers not one over the rest by Apostolick Authority He argueth thus p. 185. Tim. is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who might be able also to teach others 2 Tim. 2.2 Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them c. Ans 1. Yea he doth here commit power of Preaching and of governing joyntly to Timothy to be transferred by him to others for of both these I suppose Tim. had heard from Paul why then must we here understand the one rather then the other in that he mentioneth Teaching not Ruling it is because Teaching is the main business and hath the other power necessarily joined with it by divine Institution 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power where ever the power of a Minister is mentioned and here it cannot be deemed needful because the Apostle had formerly instructed Tim. that he choose none to be Pastors but they who are able to Rule too whence it followeth that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pastoral charge he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it else to what purpose should he require ability to Rule in them To the same purpose is what he saith of Tit. That he bid him ordain Elders but told not what Power did belong to them a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture is in concludent such as this is From the Superiority of Tim. and Tit. I pass his clearing of it from being an Argument for Episcopacy be inferreth two things p. 186.187 First that the Superiority of some Church Officers he should have said Presbyters for of Officers it is not Questioned on either hand over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel 2. That it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the Church in Apostolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation These saith he follow though their Office be supposed extroardinary and that they acted as Evangelists Ans It will follow indeed from these examples that Superiority is not contrary to Nature nor to the Nature of a Gospel Church Also it will follow that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that the Lord should immediately when he seeth cause appoint such Superiority and what if we say it followeth that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that in some extraordinary cases that Superiority may be allowed for a time But none of these are the thing in Question for this doth not follow that because the Lord did immediately call these men and gave them Extroardinary Power over others therefore he hath not instituted that the ordinary way of Church Government shall be by Pastors acting in Purity which is here disputed His third head of Laws formerly mentioned he toucheth p. 188. and bringeth instances of some General rules for Church Government which I confess are not peculiar to one form But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are such which himself instanceth as that complaints be made to the Church it is an odd exposition to say i. e. Tell the Bishop The Church implieth clearly a Plurality p. 187. had it been the will of Christ saith he that there should be no Superiority of Pastors there would have been some express and direct prohibition of it Ans 1. Might not a prohibition by Consequence serve turn This is very peremptorily spoken 2. What needeth any prohibition when Christ had instituted a way inconsistent with it this was a prohibition of it now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters as hath been already shewed Sect. 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Opposites p. 189. Viz. That it is of equal necessity that Christ should Institute a certain Form as that any other Legislator that moderates a Commonwealth should do His first Ans To this is that Christ hath instituted such an immutable Government in his Church as is sufcient for the succession and continuance of it which is all that founders of Republicks looked after viz. That there be such an order and distinction of Persons and subordination that a Society may be preserved among them Till then it be proved that one form is necessary for the being of a Church this Argument can prove nothing Reply it is false that Legislators looked after no more but that we find none of them who setled not a particular Form yeâ— this was necessary for these Generals could not be practised but in some particular Form this or that and of these we find they choosed what they thought fittest even so Christ not only appointed Generals but knowing a particular Form is only practicable he chose that which he thought fittest mans choise in this is alterable because other men may have as much wisdom and authority as they Christs choise is not so for the contrary reasons His second Ans p. 190. Is what is not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church is in Christs liberty whether he will determine it or not even as when I hear that Lycurgus and others did form a Republick I conclude there must be Government But not that they Institute Monarchy c. this must be known by taking a view of their Laws Reply we acknowledge that Form of Government to be in Christs liberty whether he will determine it or not
is That the places of Scripture most in controversie about the form of Government may be without any incongruity understood of either of the different Forms which he maketh out by going through the several places The first is Acts 11.30 where it is said That the relief for the Brethren of Judea was sent to the Elders There is nothing here saith he to shew whether there were the local Elders of Jerusalem or the Bishops of the several Churches of Judea Answ I wonder why he should have brought this as the first or as one of these few Scriptures that he undertaketh to answer for the most part of the most pungent Scriptures against his design he doth not so much as mention for I think it is very little insisted on by either party nor can I remember that I have met with it as brought to prove either Parity or imparity Yet I do not doubt but at least some probability may be hence brought that the Apostolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders for which I lay down briefly these grounds First The Elders here spoken of are the Governors of the Church this he doth not deny 2dly They were the Governors of the Church of Jerusalem This he saith is not sure for they might be the Bishops of the Churches of Judea But against this I argue 1. It is not enough to say they might be but what ground is there to think that they were the Bishops of Judea we bring probable grounds for what we assert but what can be said for the contrary It is a bold way of expounding Scriture to say such a sense it may have when there is no ground to think that it hath such a sense but some ground to the contrary 2. However the Relief ought to be sent to all the Churches of Judea yet it is delivered at Jerusalem to be sent abroad for it is delivered to these Elders by Barnabas and Paul whom it is not like they sent through the several Churches of Judea 't is spoken of as one single act of theirs delivering the others to a company of Elders met together Now it is not imaginable that all the Bishops of Judea were met together on this occasion for what needed such a Convention for receiving Alms Yea we have no ground to think that it was so natural to them before-hand as that they could meet about it Neither hath that conceit of some any probability that these Bishops did reside at Jerusalem such Men did not begin so soon to slight their particular Charge but of this after These Elders then were the Elders of Jerusalem 3. We find a company of Elders ordinarily at Jerusalem not only Acts 15.6 Which might be upon the solemn occasion of the Council but Act. 21.18 That these were the Elders of Judea come up with their flocks to keep the Feast of Pentecost as Mr. Still guesseth is a most irrational conceit for though many of the Jews were zealous of the Law shall we think that the Apostles had set Teachers over them who were no better instructed in the Gospel than so And besides these believing Jews ver 20 who are said to be zealous of the Law can neither be proved to have been then present at Jerusalem for they might hear of Paul's condescendency to their Customs though they were not there neither that they were those of the Country of Judea they might be of Jerusalem it self but I incline rather to the first Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of Judea met in one place these were then the Elders of Jerusalem 4. It is then observed both by the ordinary gloss and by Lyra in loc That this famine was mainly like to be in Jerusalem the Believers there being spoiled of their movable goods in the persecution about Stephen and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them Ergo they are the Elders of Jerusalem which here received it Now from these grounds it easily followeth what we intend viz. If there was a company of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at Jerusalem then this Church of the rest there is the same reason was not governed by a Bishop but by Presbyters acting in Parity It is strange if the Elders of the Church should be spoken of and no notice taken of My Lord Bishop if there were any such person in