that large debate If we should grant a determining power to any authority about the things in hand it should not be to the Civil Magistrate but to the Guides of the Church met in a lawful Assembly And it is not only contrary to truth but a contradiction to what this Author writeth elsewhere in his Appendix about Excommunication where he taketh much pains to assert a power of Discipline in the Church-Guides and if so certainly the Magistrate is not the lawful Authority in the Church for that implyeth Church Authority I hope he will not say that Ministers have lawful Authority in the State because they have no Civil Authority why then should we say or suppose that the Magistrate hath lawful Authority in the Church except he think that the Magistrate hath Church-Authority against which he there disputeth especially seeing Respublica non est in Ecclesia sed Ecclesia in Republica he that hath only Civil power hath no power in the Church whatever he hath about Church-matters and over Church-men § 4. In asserting the Magistrates power in these things he professeth that he will not so much make his way through any party as strive to beget a right understanding among them that differ how well he keepeth his promise may be seen by examining what he saith on which I will not much insist intending to meet with this his Doctrine elsewhere but only mark what is amiss with a short ground of our censure of it for this debate is somewhat extrinsecal to the indifferency of Church-Government it rather supposeth it than asserteth or proveth it In explicating his second distinction about the Magistrate's power p. 41. The internal formal elicitive power of order saith he lies in the Authoritative exercise of the Ministerial function in Preaching of the word and Administration of the Sacraments but the external objective imperative power of jurisdiction lies in a due care and provision for the defence protection and propagation of Religion The former is only proper to the Ministry the later to the Supream Magistracy Here several things are to be noted 1. That he maketh the power of Order to be all one with internal formal elicitive power about Church affairs and the power of Jurisdiction the same with external objective and imperative power about them This is instead of distinguishing to confound things most different for I hope he is not Ignorant that all the Assertors of church-Church-power against the Erastians do distinguish church-Church-power or the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven for so is this power designed by Christ in the power or Key of Order and the power or Key of Jurisdiction Let the Author shew us one not Erastian who before himself did ever make the power of Order in the Church to comprehend all formal and elicitive church-Church-power Yea he doth by this most evidently contradict himself which I wonder to meet with so often in such a learned man for in his Appendix he maketh the power of Discipline to be in the Church and so to be formal internal and elicitive church-Church-power and sure the power of Discipline is the power of Jurisdiction not of Order not only because all that speak of this distinction do so understand it but also our Author doth here make the power of Order to respect only the word and Sacraments and so the power of Discipline must belong to Jurisdiction according to him now whereas he maketh the power of Jurisdiction there to be internal only in the Church and here to be external in the Magistrate only if this be not a contradiction let any man judge 2. Another thing that here I take notice of is that the power which he ascribeth to the Ministry is only Administration of the Word and Sacraments Then they have no power of Discipline for every one knoweth that that is some other thing than the Word and Sacraments Now this is contradictory to the whole of his own Appendix and also to Scripture which giveth to Church-Officers power of binding and loosing Mat. 18.18 Jo. 20.23 and of ruling the Lord's People 1 Thes 5.12 Heb. 13.17 But I insist not on this it having been made evident by so many against the Erastians 3. He ascribed all power about Church affairs to the Magistrate except that of Administring the Word and Sacraments and so to the Magistrate as it is only belonging to him for he giveth him that which he called the power of Jurisdiction and that is to him all power but that of Word and Sacraments Now there was never any Erastian that gave more to the Magistrate than this for by this means he hath all the power of deciding controversies in Synods for that is not preaching of the Word of Ordination the exercise of Discipline c. and none but he hath any share in it Behold unto what absurdities this man runneth unawares while he maketh it his business to unhinge that Government which Christ hath setled in his Church And indeed I cannot but take notice of a necessary connexion between this putting all church-Church-power in the hands of the Magistrate and denying it to be juris divini For he knew well that if it had been left to be decided by Church-men among themselves it had not been easily determined amidst the interest of men clashing one with another the more conscientious and self-denied sort being ever the fewest § 5. Page 42. Speaking of the Subordination or Co-ordination of the Magistracy and Ministry there be some mistakes worthy of our notice Though he acknowledgeth the person of the Magistrate to be subject to the word of God yet he denieth it to be subject to the power of the Ministers This is the Doctrine of Court-preachers who love to flatter rather than speak truth But consider 1 It is to me an inconsistency that Ministers have power or authority of Preaching the Word and the Magistrate's person is subject to this Word and yet he is not subject to the power of Ministers When they teach rebuke exhort with all authority and command in the name of the Lord doth not this reach Magistrates as well as others if they be subject to the word of God I see not how they are subject to it if they be not subject to it as declared by Christ's Embassadors which is the ordinary way of dispensing it and if so then are they subject to the Preaching power of Ministers at least 2. Magistrates are also subject to the ruling power of Ministers for they rule over Christ's Flock the Members of the Church of which number if the Magistrate be I see no ground in Scripture for exempting him from the power of their Jurisdiction When Christ said Whosesoever sins ye remit they are ramitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained he did not add except the supream Magistrates May not I pray the Pastors of the Church debar him if he be a flagitious man from the Lord's Table as Ambrose did to Theodosius and if they may
