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
soon after it began to appear and when some had thus miscarried and others stuck to the Apostolical frame of things this might quickly breed a diversity 3. It will easily appear to any who readeth this Chap. that all the Authours discourse tendeth to prove that the ancient Churches thought not Episcopacy to be jure divino let them who are concerned answer him in this if they can I am convinced of the truth of what he saith But let us take a short view of the grounds on which he establisheth what he asserteth in this Chap. Sect. 2. The first is That the extent of the Power of Church-Officers did increase meerly from the enlargment of the bounds of Churches which he maketh out in 4 steps or periods The first is when Churches were the same with Christians in a whole City And here he handleth 3 things first he sheweth that the Primitive constitution of Churches was in a Society of Christians in the same City where he will have the name Church in Scripture to be only given to that not to a particuler congregation meeting in one place I do not deny but the name is given as he saith because of that confederacy in discipline among divers congregations in one City yet neither the name nor the nature of a Church must be denied to a single congregation for a Church in Scripture-Language is a company met together to serve God now this agreeth well to a single Congregation seeing in it not only word and Sacraments are administred but also discipline is exercised as shall anon appear All that he saith proveth the former Use of the word but nothing against this latter 2. He speaketh of the Government of these Churches p. 352. And that 1. before Parishes or distinct Congregations were settled 2. after they were settled about which he largely disputeth when it began which is not to our purpose in both cases he saith they were ruled in common and p. 354. That it is a weak conceit to think that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct Presbytery to rule it and p. 356. this crumbling saith he of Church-Power into every Congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most Learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen in Calv. Beza Salmasius Blondel Gerson Bucer and others I do readily yield to him that it is most probable that in times of Persecution particular congregations could not be soon settled and that then where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place they were ruled only in Common yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could Also we grant that when Congregations were settled the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion to call this a weak conceit seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom for ability I think Mr. Still modesty will not suffer him to compare himself But what ever be of the ability of them who own it there is reason for it so weighty as may excuse it from weakness which is this Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper rebuking them consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration c. 'T is very unfit to bring all these things in prima instantia to the Presbytery that ruleth in common This I confirm out of what himself hath written p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them though with subordination to those in the City is there not the same reason why particular Congregations though in City should have their Rulers 't is as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation at the first hand to the common Presbyters as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of the Church neither if we should yield all that he saith is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations we have cause to suspend our belief of it till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it which he hath not so much as essaid It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations not their subordinate Power for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common not that they had no particular Government in each of them as any may easily see by considering them Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment such as use not often to be so much taken notice of The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches is what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another and to the lesser City that were under them and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right to which we agree I add that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar Damasc c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Ireneus have nothing of the different degree of Bishops and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity The second step is p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie he saith that the city-City-Presbyters did Preach in these places and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church till after when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them who did rule them yet with subordination to the City-Church This last I only dislike neither do I see it proved by him for the Titles of matrix ecclesia et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction What he saith of that Eulogie sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread doth not prove the point and also it was a superstitious custome the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Papish adoration of their Hostia His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another but that their Honour depended on their Sees Thence he cometh to the last step when the
against the rules-of that Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society and submit to the censures of it according to the Judgment of the Officers of it All this we accept of as truth but how this last doth consist with his putting all power of jurisdiction in the hand of the Magistrate and leaving the Church-Officers only power of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments of which before I cannot understand So much for the first part of his Irenicum PART II. CAP. 1 2. § 1. IN his second part we have also some concessions to be taken notice of as cap. 2. p. 154. that there must be a Form of Government as necessary not by Nature only but by a Divine Law This we receive as truth and do thus improve it ad hominem The Author cannot shew us any express Law in Scripture commanding that there be a Form of Government in the Church Neither can any Scripture ground of this truth be brought but what is drawn from Apostolick practice they had a Form of Government ergo so must we seeing it is as needful to us as it was to them Now if this be so why doth the Author dispute so much against our reasoning from Apostolick practice where the case is alike for this particular Form of Government as being established by Divine Law If their practice be a sufficient evidence of a Divine Law beside the Law of Nature for this that there be a Form why is it not as significant of a Divine Law for this that this is the Form where the case of them and us is alike § 2. We receive also as a concession p. 157. that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church and for a National Form of Church-Government Also cap. 2. he concedeth that the Government of the Church ought to be administred by Officers of Divine Appointment is of Divine Right Where in one word he destroyeth unawares all that he saith for maintaining the lawfulness of Episcopal Government for he doth not deny that Bishops as ruling over Presbyters and having more power than their Brethren are of Humane Constitution and so they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment If so then by this Concession the Church ought not to be ruled by them and so Episcopal Government is unlawful I know not if he did foresee this Argument taken out of himself But in explaining his Concession he would fain seem to say some other thing than he hath indeed said For he saith that he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church So that his meaning is there must be a standing perpetual Ministry And this he proveth largely This doth no ways explain what he hath said For it is one thing that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers and another thing that these Officers be such as God hath appointed Jeroboam when he made Priests of the lowest of the People kept Divine Institution so far that he made Priests and did make that work common to all And yet his Priests were not Officers of Divine Appointment So neither is the Church ruled by Officers of Divine Appointment though there be Officers who rule which is Divine Appointment except these Officers be such as God hath Instituted and not such as men have devised And besides this the Law of Nature dictateth that there should be Rulers in the Church distinct from the Ruled as he had formerly observed Wherefore he must here either trifle or say some more viz. that the Lord must appoint these sorts of Officers that should govern his Church for the Author is here speaking of what is of Divine positive Right having formerly shewed what is of Divine Natural Right § 3. In the third Chap. we have the Question stated in speaking of the Church as comprehending many particular Congregations and so excluding the Independent way from this Competition he compareth these two forms of Government viz. 1. The particular Officers of several Churches acting in equality of power called a Colledge of