such a matter Sect. 13. The 2d place is Act. 14.23 when they had ordained them Elders in every Church to which he joineth the 3d Tit. 1.5 that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City Of which places he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie no more but Ecclesiatim and oppidatim so that the places may well be understood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City or of more but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them But granting all that he alledgeth a strong Argument for our purpose may be brought from these places thus there was at least in every Church one Elder in the Apostles times and such an Elder as was also a Bishop and had governing Power over the Church as appeareth by comparing vers 7. of Tit. 2. with this vers 5. But there could not be in every Church a Diocesan Bishop ruling over Presbyters for one of these are over many Churches Ergo. The Church was then governed by the Elders of the several Churches acting in Parity for if every Church had its Elder or Elders and these all were Rulers then the Rule was not in the hand of one Superiour over many Churches Nothing can be questioned in this Argument except it be said that every Church here is not every congregational but Diocesan Church But this can in no wise be for there was a necessity of an Elder or Elders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples Instruction if these then did rule the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches The next place is Act 20.17 And from Miletus Paul sent and called the Elders of the Church These say we were Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom in common Paul committeth the ruling of the Church vers 28. not to one Bishop over the rest so that Church was governed by Parity of Elders To this place he answereth by shewing some Probabilities for both meanings viz. That these were the Elders of Ephesus and that they were the Bishops of Asia but taketh no pains to Answer what is said on either hand only concludeth that because there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either which is most detestable Scepticism for if there be Arguments for both parts sure both cannot be true seeing they are contradictory neither can both be false for the same reason for contradictoriarum altera semper est vera altera semper est falsa then it was his part either to shew that neither of the arguments prove any thing by answering to them or to hold to
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 neceility 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 had this Bishop as hath been shewn before could be nothing above a Presbyter none of those cross our design for the third viz. a Bishop set over Presbyters first Epiphanius doth not say it was so appointed by the Apostles but it was done it is like he meaneth by succeeding Ages 2. He doth not say that this Bishop was set over Presbyters with jurisdiction he might be meerly a praeses so there is nothing here to prove that the Apostles ever setled any thing contrary to Parity of Presbyters The Testimony out of Clem. Alexan. even with Salmasius his commentary proveth no more but that in some places were more Presbyters in some fewer in some but one His last Testimony saith nothing at all to the purpose only that the Apostles settled things by degrees not that ever they set up Bishops Sect. 16. The 2d Conclusion that he inferreth p. 332. That in Churches consisting of a multitude of Believers or where there was a probability of a great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a College of Presbyters whose Office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in converting more This we close with and from it and the former Conclusion which make up his whole Argument infer the quite contrary to his design viz. That the Apostles kept a most uniform course so far as necessity did permit in setling the Government of Churches and that they setled the Government in the hands
a time when Government could not be fetled viz. When first a Church was planted and Believers very few But I am sure it was otherwise in many places before the Apostles departed this life 4. Must we say then that the Directions in the Epistles to Tim. and Pet. and elsewhere concerning Church-Administration do not concern us but their force expired with that time I must see stronger Arguments than any that this Author hath brought ere I be perswaded of this and yet it doth clearly follow out of what he he saith Yea we must say that these Scriptures which tell us what Officers should be in the Church as Eph. 4.12 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. do not reach us but it is lawful for the Magistrate in this mans opinion to appoint what Church-Officers he thinketh fit for this time as the Apostles did for their time For he saith p. 181. the Apostles looked at the present state of the Church in appointing Officers This I hope sober men will not readily yield to Yea he is against himself as we have seen before and may have occasion further to shew afterward § 9. His fourth and last Reason is p. 181. the Jews lived under one civil Government according to which the Church Government was framed and contempered but Christians live under different civil Governments therefore if we compare Christ with Moses in this we must say that Christ did frame the Church Government according to the Civil and so it must not be one but divers Ans It is here boldly supposed but not proved that the form of the Jewish Church Government was framed according to the Civil which we deny and so raze the foundation of this Reason And whereas his assertion wants proof our denial shall stand on surer ground for the Civil Government among the Jews was often changed they had Judges Kings Governors under their Conquerors but we read not of changing their Church Government which behoved to have been had it been framed according to the Civil Wherefore neither must Christian Church Government be formed by the Civil but by Christs Institution § 10. To these answers to our Argument he addeth e◠abundanti as he speaketh some Arguments to prove the Antithesis viz. that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government He might have spared this his supererrogation except he had had more to say for taking off the strength of our Argument then we have met with But to his Arguments the first p. 181 and 182. he frameth thus what binds the Church as an Institution of Christ must bind as a◠Universal standing Law one Form of Government cannot so bind ergo prob min. what binds as a Law must either be expressed as a Law in direct terms or deduced by necessary consequence as of an universal binding nature The first cannot be produced The second is not sufficient except the consequence be necessary and also the obligation of what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture for consequences cannot make Institution but apply it to particular cases because positives being indifferent Divine Institution must be directly brought for their binding so that no consequence can bind us to them without express declaration that it shall so bind This is no new Argument it is proposed by him p. 12. and answered by us p. to what is said there I shall add a little applyed to his Argument as here framed his major is not so evident but that it needeth a distinction to clear it What bindeth as Christs Institution must bind as an universal Law i. e. in all times and places negatur for there are cases in which the Lord will admit and necessity will impose a dispensation with some of God's Institutions as I exemplified before in the case of Hezekiah keeping the Passeover i. e. in all times where God or Nature doth not make a clear exception or where the present case doth not exempt it self from the intent of that as being given in a far different condition conceditur Hence there were some of Christs Laws for the Church temporal some peculiar to some cafes these do not bind us all the rest do where they are possibly practicable That the Laws for parity of Offices in the Church are of the latter sort we maintain For his Miner we deny it and for the disjunctive proof of it we are ready to maintain both the parts which he impugneth And First That there is express Law of Christ for parity which I wonder he should so barely deny that it can be produced when he knoweth or might know that it is brought by our Writers out of Mat. 20.25 26. Lu. 22.25 26. But what he hath to say against the evidence brought from these and other places we shall examine when we come at them 2. Though there were no express Law for it we maintain that there is abundant evidence drawn by consequence from Scripture to shew that this is the Will and Law of Christ as for these two conditions that he requireth in such a consequence the first we own and maintain that it is inferred by clear consequence from Scripture that there ought to be a parity among Ministers thus what was the practice of the Apostles in framing Church Government should be ours also except the case be different but the Apostles did settle the Ministers in equal power without a Bishop over them neither is there any difference in our case that should cause us to do otherwise