the Synod to convocate and moderate it this is not to have Jurisdiction over the rest who was called Metropolitan from the chief City where he used to reside then over the Metropolitans were set up Patriarchs but behold how careful he is to protest against imparity as to Jurisdiction of whom he saith His tamen Primatibus Episcopis nihil omnino juris erat in alios Episcopos aliasve Ecclesias ultra quod dixi cuique Metropolitae in Ecclesias atque Episcopos suae provinciae Which we took notice before was to convocate and moderate the Synod At last he sheweth how among these Patriarchs the Bishop of Rome was set up as Chief and then how all good Order went to ruine Now let this Testimony be considered and we shall hope for more advantage by it than Mr. Stilling could expect From it we draw these two Conclusions 1. That Bucer looked upon setting up a Precedent over Presbyters as the greatest length that the Primitive Church did or could go towards the making of imparity among Ministers 2. That even this their practice though not unlawful in it self yet is so inconvenient that it was the Method and Mean that Antichrist got into his Chair by Sect. 5. He cometh next to the French Divines and beginneth with Fregevile whose Testimony we think not worth the Answering seeing as Mr. Still confesseth he was Episcopal His opinion did not suit well with the principles of that Church he lived in as we shall see after The next is Blondel that learned writer for Presbyters as he is called whose words cited by Mr. Still are not at all to the purpose as any may see at first view seeing he saith no more but that it is in the Churches Power to make a perpetual Precedent or not For Bochartus his opinion that neither Presbyterialis nor Episcopalis ordo is juris divini if he mean the difference between them in jurisdiction and not only in Precedency I see not how it can be defended and not having his Book I cannot determine how consistent it is with his own principles For Amiraldus whom he bringeth next his design of Union with the Lutherans I believe did either stretch his opinion or made him stretch his affections to an excess of condescendency which cannot be excused but from his good Intention Sect. 6. Our Author cometh next to those who look on Parity as the Primitive Form and yet allow Episcopacy as a very Lawful and usefull constitution Concerning those I premise 2 general Remarques 1. That what these worthy Divines say to this purpose is to be understood not of Episcopus Princeps but Praeses according to that distinction very common among them This we must hold as only consistent with their principles till the contrary be proved out of their own writings 2. That many things said by them to this purpose were the over reaches of their desire to be one with them who differed from them in this but agreed in most things as the Lutherans and some English Divines they did often as Smect saith of Spanhem to the same purpose p. 65. deliver a Complement rather than their Judgment But to come to particulars he beginneth with Cracanthorp who excuseth all the Reformed Churches from Aerianisin because they held not Imparity to be unlawful But this man was a Son of the Church of England as they speak and wrote in her defence against Ant. de Domin wherefore his Testimony of the opinion of the Reformed Churches is not to be taken being willing to have them all think as he did They are better defended from siding with Aerius by Smect p. 79. where it is proved that Aerius was condemned for his Arianism and other Errors but not for holding the Divine Right of Parity and that Jerome Augustus Sedulius Primatius Chrisostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophylact were of the same opinion with Aerius in this Next he bringeth the Augustane confession of the Testimony of which I have these 3 things to say 1. This was not a confession of them who are ordinarily called the Reformed Churches but of the Lutherans for at the same meeting at Augusta did Zuinglius and the Helvetians give in their confession apart by themselves wherefore it is no wonder if these worthy men who were a reforming but had not attained to that pitch of it which others had did retain some small tincture of the way according to which they had been bred in this point 2. Luther himself was not well pleased with this confession as appeareth by the Relation of Pezelius who Mellific Histor par 3. p. 336. saith thus Autor vero confessionis cum Luthero qui in Pontificiis concessum Stomachabatur confessionem rudem magis magisque nespiritum extingueret limabat poliebat et duriuscula fermentumque vetus redolentiaexpurgabat via enim justi sicut aurora lucere pergit usque ad meridiem id quod ex ipsa apologia apparet 3. All that is said in this confession is no more but an expression of their desire to conform and condescend to the Papists in the Primitive order of the Church but this was no more but the Precedency of Bishops the confession speaketh not of the Lordly power of Bishops as it then stood that they could yield to that so that even the furthest they go in their complemental condescendency doth not help Mr. Still 's cause who pleadeth for the sole jurisdiction of Bishops as lawful Sect. 7. In the next place he is not ashamed to force Calvin to speak for the lawfulness of Episcopacy which he could never comport with while he lived He bringeth his Instit lib. 4. c. 4. sect 1. 4. in both which Sections he alledgeth no more out of him but this That the ancient Bishops had almost nothing in their Canons which was beside the Word of God and that they used no other form of Governing the Church than was prescribed in the Word What doth this help his Cause The Ancient Bishops in Calvins judgment were no more but Praesides These he saith were not constituted beside the Word of God This is nothing to the scope of our Authors Discourse I hope after to shew that Calvin was far from His mind At present let it suffice to observe that the very words cited by Mr. Still do make against him For when Calvin saith Si rem omisso vocabulo intuemur reperiemus veteteres Episcopos non aliam regendae ecclesiae formam voluisse fingere ab ea quam deus verbo suo praescripsit It is not evident that he supposeth God in his Word to have prescribed a form of Church-Government And 2dly That he asserteth that the Ancient Bishops if we look to the thing and do not understand the name Bishop as now it is used for the Prelate did stick close to this Form What could be more directly against Mr. Still Neither is he more happy in the citing of Beza for him for Beza's distinction of Bishop is well known