Presbyters 2. A superiour order above the Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it Now the Question is not whether of these cometh nearest to the primitive pattern But whether either of them be setled by Divine Right so as that the Church is bound to obseeve it He holds the Negative We the affirmative and we say that the former of these two is Juris Divini § 4. For proving his opinion he undertaketh to enervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of these Five he proposeth viz. 1. A former Law standing in force under the Gospel 2. Some plain institution of a new Law under the Gospel 3. The obligatory Nature of Apostolical practice 4. The general sence of the primitive Church 5. The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation Of these he discourseth severally And we shall give our sence of them as in following him we come at them But first I must here note a few things 1. It is an injurious way of stateing the Question about this Divine Right to exclude any who put in for it from the liberty of Competition Now he knoweth that others besides these plead a Divine Right of their way as Erastians will have the keys given by Christ to the Magistrate Independents to the Community or at least the Officers of a particular Church Popery is not excluded seeing it standeth on the same bottom with Episcopacy though I think the Resolution of the question about Divine Right might have laid both these aside yet I think the stating of it might have taken them in and they might have a fair hearing lest some by seeing Presbytery and Episcopacy laid aside as of no Divine stamp might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Christs Government rather than leave the matter wholly at an uncertainty and the will of men But I observe that though the one of these he doth altogether slight yet the other he doth not pass out of any misregard to it for he laboureth to take all power by Christ's gift out of the hands of Presbyters and Bishops that the Magistrate might have it in solidum § 5. 2. I observe for further clearing the state of the Question that all other parts of these two forms of Government are confessed to be juris divini vel naturalis vel positivi as from his concessions have been manifest and will yet more appear only the matter of Parity or Superiority of Ministers is in question and it being so I propose this to be considered that Parity be of Divine Right it is sufficient 1. That Christ hath given power to all Ministers to rule the Church 2. That he hath not given a greater share of it to some than to others 3. That it is his will that as he hath distributed this power equally so that no man make it unequal seeing that cannot be
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
the Supreme Governour giveth to any of his Officers there may be this in the Church where Presbyters Rule in Common Nature also teacheth that when more have a Common power they may consult about the best way of Managing it but it doth not teach that they may mannage it otherwise then it is committed to them by him who gave it which they must do if they put it into the hands of one which is given to more especially when it may be managed well without such crossing the Institution of it Besides all this Nature can never warrant this alienation of the Power that Christ hath given to his Servants because Nature doth only warrant us to step beside Christs Institution in his matters where Institution is not sufficient to attain that which is naturally necessary or when the Acting only by Institution would cross Nature but there is no natural necessity of giving all power to a Bishop which Christ hath given to Presbyters neither doth leaving the exercise of it in common cross Nature Ergo Nature doth not warrant this practice Neither can the fourth warrant it for then it should be in the power of men to take all the power that Ministers have from Christ out of their hands and give it to one so that only my Lord Bishop might preach baptise c. as well as that he only may rule for their is no Law forbidding the Church to lay all the parts of Pastoral power on one more then forbidding to lay one part of it on one Sure sobriety and due reverence to the Institutions of Christ would teach us to think that while he hath given equal power to many it should be a sufficient forbidding that any be so bold as to lay the exercise of that power on one taking it from the rest Sect. 18. 2. I prove it thus When Christ giveth a power to his Servants to manage the affairs of his Church it is not only a Licence whereby they are authorized to do such work if they think fit but it is a trust they get it as a charge that they must give account of as is evident from the command to this purpose given them Act. 20.28 take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers here is a Command to Overseers to do that work and they must give an account of this their charge Heb. 13.17 Rulers who must be obeyed are such who must give an account Now it is not lawful for one who getteth such a Trust to lay it on another neither may any take it out of his hands to bestow it upon another without his leave who gave that trust when Christ hath Commanded Ministers to rule and will seek account of them may they lay their work on a Bishop will it be well taken in the day of Account to say they committed their Flock to another to keep who left them to the Wolf or scattered and slew them will not the Lord say to them why did not ye feed them your selves Sure Christ will require account of them to whom be gave the charge and that is of Pastors neither will he ask Account of Bishops except for their Usurpation Ergo it is not lawful to take the exercise of Church Power out of the hands of Ministers and give it to a Bishop 3. Proof If Presbyters who have received Power from Christ may put the exercise of it into the hands of a Bishop alienating it from themselves why may not Bishops devolve their Power on one who shall be over them and so we shall have an Universal Bishop the Pope in whom shall rest all Church Power and at whose direction it shall be exercised If that may be done there is no shadow of Reason why this may not be done for if once the Power be taken out of the hand of them to whom Christ hath given it then prudence must be the only Director to teach us who must have it now prudence will as well say that Bishops must have one over them to keep them in Order and peace as that Presbyters must have one over them Neither is there here any inconvenience that is not there for that one may turn to tyranny as well as the other and a Bishop cannot oversee his charge without substitutes more then the Pope can do the one may substitute Bishops Cardinals c. as well as the other may substitute Dean Prebends Archdeacon c. Now I hope Mr. Stillingfleet is not come to that to think the Papal Office an indifferent Ceremony ergo neither should he think so of Episcopacy 4. If Presbyters may devolve the exercise of that power that Christ hath given them into the hands of a Bishop then they may also give away with their power the very Office that Christ hath given them But this they may not ergo I prove the Major for when they devolve the exercise of their ruling power on the Bishop they not only consent that they shall rule the people which they might do But they make it unlawful for themselves to rule yea they give up themselves to be ruled and commanded by them so that he is their Judge and cannot be judged by them in case of male-administration at least this is true de singulis if not de omnibus but this is to give away the very power for if I may not act how have I a power to act if both I and the people be under the command of another so that I may not act any thing in reference to the People but by his authority how have I power to rule sure a power is the possibility of the act quantum est ex parte causae and a moral power is such a lawfulness of the act but in this case Presbyters want that possibility or lawfulness of that exercise of Ruling and that so as the defect or hindrance ex parte causae is in themselves who should put forth the acts ergo they want not onely the exercise but the very power of Ruling which Christ gave them in such a case The Minor of the Argument is evident for such an alienation were a clear contradicting of Christ he saith it shall be lawful for you such a one being lawfully put into the Ministry to rule he by this alienating saith it shall not be lawful for me to rule If it be said that Christs gift maketh it lawful for such a one to rule but not in all cases as suppose the good of the Church requires that this power be taken from him his alienating maketh it onely unlawfull in this case when for the good of the Church he hath quit his right so that here there is no opposition Christ giveth him a jus in actu primo he alienateth onely this jus in actu secundo as Mr. Stillingfleet doth express it Answ 1. However there may be some colour of reason why this may be done in some extraordinary cases when Christs institution which is calculated to