ergo we ought so to practice It is not needful to insist here on the confirmation of this Argument seeing we are here only asserting that this conclusion may be proved not undertaking the proof of it which is fully done by Presbyterian Writers and which we are ready to defend against what this Author will object For the second condition viz. that what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture as binding this is unlike Mr. Stillingfleet's ability to require such a ridiculous condition for if it be expresly set down in Scripture as binding then it is not a consequence but an express Law and so belongs to the former part of his disjunction And besides it is a hard task to put any one upon to find out a consequence so deduced in Scripture What if Anabaptist◠who deny consequences from Scripture in the point of Institution should put Mr. Stillingfleet to prove Infant Baptism by such a consequence a◠this where something is said in Scripture from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow and where it is expresly said in Scripture that it doth follow from this that Infants must be baptized he would find this an hard task and yet he requireth the same of us What he saith for the warranting of this strange Doctrine wanteth force It is true Consequences cannot make an Institution yet they may declare an Institution we may gather the Will of Christ in matters of Institutions by
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 his 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 Benefices 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 no Civil Power seeing then they contended about Eccl siastical 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 confidence deny this place to speak of Church-Government and nor say something in answer to the many Arguments for establishing a Form of Government which are drawn from it by many Learned men as Gillespy in his Aarons Rod. Rutherford in his Jus Divin Reg. Eccles Beza de Excom Presbyt Cawdry of Church-reformation and other Presbyterians beside many Authors of other judgments What are all their Arguments unworthy to be taken notice of and easily blown away with Mr. Still his bare Assertion for what he saith of the matters of offence spoken of in this place he seemeth to aim at a new opinion but I cannot see wherein it differeth from what the Erastians hold save in its obscurity for when he hath with them made them to be no Scandals nor Sins against God but private injuries against our Neighbours he will not have them to be Civil causes or Law-suits but such differences as respect Persons not things What these can be I cannot understand for what wrong can I do to my Neighbour besides scandalising him by Sin against God for which he may not Sue me at Law if he mean not matters of Money or meum tuum but other injuries against ones Person as beating reproaches slanders c. as I guess
this place is not meant of Private Injuries but in so far as they are Scandals but of scandalous sins I say the context doth prove it because our Lord is there speaking of Scandals it is the very purpose that he is upon ver 1 2. The Text also proveth it for the first remedy to be applyed to this evil is Rebuke which is known to be a more proper remedy for Scandal than private wrong and then the fruit of this remedy Repentance doth relate to Scandals rather than to private wrongs Neither doth it follow that it is private injury because a private person may forgive it for we must understand it of private Scandal not such as is publick and a scandal to the whole Church as Mr. Still supposeth Now when the Offender repenteth upon private Rebuke the Rebuker may forgive him 3 ways 1. By not charging him any more with guiltiness but looking on him as one whom the Lord hath pardoned That this is called forgiveness in Scripture is clear 2 Cor. 2.7 10. where the whole Church is commanded thus to forgive the excommunicated man who had repented 2. By exercising that Christian familiar love toward him which we ought not to exercise towaad them who live in sin 3. By forbearing to bring the matter to any more publick hearing which had not the party repented had been his duty Now this giveth not a power of Excommunicating and releasing to a private person but only a power of the prudent use of our own charity His second Answer is the same only built on another Scripture Matth. 18.20 Where Christ in answer to Peter's Question bids us forgive our brother as oft as he repenteth The answer is also the same for we must forgive a scandalous Brother in the way but now laid down as oft as he repenteth and not bring him to publick Rebuke but in case of obstinacy His 3d. argument is this If this be matter of Scandal that is here spoken of then might a matter of Scandal be brought before the Church when there is no way to decide it there being but one privy to it who is the Accuser he affirmeth and the Offender denyeth Answ 1. Doth not this same inconvenience follow if the matter be a private Injury May there not in that case be no way for the Arbitrators to decide the matter the Offender denying and the injured party affirming and that where himself is the party The Objecter then is as much obliged to answer this argument as we are But 2dly This inconvenience is easily avoided thus if the grieved person be the only witness of the fact and the offender deny the fact it ought not to come before the Church neither is this injunction to be understood of such cases but where either the fact is known to more than one for even so it may be a private and no publick offence or where the Offender doth not deny the fact but denyeth that it is wrong in that case first two or three then the whole Church must endeavour to convince him It is a bad consequence some works of darkness for want of witness cannot be decided by the Church Ergo We are not commanded to bring scandals before the Church That which he addeth p. 223. That Christ here speaketh as to an ordinary case and in allusion to what was then in Use among the Jews which was to reprove one another commanded Lev. 19.17 and for neglect of which Jerusalem was thought to be destroyed by R. Chamna This I say is nothing to the purpose for I suppose these Reproofs Lev. 19.17 and which are mentioned by that Rabby were not only for private Injuries but mainly for sin against God wherefore this consideration maketh not a little against the design for which it was brought P. 224. He will not have the Church here spoken of to be the Christian Church because saith he Christ is speaking to a present case and layeth down a present Remedy Now if he lay down Rules for governing his Church this could not be because there were yet no Ecclesiastical Courts for them to apeal to if then the case had presently fallen out they were left without a redress having no Church to tell it unto Ans It cannot be proved that Christ here layeth down Rules for a case presently practicable more than he doth when he impowereth his Apostles and chargeth them concerning their work Matth. 16.19 John 20.23 Mal. 28.19 and yet will have them to delay a while before they should put all that power in act Luke 24.49 And indeed we have far better cause to think that he is telling his people what to do in the after and ordinary times of his Church than what they should do in that present and extraordinary case when the Church was not yet framed and when they had himself personably to go to for direction 2dly However we maintain that this Rule as it serveth for our time so might it serve for that time in which it was spoken for if the case had then fallen out though there were not the ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts to go to that now ought to be yet there wanted not a visible Church-power residing in the person of Christ and after in the Apostles to whom did succeed the ordinary Judicatures so that the offended party wanted never a Church to make his complaint unto I do not say that Tell the Church doth directly signifie any other to which the complaint was to be made but the ordinary guides of the Church for our Lord accommodateth his terms he useth to the ordinary cases in which this Law was to take place but by Analogie it is applicable to any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy cited by the Author that unless we understand the word Church as usually it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages 't is not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this that such as so argue would do well to consider how those to whom Christ spake should apprehend his meaning if he spake in a sense they never heard of before We confider that they may easily understand Christs words because he had often before spoken to them of the Gospel-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 apprehended 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 follow 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 nature 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 teath 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 Institution should be observed in this especially seeing he spent 40 days with them before his Ascension Acts 1.3 speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God that is the Gospel-Church it is hard to think that among all his Instructions to them then he told them nothing of his Will about the way of governing his Church Neither do I take notice of his large Discourse about the Division of Provinces among the Apostles nor of his too true observation that looking on ancient practice through the Glass of our own customs hath bred many mistakes only I wonder at his bringing that for an instance that Lay-Elders are proved from the name Presbyters I believe there was never any that used such an Argument seeing the name is common to them and Preaching-Elders He will find stronger arguments than this for that Order of Church-Officers if he please to read the Assertors of it Sect. 2. For clearing what was Apostolical Practice he layeth down this as a foundation p. 239 c. That the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the custom of the Jewish Synagogue About this Notion he spendeth a huge deal of pains as if the strength of his cause lay here but to what purpose it is except to shew his reading and skill in Antiquity I know not Doth it