certainly the Magistrate personally considered is subject to the ruling power of Pastors in spiritual things as they are subject to him in civil things And to deny this what is it but to make the supream Magistrate head of the Church and not a Member of it Much more worthy to be received is the opinion of Crysostome who speaketh thus to Ecclesiastical persons in reference to abstention from the Lord's Supper Si dux igitur quispiam si Consul ipse si qui diademate ornatur indigne adeat cohibe ac coerce majorem tu illo habès authoritatem § 6. He cometh afterward p. 43. to ascribe to the Magistrate not only a political power which he maketh to lie in the Execution and Administration of laws for the common good but also an Architectonical and Nomothetical power though not absolute and independent whereby he may make laws in things that belong to the Church His meaning in this he expresseth more fully in the end of p. 44. In matters saith he undetermined by the word of God concerning the external policy of the Church of God the Magistrate hath the power of determining things so they be agreeable to the word of God And because he knew that the Church-Guides would put in for this Power that here he giveth to the Magistrate therefore p. 45. he laboureth to reconcile these parties by a distinction or two viz. between declaring Christ's Laws and making new Laws and between advising what is fit and determining what shall be done The declaring and advising Power is given by him to the Church the Authoritative determining power to the Magistrate For p. 46. The great use saith he of Synods and Assemblies of Pastors of the Church is to be as the Council of the Church unto the King as the Parliament is for matters of Civil Government And p. 47. but yet saith he When such men thus assembled have gravely and maturally advised and deliberated what is fittest to be done the force strength and obligation of the thing so determined doth depend on the Power and Authority of the Civil Magistrate Against this Doctrine before I come to examine the Reasons that he bringeth for it I have these things to say 1. It must be noted by passing over which in silence our Author hath confounded the matter that we are not here speaking of things that are properly Civil though belonging to the Church viz. as it is a Society and in the Common-Wealth such as Church-rents Meeting-places liberty of the use of them c. but of the Government of the Church as it is a Church of its Discipline which things are properly the external policy of that Church as our Author termeth that which he speaketh of Now the Question is whether the Power of determining these be in the Church-Guides or the Magistrate 2. That which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the ground of most of this Author's mistakes is he supposeth that some things of this Church-policy are so left undetermined by the word that they are capable of a determination by men's Legislative power and that new Laws may be made about them This is not truth for if we speak of the Substantials of Church-Government even of a particular Form it is determined in the word and so not subject to men's Nomothetical Determinations if of the Circumstances of it neither are these left for men to make Laws about them but they are determined by the Lord in the general Rules that are in the word and the Dictates of right reason compared with them and the Obligation that lyeth on our Consciences in these things is not from the Magistrates Law though we do not deny but he may add his Sanction to both sorts of things and make them the Law of the Nation as Dr. Stillingsleet saith well that he may with any thing in Religion but from the will of God which ought to be searched out and held forth Authoritatively by the Guides of the Church that are acting in the name of Christ 3. It is false then that the Magistrate hath Power in determining what of the External Policy of the Church is undetermined in the word For if we speak of that which is not determined at all neither by particular Praecepts or Examples or otherwise signifying particularly the mind of Christ about such a thing viz. by the general rules of the word compared with right reason is not held forth to be the mind of Christ such things ought not to be determined by any man or men but are left to Christian Liberty for such things must be determined meerly by mans will but the Lord hath not left the matters of his Church to that crooked rule But if we speak of things not determined by particular praecepts c. yet in which the mind of Christ is deducible by general rules Neither here hath the Magistrate the determining Power but they whom the Lord hath made the Guides and Eyes of his Church they must declare what is the will of Christ not impose what is their own Will or Law And here the Obligation is from the will of Christ not the Authority of the Church nor the Magistrate neither the declaration of it from them whom Christ hath made his Embassadors For what I have said I give this brief reason The Affairs of the Church are to be managed by a Ministerial Power the farthest extent of which is to declare Christ's Laws and apply them as is generally confessed by Protestants against Papists but the Magistrate's Power is not Ministerial but Magisterial Ergo it is not his part to manage or determine the Affairs of the Church of which