the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to them who are so appointed To this I reprove a few things briefly 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in terminis to what he taught Part. 1. c. 2. p. 41. and we refuted p. there he made the power of Order peculiar to Ministers and power of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Magistrate describing both powers no otherwise then he doth here and yet here he giveth the power of Jurisdiction as well as of Order to Ministers 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers quoad jus to be equally given by Christ to all Ministers it is strange that he should deny that men may restrain the one for he confesseth the actus secundus of it to be inseparably joined to the Office and yet doth boldly affirm that they may restrain the other without giving the least shew of permission that they have from Christ who gave both powers so to tamper with the one more then with the other If Christ hath made no difference between these and if he hath it should have been produced how dare men do it I confess Nature maketh a necessity of restricting the power of Jurisdiction for if every one should Rule when and where he pleased there would be confusion and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exercise this power over but this is common to the power of Order also though with some difference for it is not fit that every Minister should preach and baptize where and when he pleaseth without any limitation Neither could this be without confusion Also Christ hath made a limitation of the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for by giving it to many and making it relate to things of common concernment he hath eo ipso determined that none of these who have it shall exercise it by himself nor without the concurrence and consent of them who are equal in Commission with him This limitation of the exercise we confess to be warrantable but what reason there is I cannot understand why men should take away the exercise of ruling power from many and give it to one more than they can take away the exercise of preaching power and so give it to some as it shall not be lawful for them to preach but only to rule more than they can take away the exercise of both powers seeing Christ hath equally given them Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Author here furnisheth us with against himself men may not restrain the exercise of the power of order further than Nature maketh it necessary Ergo they may not any further restrain the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction because Christ hath not made such a difference in his giving these powers to men If it be said that the restraint of the power of Jurisdiction is sometimes necessary because Parity breeds Factions and many are unfit to rule Ans Even so letting all preach doth often breed Heresie many preach false Doctrine and many are unfit to preach So this argument must either plead for the restraint of both powers or of neither Let us then see what must be the remedy of this abuse of the power of order and the remedy of the abuse of the other must be proportionable sure the remedy is not to restrain the exercise of the power of preaching except it be for a time in expectation of their amendment which holdeth also with reference to ruling power but to put such unfit men out of the Ministry Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Curate and let him still have the charge of the Flock though his Curate doth the work for him No but he should be removed and another put in his place Even so they who are unfit to rule must not have a Bishop do it for them but be removed that other fit men may be put in their place seeing ruling abilities are a necessary qualification of a Minister as well as preaching abilities as was shewed before If Parity breed Factions we must censure the guilty not cross Christs Institutions in the exercise of that power he hath given Sect. 21. 3. It is not good sense that he saith speaking of the power of Jurisdiction that though it belong habitually and in actu primo to all yet in a constituted Church some further Authority is necessary besides the power of order Whether this be the Printers fault or the Authors I know not but sure the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Jurisdiction is exercised 4. He leaveth us in suspence about the power of restraining the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for he implieth that it may be done by the consent of the Pastors or by the appointment of the Magistrate or both If this power that Christ hath given his Servants may be taken from them in its exercise it is very fit we should know to whom the Lord hath given leave to do this I believe and have proved that no man may do it but if it may be done sure it is not thus left at randome that it should be primi occupantis Pastors themselves cannot do it for they have got the charge and they not the Bishop whom they entrust must give an account The Magistrate may not do it for he is no ruler of the Church but this is the highest act of ruling the Church and of ruling and disposing of the Rulers of it as he pleaseth and if neither may do it both may not do it seeing the reasons brought exclude both from any measure of power in that thing I do not stand on the Authority of Camero which is all the proof he hath for his opinion cited p. 198. viz. Ordinatio non fit à Pastore quatenus Pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singulare authoritatem obtinet Neither shall I strive to strain it to a sound sense but be satisfied with the truth that we have upon better grounds than Camero's Authority established viz. that Ordination and other acts of Church-power are done by Pastors not by virtue of any superadded power or Delegation that they have from men above what Christ hath given them in their Pastoral Office but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pastors though the conveniency of exercising it hic nunc requires the concurring of some more circumstances Ergo that other Pastors joyn in Ordination that it be not without the limits which are fixed for order for the inspection of that Society of Pastors whereof such an one is a Member or if it be without these limits that it be not without a special Call from them who should there exercise their Authority The Conclusion of our Author needeth small Animadversion supposing what hath been already said By this saith he we may already understand how lawful the exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God
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
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.
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
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
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
weight on this Testimoney to the purpose it is brought for for either he meaneth that the degrees of Church-Officers in respect of precedency are left free or in respect of Jurisdiction if the first it is nothing contrary to what we hold for we acknowledg it indifferent whether there be a standing Precedent over Presbytery or not If the second he is directly contrary to Mr. Stillingfleet who maintains that the Church may set up no new Officers but what Christ hath instituted as we have seen before now an order of Officers with jurisdiction above what Christ hath instituted cannot but be a sort of Officers that he hath not instituted wherefore Mr. Still could not make Use of this Testimony neither ought any else for it crosseth the Scripture which Rom. 12.6 7 8. Ephes 11.1 1 Cor. 12.28 doth on purpose enumerate the Officers of the Church in all their degrees I dispute not now what they are but sure they are not left at liberty seeing the Lord hath so often declared his mind in this Point to what purpose is it said that the Lord hath in his Church such and such Officers if men may at their pleasure set these or others more or fewer of them in the Church Sect. 4. His next Testimony is the Centuriators of Magdeburge but it containeth an answer in its forehead viz. That it speaketh not to the thing for they say no more but that it is neither Recorded nor Commanded how many Ministers should be in each Church but that their may be more or fewer according to the number of the Church What is this to their parity or impatity 't is a token that he is very scant of Witnesses when he calleth in them who say so little to his purpose The next Testimony is of Zanchy which he maketh to speak very fair for him but he hath unhandsomly concealed that which is the Key to understand the meaning of this Author for the Reader may evidently see his drift if he first look into Sect. 9. de Relig. c. 25. where he asserteth that Christ hath only given to his Church two forts of ordinary Teachers viz. Pastors and Doctors the same he asserteth Sect. 10. and yet which is his modesty he will not condemn the Fathers who had other Orders of Officers but what his meaning is in this his condescendency he explaineth Sect. 11. That whereas in after Ages one Pastor was set over the rest non ut Dominus sed ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteh this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum boc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the arch-Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispeafe himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà m habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a lord-Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters ' Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over