follow the Apostles imitated the Jews in the matter of Church-Government Ergo we are not obliged to imitate the Apostles I should think that the contrary consequence might rather be inferred but whatever be of that this we are sure of that whether there was any coincidency or similitude between the Apostolical and the Jewish way or not Whether the Apostles in what they did had an eye at the Jewish Example or not they were acted by an infallible Spirit which did both guide them unerringly and warrant them unquestionably to do what they did in the management of Church-Government so that it is not the occasion of their taking such or such a way that we are to look to but the morality of it that should determine us to follow it because we know it is the will of Christ Wherefore I might pass without any more notice all that he writeth in many sheets of the modelling the Government of the Church by that of the Synagogue Yet for further clearing the matter I shall lay down a few Considerations Sect. 3. First I take notice how inconsistent this Author is with himself in this Point for p. 322. he asserteth That the Apostles did not observe in probability one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with I hope he will not deny but the Jewish way of Government was one and the same every where How then did the Apostles imitate that if they were so various in their setling of Government sure if they did not stick to one form they did not stick to the Jewish form But I perceive he would fain say any thing that might cast Church-Government at an uncertainty however the ways he taketh to this end do clash one with another 2. All this pains he taketh tendeth either to prove nothing or to prove that which himself will not own for suppose that he had evinced that the Apostles did imitate the Jews in their Church-administrations if any thing follow it must be this that these things which were done by the Apostles on such an account are not now binding but are indifferent and determinable by men and that as the Apostles had their liberty in imitating the Jews or not so we have our liberty in imitating the Apostles or not in them Now this I am sure he dare not own in most of these things which he maketh to have been taken up from the Jewish customs for he speaketh p. 240. of Christs taking many Rites of the Lords Supper from the postcoenium among the Jews and the Use of Baptism from the Baptisms used in initiating Proselytes and Excommunication from their putting out of the Synagogue and afterward he maketh building of Churches to be taken from the Synagogues publick reading of the Scripture and Pastors from the Archisynagogi Ordination from that used among the Jews Will then Mr. Stilling say that all these are now indifferent That Baptism Excommunication Pastors nay Ordination are no Institutions of Christ and that as the Apostles took them from the Jews ad placitum so we may take them from the Apostles or leave them as we list Sure he will not say it and if he saith not this he saith nothing but magno conatu nihil agit parturiunt montes nascetur ridiculus mus 3. It is needful to distinguish the things that the Apostles did by imitation take from the Jews by confounding of which Mr. Stilling hath mired himself and his Reader too There are 1. somethings that are the dictates of Nature and Reason as that publick assembling be ordinarily in some one convenient place that in a Society there be Rulers and Ruled that where many Rule they meet together for that end that in their meeting one preside to avoid confusion c. 2. There are other things which be the commandments of God concerning his moral Worship as that Prayers Praises pulick reading of his Word with opening of it that his people may know his Will be performed in the solemn meetings of his people 3. God's ceremonial Worship which consisteth in the observance of Rights sacred or peculiar to Religion without which all that Worship of God might well be performed which is and hath been of moral and perpetual Obligation 4. Such things as receive their usefulness and fitness from custom as Words Habits Gestures c. Now for the first two sorts though there was co-inciding in them between the Jewish and Apostolical way and indeed it could not be otherwise Nature and what is of moral Obligation being the same unto all yet that the Apostles were determined in these by the Jewish Example we deny For the 3d It is clear that the Apostles used no such things with the Jewish Church except a few for a time to avoid Scandal Acts 15.28.29 Yea they are declared unlawful to be used Gal. 4.9 10. and 5.1 2. Col. 2.16 17. which I am elswhere to shew more at length The 4th sort of things we hold to be in themselves indifferent and determinable by the laudable custom of every place Neither do we deny the Apostles to have in many of these imitated the Jewish Church and no wonder because they lived among them Now Church-Government having in it some things of all these sorts it is clear from what hath been said how far we confess the Apostles to have followed the Jews in it and how far not That wherein we are likest to controvert with Mr. Still is about things of the third sort which I must yet distinguish they were either such as the Lord 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
about the Government of Synagogues which he taketh much pains to make appear to be like the Government in the Apostolick Church that he might make us believe that this was taken from that I only observe that the product of all his pains is not operae pretium both because of the uncertainty of the matter of Fact that there were such Officers so employed in the Synagogues as also the far off resemblances that are between them and Officers in the Christian Church as any attentive Reader may observe And so I pass to p. 253. where he sheweth how far the Apostles in forming Christian Churches did follow the Jewish Pattern Sect. 6. I smile indeed to consider how Mr. Still magnifies this his notion and judgeth this birth of his own Brain as that which with his Improvement such as it hath yet received from no other will be more conducible than any he knoweth to the happy end of Composing our differences about Church-Government I hope I have said as much of this notion p. 186. c. as will make it to be of less esteem with unbyassed men I profess I cannot yet understand for all that I have meet with in this Author about it how this Notion should have any such effect for the Question is not what pattern the Apostles followed so much as whether what they did was the Institution of Christ and whether we ought to follow them as our pattern and to the determining of this I see very little or no Use of this notion which he so much crieth up But to make it get entertainment he taketh much pains First he promiseth some general considerations to make it probable and sheweth next how the Apostles did imitate the Synagogue in 4 particulars Let us hear what probability it getteth from his Considerations The 1 is That Christ and his Disciples and Christians afterward went under the name of Jews that they kept Communion with the Jews and observed their Customes not only which were commanded of God but which they had taken up themselves if they were not contrary to Gods commands Here are 3 or 4 considerations jumbled together some of which are false others true but prove not the Point I shall answer them more distinctly than he hath set them down And first for the name it is no wonder they were called Jews for they were so by nation if at any time they owned themselves as of the Jewish Religion that proveth nothing for this they might do because the Jewish Religion as commanded of God was the same in Substance with the Christian see Act. 26.22 It doth not from this follow that there were the same Administrations in the Jewish and Christian-Church And if in after-times the Jews and Christians were both reckoned as one body by the Heathens for which he bringeth some proof p. 255. and 256. yet it doth not follow which he there inferreth viz. That they observed the same Rites and Customes for this mistake of the Heathens did proceed partly from the agreement that was between