doubtless her external Policy is no small part which may be further enforced thus Church-Determinations must be the Declarations of the will of Christ but not the Magistrate but the Pastors are the Embassadors of Christ whose it is to declare his will ergo it is not his but their part to make such Determinations We speak not of the Judgment of Discretion which the Magistrate hath in these things in order to the adding his Sanction to them and that not only as others have theirs being private and his publick and with Authority But we speak of that determination of things which is the ordinary means of promulgating to us the mind of Christ in Church-matters 4. It is most false that the great use of Synods is to be the King's Church-Council as the Parliament is his Civil Council for 1. himself acknowledgeth another use of them while he ascribeth to the Church a power of declaring Christ's Laws is not this of great use but Contradictions are no rarity in this Author 2. Hence it followeth that as Parliamentary Acts have no sorce without the King's Sanction so likewise Church-Determinations have none without it and if the Church Excommunicate any person it is not valid nor his sins bound in Heaven till the King put his Seal to it for that such a person
be Excommunicated is not determined in Scripture 3. The Council at Jerusalem Act. 15. and all the Councils before Constantine's time were of no great use for they had not this use there being no Magistrate to own them as his Council 4. This destroys that received Axiom among all them who are not the avowed Followers of Erastus viz. that the Magistrate's power is cumulative to the Church not privative for it maketh his to swallow it up there being no Authority nor great use of Synods without the Magistrate 5. This taketh away from the Church entireness of power in her self in things that do concern her as such a Society and a Capacity to subsist without the Magistrate which I hope this Author when better advised will not own 5. It is also false that when Church-Guides Assembled have deliberated and determined the force strength and obligation of the things so determined doth depend on the Magistrate for it dependeth on the reason of them containing the Will of Christ and not on the Authority of men § 7. I come now to see what Arguments he bringeth for what he hath asserted 1. Saith he Taking the Church as incorporated into the Civil State though the Object of these things the matter of them and persons determining them be ecclesiastical yet the force and ground of the Obligation of them is wholly Civil Ans That the Church is in the Republick we do not deny yet that must not be so understood as if either these two were not distinct Corporations or the Power of the one were subordinate to or swallowed up the other The saying of Optat Milev which he citeth that Ecclesia est in Republica non Respublica in Ecclesia will not bear that but the meaning is that either the Church is in the Rep. as the lesser society in the greater as a few Parishes are in a County so the Primitive Churches were in Rome Corinth c. or when the Church is aeque late patens with the Nation that the Church is in Protection of the Civil State not e contra seeing Kings must be Nursing Fathers to her and as it were keep house for her to be nursed in Or speaking of a National Church that it 's being a nation is Prior in order of Nature than it 's being a Church because it might be a Nation and not a Church but it cannot be a Church and not a Nation Now none of these do infer that the Obligation of determinations made by Church men about Church affairs is civil but it may be and is Ecclesiastical viz. from the will of Christ which the Church holdeth forth as his Embassadors Wherefore this Ratiocination is altogether inconsequent But he cometh to Authority to see if that will help him He citeth P. Martyr lo. com clas fig. 4. c. 5. s. 11. and in 1 Sam. 8. Nam quod ad potest atem ecclesiasticam attinet satis est civilis Magistratus is enim curare debet ut omnes officium faciant What he meaneth for citing both these places for these words I know not un less it be that they are to be found in them both But I am sure neither they nor any thing like them is in the former place for the later I have not that part of his works but the contrary of what this Author intendeth is there clearly and fully taught viz. he is refuting them who would have the Power of discipline in the Church to cease now when the Magistrate is Christian and he asserteth Ecclesiastical Power and Civil as distinct and only says that the Magistrate should correct ministers if they do not carry as they ought but this is far from that quod ad potestatem Ecclesiae attinet satis est civilis Magistrat us He refers for the judgment of the reformed Divines in this to Vedel de Episc Const Mag. et Offic. Magistratus annexed to Grot. de Imper. sum pot circa sacra But it is well known that Vedelius was an Erastian and as this Author doth did fowly abuse the reformed Divines making them speak what they never thought wherefore I refer to Apol. Triglandius Revius who have refuted that seducing Pamphlet of Vedelius For the other Author let his Citations be weighed they will never prove that any of the Reformers gave the Power of determining Church-Affairs to the Magistrate He addeth three reasons of his Allegation yet they are but two for the two former do coincide and the strength of them is that it is from the Authority of the Magistrate that obligation to obedience or penalty is or which is the same it is from him that the sanction or annexing of Penalties to the constitutions is that it is from him only that the force of obligation is in matters determined by advice of the Church and which do concern the Church Ans All this is easily taken away by a well known distinction in things that are commanded by Christ and by his Church declared to be such and also are ratified by the sanction of the Magistrate there is a two-fold Obligation one Spiritual this is from Christ as Law-giver and is laid on by the Instrumental intervention of the Church as his Herald Proclaiming his will Another civil whereby we are bound to external Punnishment if we contravene such a constitution this is from the Magistrate