they were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God being Evangelists therefore they were to have no Successors unless the Lord did so call them Further they were not fixed in these places but for a time they did not live and die there which shewed that there was no need of Successors to them in that Office Again he argueth that the Apostle did not determine how the Pastors of several Churches should order things of common concernment which considered with the former would seem a strange omission were either of these forms necessary Ans. This is no strange omission nor should it so be esteemed by this Author who maketh all that is requisite for the right managing of affairs by the Pastors of several Churches to be of the Law of Nature viz. that they should meet that one should moderate that there should be Appeals c. as I observed out of him before 2. We deny that it is omitted yea this Author in saying otherwise contradicteth himself for he will not deny but there are directions in these Epistles for Church-Government and he affirmeth that they are applicable to either form Ergo to Pastors acting in Parity neither was it needful that there should be directions to them which are not applicable to Bishops governing because the managing of the work is the same in both ways except what Nature maketh necessary to a Society or a single person governing which also it doth teach 3. The matter is determined even in these Epistles viz. 1 Tim. 4. 14. where it is not obscurely held forth that Tim. was ordained by a Presbytery which inferreth that Presbyters ought so to be ordained and not by a Bishop alone 4. Though the matter were not determined in these Epistles it is no wonder they being written to particular men but it is determined in other Scriptures viz. where Christ giveth the Keys not to one but to all the Apostles then the only Church Officers and where Paul committeth the care of the Church of Ephesus not to one Bishop but to the Elders in common Act. 20. 28. Of this he saith p. 184. it is equally a duty whether we understand by Overseers some acting over others or all joyning in equality But by his leave when the Apostle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of Ephesus for to them he speaketh not to these of other Churches of Asia as he dreameth the Text may be understood upon what ground I know not there is no doubt left whether he maketh it the duty of them all in common or of some one set over the rest And may we not think that this Command is a standing Rule reaching even to us as he himself saith p. 185. of what is contained in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. and if so then all Pastors are Bishops or Overseers not one over the rest by Apostolick Authority He argueth thus p. 185. Tim. is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who might be able also to teach others 2 Tim. 2. 2. Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them c. Ans. 1. Yea he doth here commit power of Preaching and of governing joyntly to Timothy to be transferred by him to others for of both these I suppose Tim. had heard from Paul why then must we here understand the one rather then the other in that he mentioneth Teaching not Ruling it is because Teaching is the main business and hath the other power necessarily joined with it by divine Institution 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power where ever the power of a Minister is mentioned and here it cannot be deemed needful because the Apostle had formerly instructed Tim. that he choose none to be Pastors but they who are able to Rule too whence it followeth that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pastoral charge he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it else to what purpose should he require ability to Rule in them To the same purpose is what he saith of Tit. That he bid him ordain Elders but told not what Power did belong to them a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture is in concludent such as this is From the Superiority of Tim. and Tit. I pass his clearing of it from being an Argument for Episcopacy he inferreth two things p. 186. 187. First that the Superiority of some Church Officers he should have said Presbyters for of Officers it is not Questioned on either hand over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel 2. That it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the Church in Apostolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation These saith he follow though their Office be supposed extroardinary and that they acted as Evangelists Ans. It will follow indeed from these examples that Superiority is not contrary to Nature nor to the Nature of a Gospel Church Also it will follow that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that the Lord should immediately when he seeth cause appoint such Superiority and what if we say it followeth that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that in some extraordinary cases that Superiority may be allowed for a time But none of these are the thing in Question for this doth not follow that because the Lord did immediately call these men and gave them Extroardinary Power over others therefore he hath not instituted that the ordinary way of Church Government shall be by Pastors acting in Purity which is here disputed His third head of Laws formerly mentioned he toucheth p. 188. and bringeth instances of some General rules for Church Government which I confess are not peculiar to one form But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are such which himself instanceth as that complaints be made to the Church it is an odd exposition to say i. e. Tell the Bishop The Church implieth clearly a Plurality p. 187. had it been the will of Christ saith he that there should be no Superiority of Pastors there would have been some express and direct prohibition of it Ans. 1. Might not a prohibition by Consequence serve turn This is very peremptorily spoken 2. What needeth any prohibition when Christ had instituted a way inconsistent with it this was a prohibition of it now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters as hath been already shewed Sect. 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Opposites p. 189. Viz. That it is of equal necessity that Christ should Institute a certain Form as that any other Legislator that moderates a Commonwealth should do His first Ans. To this is that Christ hath instituted such an immutable Government in his Church as is sufcient for the succession and continuance of it which is all that founders of Republicks looked after viz. That there be such an order and distinction of Persons and subordination that
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 Bishops 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 or 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 thâ—re 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 weâ—e 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 conâ—rary 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 Scepticism 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