the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull constitution Concerning those I premise 2 general Remarques 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood not of Episcopus Princeps but Praeses according to that distinction very common among them This we must hold as only consistent with their principles till the contrary be proved out of their own writings 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines they did often as Smect saith of Spanhem to the same purpose p. 65. deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment But to come to particulars he beginneth with Cracanthorp who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianisin because they held not Imparity to be unlawful But this man was a Son of the Church of England as they speak and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken being willing to have them all think as he did They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect p. 79. where it is proved that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity and that Jerome Augustus Sedulius Primatius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aerius in this Next he bringeth the Augustane confession of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches but of the Lutherans for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart by themselves wherefore it is no wonder if these worthy men who were a reforming but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius who Mellific Histor par 3. p. 336. saith thus Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontificiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magisque nespiritum extingueret limabat poliebat et duriuscula fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet 3. All that is said in this confession is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood that they could yield to that so that even the furthest they go in their complemental condescendency doth not help Mr. Still 's cause who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful Sect. 7. In the next place he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy which he could never comport with while he lived He bringeth his Instit lib. 4. c. 4. sect 1. 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God and that they used no other form of Governing the Church than was prescribed in the Word What doth this help his Cause The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment were no more but Praesides These he saith were not constituted beside the Word of God This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind At present let it suffice to observe that the very words cited by Mr. Still do make against him For when Calvin saith Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit It is not evident that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government And 2dly That he asserteth that the Ancient Bishops if we look to the thing and do not understand the name Bishop as now it is used for the Prelate did stick close to this Form What could be more directly against Mr. Still Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known
A MODEST ANSWER TO Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S IRENICUM By a Learned Pen. Sed hoc quidem affirmare non vereor quod heu nimium tristis Experientia jampridem docuit sensim inter eodem pari munere sacro fungentes ordinem Divinum in gradum humanum hunc gradum ruptis verorum purorum Canonum vinculis in tyrannidem manifestam si restitutam Ecclesiam malumus abolendam evasisse Theod. Bezae Resp ad Sarav de Ministr Evang. grad cap. 15. à calce LONDON Printed for Richard Janeway in Queens-Head-Alley in Pater-noster-Row 1680. ADVERTISEMENT THe Reader is desired to Correct the Mistake of the Printer in calling so Reverend an Antagonist by the name of Mr. Stillingfleet instead of Dr. Stillingfleet in so great a part of the Book And as for an Epistle though there was one provided by another hand yet an accident preventing its Publishing with the Book the Writer thereof is much better satisfied on second thoughts with its suppression finding it no easie matter to say any thing worthy of the renowned Author and so Learned a Work that hath had the perusal and approbation of as worthy and skilful Divines in the Controversie of Church-Government as are of their Age. Judicium sit penes lectorem Animadversions on Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum c. CHAP. I. THIS Book though set off with the specious Title of an Irenicum and carrying in its Face the pretence of a Laudable Design viz. the healing of the dangerous Wounds and sad Divisions of the Church at this time prevailing will upon due Examination I suppose be found an unsuitable Salve for these Sores and to mend our rents as they say Tinkers do by making a greater rent instead of mending a lesser For instead of a Debate about particular Forms of Government it bringeth in another Debate whether there be any Form instituted of Christ whether we must search the will of Christ about managing Church-Affaires in his Word or be content with what is the will of man Which Controversie is like to be harder in determining and more stiffly agitated than the other for sure it is harder to perswade them who would take the word of God for their rule that Christ hath not appointed any one Form of Government in his House than that he hath not appointed this or that By this device we are cast loose of all hold where we may fix and there shall be no end of Contention at least among them who consult so as to determine some one Form of all these which are thought to be lawful and when they have determined the People on whom they impose it have a very unsure bottom to settle their Consciences upon in this matter that doth so nearly concern Religion to wit nothing but the Judgment and Will of man which is often wrong and led by Interest and at best is fallible and cannot guide us certainly in that which pleaseth God Wherefore this Authors Opinion seems to be a cutting of the knot with Alexander and casting all loose when he cannot so untie it as to hold fast the exercise of Christ's Kingly Power in Governing his Church Neither is this Opinion new as the Author seemeth to imply for it was long since maintained and largely propugned by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity and solidly refuted by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government and indeed hath always been and still is the main Pillar to uphold Episcopacy in these Nations it being the most ready and plausible way for them who would wreath this Iron Yoke on the Necks of their Brethren when they cannot shew them Christ's Authority for it to take the determining of the Case out of his hand and to put it in the hand of the King and then to press it from his Authority with Fire and Sword And indeed this Opinion is a most colourable excuse for the unfaithful complyance of them who would fain hold their places under any Form of Church-Government that shall lye uppermost for so they shall be sure never to cross Authority and not to cross the Interest of their own Back and Belly and how much mischief this piece hath done this way is too evident seeing men that incline to comply are satisfyed with shadows instead of substantial reason to put off troublesome Conscience Yet among them who are conscientiously zealous for any one way of Government I suppose the Lot of this Author will be that which is ordinary to such unhappy Peace-Makers as sell truth or some part of it by an over-reach of condescendency and that in Gods matters not their own in which we must bargain as hard Merchants do in worldly things to redeem peace for I suppose men of all perswasions will be about his Ears For that which I am perswaded to be the truth of God in point of Church-Government viz. Government by Ministers acting in parity and ruling Elders met in Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies it is more easily upheld against his undermining Engines than any of the other Forms for the least of his Book is levelled against it in particular and what he saith against it I hope will appear not to have great strength yea I believe that out of what he hath said this truth may be strongly confirmed which I shall thus essay in a word He acknowledgeth and stifly maintaineth that Christ hath given power not only of teaching but of ruling his Church to all and every one of his Ministers and that he hath not given more power to one of them than another nor made them subject or subordinate to one another Whence it clearly followeth that Presbyterian Government I mean the parity of Ministers and their Association is jure divino ex confesso and that Prelacy is an addition to it made jure humano And hence it followeth that this addition is unlawful except he can prove that Christ hath given a power to men to make them unequal whom he hath made equal to subject one to another of them to whom Christ hath given equal power to restrain yea and take quite away the exercise of ruling power in some of them to whom Christ hath given it as much as to others and to enlarge that power in some to whom Christ hath given no more than to others Which I am sure he will never be able to do Yea further it 's confessed by him that Christ hath instituted the Office of Presbyters and that he hath not instituted the Office of Prelates ruling over Presbyters Wherefore he must either say that the Church hath power to institute new Offices which I hope he will not assert and I am sure he cannot prove or that Prelacy is unlawful For that a Prelate is another Officer than a Presbyter is undeniable because the one is ruled by the other Now these of the same Office cannot be ruled by or subordinate to one another as common sense and reason will teach § 2.