of this not of the former the Author's Assertion is to be understood otherwise it is false For that Obligation is no way from the Magistrate His third reason is the Magistrate can null any Obligation laid on by the Church representative as if they do prescribe some indifferent rites and ceremonies to be observed by all he forbidding them the former supposed Obligation is null otherwise these absurditier would follow 1. That there are two Supream Powers in a Nation at once 2. That a man lyeth under different Obligations to the same thing 3. The same action may be a duty and a sin viz. Being forbidden by the one Power and commanded by the other Ans 1. He supposeth which we will never yield to him that ceremonies may be indifferent and imposeable by men Nay all the Ceremonies of God's worship being worship themselves are Christ's institution otherwise but will-worship And so himself understandeth Ceremonies p. 68. It is like forgetting what he here said 2. It concerneth the Author as much as it doth us to answer his own Objection for he ascribeth to the Church an intrinsecal power of Discipline Now suppose one be excommunicated the Church commandeth it the Magistrate forbiddeth it if his prohibition doth not null the former Obligation the same absurdities follow that are mentioned in his reason if it doth then this doth as much destroy the power of Discipline in that Church which he asserteth as it destroyeth the Power of determining about other Church-matters which we assert 3. We deny that the Magistrate by his power can destroy the obligation to any Church-Act being otherwise warrantable laid
ordinary cases and must ordinarily take place cannot reach the end of Government yet to say that it may be done ordinarily cannot but clash with Christs institution for when Christ giveth ruling power to Presbyters though we may think that it is not his will that they must needs exercise it in all cases yet must we think that he intendeth they should exercise it ordinarily for why giveth he them a power which they as readily never as ever act and that as men please to determine we must not think that it is the intent of Christs Commission to his Servants that men may without the force of necessity laid on by an extraordinary Providence and then God doth it and not men hinder the acts of it as as they will 2. It is supposed without ground that the good of the Church can ordinarily require the restraining power given by Christ for if we speak of what is ordinarily good for the Church how can we better discern that than by looking into Christs institution wherefore seeing by this equal power at least in actu primo is given to Presbytery we are to think that the exercise of this power is best for the Church though ambitious men and they who would flatter the Magistrate think otherwise yea though the best of men should dissent sure Christs giving such a power saith more for the goodness of the exercise of it then mens opinions though seeming to have a foundation on some inconveniencies of it can say against it especially considering what ever way beside men devise is attended with as great if not greater inconveniencies of another nature 3. I have already made it appear that this alienation of power given by Christ doth not only reach the actus secundus of it but even the actus primus seeing a man is not in capacity to recal his deed and reassume the exercise of his power though it were improved never so much against the end of Christs giving and his alienating of it Sect. 19. 5. Proof which is directly against enlarging the exercise of Church Power in the hands of any beyond what Christ hath given them if the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to all may be taken from the rest and given to one then that one getteth a power both in actu primo in secundo which he had not from Christ but this is unlawful ergo The Major I prove for it is clear he getteth power in actu secundo which he had not from Christ ergo he getteth such power in actu primo seeing actus secundus cannot be without primus nor lawful exercise of power without the jus or power it self If it be said that Christ giveth only the actus primus and that so as it extendeth to the whole Church and therefore no actus secundus of power can be given to one which doth extend further than this Answ 1. It is true he giveth formally only the actus primus but the actus secundus doth result from it and therefore he giveth both 2. It is true the power that Christ giveth doth extend to the whole Church but this must be understood with a twofold distinction Dist 1. Disjunctive it is true that is every Minister hath a power to rule whatever part of the Church this or that or another so that no part of it is without his Commission as that he should go beyond his bounds in being set over it Conjunctive it is false that is Christ hath not given so much of the actus primus oâ— power to rule all or many Congregations Dist 2. When Christ giveth the actus primus of power to a Minister extending to the whole Church it is to be understood in adequate i. e. that he hath a share in that power so extended and may in conjunction with other rule the whole Church not adequate i. e. Christ hath not given to any such a power as that he by himself or with a few excluding the rest who are also in the Commission rule the whole Church So that when ever any one exerciseth authority by himself or excluding others who have the same power granted by Christ over more than his particular Congregation over which he may have personal inspection he taketh a power in actu secundo where Christ hath given him no jus nor actus primus of power The Minor of the argument is manifest for when both power and exercise of it is given to a man which Christ hath not given this is setting up a new Office which Christ hath not set up for what is an Office in the Church but a power and a lawful exercise of it but this our Author confesseth to be unlawful ergo 6. Proof 'T is presumption even among men for a servant to commit that work to another to do which his Master hath given him to do except he know that he hath his Masters leave so to do this is so well known that I need not insist on it ergo it is much presumption when Christ hath committed