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 ore 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 a time when Government could not be setled viz. When first a Church was planted and Believers very few But I am sure it was otherwise in many places before the Apostles departed this life 4. Must we say then that the Directions in the Epistles to Tim. and Pet. and elsewhere concerning Church-Administration do not concern us but their force expired with that time I must see stronger Arguments than any that this Author hath brought ere I be perswaded of this and yet it doth clearly follow out of what he he saith Yea we must say that these Scriptures which tell us what Officers should be in the Church as Eph. 4. 12. 1 Cor. 12. 28. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. do not reach us but it is lawful for the Magistrate in this mans opinion to appoint what Church-Officers he thinketh fit for this time as the Apostles did for their time For he saith p. 181. the Apostles looked at the present state of the Church in appointing Officers This I hope sober men will not readily yield to Yea he is against himself as we have seen before and may have occasion further to shew afterward § 9. His fourth and last Reason is p. 181. the Jews lived under one civil Government according to which the Church Government was framed and contempered but Christians live under different civil Governments therefore if we compare Christ with Moses in this we must say that Christ did frame the Church Government according to the Civil and so it must not be one but divers Ans. It is here boldly supposed but not proved that the form of the Jewish Church Government was framed according to the Civil which we deny and so raze the foundation of this Reason And whereas his assertion wants proof our denial shall stand on surer ground for the Civil Government among the Jews was often changed they had Judges Kings Governors under their Conquerors but we read not of changing their Church Government which behoved to have been had it been framed according to the Civil Wherefore neither must Christian Church-Government be formed by the Civil but by Christs Institution § 10. To these answers to our Argument he addeth ex abundanti as he speaketh some Arguments to prove the Antithesis viz. that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government He might have spared this his supererrogation except he had had more to say for taking off the strength of our Argument then we have met with But to his Arguments the first p. 181 and 182. he frameth thus what binds the Church as an Institution of Christ must bind as an Universal standing Law one Form of Government cannot so bind ergo prob min. what binds as a Law must either be expressed as a Law in direct terms or deduced by necessary consequence as of an universal binding nature The first cannot be produced The second is not sufficient except the consequence be necessary and also the obligation of what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture for consequences cannot make Institution but apply it to particular cases because positives being indifferent Divine Institution must be directly brought for their binding so that no consequence can bind us to them without express declaration that it shall so bind This is no new Argument it is proposed by him p. 12. and answered by us p. to what is said there I shall add a little applyed to his Argument as here framed his major is not so evident but that it needeth a distinction to clear it What bindeth as Christs Institution must bind as an universal Law i. e. in all times and places negatur for there are cases in which the Lord will admit and necessity will impose a dispensation with some of God's Institutions as I exemplified before in the case of Hezekiah keeping the Passeover i. e. in all times where God or Nature doth not make a clear exception or where the present case doth not exempt it self from the intent of that as being given in a far different condition conceditur Hence there were some of Christs Laws for the Church temporal some peculiar to some cases these do not bind us all the rest do where they are possibly practicable That the Laws for parity of Offices in the Church are of the latter sort we maintain For his Miner we deny it and for the disjunctive proof of it we are ready to maintain both the parts which he impugneth And First That there is express Law of Christ for parity which I wonder he should so barely deny that it can be produced when he knoweth or might know that it is brought by our Writers out of Mat. 20. 25 26. Lu. 22. 25 26. But what he hath to say against the evidence brought from these and other places we shall examine when we come at them 2. Though there were no express Law for it we maintain that there is abundant evidence drawn by consequence from Scripture to shew that this is the Will and Law of Christ as for these two conditions that he requireth in such a consequence the first we own and maintain that it is inferred by clear consequence from Scripture that there ought to be a parity among Ministers thus what was the practice of the Apostles in framing Church Government should be ours also except the case be different but the Apostles did settle the Ministers in equal power without a Bishop over them neither is there any difference in our case that should cause us to do otherwise ergo we ought so to practice It is not needful to insist here on the confirmation of this Argument seeing we are here only asserting that this conclusion may be proved not undertaking the proof of it which is fully done by Presbyterian Writers and which
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 Scripture 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
juris naturalis 1. That there be a distinction of persons and a superiority both of power and order in some over the rest 2. That the persons so above others have respect paid them sutable to the nature of their imployment cap. 5. The third thing is that all things either pertaining to the immediate worship of God or belonging to the Government of the Church be performed with the greatest solemnity and decency that may be cap. 6. Fourthly that there be a way agreed upon to determine and decide all the controversies arising in the Church which immediately tend to the breaking of the peace and unity of it Where he pleadeth for the definitive sentence in the major part where power is equal and for liberty of appeals where there is subordination as being of natural right and that this subordination must be in a Society consisting of many Companies or Congregations cap. 7. Fifthly that all who are are admitted unto this Society must consent to be governed by the laws of that Society cap. 8. Sixthly that in a well-ordered Society and so in the Church every offender against the rules of that Society must give an account of his actions to the Governours of that Society and submit to the censures of it according to the Judgment of the Officers of it All this we accept of as truth but how this last doth consist with his putting all power of jurisdiction in the hand of the Magistrate and leaving the Church-Officers only power of Preaching and Administring the Sacraments of which before I cannot understand So much for the first part of his Irenicum PART II. CAP. 1 2. § 1. IN his second part we have also some concessions to be taken notice of as cap. 2. p. 154. that there must be a Form of Government as necessary not by Nature only but by a Divine Law This we receive as truth and do thus improve it ad hominem The Author cannot shew us any express Law in Scripture commanding that there be a Form of Government in the Church Neither can any Scripture ground of this truth be brought but what is drawn from Apostolick