but by taking from the rest what Christ hath given them and giving to one what he hath not given him If these three be granted Parity of Power is Christs Will and so of Divine Right Now our Author agreeth to the first two as Truth For the first he asserteth in terminis the second he cannot deny while he asserteth Superiority not to be juris divini the question then is only about the third viz. When Christ hath given equal power to his Ministers whether men may make it unequal by subjecting one of them to another abridging the power of one and inlarging the power of another Or which is all one whether it be in the power of men when Christ hath made but one Officer to set up another of their own devising who shall have a power that Christ never gave to any Officer in his Church I am sure we have this clear advantage that Presbyters acting in Parity do keep themselves within the bounds of Christs Institution and can shew his warrant for so doing whereas setting up a Bishop over them is without that line and can be warranted by no divine Institution Let it then be considered whether of these is the safest way for us to take § 6. 3. I take notice that the Pleas that he ennumerateth for a particular form of Government are not all which may be alledged there may be many significations of the will of God in Scripture that are neither set down in the plain terms of a Law nor expressed by Apostolical practice We draw good consequences from Promises Reproofs c. which may shew us what is our duty 4. Let it be minded that it is not needful for asserting of Divine Right that we prove it from all these Topicks one demonstration that it is the will of God that such a thing be is sufficient 5. The question being stated as before the probation will be incumbent upon him who asserteth that it is lawful for men to make them unequal in power whom Christ hath made Pairs we assert that the power of Ministers that is of Divine Right is equal which the Author doth not deny he asserteth further that men may restrain this Power in some and enlarge it in others for this he must shew warrant for affirmant incumbit probatio we deny it and here we might rest till it can be shewed that Christ hath given such power to men to cut and carve on his Institutions The Divine Right of Parity is built on the want of Divine Right of Imparity Notwithstanding we hope ex abundanti to make other Pleas for it stand good which he laboureth to make void § 7. The first plea from a standing law in the Jewish Church we do not insist on knowing that in matters of Institution the Old Testament is no pattern for the New Neither are we obliged to insist on this Plea as he alledgeth because some of ours do some times make use of their Example as in proving a subordination of Courts For 1. It is not instituted but of the law of Nature supposing once the unity of more Congregations now what is taught by Nature may well be confirmed to us by the Law of God to the Jews though we be not bound by that law where there is not that reason Again Jewish example should have weight with us where their case is not peculiar seeing their practice came from an Infinitely wise Lawgiver but this holdeth not in imparity or subordination of Officers It is known that the High Priest was Typical that the Priesthood was annexed to one Tribe for a peculiar Reason these things do not concern us CHAP. IV. HE cometh to the second Plea for a particular form of Government viz. Christs instituting it by a new Law where he alledgeth that it is more hotly pleaded by many that Christ must do it than that he hath done it This is a mis-representation to say no worse If it be not proved by the Assertors of Presbyterial Government that Christ hath instituted that form of Government let their cause fall to the ground We are ready to acknowledge that it were rashness and a limiting of the Holy One to say that he must institute a particular form if we were not otherwise satisfied that he hath done it But being convinced of that we may be very much confirmed in our Opinion by the consideration of these arguments that hold forth how fit and how sutable to the wisdom of God and the Administration of Christs Gospel Kingdom it is that he should take this course and not leave the affairs of his House to mans will or lust rather This is not prescribing to him but a declaring of the fitness of what he hath done Moreover we do not neither ever did we argue barely from the necessity of a particular form to be instituted by Christ considering the thing it self only but from some Scripture ground holding forth the necessity of it Now if the Lord in the contrivance of the Gospel hath made it necessary to his design that there be a form of his appointment and hath signified this to us by his word it is no rashness to assert the necessity of it even though we could not through our darkness certainly determine what is that form in all the particulars of it But I come to examine what he hath said against the Reasons that our Authors do bring for the fitness of a particular form of Christs instituting § 2. The first of them is taken from comparing Christ the Lawgiver under the New Testament with Moses under the Old Testament and it is thus instituted Heb. 3.2 5 6. That as Moses was faithful in that House as a Servant much more was Christ as a Son if then Moses was so faithful as to declare the Will of God concerning the Government of the Church and that particularly what Form should be used we must not think that Christ hath left this undone To this he answereth 1. Faithfulness is the discharge of a Trust So that the faithfulness of Christ and Moses lyeth in doing the Work that the Lord laid on them and this was to be Mediators the one Typical the other True Moses had the Pattern shewed him in the Mount and therefore faithfulness required that he should settle that Form and no other But it cannot be made appear that Christ hath any Command from his Father of setling one Form of Government So he p. 176. To which I reply 1. Our Argument may be so laid as this Answer doth not at all touch it thus It is the Will of God and so entrusted to the care of Christ that there should be a Government in the Church as is confessed by our Author This Government must be managed hic nunc in some particular Form as sense and reason teacheth Now that Christ might be faithful as Moses was in the discharge of this Trust it was needful that he should set down a particular Form to be
but we think it like that he hath determined it as for other reasons so because even men have not appointed the Generals of Government without a form in which they should subsist much less would the wise God do so if they being wiser then others did think it fitter to choose the Form then to leave it at other mens will much more would he What he saith of inferring that they did appoint this or that Form from their modelling a Common Wealth is not to the purpose for that they did appoint a Form we know by History and I suppose that every one thinketh that they did wisely in so doing and that their doing so was for the good of the Republick hence we infer that it is like Christ did so seeing he sought his peoples good more then they and the Church is less able to choose for her self then those Republicks were seeing Church Matters are of spiritual concernment and so lie further out of the Road of mens Wit then the affairs of State do I yield to him that we could not know what Form Christ hath instituted but by looking into his Laws yea and but that way we could not certainly know that he hath determined any one form yet this doth not hinder but such Arguments as this may have their own weight The Testimony he bringeth out of Mr. Hooker is answered from what hath been said and I am to meet with it elsewhere He mistaketh our intent in such Arguments and falsly supposeth that the form we plead for is not found in the Bible Sect. 14. He bringeth another argument p. 191. from the similitude of a Vine which must have its Dressers and a House and a City which must have Government it was very easie for him to answer the Argument thus propounded I know not who ever did so manage it But it might have been thus improved a wise Master of a Vineyard will not let his servants do what they please but will appoint them his work in his Vineyard and a Master of a Family or a King in a Country or City will not let the Servants or Subjects chuse in what they shall be governed Ergo if the Church be a Vine a House a City and Christ be the Head and Ruler of it it is not like that he hath left the choise of the way of governing it to men but hath appointed it himself If he had thus propounded the Argument it had not been so easily answered The same way he useth the next Argument p. 192. taken from the difference of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the one of which is called the Ordinance of man and the other is Gods Ordinance therefere though that be mutable this is not I chuse rather to frame the Argument otherwise out of his own Concession he maketh difference between these two Governments the one is for a Political the other for a spiritual end the one for a temporal the other for an eternal end the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians the one to preserve Civil Right the other to preserve an Eternal Interest c. Then however the Lord let men chuse the way of attaining political and temporal ends and provide for their own standing as men and preserve their Civil Rights yet it is strange to think that he hath left it to mens choise to take this or that way for attaining their spiritual and eternal end for procuring their standing as Christians for preserving their spiritual rights though the one be the Ordinance of man sure the other must be the Ordinance of God But the form of Church-Government is the way to attain these because Church-Government is the mean as is confessed and it cannot be acted but in a particular form and the form is the way of managing that mean and so attaining the end yea it is such