Jews and Christians as to most great points of Religion partly from the Agreement of their Rites in this that both were very unlike the Heathen Rites Neither did the Heathens understand the difference between Jews and Christians though wise men among them knew that there was a difference this may be gathered from Act. 18.15 and Act. 25.19 20. It doth not follow from this that the Rites were the same 2. For their keeping communion with the Jews this doth far less prove the point and that because 1. the time when they kept Communion with the Jews was when the Jewish Church was yet standing and the Christian not framed nor erected our Author cannot prove that they kept Communion with them after the Christian Churches were set up for their going to the Temple and the Synagogues to Preach proveth nothing For that they did because the People were there met not because they would join in their Service 2. Because it was fit for that time to yield to the Jews so far as was possible that they might be gained to the Gospel hence they observed even some of the legal Ceremonies they being then indifferent but it followeth not that they did settle the ordinance and abiding practices of the Church by the Pattern of the Synagogue Paul's being freely admitted into the Synagogue to Preach proveth no more than we have granted his condescending to them did procure this not his framing Gospel-Churches according to their mould much less is this his design proved by the mistake of the believing Jews about the conversion of the Gentiles and their being zealous for observing the Law of Moses yea and grant that they were zealous for the uncommanded Customes of their Father as he alledgeth For this proceeded from their being bred up in these things and their Ignorance of the mind of God in abolishing them and in calling of the Gentiles and the Apostle's yielding to the Jews as far as might be for a time was because he had not yet shewed the difference between the Gospel and Jewish Church because they could not then bear it but with what shaddow of consequence doth it follow from this that the Apostles did afterwards frame the Christian Church after the model of the Jewish For the 3d. it is a bold and most false assertion that Christ and his Disciples conformed to the uncommanded Customes of the Jews yea they are accused for Non-conformity in this point Matth. 15.2 And Christ defendeth them in it and meerly on this Account that these customs were the traditions of men and humane doctrines which is true of all uncommanded Customes in Religion But how proveth he this Assertion he bringeth Instances Christ observed the Feast of dedication this is Impudently said he walked in Solomons Porch Jo. 10.22 23. that he might have occasion to teach the People but did he offer a Sacrifice or observe any other rite or Custome of the Feast we read no such thing going to their Synagogues and teaching there was no uncommanded Custome Washing the Disciples Feet a custom used by the Jews before the passover saith Mr. Still but others say it was done between the 2 courses of the passover this Christ did and giveth a Mystical reason for it Jo. 13.5 but that he did it in Conformity to the Jewish Custome if any such there was let it be proved appointing Baptism I hope hath a better Foundation than the Jewish Custome but of this before thus what he saith in prosecuting his First consideration is answered neither is it as yet probable that the Apostles imitated the Jewes in framing the gospel-Gospel-Church Sect. 7. His 2d consideration p. 257. is that the Apostles framed Christian Churches out of Jewish Synagogues what solid Proof for this he bringeth let us hear We see saith he how fearful the Apostles were to offend the Jews and how ready to condescend to them in any thing that might be and if Paul would
yield to them in circumcising Tim. a thing which might seem to cross the design of the Gospel would he scruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel Answ The Apostles at first did yield very far to the Jews because they could not at the beginning digest the taking down of the old frame of Worship and setting up a new hence they did conform to the Jews for that time as much as might be in their transient and occasional practices but this reason did no way oblige them to frame their constitutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward by the Jewish Patern because then the Gospel was fully promulgated and the Will of Christ known to the new Gospel-Church differing from the old and in this case we are rather to think that the Apostles did not conform to the Jewish way in things not necessary because as at first their work was to bring them to Christ and so they yielded to them as much as might be so afterwards now their work was tobring them from Moses and to this end it was fit to bring them off all those customes and waies which might keep that their I dol yet in their minds as sure he Jewish customes might do Here is more then a shew of reason which our Author requireth why the Apostle should slight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues and besides it is reason enough why they should do this if it be not proved that they did other wise seeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit not led by mens Customes in their Actions I find no further proof of this consideration but that they did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but that in probability whole Synagogues in some places were converted What ground there is for this probability I know not we read nothing of it as we read of whole Houses converted neither see I any reason to think that the Apostles did respect Synagogues in their reforming Churches they made the Churches of them who had before been in the Synagogues and that I believe they did according to the Peoples best conveniency for partaking of ordinances together but that their Synagogues were their Pattern I see not Another argument from the Jewish and Gentiles Coetus he would fain be helped by but finding it weak disputeth against it wherefore we lay it aside and come to his 3d consideration p. 260. viz. the Synagogue-Model was most agreable to the State of the Churches in Apostolick times because it was so ordered as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government Answer Wherein the Synagogue-Model was in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Gospel we do not say that the Apostles would reject such a good thing because used by the Synagogue only we deny that they used it because the Synagogue used it so this proveth nothing Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Synagogue-Government in this general that both were such as might consist without Secular power but divers particular forms may be of this nature so that there is no need from this consideration that the Church and the Synagogues be governed by the same Model Sect. 8. We see how probable he hath made this his assertion he cometh p. 261. to shew what particular practices of the Synagogue the Apostles did take up and follow and first he speaketh of their publick service in the Church where all that he can attain to is this that there was in the Church as there had been in the Synagogue solemn Prayers Praises reading of Scripture and teaching of the People out of it all which are parts of Moral worship and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by he is forced to acknowledge a considerable difference viz. omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue and celebrating the Lords Supper which was not in it which one consideration destroyeth all that he is at so much pains to establish for if Christ and his Apostles had made the Synagogue their pattern they might easily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper from some of their customes as well as they did Baptism as this Author alledgeth Next he cometh p. 264. to ordination about which he maketh a great deal of do but to no purpose for Ordination i. e. a Solemn setting of men apart for the Office of the Ministry doth naturally follow as necessary to Order supposing that some should be in that Office and the work be not common to all which I believe should have been in the Church whatever had been done in the Synagogue as for the Rite of it laying on of hands whether it was used in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry for it will not thence follow that the Apostles took it from the confederate discipline of the Synagogue i. e. from their men-devised Customes as our Author confidently asserteth but all that he discourseth proveth not this but only if it prove any thing that it was used in the Synagogue I assert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Synagogue and by the Apostles from the ancient custâ—me of blessing or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony of this Judgment is Calv. Inst lib. cap. 4. Sect. hunc autem ritum fluxisse arbitror ab Hebraeorum more qui quod benedictum aut consecratum volebant manuum impositione deo quasi repraesentabant sic Jacob benedicens Ephraim Manasse eorum capitibus manus imposuit quod sequutus est dominus noster cum super infantes precationem faceret eodem ut arbitror significatu Judaei ex legis praescripto suis sacrificiis manus imponebant quare apostoli per manuum impositionem eum se deo offerro significabant quem initiabant in ministerium quanquam usui sit etiam super eos quibus visibilis spiritus gratias conferebant We see then it was not the practice in Synagogue-Ordination only but in many things else and it is most probable that this Rite so constantly used in all Ages of the Church in all cases of blessing or consecration hath something more in it then humane Institution in the Synagogue the constant use of it by men infallibly guided as Abraham the Apostles Christ himself the commanding of it in the like case of consecration under the Law cannot but give it a stamp of divine Authority Yea we find the Levites thus ordained Num. 8.10 wherefore all this his pains doth not prove that Gospel-Ordinance was taken up from the humane custome of the Synagogue A few things in this his discourse I shall further shortly take notice of p. 264 265. he will have Gospel-Ministers not to succceed no not by Analogie to the Priests and Levites but rather to