practice they had a Form of Government ergo so must we seeing it is as needful to us as it was to them Now if this be so why doth the Author dispute so much against our reasoning from Apostolick practice where the case is alike for this particular Form of Government as being established by Divine Law If their practice be a sufficient evidence of a Divine Law beside the Law of Nature for this that there be a Form why is it not as significant of a Divine Law for this that this is the Form where the case of them and us is alike § 2. We receive also as a concession p. 157. that there is a Divine Warrant for a National Church and for a National Form of Church-Government Also cap. 2. he concedeth that the Government of the Church ought to be administred by Officers of Divine Appointment is of Divine Right Where in one word he destroyeth unawares all that he saith for maintaining the lawfulness of Episcopal Government for he doth not deny that Bishops as ruling over Presbyters and having more power than their Brethren are of Humane Constitution and so they cannot be Officers of Divine appointment If so then by this Concession the Church ought not to be ruled by them and so Episcopal Government is unlawful I know not if he did foresee this Argument taken out of himself But in explaining his Concession he would fain seem to say some other thing than he hath indeed said For he saith that he here taketh the Church for the Members of the Church So that his meaning is there must be a standing perpetual Ministry And this he proveth largely This doth no ways explain what he hath said For it is one thing that it be Divine Appointment that there are Officers and another thing that these Officers be such as God hath appointed Jeroboam when he made Priests of the lowest of the People kept Divine Institution so far that he made Priests and did make that work common to all And yet his Priests were not Officers of Divine Appointment So neither is the Church ruled by Officers of Divine Appointment though there be Officers who rule which is Divine Appointment except these Officers be such as God hath Instituted and not such as men have devised And besides this the Law of Nature dictateth that there should be Rulers in the Church distinct from the Ruled as he had formerly observed Wherefore he must here either trifle or say some more viz. that the Lord must appoint these sorts of Officers that should govern his Church for the Author is here speaking of what is of Divine positive Right having formerly shewed what is of Divine Natural Right § 3. In the third Chap. we have the Question stated in speaking of the Church as comprehending many particular Congregations and so excluding the Independent way from this Competition he compareth these two forms of Government viz. 1. The particular Officers of several Churches acting in equality of power called a Colledge of Presbyters 2. A superiour order above the Ministry having the Power of Jurisdiction and Ordination belonging to it Now the Question is not whether of these cometh nearest to the primitive pattern But whether either of them be setled by Divine Right so as that the Church is bound to obseeve it He holds the Negative We the affirmative and we say that the former of these two is Juris Divini § 4. For proving his opinion he undertaketh to enervate all the Pleas which are made for the Divine Right of either of these Five he proposeth viz. 1. A former Law standing in force under the Gospel 2. Some plain institution of a new Law under the Gospel 3. The obligatory Nature of Apostolical practice 4. The general sence of the primitive Church 5. The Judgement of the chief Divines and Churches since the Reformation Of these he discourseth severally And we shall give our sence of them as in following him we come at them But first I must here note a few things 1. It is an injurious way of stateing the Question about this Divine Right to exclude any who put in for it from the liberty of Competition Now he knoweth that others besides these plead a Divine Right of their way as Erastians will have the keys given by Christ to the Magistrate Independents to the Community or at least the Officers of a particular Church Popery is not excluded seeing it standeth on the same bottom with Episcopacy though I think the Resolution of the question about Divine Right might have laid both these aside yet I think the stating of it might have taken them in and they might have a fair hearing lest some by seeing Presbytery and Episcopacy laid aside as of no Divine stamp might be tempted to take of either of the other two for Christs
we are ready to defend against what this Author will object For the second condition viz. that what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture as binding this is unlike Mr. Stillingfleet's ability to require such a ridiculous condition for if it be expresly set down in Scripture as binding then it is not a consequence but an express Law and so belongs to the former part of his disjunction And besides it is a hard task to put any one upon to find out a consequence so deduced in Scripture What if Anabaptists who deny consequences from Scripture in the point of Institution should put Mr. Stillingfleet to prove Infant Baptism by such a consequence as this where something is said in Scripture from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow and where it is expresly said in Scripture that it doth follow from this that Infants must be baptized he would find this an hard task and yet he requireth the same of us What he saith for the warranting of this strange Doctrine wanteth force It is true Consequences cannot make an Institution yet they may declare an Institution we may gather the Will of Christ in matters of Institutions by 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
be Bishop over them and we maintain the Negative as that which should be out of Question and this we shall not barely assert as Mr. Stilling f. hath done his Opinion 1. Then this taking the exercise of that power from men which Christ hath given them is unwarrantable ergo it is unlawful I hope the consequence will not be denied for what we lawfully do must be some way warranted either by a Command or a Permission The Antecedent I prove because a warrant for such a practice cannot be shewed and further if there were any warrant for it it must either be from Christs command or 2. From his express Permission or 3. From the Law of Nature or 4. From want of a Law forbidding it But none of these do warrant it not the First nor Second for our Opposite cannot produce such Command or Permission either directly let down or drawn by consequence from it Nor the Third for then they must produce some dictate of the Law of Nature which giveth leave to do this but what that shall be I understand not Nature indeed teacheth that a Society may use means for its own Peace and Order but this may be without hindering the exercise of that power the Supreme Governour giveth to any of his Officers there may be this in the Church where Presbyters Rule in Common Nature also teacheth that when more have a Common power they may consult about the best way of Managing it but it doth not teach that they may mannage it otherwise then it is committed to them by him who gave it which they must do if they put it into the hands of one which is given to more especially when it may be managed well without such crossing the Institution of it Besides all this