a way as hath exceeding influence upon attaining these ends seeing a wrong form may more hinder than promote them man I suppose may chuse a way that may do more hurt than good it is strange then if Christ hath left this which is of such high concernment to such high ends to the will of corrupt men and this Argument may have the more weight ad hominem because this Author is often endeavouring to shape Church-Government according to the Civil which is very unsuitable to what he asserteth of their differences Sect. 15. Another argument p. 194. is if the form of Church-Government be not in Scripture determined immutably then it is in the power of the Church to make new Officers which Christ never made To this he answereth 1. These Officers are only said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointment of Christ but one set over many Pastors is not such for besides the general practice from the first Primitive times Christ himself laid the foundation of such an Office in appointing Apostles Reply Here are many things hudled together to excuse Episcopacy from Novelty which we must examine severally 1. They are not a new Office would he say because Christ instituted such an Office viz. Apostles Reply I hope he will not say that the Office of an Apostle and of a Diocesan Bishop is the same Office for the Apostles had much power which Bishops have not and were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God so are not Bishops and however there may be some resemblance between them yet if they be not the same Office it must be a new Office from what Christ appointed It is not the want of Similitude but the want of Identity with what hath been before that maketh a thing new neither need we enter the dispute with him what way extraordinary and what not in the Apostolick Office nor doth the Question lie in that as he alledgeth for we maintain and I think it will not be deni'd by him that the Office in complexe viz. as it did subsist in rerum natura was extraordinary and is ceased and therefore whatever Office is made up of some part of the power they had without the rest of it must be a different Office from that and so new Indeed if Christ had given them their power by halves and made the one half of it common to some Officer appointed by him to continue in the Church viz. power over Presbyters and the other half of it peculiar to them then Bishops having power over Presbyters though they had been a new Office from the Apostles and not the same yet should they have had the same Office with these others that we supposed and so had not been new simply but there being no such thing they must be in another Office than Christ ever appointed and so simply new Wherefore it is an unreasonable demand of the Author p. 195. that we must prove power over Presbyters to be extraordinary before we say it must cease For it is enough that the whole Office be extraordinary
that it be not a patern for any other Office that should be the same Yea we can easily prove that that power as in the Apostles and making up the Complex of their Office was extraordinary because it cannot rurvive the Office it self under that notion and we can also prove that Christ never instituted any such power by it self and without the other parts of the Apostolick Office whence it clearly followeth that such a power by it self which is a clear description of the Episcopal Office is divers from all the Offices iustituted by Christ and so is a new Office What he saith of the ceasing of this power with the Apostles as to its necessity but not as to its lawfulness is most impertinent and a begging of the Question for the conclusion of the Argument is that it is unlawful because it hath no institution that institution which it had in the Apostles being ceased His confirmation of this his distinction containeth a manifest falshood viz. to make a thing unlawful saith he which was before lawful there must be an express prohibition forbidding the use of such a thing This I say applied to the matter in hand is most false for we speak of things which have their lawfulness only from institution viz. Authority given to one over others now that which is thus lawful becometh unlawful meerly by the withdrawing of the Institution though no express prohibition of it be made As is evident from the like case among men when a King giveth a Commission to a Judge it is lawful for him to act in that capacity now if the King shall call in his Commission though there be no express forbidding of the man I suppose it is now become unlawful for him to act Just so is our case one Pastor can have no authority over another unless it be given him by Christ who ascended up on high and received these gifts for men Eph. 4. Now Christ had given once such a power to men viz. the Apostles this he hath now withdrawn by not giving such Commission to any others but the Apostles for I suppose to follow the former example that when a Judge which had a Commission dieth it is a sufficient withdrawing of his Commission that the King doth not give it to any other who may succeed him wherefore any who take that power to them do it without Commission from Christ which is unlawful Sect. 16. Another Answer he bringeth to this argument p. 195. on which he insisteth much as a foundation tonding to establish his whole Cause but I hope it shall prove a ruinous foundation The Answer is this The extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any new but a determining the extent of that in actu secunâ—o which every Minister hath in actu primo For clearing this he undertaketh two things 1. To shew that the power of every Minister doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common which I do freely yield to him 2. P. 197. That the Officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power Before I come to examine what he saith to this purpose let me note 1. That he speaketh here in a new strain before he had at tributed this power of determining to the Magistrate now the Officers of the Church must have it which I confess is more fit But he soon repenteth and in the end of the same page maketh it lye between the Pastors and Magistrate whether he please It is strange to see how those who loose hold of the truth hang as Meteors and know not where to fix I take notice 2. That whereas the former part of his undertaking which he knew to be out of controversie among them against whom he disputeth he establisheth by five strong Arguments but for that part where the stress of the matter lieth he hath not brought so much as one reason to evince what he saith but some few bare Assertions for the clearing of it and indeed it is sometimes easier to prove the thing that is not than the thing that is denied even to such able men as Mr. Stillingfl But let us now attend to what he saith for his Opinion We have seen saith he that their power extendeth to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church Here are two things the former of which we have heard and seen solidly proved but the latter I have not yet seen where he hath done any thing but asserted it as he here doth but sure it being a matter of such concernment and controversie needed some more proof wherefore I cannot pass it so slightly as he hath done We may distinguish a twofold restraining the same holdeth in enlarging of the exercise of the power of Church-Officers viz. in respect of the Object of it and in respect of the acts of it Restraint in respect of the object of this power may be subdivided First when that power is permitted or appointed to be exercised over more or fewer objects of the same kind which it doth respect by the appointment of Christ as that a Minister should have a narrower or larger bounds for his Parish or more or fewer people to watch over and so of the limiting of Presbyteries Synods c. This restraint or enlargement of power in its exercise we acknowledge to be a matter of order and decency and may be determined by the prudence of the Church Secondly when it is extended to the objects of another kind or restricted from the whole Species of these objects that Christ hath appointed it for as when a Bishop by himself who by Christs Institution hath only power over the people getteth power given him by man over his fellow Pastors and when a Presbyter who by Christs Institution hath a power over the Flock to rule them is hindred from the exercise of this power altogether and is set only to feed and this ruling power as to its exercise is wholly devolved upon another This we deny to be a matter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence Restraint and enlargement in respect of acts of power is when some acts which may be by Christs Institution exercised by all Presbyters are only permitted to be exercised by some and not by others as Ordination Church-censures and when some are authorized to do some acts of power that Christs Institution giveth them no Commission unto this together with that restraint mentioned in the second member of the subdivision we prove not to be matters of order left to the prudence of the Church but to be the setting up of a new Office in the Church 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after requireth the right circumstantiating of these acts which Christ hath appointed to be done in his Church as that