the ruling of his house to every Minister that some should devolve that work on a Bishop to do it for them unless they could shew Christs warrant for this which if Mr. Stillingfleet or any other will do we shall acquiesce If there be any disparity in this comparison I am sure it will tend to the strengthening not the weakening of our argument for we are more absolutely under Christs command than Servants are under their Masters his commands are more perfect and effectual to compass their end without our taking our own way in managing obedience to them then mens are also the there is a greater tie to cleave scrupulously to his injunctions than to mens also the matters about which they are be of more weight and miscarriage in them more dangerous then mens commands All which make it more absurd to commit the execise of our power that he giveth to others than for Servants to do so with their Masters work Sect. 20. For better understanding of what he had said our Author subjoyneth a distinction of a twofold power belonging to Church Officers viz. a Power of Order in preaching the word visiting the sick administring the Sacraments c. this he maketh to be inseparably joyned to the function and to belong to every ones personal capacity both in actu primo and actu secundo and a power of Jurisdiction in visiting Churches overseeing particular Pastors Ordination Church Censures making Rules for decency this he maketh to be in every Presbyter quoad aptitudinem and habitually so as he hath a jus to it in actu primo but the exercise and limitation of it and some further power of choise and delegation to it and some further Authority besides the power of Order And when this power either by consent of the Pastors of the Church or by the appointment of the Christian Magistrate or both is devolved to some particular persons though quoad aptitudinem
the power remain in every Presbyter yet quoad executionem it belongs to them who are so appointed To this I reprove a few things briefly 1. I take notice here of a contradiction in terminis to what he taught Part. 1. c. 2. p. 41. and we refuted p. there he made the power of Order peculiar to Ministers and power of Jurisdiction peculiar to the Magistrate describing both powers no otherwise then he doth here and yet here he giveth the power of Jurisdiction as well as of Order to Ministers 2. Seeing he acknowledgeth both powers quoad jus to be equally given by Christ to all Ministers it is strange that he should deny that men may restrain the one for he confesseth the actus secundus of it to be inseparably joined to the Office and yet doth boldly affirm that they may restrain the other without giving the least shew of permission that they have from Christ who gave both powers so to tamper with the one more then with the other If Christ hath made no difference between these and if he hath it should have been produced how dare men do it I confess Nature maketh a necessity of restricting the power of Jurisdiction for if every one should Rule when and where he pleased there would be confusion and therefore it is needful that every one have their own charge which they exercise this power over but this is common to the power of Order also though with some difference for it is not fit that every Minister should preach and baptize where and when he pleaseth without any limitation Neither could this be without confusion Also Christ hath made a limitation of the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for by giving it to many and making it relate to things of common concernment he hath eo ipso determined that none of these who have it shall exercise it by himself nor without the concurrence and consent of them who are equal in Commission with him This limitation of the exercise we confess to be warrantable but what reason there is I cannot understand why men should take away the exercise of ruling power from many and give it to one more than they can take away the exercise of preaching power and so give it to some as it shall not be lawful for them to preach but only to rule more than they can take away the exercise of both powers seeing Christ hath equally given them Sure it is an impregnable Argument that our Author here furnisheth us with against himself men may not restrain the exercise of the power of order further than Nature maketh it necessary Ergo they may not any further restrain the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction because Christ hath not made such a difference in his giving these powers to men If it be said that the restraint of the power of Jurisdiction is sometimes necessary because Parity breeds Factions and many are unfit to rule Ans Even so letting all preach doth often breed Heresie many preach false Doctrine and many are unfit to preach So this argument must either plead for the restraint of both powers or of neither Let us then see what must be the remedy of this abuse of the power of order and the remedy of the abuse of the other must be proportionable sure the remedy is not to restrain the exercise of the power of preaching except it be for a time in expectation of their amendment which holdeth also with reference to ruling power but to put such unfit men out of the Ministry Were it fit to lay the work of an Heretical Preacher upon a Curate and let him still have the charge of the Flock though his Curate doth the work for him No but he should be removed and another put in his place Even so they who are unfit to rule must not have a Bishop do it for them but be removed that other fit men may be put in their place seeing ruling abilities are a necessary qualification of a Minister as well as preaching abilities as was shewed before If Parity breed Factions we must censure the guilty not cross Christs Institutions in the exercise of that power he hath given Sect. 21. 