Nature can never warrant this alienation of the Power that Christ hath given to his Servants because Nature doth only warrant us to step beside Christs Institution in his matters where Institution is not sufficient to attain that which is naturally necessary or when the Acting only by Institution would cross Nature but there is no natural necessity of giving all power to a Bishop which Christ hath given to Presbyters neither doth leaving the exercise of it in common cross Nature Ergo Nature doth not warrant this practice Neither can the fourth warrant it for then it should be in the power of men to take all the power that Ministers have from Christ out of their hands and give it to one so that only my Lord Bishop might preach baptise c. as well as that he only may rule for their is no Law forbidding the Church to lay all the parts of Pastoral power on one more then forbidding to lay one part of it on one Sure sobriety and due reverence to the Institutions of Christ would teach us to think that while he hath given equal power to many it should be a sufficient forbidding that any be so bold as to lay the exercise of that power on one taking it from the rest Sect. 18. 2. I prove it thus When Christ giveth a power to his Servants to manage the affairs of his Church it is not only a Licence whereby they are authorized to do such work if they think fit but it is a trust they get it as a charge that they must give account of as is evident from the command to this purpose given them Act. 20. 28. take heed to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Overseers here is a Command to Overseers to do that work and they must give an account of this their charge Heb. 13. 17. Rulers who must be obeyed are such who must give an account Now it is not lawful for one who getteth such a Trust to lay it on another neither may any take it out of his hands to bestow it upon another without his leave who gave that trust when Christ hath Commanded Ministers to rule and will seek account of them may they lay their work on a Bishop will it be well taken in the day of Account to say they committed their Flock to another to keep who left them to the Wolf or scattered and slew them will not the Lord say to them why did not ye feed them your selves Sure Christ will require account of them to whom he gave the charge and that is of Pastors neither will he ask Account of Bishops except for their Usurpation Ergo it is not lawful to take the exercise of Church Power out of the hands of Ministers and give it to a Bishop 3. Proof If Presbyters who have received Power from Christ may put the exercise of it into the hands of a Bishop alienating it from themselves why may not Bishops devolve their Power on one who shall be over them and so we shall have an Universal Bishop the Pope in whom shall rest all Church Power and at whose direction it shall be exercised If that may be done there is no shadow of Reason why this may not be done for if once the Power be taken out of the hand of them to whom Christ hath given it then prudence must be the only Director to teach us who must have it now prudence will as well say that Bishops must have one over them to keep them in Order and peace as that Presbyters must have one over them Neither is there here any inconvenience that is not there for that one may turn to tyranny as well as the other and a Bishop cannot oversee his charge without substitutes more then the Pope can do the one may substitute Bishops Cardinals c. as well as the other may substitute Dean Prebends Archdeacon c. Now I hope Mr. Stillingfleet is not come to that to think the Papal Office an indifferent Ceremony ergo neither should he think so of Episcopacy 4. If Presbyters may devolve the exercise of that power that Christ hath given them into the hands of a Bishop then they may also give away with their power the very Office that Christ hath given them But this they may not ergo I prove the Major for when they devolve the exercise of their ruling power on the Bishop they not only consent that they shall rule the people which they might do But they make it unlawful for themselves to rule yea they give up themselves to be ruled and commanded by them so that he is their Judge and cannot be judged by them in case of male-administration at least this is true de singulis if not de omnibus but this is to give away the very power for if I may not act how have I a power to act if both I and the people be under the command of another so that I may not act any thing in reference to the People but by his authority how have I power to rule sure a power is the possibility of the act quantum est ex parte causae and a moral power is such a lawfulness of the act
about which they are be of more weight and miscarriage in them more dangerous then mens commands All which make it more absurd to commit the exercise of our power that he giveth to others than for Servants to do so with their Masters work Sect. 20. For better understanding of what he had said our Author subjoyneth a distinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers viz. a Power of Order in preaching the word visiting the sick administring the Sacraments c. this he maketh to be inseparably joyned to the function and to belong to every ones personal capacity both in actu primo and actu secundo and a power of Jurisdiction in visiting Churches overseeing particular Pastors Ordination Church Censures making Rules for decency this he maketh to be in every Presbyter quoad aptitudinem and habitually so as he hath a jus to it in actu primo but the exercise and limitation of it and some further power of choise and delegation to it and some further Authority besides the power of Order And when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of the Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to them who are so appointed To this I reprove a few things briefly 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in terminis to what he taught Part. 1. c. 2. p. 41. and we refuted p. there he made the power of Order peculiar to Ministers and power of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Magistrate describing both powers no otherwise then he doth here and yet here he giveth the power of Jurisdiction as well as of Order to Ministers 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers quoad jus to be equally given by Christ to all Ministers it is strange that he should deny that men may restrain the one for he confesseth the actus secundus of it to be inseparably joined to the Office and yet doth boldly affirm that they may restrain the other without giving the least shew of permission that they have from Christ who gave both powers so to tamper with the one more then with the other If Christ hath made no difference between these and if he hath it should have been produced how dare men do it I confess Nature maketh a necessity of restricting the power of Jurisdiction for if every one should Rule when and where he pleased there would be confusion and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exercise this power over but this is common to the power of Order also though with some difference for it is not fit that every Minister should preach and baptize where and when he pleaseth without any limitation Neither could this be without confusion Also Christ hath made a limitation of the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for by giving it to many and making it relate to things