the Officers in the Synagogues for the Priests were not admitted by Solemn Ordination but judged of their fitness as to birth and body by the same ordination but the Rulers of the Synagogues were admitted by Ordination and if any of the Priests came to that Office they as well as others had their peculiar designation and appointment to it Here I reply 1. I believe that Gospel-Ministers did not properly succeed to either of these but stand upon another foundation viz. Christs Institution and so it is needless to enquire which of them they should succeed to I yield also that the name of Priests under the Gospel hath brought in the thing it self and even the Mass which ought not to be 2. What can he design by this Discourse Would he make the Office of the Ministry stand on no other bottom but imitation of the Synagogues Rulers and these Rulers to be brought in by a confederate Discipline i. e. to be a humane invention If he say not this he saith nothing to the purpose but I hope he will not say it 3. It is false that the Priests were not solemnly set apart for their Office though they had it by birth yet they behoved to be solemnly initiated to it and I am sure Mr. Still would not have said that they were no otherwise set apart but by the judgment of the Sanhedrim of their birth and body if he had not in this so consulted Antiquity as that he forgot to look into the Bible I do not deny but there was such a Judgment to pass on them neither ought Ministers be now admitted without tryal yea the Scripture which is surer than the Talmud telleth us so much Ezr. 2.62 63. Yet we find also their solemn setting apart to the Office described Exod. 28.41 and 29.1 Lev. 8.2 c. And spoken of 2 Chron. 26.18 Yea the very Idol-Priests would not want this solemn setting apart 2 Chron. 13 9. Jud. 17.5 12. Yea our Authors opinion everteth it self for to what purpose was a publick judging of them before their entry on the exercise of their Office if there was no solemn admission of them to it sure a solemn declaring them such as God had appointed his Priests to be if there had been no more they being kept from exercising the Office till this was done was a solemn admission 4. I would know who these others were who were Rulers of the Synagogue and so Teachers of the people at least Superintenders over Gods publick Worship as he elswhere phraseth it beside the Priests if they were only Levites or others also as he seemeth to imply and if any other but Priests and Levites were admitted to that Office I would know quo warranto sure the Scripture speaketh of these as old Testament-Teachers Neh. 8.9 2 Chron. 17.8 9. and of none else but immediately inspired Prophets But I see Mr. Stilling looketh more to Rabinical stories in these matters than to the Bible and to the customs of the Synagogue in the days of the Apostacy than to the commands of God as he gave them though they be rare who are made mad by too much Learning yet there are whom too much reading without holding to the Scripture as the Rule maketh to dote I need not insist on what he writeth p. 268 c. of the Rite of laying on of Hands enough hath been said to shew that it proveth not what he intendeth nor on the persons ordaining in the Synagogue and in the Church of which he pa. 272 c. for in both he confesseth abomination to have been done in common by those in Power and afterward without divine Warrant restrained to one if Christ hath given power to all Presbyters to do it we must have some warrant to restrain this Power ere we dare do it but of this enough before Sect. 9. In his further prosecuting the correspondence of the Apostolick Church with the Synagogue he speaketh p. 285. of the Order setled by the Apostles in the Churches planted by them for ruling of them and first he maketh a work about the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Synagogue but from his own Discourse it 's clear how little weight is to be laid on this consideration as to what he intendeth seeing that name was ever used to denote Power and Dignity whether in Church or State and so doth no more belong to the Synagogue than other things I take notice of what he saith in the end of p. 286. If his design is not to dispute the Arguments of of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in absolute purity or else by Superiority and subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down these principles which may equally concern both in order to accommodation But I humbly conceive it was very incumbent upon him to answer the arguments of both parties and they must be answered to us before we be obliged to receive his Doctrine of which anon that we cannot know what form the Apostles setled and that they setled not any one form For as long as arguments brought by either of the controverting parties do stand untaken away to prove that the Apostles setled this or that form the Judgment can never acquiesce in his opinion that they setled none or that we cannot know what they setled This is a strange way of disputing especially when the design is to satisfie the Conscience in order to peace and yielding up its opinion to lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so
much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290.
the one as true and not to hang between two But I prove that these Elders were the Elders of Ephesus not the Bishops of Asia 1. which Argument he mentioneth but he answereth not the Article in the Greek maketh it clear it being demonstratory doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had mentioned in particular where when it 's said that he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might well be translated of that Church it pointeth out that Church and no other It is an unheard of way of speaking when a particular thing or person is mentioned and the demonstrative Article joined to it that that Speech should be understood of any other but that 2. Paul sent to Ephesus for these Elders not through the several parts of Asia Ergo. They were at Ephesus not in other Churches That he did not send through other places to gather them together is evident both because the Text mentioneth sending to Ephesus not other places and it is strange if he sent through all Asia and mention be only made of sending to one place not to any other also because Paul was then in hast passing by them vers 16. wherefore 't is not like that he could stay for the convening of a Synod of Bishop from many remote parts That which is alledged by some that the Bishops of Asia did reside at Ephesus and thence were sent for by Paul is most absurd for 1. There is not the least shaddow of reason to think that non residence of fixed Officers did so soon creep into the Church Let us see any Instance or Warrant to think that any who had a fixed charge did leave it long or often or at all but upon some weighty and extraordinary emergent 2. What could be their business at Ephesus their work lay elsewhere and there they could do nothing except to meet and consult about matters of common concerment which will not infer ordinary residence there 3. The work of these Elders was particular inspection over their Flocks vers 28. over all the Flock which they could not have if they resided at Ephesus and had their charges lying up and down Asia for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary it is none at all viz. It is said vers 18. That he had been with them at all Seasons but he was not all the time in Ephesus but abroad in Asia as Act. 19.10 22 26. Answ at all Seasons must not be taken in such rigour as if he had never stirr'd a Foot out of Ephesus but that he had his residence and Preached most there which is evident from Act. 19.1 9.10 he disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus this was at Ephesus and it is said that it continued 2 years i. e. for the most part of the time he was there and yet might sometimes Preach elsewhere For the humane Testimonies he bringeth for either part I were then in the same ballance with him and shall be content to lay no stress upon them As for the 1 Tim. 3.1 which is his other place we make no Argument from it but maintain that it speaketh not of a Diocesan Bishop let