ordinary cases and must ordinarily take place cannot reach the end of Government yet to say that it may be done ordinarily cannot but clash with Christs institution for when Christ giveth ruling power to Presbyters though we may think that it is not his will that they must needs exercise it in all cases yet must we think that he intendeth they should exercise it ordinarily for why giveth he them a power which they as readily never as ever act and that as men please to determine we must not think that it is the intent of Christs Commission to his Servants that men may without the force of necessity laid on by an extraordinary Providence and then God doth it and not men hinder the acts of it as as they will 2. It is supposed without ground that the good of the Church can ordinarily require the restraining power given by Christ for if we speak of what is ordinarily good for the Church how can we better discern that than by looking into Christs institution wherefore seeing by this equal power at least in actu primo is given to Presbytery we are to think that the exercise of this power is best for the Church though ambitious men and they who would flatter the Magistrate think otherwise yea though the best of men should dissent sure Christs giving such a power saith more for the goodness of the exercise of it then mens opinions though seeming to have a foundation on some inconveniencies of it can say against it especially considering what ever way beside men devise is attended with as great if not greater inconveniencies of another nature 3. I have already made it appear that this alienation of power given by Christ doth not only reach the actus secundus of it but even the actus primus seeing a man is not in capacity to recal his deed and reassume the exercise of his power though it were improved never so much against the end of Christs giving and his alienating of it Sect. 19. 5. Proof which is directly against enlarging the exercise of Church Power in the hands of any beyond what Christ hath given them if the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to all may be taken from the rest and given to one then that one getteth a power both in actu primo in secundo which he had not from Christ but this is unlawful ergo The Major I prove for it is clear he getteth power in actu secundo which he had not from Christ ergo he getteth such power in actu primo seeing actus secundus cannot be without primus nor lawful exercise of power without the jus or power it self If it be said that Christ giveth only the actus primus and that so as it extendeth to the whole Church and therefore no actus secundus of power can be given to one which doth extend further than this Answ 1. It is true he giveth formally only the actus primus but the actus secundus doth result from it and therefore he giveth both 2. It is true the power that Christ giveth doth extend to the whole Church but this must be understood with a twofold distinction Dist 1. Disjunctive it is true that is every Minister hath a power to rule whatever part of the Church this or that or another so that no part of it is without his Commission as that he should go beyond his bounds in being set over it Conjunctive it is false that is Christ hath not given so much of the actus primus oâ— power to rule all or many Congregations Dist 2. When Christ giveth the actus primus of power to a Minister extending to the whole Church it is to be understood in adequate i. e. that he hath a share in that power so extended and may in conjunction with other rule the whole Church not adequate i. e. Christ hath not given to any such a power as that he by himself or with a few excluding the rest who are also in the Commission rule the whole Church So that when ever any one exerciseth authority by himself or excluding others who have the same power granted by Christ over more than his particular Congregation over which he may have personal inspection he taketh a power in actu secundo where Christ hath given him no jus nor actus primus of power The Minor of the argument is manifest for when both power and exercise of it is given to a man which Christ hath not given this is setting up a new Office which Christ hath not set up for what is an Office in the Church but a power and a lawful exercise of it but this our Author confesseth to be unlawful ergo 6. Proof 'T is presumption even among men for a servant to commit that work to another to do which his Master hath given him to do except he know that he hath his Masters leave so to do this is so well known that I need not insist on it ergo it is much presumption when Christ hath committed the ruling of his house to every Minister that some should devolve that work on a Bishop to do it for them unless they could shew Christs warrant for this which if Mr. Stillingfleet or any other will do we shall acquiesce If there be any disparity in this comparison I am sure it will tend to the strengthening not the weakening of our argument for we are more absolutely under Christs command than Servants are under their Masters his commands are more perfect and effectual to compass their end without our taking our own way in managing obedience to them then mens are also the there is a greater tie to cleave scrupulously to his injunctions than to mens also the matters about which they are be of more weight and miscarriage in them more dangerous then mens commands All which make it more absurd to commit the execise of our power that he giveth to others than for Servants to do so with their Masters work Sect. 20. For better understanding of what he had said our Author subjoyneth a distinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers viz. a Power of Order in preaching the word visiting the sick administring the Sacraments c. this he maketh to be inseparably joyned to the function and to belong to every ones personal capacity both in actu primo and actu secundo and a power of Jurisdiction in visiting Churches overseeing particular Pastors Ordination Church Censures making Rules for decency this he maketh to be in every Presbyter quoad aptitudinem and habitually so as he hath a jus to it in actu primo but the exercise and limitation of it and some further power of choise and delegation to it and some further Authority besides the power of Order And when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of the Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem
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
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
whole World became Christians and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did strive for the place of Universal Bishop I hope it appeareth to any who consider that there is nothing yet said by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity even to have been maintained in the Primitive times I mean not of the last step he speaketh of when Papacy it self began to appear for all that hath been said sheweth that Imparity was never judged of necessity and that the Imparity which was used was rather of Order than of Jurisdiction which is nothing against the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for Sect. 3. His 2d Argument p. 374. is That the same Form was not of old observed in all Churches where he sheweth that in many places there were no Bishops as he proveth of Scotland and other places This we accept of and add that where there were Bishops it is not nor cannot be by him proved that they had any Superior Jurisdiction but only Precedency and so the Divine Rite of Parity may stand for all this His 3d Argument p. 377. is That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government which he saith is insisted on by Learned Persons on all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire And he giveth some Instances of it in the correspondency of Civil Prefects and arch-Arch-Bishops in several places To all this let me say a few words 1. This Argument destroyeth it self for in the first antiquity which was the surest the Powers of the World were not Christian and so the Church could not conform to the state in her Offices 2. It is here confessed that this Conformity was especially I believe it may be said only after that division of the Roman Empire but those were the times when the man of Sin had almost got into his chair and therefore their practice can prove nothing of the mind of the Primitive Church 3. If this notion hold then it must be looked upon as a lawful and prudent expedient that there be one Pope as there was one Emperor This Mr. Still must maintain or he saith nothing 4. If this was their Rite of old then the Church behoved to be under two chief Bishops when the Roman Emperor was divided into two But this he doth not alledge but rather sheweth how it was divided into 13 Diocesses 5. If we receive this opinion then in a Kingdome there must be one head who must have his Councel of Bishops without a charge of the several Diocesses for the Kings Council hath not Precedency of several parts of the Country and they must authorize their deputies like Sheriffs yearly c. And in a Common-wealth there must be Independant Government but this I hope the Author will not own 6. It is most unreasonable to say that the Church-Government should be conform to the Civil because they are conversant about things and aim at ends so different the one respecteth things that are most different in several Nations viz. Mens Civil Interest and Customes and Inclinations the other respecteth that which ought to be every where the same viz. Religion His 4. Argument p. 379. is That other Episcopal Government was settled in the Church yet Presbyterian Ordination was looked on as valid This is not against us His last Argument p. 382. is That several restraints were laid on by Councils about the Observation of Rites and Customes and something of Church-Discipline but what is this I pray to Parity or Imparity we are not against determinations of Indifferent things that concern order and decency though we think that the Form of Government is determined by Christ not left to the will of man CHAP. VIII IN this Chapter our Author would make us believe that all the world was ever of his Opinion and indeed this is so common for men to alledg whatever be their singular notions of things that we are not to lay much weight upon it Videlius took as much pains to make all reformed Divines to speak for Erastianism I might excuse my self from medling any further with this last Chapter of his 1. From the needlesness of the thing because we do not build the Divine Right of Presbytery on mens Opinions who we know can err and therefore if all the world were against it if the Scripture be for it so must we 2. From the disadvantage I