of common concernment he hath eo ipso determined that none of these who have it shall exercise it by himself nor without the concurrence and consent of them who are equal in Commission with him This limitation of the exercise we confess to be warrantable but what reason there is I cannot understand why men should take away the exercise of ruling power from many and give it to one more than they can take away the exercise of preaching power and so give it to some as it shall not be lawful for them to preach but only to rule more than they can take away the exercise of both powers seeing Christ hath equally given them Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Author here furnisheth us with against himself men may not restrain the exercise of the power of order further than Nature maketh it necessary Ergo they may not any further restrain the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction because Christ hath not made such a difference in his giving these powers to men If it be said that the restraint of the power of Jurisdiction is sometimes necessary because Parity breeds Factions and many are unfit to rule Ans. Even so letting all preach doth often breed Heresie many preach false Doctrine and many are unfit to preach So this argument must either plead for the restraint of both powers or of neither Let us then see what must be the remedy of this abuse of the power of order and the remedy of the abuse of the other must be proportionable sure the remedy is not to restrain the exercise of the power of preaching except it be for a time in expectation of their amendment which holdeth also with reference to ruling power but to put such unfit men out of the Ministry Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Curate and let him still have the charge of the Flock though his Curate doth the work for him No but he should be removed and another put in his place Even so they who are unfit to rule must not have a Bishop do it for them but be removed that other fit men may be put in their place seeing ruling abilities are a necessary qualification of a Minister as well as preaching abilities as was shewed before If Parity breed Factions we must censure the guilty not cross Christs Institutions in the exercise of that power he hath given Sect. 21. 3. It is not good sense that he saith speaking of the power of Jurisdiction that though it belong habitually and in actu primo to all yet in a constituted Church some further Authority is necessary besides the power of order Whether this be the Printers fault or the Authors I know not but sure the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Jurisdiction is exercised 4. He leaveth us in suspence about the power of restraining the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for he implieth that it may be done by the consent of the Pastors or by the appointment of the Magistrate or both If this power that Christ hath given his Servants may be taken from them in its exercise it is very fit we should know to whom the Lord hath given leave to do this I believe and have proved that no man may do it but if it may be done sure it is not thus left at randome that it should be primi occupantis Pastors themselves cannot do it for they have got the charge and they not the Bishop whom they entrust must give an account The Magistrate may not do it for he is no ruler of the Church but this is the highest act of ruling the Church and of ruling and disposing of the Rulers of it as he pleaseth and if neither may do it both may not do it seeing the reasons brought exclude both from any measure of power in that thing I do not stand on the Authority of Camero which is all the proof
any who in extraordinary cases act the part of the ordinary Guides of the Church Sect. 7. I agree to the argument of Mr. Gillespy cited by the Author that unless we understand the word Church as usually it would be no easie matter to know what Christ here meaneth by the Church for seeing this was to be a standing Law in all Ages 't is not imaginable that the Lord would have us otherwise understand the terms of it than they are ordinarily used in the Bible which he intended should constantly be in his Peoples hands Neither is that of any weight which our Author opposeth to this that such as so argue would do well to consider how those to whom Christ spake should apprehend his meaning if he spake in a sense they never heard of before We consider that they may easily understand Christs words because he had often before spoken to them of the Gospel-church that was to be set up and even in this very term of a Church as Matth. 16. 19. and frequently under the notion of the Kingdom of Heaven which they might easily apprehend to be meant by the Church Wherefore the Author did not well consider what he said when he supposed this language to be unknown to the Disciples Hence all that he saith of the way of understanding Scripture in the sence of the words then common is not to the purpose for Christ had made this sense common among them Neither must we understand the word as it was then commonly apprehend among the Jews but as it was apprehended among Christs ordinary Hearers who were in expectation of another Church and another way of Government in it to be set up than was then among the Jews I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either against our opinion of this Text or for his own He concludeth p. 228. that this place though it speaks not of Church-government yet it may have some influence on it by way of Analogy viz. in proving 1. Gradual Appeals 2. Church-censures 3. The lawfulness of Excommunication This he yieldeth at least that something of Church-Government may be inferred from this place then ex concessis it is not so impertinent to this purpose as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter Sect. 8. But let us see if we can draw any more out of it than he will yield us We have already proved it to be directly meant of Church-Government and to give Rules for the right managing of it now I assert that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Government viz. That it ought to be by Parity not Episcopacy which I thus make out The first Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought is the Church and it is also the last but if the Church were governed by Bishops this should not be Ergo The Church ought not to be governed by Bishops The Major is clear for after secret and private admonition which are not authoritative immediately succeedeth Tell the Church sure this Church must be that Authority which we must go to prima instantia and also that which must finally decide the matter seeing Excommunication doth immediately so low upon Disobliging this Authority The Minor I prove thus in the Episcopal way the complaint must be brought to the Bishop or to his Delegate or Delegates which is all one as to the matter of Authority and he must be the last that must determine and on disobedience to him followeth Excommunication but the Bishop is not the Church Ergo In the Episcopal way complaints cannot be made to the Church nor doth the Church finally decide the matter The Minor of this last Syllogism is evident for neither the naâ—ure of the word nor Scripture-Use will bear that one Man shall be called the Church If it be said that Episcopacy be so modelled as the Bishop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence and they may well be called the Church Answ. In that