them who assert the contrary prove it His discourse p. 293. is a very unsavory comparing of some Philosophical Problems which cannot well be determined and therefore we may hesitate about them with points of truth revealed in Scripture as if we might also be Sceptick in these But sure the Comparison is miserably lame for 1. These do not concerne our Faith or duty as these other do and therefore there is much less hazard in Scepticrsm about the one than the other 2. Even in those points the motion of the Earth or Heaven the Flux and Reflux of the Sea there is some truth in them though men through darkness cannot see it neither must we say that nothing there is because there is nothing certain to us in these things or that men may impose on our belief what they please in them hence men are the more studious in searching out these Secrets and give them not over as being destitute of all objective truth But he dealeth worse with the things of Church-Government he will have no objective truth in it and no duty to lye on us in searching out the truth but that we must believe what men say of it For conclusion of what I would say to this ground of his Scepticism about Church-Government I will but mention several Scriptures on which the truth in this is built viz. That the Apostolick form was parity which Mr. Still hath not so much as touched neither need I insist on them seeing Arguments from them are established by our writers and not enervated by him One place is 1 Tim. 4.14 where Tim. is said to be ordained by a Presbytery or company of Elders joyning with Paul in that Action this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power Another is 1 Cor. 5.4 5. where excommunication is transacted by the Authority of a Community not of a single Person and so is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 Cor. 2.8.10 Also 1 Thess 5.12 They who ruled that Church who were over them and must be obeyed were many not one Person yea that work and the work of labouring among the People and admonishing them are made to be the business of the same Persons which is a demonstration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in common and not a Bishop over them Heb. 13.7 17. proveth also the same thing most clearly Other places might be brought but these Instances may shew that Mr. Stilling undertaking to shew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apostolick Church doth not touch the most considerable places commonly brought to that purpose but hath mentioned a few and those which are least insisted on by them whom he opposeth and even to them he hath said nothing to scare any from using them as Arguments afterward His third Argument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apostolical Form of Government taken from the insufficiency of the Testimony of Antiquity is this I pass it because we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture and what he saith proveth no more but that antiquity is not sufficient to bear witness to it also because ali or most that he there discourseth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Episcopacy was the Apostolical form which we willingly yield Sect. 14. I come then to his 2d proposition mentioned before which he layeth down p. 322. Thus That the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but settled it according to the several circumstances of places and Persons which they had to deal with This assertion he layeth down ex abundanti not as a Foundation of his opinion but a doctrine of probability which may tend to
of Presbyters acting in a Society where they could be had and singly where more could not be and that they never setled it in the hand of a Bishop Ruling over Presbyters All this is evident from what hath been said He taketh occasion p. 336 c. to speak against the Office of Ruling-Elders in the Church in which Dispute he toucheth not any except one Scripture of those arguments which are brought by the Defenders of that Office which is but a slight way of disputing against any Opinion It is not needful to our Design to handle this Debate fully till that be answered which is writen by the Author of the Assertion of the Government of the Church of Scotland by the Author of the Treatise of Ruling-Elders and Deacons by the London Ministers in their jus divinum Reg. Eccles and in their Vindication of Pres Gov. by Smect by Calv. Just lib. 4. c. 4. sect 8. and lib. 4. c. 11. sect 6. by Peter Martyr Loc. com clas 4. c. 1. num 11. and many others Wherefore I shall only answer what this Author hath said against the Truth in this Point Whereas among many other Scriptures proving this Office 1 Tim. 5.17 is brought as one there being implied there a distinction of Elders that Rule well and are to be honoured with double Honour into such as labour in the Word and Doctrine and another member of the distinction not expressed which can be none else but Elders who rule and do not labour in the Word and Doctrine i. e. whose Office it is only to Rule not to Teach publickly as Pastors Of this Scripture he pretendeth to bring a full clear and easie understanding viz. That of the Elders that were ordained in great Churches who had power to discharge all Pastoral acts but did not all attend equally the same part of the work some did most attend the Ruling of the Flock already converted others laboured most in converting others by Preaching and that according to their several abilities now these last deserved greater Honour both because their burthen was greater and their sufferings more This is no new though it be a false interpretation for the Author of Asser Govern Ch. of Scotl. p. 48 46. bringeth it as one of Dr. Fields Answers to the same place or rather two of them which by our Author are put together But against this exposition of the Text I thus argue 1. This Gloss supposeth that there were Elders whose Office it was to Teach and to Rule and yet they did ordinarily neglect the one part of this their work and contented themselves with doing the other Is it imaginable that the Lord allows any Honour at all upon such and yet the Text alloweth double Honour even on unpreaching Elders though the Preachers have it more especially This Reason is strongly enforced if we consider that Church Power communicated by Christ to the Officers of his house is not only a Licence or Permission as we noted before but a charge of which they must give an account as it is said of Church-rulers Heb. 13.17 Neither do I see how any who by their Office are Preachers of the Gospel can free themselves of that wherewith the Apostle chargeth himself 1 Cor. 9.16 Necessity is laid upon me yea wo is unto me if I Preach not the Gospel and of that charge laid on Timothy who was as much taken up with ruling as any 2 Tim. 4.2 that he should Preach the word be instant in Season out of Season May men when Christ hath put them in Office and given them a charge choose what part of the work of that Office and Charge they will do and what not But I perceive this Man's principles lead him to subject all Christs Institutions to Mens will to cut and carve of them as they please Christ hath given Pastors a charge that they should Teach and Rule his Church He had pleaded before the Ruling-power may be taken from some and laid on others now he affirmeth the same of Teaching-power this is intolerable boldness 2. We have no better ground for judging of the diversity of Officers in the Church than by considering divers sorts of work which some did ordinarily with the Lord's approbation that others did not but were employed in other work What better Note can we have to know what is a Mans Office than his work which he is ordinarily employed in and that with God's own approbation Wherefore if some Elders Preached others preached not but Ruled we must think that these were distinct Officers and that their Office led them only to do what they did 3. This learned Author should have brought some reason for what he alledgeth viz. That these unpreaching Eledrs who Ruled had power to preach 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shall not persuade us of it neither is there the least shew of warrant for such an Assertion If it be said that they preached sometimes and therefore could not be without Preaching-power Answ It cannot be proved that there were any Officers in the Apostolick Church who had Preaching power or did sometimes Preach and yet were so taken up with Ruling that they did not ordinarily Preach 4. We may with as much yea the same reason say That every Officer in the Church had all Church-power and might occasionally exert it though some according to their gift did ordinarily exert one part others another and that Deacons might preach and do all the work of the Pastors though ordinarily being better gifted for that they served Tables but this is to jumble together what the Lord hath made an ordinary separation of 5. This Opinion maketh the different work that Church-Officers are employed in not to proceed from distinct Office or Power but from different gifts which would bring a Babel of confusion into the Church For 1. As Men think they are gifted so will they take up their Work and so most will readily incline to the easiest work and think their gift lieth that way to the great neglect of the difficult and main business and because Ruling is sweet to an ambitious mind and laborious preaching is painful we shall have abundance of Rulers but few Teachers 2. By the same reason one may neglect all the parts of his work that he may neglect one pretending that his gift is not for this nor for that and that they may be done by others If it must be said the Church must appoint them their work and not leave it to their choice Answ If the Church appoint Timothy's work to be to Rule and exempt him from preaching ordinarily I see not how he differeth from the Ruling-Elders which this Author disputeth against notwithstanding his supposed power to Preach which to him is an idle Talent I mean if this be done warrantably otherwise it is not done especially if the Church give him no more power than Christ hath given to every Pastor that is to Rule over the flock with the equal concurrence of