3. It is not good sense that he saith speaking of the power of Jurisdiction that though it belong habitually and in actu primo to all yet in a constituted Church some further Authority is necessary besides the power of order Whether this be the Printers fault or the Authors I know not but sure the power of order is no part of that Authority by which the power of Jurisdiction is exercised 4. He leaveth us in suspence about the power of restraining the exercise of the power of Jurisdiction for he implieth that it may be done by the consent of the Pastors or by the appointment of the Magistrate or both If this power that Christ hath given his Servants may be taken from them in its exercise it is very fit we should know to whom the Lord hath given leave to do this I believe and have proved that no man may do it but if it may be done sure it is not thus left at randome that it should be primi occupantis Pastors themselves cannot do it for they have got the charge and they not the Bishop whom they entrust must give an account The Magistrate may not do it for he is no ruler of the Church but this is the highest act of ruling the Church and of ruling and disposing of the Rulers of it as he pleaseth and if neither may do it both may not do it seeing the reasons brought exclude both from any measure of power in that thing I do not stand on the Authority of Camero which is all the proof he hath for his opinion cited p. 198. viz. Ordinatio non fit à Pastore quatenus Pastor est sed quatenus ad tempus singulare authoritatem obtinet Neither shall I strive to strain it to a sound sense but be satisfied with the truth that we have upon better grounds than Camero's Authority established viz. that Ordination and other acts of Church-power are done by Pastors not by virtue of any superadded power or Delegation that they have from men above what Christ hath given them in their Pastoral Office but by vertue of that power he hath given to all Pastors though the conveniency of exercising it hic nunc requires the concurring of some more circumstances Ergo that other Pastors joyn in Ordination that it be not without the limits which are fixed for order for the inspection of that Society of Pastors whereof such an one is a Member or if it be without these limits that it be not without a special Call from them who should there exercise their Authority The Conclusion of our Author needeth small Animadversion supposing what hath been already said By this saith he we may already understand how lawful the exercise of an Episcopal power may be in the Church of God
yea by what we have said may be seen how unlawful it is supposing the equality of the power of order But we must also suppose and it hath been yielded the equality of the power of Jurisdiction at least in actu primo and that may shew us the unlawfulness of Episcopacy And how incongruously they speak who supposing an equality in the Presbyters of the Church at first do cry out that the Church takes upon her the Office of Christ if she delegates any to a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction Yea we have made it appear that they speak most congruously to the thing for it is Christs Office to give the exercise of power to such men by giving them the Office on which it followeth and therefore they who take it from them and give it to them to whom he gave it not do take his Office But it is a mincing of the matter to talk of a more peculiar exercise of the power of Jurisdiction when indeed setting up of a Bishop is a laying others aside from the exercise of it at all and suffering them to do nothing that way but by his Authority yea that which we have all this while disputed against is yet less intollerable than is our case where Bishops have most absolute and Lordly powers and delegate it to whom they will Lay-men or others and Presbyters have no power at all Sect. 22. Another Argument he propoundeth p. 198. from the perfection of Scripture from which it doth much derogate to say that in it Christ hath not laid down an immutable form of Church-Government This Argument he almost tusheth at but that is easier than to answer it solidly Unto it he bringeth three Answers all which will not make up a satisfactory one The first is the perfection of the Scripture here meant is in reference to its end this I grant which is to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners and sufficient to bring men to Salvation which is sufficiently acknowledged to be if all things necessary to be believed or practised be contained in the Word of God Now that which we assert not to be fully laid down in Scripture is not pleaded to be any ways necessary nor to be a matter of Faith but something left to the Churches liberty Reply I perceive it to be ordinary with this Author I observed it before to slight with confidence that which he hath little to say against in reason What a pittiful come off is this that the not determining the form of Government is not against the perfection of the Scripture because it is not a thing necessary but left to the Churches liberty What it is to beg the question if this be not I know not for the question is whether the form be determined in Scripture or left to the Churches liberty the latter he maintaineth we assert the former and prove it because otherwise the Scripture were imperfect He answereth it doth not follow that the Scripture is imperfect because the form of Government is left to the Churches liberty Is this the easie dispatch of this Argument which was promised 2. If the end of Scripture be to be an adequate Rule of Faith and manners then sure in a special way of Religious manners or practises among which is the way of managing Church-Government being a Religious thing for we speak of Government as it is pecullar to the Church hence then it must belong to its perfection to lay down this especially seeing the Scripture hath told us that this is one of its particular ends to direct the Pastors of the Church how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3.15 but this it cannot do compleatly without setting down a form of Government for general Rules will not tell a Pastor whether he must exercise his ruling power with others or lay it over on my Lord Bishop Ergo the want of this form in Scripture doth derogate from that perfection which our Author confesseth to be in it 3. By things necessary I hope he doth not mean only necessary to salvation but necessary to these particular ends propounded in the Scripture one of which is the right managing of Church-Government Now if all things necessary to this be laid down in Scripture there cannot want a form of Government in it for without