case either the Presbyters have a decisive Vote as well as the Bishop or they be only his Advisers In the first case the Bishop is only a Praeses which is not that Episcopacy pleaded against though we judg it inconvenient In the 2d the Bishop is the only Power and therefore there is no such Church as here meant for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority whom the party ought to hear i. e. obey and for contumacy against which he is Excommunicated but the Bishop and his counsel is not such a Church for his counsel hath no Authority and himself cannot make a Church and therefore both taken together make no Church having Authority CHAP. VI. HERE Mr. Stilling doth undertake to lay aside Apostolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government What success he hath in this attempt we now examine His two main scopes in this Chapter are that it cannot be known what the practice of the Apostles was in this and that if it were known it is no binding example to us which desperate assertions do not a little reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the casting loose the Government of the Church The latter of them I have spoken to before and purpose to examine what he saith for it Concerning the former I shall premise but this to our trying of his proofs that it is very strange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written so much of their practice both Historically and implied it in Doctrinal assertions and Precepts if for all this we cannot know what it was which if it do not accuse the Scripture-relation of things of great imperfection I know nothing for I am sure the Scripture doth purposely set down much of their practice both in Preaching administration of Sacraments ordination of Officers directing these Officers in their behaviour in the House of God censures and other parts of Government if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling the account given of these things must be very imperfect I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the History of a Church if out of his History could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church shall we then think that the Sacred Writers who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apostles are so deficient especially many of the writings of the Apostles themselves being added by the same Spirit out of which much may be gathered to this purpose But let us hear how he makes out this his strange opinion I insist not on what he writeth of the Apostles Commission I confess the form of Government is not expressed in it though we have ground to think that when Christ chargeth them to teach his People to observe all he commanded them Matth. 28. 20. that it was his Will that they should not leave so great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will but that his
lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans. 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ. 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two
them Heb. 13. 7 17. proveth also the same thing most clearly Other places might be brought but these Instances may shew that Mr. Stilling undertaking to shew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apostolick Church doth not touch the most considerable places commonly brought to that purpose but hath mentioned a few and those which are least insisted on by them whom he opposeth and even to them he hath said nothing to scare any from using them as Arguments afterward His third Argument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apostolical Form of Government taken from the insufficiency of the Testimony of Antiquity is this I pass it because we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture and what he saith proveth no more but that antiquity is not sufficient to bear witness to it also because all or most that he there discourseth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Episcopacy was the Apostolical form which we willingly yield Sect. 14. I come then to his 2d proposition mentioned before which he layeth down p. 322. Thus That the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but settled it according to the several circumstances of places and Persons which they had to deal with This assertion he layeth down ex abundanti not as a Foundation of his opinion but a doctrine of probability which may tend to compose differences about Church-Government To clear our way in this dispute with him let it be observed 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose 2. It helpeth not him nor harmeth our cause if we should grant that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course for it is what they did ordinarily and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise that we inquire about 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers Taking these considerations along with us I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition The first is taken p. 323. from the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles and here he premiseth 3 things viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers and in order thereto in some great places About these I shall not controvert with him only the 2d must be understood with this distinction else we cannot grant it that a fewer number if formed into a Church-Society though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind as Teachers Elders Deacons yet would it need as many sorts of Officers and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations they must be taught ruled and their Poor cared for and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were I mean where such Officers could be had for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches On this conclusion before I come to his Proofs of it I shall make these remarques 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters if where more Presbyters could not be had one was to do the work this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did or that we may set one over the rest where many may be had to rule the Church This conclusion then proveth nothing 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not if he say the first I doubt if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches where the Deacons work was to serve not to rule that Church and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly which maketh nothing against Presbyterians If the second first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles 2. If it was so it was necessity not choice that made them be without ruling Elders Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement Epiph. and others What hath he so soon forgot himself he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed Phil. 1. 1. That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity and therefore by his own Argument of which before it is not to be laid weight upon but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this in sum that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was necessity for Presbyters and Deacons and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it there was a Bishop appointed but where there were not many to be Presbyters they were content with a Bishop and Deacons Here are 3 cases Presbyters and Deacons a Bishop and Deacons this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be
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 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