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 censurd 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 disuse 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 than 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 periodum antiquitatis praxin stravit seniorum plebis Institutio functio ut sic dicam vitae à protestantibus per Gallias Scotiam Belgiam instituta statuminanda est And Asser Grov Ch. Scot. par 1. c. 8 9. Unpregnable and abundant Testimonies out of Antiquity are brought for this Office which seeing Mr. Stilling hath not Answered it is needless to insist on them 3. But and if in many places in the Primitive times this Office was disused it was their fault and taken notice of by the better sort Calv. in 1 Tim. 5.17 speaking of this Office saith Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevisse conqueritur doctorum Ignavia vel potius superbia dum soli volunt eminere See Testimonies for the Antiquity of it Smect sect 15. Sect. 18. His second proof of his second Proposition viz. That the Apostles took diverse courses in Ruling Churches is p. 340. from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the affairs of the Church in chief during their residence such were Apostles and Evangelists In some places saith he these were others not and in some places no Officers but these Answ This is obviated by our 3d Observ For the Question is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers and that only where they could be had of whom this proof doth not speak His 3d Proof ibid. is from the different customs observed in the Church after the Apostles times This is most inconsequent yea one might as well reason thus In after-times
they set up Metropolitans and at last a Pope Ergo it was so in the Apostles times We say then That diversity in after Ages flowed from this that Men following Mr. Stilling Principles did not follow divine Institution or Apostolick practice but their own Wit and Reason Beside the diversities he here instanceth in are not to the purpose for he doth not shew us that Parity was in one place and imparity in another but that in one place the Presbyters chused their Bishop in another not Sect. 19. We come at last to his 3d proposition about Apostolick practice p. 341. viz. That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of it self for the founding of an unalterable and perpetual Rite for the Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that Practice This doctrine he laid down before par 1 c. 1. p. 23. And we examined p. where I stated that question far otherwise than he seemeth here to do and indeed this proposition as here laid down might be yielded by us neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch the controversie which is andabatarum more pugnare We lay no obligation on any by a meer Apostolical Practice but by their Practice considered as done in the same case that we are in Neither 2. do we say that such practice is sufficient of it self to bind us for it hath Gods command of Imitation of which before and equal Morality of that action to us and then to concur with it in this Neither do we say 3. That their Practice doth found a Riet it doth but declare what is founded on the will of Christ as that which we must do Most of all his Arguments are obviated by what is already said The first that they did many things without intention of obliging others as going abroad to Preach the Gospel unprovided Pauls not taking wages c. This doth not touch the point seeing these things were for a peculiar reason To the same purpose is the 2d Argument p. 343. which indeed is but the same Argument that they did many things on particular occasions emergencies and circumstances as Pauls celebate Community of goods Preaching in private Houses Fields c. That which only is worth the noticing in this Argument is p. 344. That he requireth before Apostolical Practice be obligations that it be made appear that what they did was not according as they saw reason depending on the several circumstances of Time place and persons but from some unalterable Law of Christ Answer This we are able to prove as to ruling the Churches by a Parity of Elders for they did ordinarily so practice and that where the place persons and times were not the same neither can it be shewed that ever they did otherwise i. e. set up a Bishop over Presbyters is not this sufficient ground to think that they did this not occasionally but by a Law of Christ His 3d Argument is That the Office of Deaconesses is of Apostolick practice and yet now laid aside as not binding Answer 1. It is the opinion of some Learned men as Peter Martyr Loc. Com. clas 4. c. 1. num 11. and the Author of Asser Gov. Ch. Scot. par 1. c. 5. p. 38 who citeth also Aretius that though women might be taken into that part of the Office of the Deacon that concerneth caring for the Sick yet men also might exercise it which is gathered from Ro. 12.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he that sheweth mercy and 1 Tim. 5.8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though Widows be there spoken of yet the best interpreters turn these words in the masculine gender and our translation thus If any provide not for his own House which they would not do if they thought that Widows only were they to whom that Office belonged 2. Supposing them to be used in the Apostolick Church there may be a peculiar reason for it in those daies of persecution many were strangers others cast off by their Parents and Friends for the profession of the truth when such were sick none could so well attend them as women the case is not so now and if it were sure this example might shew us our Duty 4. If it can be proved to have been the constant Use of Apostolick Churches and that with out such extraordinary necessity then the neglect of it is a great defect in the Church His fourth Argument is that some Apostolick rites and Customes are out of use Ergo their example doth not bind He instanceth dipping in Baptism love-Feasts community of goods the Holy Kiss Answer We deny the antecedent being understood of Customes not built on a reason peculiar to them His Instances prove nothing dipping cannot be proved to have been only used and if it were to us it is not false because of the coldness of our Climate We deny the love Feasts to have been Apostolical Yea they are expresly condemned as used in the Church 1 Cor. 11.22 and if they were used elsewhere it was a Civil Custome and so not falling in within the present debate Kissing was the Civil custome in Salutation this the Apostle 1 Thes 5.26 would have them to use holily neither can it be proved that ever it was religiously observed in the Apostolical Church Community of goods was built on a peculiar reason suting those times of persecution and so not to the purpose Whatever can be proved to be Apostolical and falleth not under the exceptions before mentioned we shall bear the blame if we observe them not CHAP. VII THE Medium by which he here proveth the Form of Church-Government to be indifferent is taken from the practice of the antient Churches in Ages succeeding that of the Apostles he taketh much pains to prove that the Primitive Church did not conceive it self obliged to observe one individual Form but settled things as it judged them tend most to peace and edification without any antecedent obligation binding to one course and thence inferreth that no certainty can be brought from their practice to prove one Form to be juris divini We are not concerned here to enter the lists with him it shall be sufficient to our purpose to animadvert a few things in general 1. It is no great matter if we yield him the conclusion seeing we have sufficient ground to build the divine Right of Presbyterial Government upon in Scripture and so may spare any Argument that may be brought for it from antiquity 2. It is no wonder that the one Primitive and Apostolical yea divine Form of Government was not every where stuck to in after ages seeing the ambition of many men began soon to carry them beyond the boundaries Christ had set to devise what might best suit their own humours rather than what was for the Churches good the Apostle telleth us that even in his daies which was a wonder this Mystery of iniquity had begun to work 2 Thes 2.7 It is no wonder then that