lie under as to this part of the dispute with him If I had been of Mr. Still opinion in this point in controversie I might through compliance with courses have been furnished with a good Library and other conveniencies of studying the want of which doth incapacitate me to search into the opinions of those worthy men which he citeth in doing whereof I hope it would not be difficult to shew that some of their Testimonies are made to speak otherwise than they thought and others of them are irreconcilable with what themselves have elsewhere written Sect. 2. Notwithstanding we shall essay briefly to say as much to his allegations as may take off that edge they seem to have for cutting asunder the cause which we maintain P. 384. he hath a confident assertion I believe saith he there will upon the most impartial survey scarce be one Church of the Reformation brought which doth embrace any form of Government because it looked upon that form as only necessary by an unalterable standing Law but every one took up that form of Government which was judged most sutable to the state and condition of the several Churches I wonder to see this so confidently asserted without proof It had been incumbent on Mr. Still for confirming this his dream to have gone through the confession of the several reformed Churches and let us see on what ground they then built their Church-Government for it will not sufficiently prove what was the judgment of these Churches that some eminent men in them did assert such things which latter of the two he only insisteth on and that to little purpose too as I hope shall appear But the falsehood of this Allegiance I will make appear afterwards when I have tried the strength of the Testimonies he bringeth for his opinions Sect. 3. He beginneth with them who have asserted the mutability of the form of Government in Thesi where he maketh it his chief business to shew that the Church of England of old was of this opinion To which I answer That those worthy men having nothing in their eye but Episcopacy their work was to oppose the Divine Right of that there was never an other form brought in competition with it nor much minded by them and therefore we agree with them in their design Of Foreign Divines his first Testimony is of Chemnitius to which I cannot give a particular answer because not having his book I cannot try it only this confideration I shall lay down to take off the strength of it Neither Mr. Still nor any man else ought to lay
in Divinus i.e. Presbyter Humanus i. e. c. a President or constant Moderator Diabolicus i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva which was without such a fixed President to other Churches but what is this to the purpose It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains and lose his labour It being so as hath been shewed Mr. Still doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time it was not as he alledgeth whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop or giving him power over his Brethren were lawful Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anbalt Luther Melancton and Calvin professing their readiness to submit to Bishops if they would do the duty of Bishops All which amounts to no more than this That if Bishops would keep within bounds not usurp Authority over their Brethren nor use it to the destruction of Religion they might be born with but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy which these Men did ever detest For Jacobus Heerbrandus I am not acquainted with his Principles nor his Book Hemingius who cometh next speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines not authoritatis and so cometh not up to the thing in Question For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis for if it be necessary it is not indifferent If in any case such a thing be necessary it is in that case lawful nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit in other cases it is unlawful What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches as Sweden Denmark c. doth not weigh with us knowing that they err in greater matters also What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy We think their way lawful and whether it be convenient to them or not we judg not but to us sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient The next thing that he insisteth on viz. Episcopal Divines holding Episcopacy not necessary it doth not concern us to Answer and so we see to what amounteâ—… the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as if all Men were of his judgment Sect. 9. Having now seen of what force are our Authors Witnesses brought for the indifferency of the Form of Church-Government let us see if there can be more pregnant Authority brought for the divine Right of it I do not question but many sheets may be filled with pertinent Citations to this purpose by one better stored with Writings of our Reformed Divines and having leisure to search them I shall give some instances such as my poor Library doth afford both of Churches and of particular Divines And before the Restorers of the Truth I shall mention those famous Conservators of it in the darkest times of Antichristianism the Waldenses whom some of our Divines call Majores Nostros their Opinion in this may be seen in Waldensiâ Confes Taboritarum per Joa Lukawitz cap. 3. p. 5. Lex evangelica Jesu Christi per se sufficientissima ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis c. 14. p. 32. Nos qui pro lege liberrima Jesu Christi per se sufficienti ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis sine Ceremoniis Legis veteris ritibus humanis post adjectis scientes quia securissimum est optimum Magisterium Ecclesiae primitivae quam regebant Apostoli actus imitari We see here the sufficiency of Scripture for Church-Government asserted and that without new Laws or humane devices which could not be if the particular Form were not determined in it but left to Mens devising Also that Apostolick practice is in this a Rule to us both which militate against Mr. Stilling's Discourse I shall next bring the opinion of the French and the Dutch Churches held forth in their Confessions which I have out of Smect sect 14. The French Church Artic. 29.30 speaketh thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ quam dominus noster Jesus Christus sancivit then it may not be such as Men think fit nor is it indifferent ita viz. aut sui in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive seniores Diaconi then Christs institution is against Bishops seeing he appointeth the rest and leaveth them out ut doctrinae puritas retineatur Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sint eadem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos then there can be no imparity of power sub uno illo capite solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christi The Dutch Church Art 30. thus Credimus veram hane Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari spirituali illa politia quam nos deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit ita ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri qui purè concionentur sacramenta administrent sint etiam seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Religio conservari hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim rite ordinate omnia fiunt in Ecclesiâ cum viri fideles pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. caeterum ubicunque locorum sint verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem tum authoritatem ut qui sint aequè omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capitis Ecclesiae Ministri What hath ever been the opinion of the Church of Scotland about the Divine Right of Presbyterial Government is so well known that I need not mention it also what hath been the judgment of the Presbyterian Ministers of England both in the National Synod of famous memory and the Provincial Assembly of London who have written for the jus divinum of it Sect. 10. To this Truth also the famous Professors of London bear their joint Testimony Synops Pur. Theol. Disp 48. Thes 23. Nec tamen propterea concedimus à solo aliquo Episcopo sive Romano sive Eugobino ex motu proprio aut plenaria authoritate ut loquimur hanc potestatem posse vendicari sed rectorum ac Presbyterorum Ecclesiae concilium totiusque adeo Ecclesiae aut apertum aut tacitum consensum adhibendum esse ex praescripto Christi ac purioris Ecclesiae praxi asserimus And this they prove Thes 24. Because that Tell the Church cannot be understood of one Bishop Calvin is clear for us for he maketh the Officers of the Church to be by Christs Institution and sheweth who they are that he hath Instituted Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 4. Also c. 4. sect 1. He sheweth how in the Primitive Church they studied carefully to adhere to God's Institution in the Government of the Church And on Phil. 1.1 reproving the Usurpation of Bishops he saith Perinde ac si non omnes Presbyteri Collegae essent ad eandem vocati functionem unus sibi praetextu novae appellationis dominium in alios arripuit Sect. 11. I close with a short Answer such as it deserveth to his last Assault which is p. 416. If Prudence must be used in setling Church-Government as he saith is confessed by Independents in their Elective Synods by Presbyterians in their subordination of Courts Classical-Assemblles Episcopal Men in several things Ans All this is nothing of the particular Form of Government Parity or imparity and so nothing to the purpose We absolutely deny that That is to be setled by Prudence but by the Institution of Christ though many Circumstances in Government must be determined by Prudence guided by Scripture-light For his advice in order to Peace it containeth many good things yet cannot we fully close with it till he establish on better grounds than we have yet seen the Basis of it viz. The indifferency of the particular Form of Church-Government FINIS
his fellow-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