culorum 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 difused it was their fault and taken notice of by the better sort Calv. in 1 Tim. 5. 17. speaking of this Office saith Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevisse conqueritur doctorum Ignavia vel potius superbia dum soli volunt eminere See Testimonies for the Antiquity of it Smect sect 15. Sect. 18. His second proof of his second Proposition viz. That the Apostles took diverse courses in Ruling Churches is p. 340. from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the affairs of the Church in chief during their residence such were Apostles and Evangelists In some places saith he these were others not and in some places no Officers but these Answ. This is obviated by our 3d Observ. For the Question is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers and that only where they could be had of whom this proof doth not speak His 3d Proof ibid. is from the different customs observed in the Church after the Apostles times This is most inconsequent yea one might as well reason thus In after-times they set up Metropolitans and at last a Pope Ergo it was so in the Apostles times We say then That diversity in after Ages flowed from this that Men following Mr. Stilling Principles did not follow divine Institution or Apostolick practice but their own Wit and Reason Beside the diversities he here instanceth in are not to the purpose for he doth not shew us that Parity was in one place and imparity in another but that in one place the Presbyters chused their Bishop in another not Sect. 19. We come at last to his 3d proposition about Apostolick practice p. 341. viz. That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed is not sufficient of it self for the founding of an unalterable and perpetual Rite for the Form of Government in the Church which is supposed to be founded on that Practice This doctrine he laid down before par 1 c. 1. p. 23. And we examined p. _____ where I stated that question far otherwise than he seemeth here to do and indeed thâ—s proposition as here laid down might be yielded by us neither doth it nor his Arguments for it touch thâ— 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 der this Mystery of iniquity had begun to work 2 Thes. 2. 7. It is no wonder then that 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 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
than then where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place they were ruled only in Common yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could Also we grant that when Congregations were settled the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion to call this a weak conceit-seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom for ability I think Mr. Still modesty will not suffer him to compare himself But what ever be of the ability of them who own it there is reason for it so weighty as may excuse it from weakness which is this Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper rebuking them consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration c. 'T is very unfit to bring all these things in prima instantia to the Presbytery that ruleth in common This I confirm out of what himself hath written p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them though with subordination to those in the City is there not the same reason why particular Congregations though in City should have their Rulers 't is as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation at the first hand to the common Presbyters as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of the Church neither if we should yield all that he saith is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations we have cause to suspend our belief of it till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it which he hath not so much as essaid It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations not their subordinate Power for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common not that they had no particular Government in each of them as any may easily see by considering them Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment such as use not often to be so much taken notice of The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches is what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another and to the lesser City that were under them and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right to which we agree I add that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar Damasc. c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Jreneus have nothing of the different degrees of Bishops and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity The second step is p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie he saith that the City-Presbyters did Preach in these places and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church till after when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them who did rule them yet with subordination to the City-Church This last I only dislike neither do I see it proved by him for the Titles of matrix ecclesia et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction What he saith of that Eulogie sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread doth not prove the point and also it was a superstitious custome the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Popish adoration of their Hostia His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another but that their Honour depended on their Sees Thence he cometh to the last step when the whole World became Christians and the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople did strive for the place of Universal Bishop I hope it appeareth to any who consider that there is nothing yet said by him which can overturn the Divine Rite of Parity even to have been maintained in the Primitive times I mean not of the last step he speaketh of when Papacy it self began to appear for all that hath been said sheweth that Imparity was never judged of necessity and that the Imparity which was used was rather of Order than of Jurisdiction which is nothing against the Divine Rite of that Parity we plead for Sect. 3. His 2d Argument p. 374. is That the same Form was not of old observed in all Churches where he sheweth that in many places there were no Bishops as he proveth of Scotland and other places This we accept of and add that where there were Bishops it is not nor cannot be by him proved that they had any Superior Jurisdiction but only Precedency and so the Divine Rite of Parity may stand for all this His 3d Argument p. 377. is That the Government of the Church was conform to the Civil Government which he saith is insisted on by Learned Persons on all sides especially after the division of the Roman Empire And he giveth some Instances of it in the correspondency of Civil Prefects and arch-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
ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteth this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist. ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist. ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum hoc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the arch-Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispease himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes. where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a lord-Lord-Bishop over his Brethren as a thing lawfully practised in the ancient Church Yea if we consider his Discourse well we shall find that these were not divers Offices but the work of the Pastors divided among more where there were many Officers in one Church yet so as all might exercise all these Duties and so here is no multiplication of Offices beyond Christ's Institution Though I do not deny that this distributing of the work of Ministers did afterwards begin to be looked upon as making several orders of Officers but this he doth not approve of The second Testimony of Bucer is out of his de Discipl Clerical The sum of which is this for the words are too long to be transcribed That in the Ancient Church they set up a Bishop among the Presbyters Vt Consul inter Senatores this is devolving their Power into his hands which Mr. Still pleadeth for That these Bishops and Presbyters did meet when occasion required in Synods that one was over the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull
constitution Concerning those I premise 2 general Remarques 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood not of Episcopus Princeps but Praeses according to that distinction very common among them This we must hold as only consistent with their principles till the contrary be proved out of their own writings 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines they did often as Smect saith of Spanhem to the same purpose p. 65. deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment But to come to particulars he beginneth with Cracanthorp who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianism because they held not Imparity to be unlawful But this man was a Son of the Church of England as they speak and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken being willing to have them all think as he did They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect p. 79. where it is proved that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity and that Jerome Augustus Sedulius Primatius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aerius in this Next he bringeth the Augustane confession of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches but of the Lutherans for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart by themselves wherefore it is no wonder if these worthy men who were a reforming but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius who Mellifie Histor. par 3. p. 336. saith thus Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontifioiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magisque ne spiritum extingueret limabat poliebat et duriuscula fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet 3. All that is said in this confession is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood that they could yield to that so that even the furthest they go in their complemental condescendency doth not help Mr. Still 's cause who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful Sect. 7. In the next place he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy which he could never comport with while he lived He bringeth his Instit. lib. 4. c. 4. sect 1. 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God and that they used no other form of Governing the Church than was prescribed in the Word What doth this help his Cause The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment were no more but Praesides These he saith were not constituted beside the word of God This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind At present let it suffice to observe that the very words cited by Mr. Still do make against him For when Calvin saith Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit It is not evident that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government And 2dly That he asserteth that the Ancient Bishops if we look to the thing and do not understand the name Bishop as now it is used for the Prelate did stick close to this Form what could be more directly against Mr. Still Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known in Divinus i. e. Presbyter Humanus i. e. c. a President or constant Moderator Diabolicus i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva which was without such a fixed President to other Churches but what is this to the purpose It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains and lose his labour It being so as hath been shewed Mr. Still doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time it was not as he alledgeth whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop or giving him power over his Brethren were lawful Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anhalt Luther Melancton and Calvin professing their readiness to submit to Bishops if they would do the duty of Bishops All which amounts to no more than this That if Bishops would keep within bounds not usurp Authority over their Brethren nor use it to the destruction of Religion they might be born with but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy which these Men did ever detest For Jacobus Heerbrandus I am not acquainted with his Principles nor his Book Hemingius who cometh next speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines not authoritatis and so cometh not up to the thing in Question For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis for if it be necessary it is not indifferent If in any case such a thing be necessary it is in that case lawful nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit in other cases it is unlawful What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches as Sweden Denmark c. doth not weigh with us knowing that they err in greater matters also What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy We think their way lawful and whether it be convenient to them or not we judg not but to us sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient The next thing that he insisteth on viz. Episcopal Divines holding Episcopacy not necessary it doth not concern us to Answer and so we see to what amounteth the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as
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 humantis 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 hanc 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-Assemblies 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 An Advertisement of several Books lately Printed and sold by Richard Janeway MOral Reflections on the number of the Elect plainly proving from Scripture-Evidence c. That not one of an hundred Thousand nay probably not one of a Million from Adam down to our days shall be saved Price 6 d. An Appeal of all the Nonconformists in England to God and all the Protestants of Europe in order to manifest their Sincerity in Point of Obedience to God and the King To which is added a Sober and unpassionate Reply to the Author of The Lively Picture of Lewis Dumonlin both written by Dr. L. Du Moulin late History-Professor of Oxford Price 6 d. The last Speeches of Mr. John Kid and Mr. John King the two Ministers that were Executed at Edenburgh the 14th of August 1679. Price 6 d. A Letter to a Friend about the Proclamation for Proroguing the Parliament to November 1680. A Catalogue of the Names of all the Martyrs that were Executed in Queen Maries days with the particular Time when and Places where Price 2 d.