that Government cannot be managed His second answer is that the doing of a thing not contained in Scripture with an opinion of its necessity doth destroy the Scriptures perfection and so in that sense every additio perficiens is corrumpens such are the Popish Traditions but the doing of a thing without the opinion of its necessity doth not destroy it Reply This is a poorer shift than the other For 1. It is not the adding of a form of Government to what is in Scripture that we make unlawful or against the Scriptures sufficiency for sure if it be not in Scripture it must be added seeing Nature maketh it necessary but it is the opinion of its not being in Scripture that we plead against and therefore this Answer doth not at all touch the Argument neither is the example of Poplish Traditions to the purpose for we do not say that they are against Scripture perfection because they are held not to be found in it for that is most true but because they are thought needful to be added to it 2. It is against the perfection of Scripture to say any addition to it is necessary for attaining its end whether that particular thing added to it be necessary or its defect may be as well supplied by another thing of that kind as if any should maintain that we must have more Sacraments than are in Scripture and should not think this in particular necessary but leave it to the Churches liberty what particular Sacrament should be superadded But Master Stillingfleet's Opinion maketh an addition necessary viz. that there be a form of Government which is not in Scripture though it leave the particular form to the Churches liberty Ergo it is against the perfection of Scripture and this addition being of a thing in its general nature necessary to an end that the Scripture aimeth at viz. the right governing of the Church and not being found in Scripture so much as that men may determine it it is such an additio perficiens as the Author confesseth to be corrumpens 3. By this Answer none of the Popish Traditions are additions to the Scripture or imply its imperfection for though they be held necessary in the general yet in particular they cannot so be held for either they were freely determined by the Church and so they might not have been and therefore are not necessary or the Church was necessitated to determine them by some antecedent objective truth in the things if so they must be the Dictates of Nature which are no additions to Scripture wherefore this Answer destroyeth it self 4. At least by this Answer all the
weight on this Testimoney to the purpose it is brought for for either he meaneth that the degrees of Church-Officers in respect of precedency are left free or in respect of Jurisdiction if the first it is nothing contrary to what we hold for we acknowledg it indifferent whether there be a standing Precedent over Presbytery or not If the second he is directly contrary to Mr. Stillingfleet who maintains that the Church may set up no new Officers but what Christ hath instituted as we have seen before now an order of Officers with jurisdiction above what Christ hath instituted cannot but be a sort of Officers that he hath not instituted wherefore Mr. Still could not make Use of this Testimony neither ought any else for it crosseth the Scripture which Rom. 12.6 7 8. Ephes 11.1 1 Cor. 12.28 doth on purpose enumerate the Officers of the Church in all their degrees I dispute not now what they are but sure they are not left at liberty seeing the Lord hath so often declared his mind in this Point to what purpose is it said that the Lord hath in his Church such and such Officers if men may at their pleasure set these or others more or fewer of them in the Church Sect. 4. His next Testimony is the Centuriators of Magdeburge but it containeth an answer in its forehead viz. That it speaketh not to the thing for they say no more but that it is neither Recorded nor Commanded how many Ministers should be in each Church but that their may be more or fewer according to the number of the Church What is this to their parity or impatity 't is a token that he is very scant of Witnesses when he calleth in them who say so little to his purpose The next Testimony is of Zanchy which he maketh to speak very fair for him but he hath unhandsomly concealed that which is the Key to understand the meaning of this Author for the Reader may evidently see his drift if he first look into Sect. 9. de Relig. c. 25. where he asserteth that Christ hath only given to his Church two forts of ordinary Teachers viz. Pastors and Doctors the same he asserteth Sect. 10. and yet which is his modesty he will not condemn the Fathers who had other Orders of Officers but what his meaning is in this his condescendency he explaineth Sect. 11. That whereas in after Ages one Pastor was set over the rest non ut Dominus sed ut Rector in Academia reliquis Collegis this he thinketh was lawful and yet setteh this note upon that practice in the same Sect. Qua de re Hieronymi tum alibi tum in Epist ad Evagr. in Commentar Epist ad Tit. c. 10. Narratio sententia nobis probatur dicentis totum boc magis ex consuetudine quam ex dominicae dispositionis veritate profectum esse Which is as much as to say He thought it rather somewhat tolerable through necessity than allowable Which small glance at the tolerableness of a Precedency in the Church if it may pass for so much was not well taken by other Worthy Divines as appeareth by Zanchius's own observations on this his Confession which Mr. Stilling taketh notice of but passeth what might make against him for Magnus quidem vir as Zant. calleth him who was well satisfied with the rest of his Confession excepteth this which he had said of the Arch-Bishops and Hierarchie and that not only as what did dispeafe himself but was unsutable to the harmony of confessions that the Protestant Churches were then drawing up as appeareth by a part of an Epistle of that Magnus vir to Zan. which he inserteth to the Preface to his Observations So that it seems this was generally disliked by Protestant Divines contrary to what Mr. Stilling would make us believe viz. That all the Protestant Churches thought the form of Government indifferent All which being laid together let any then judg what great advantage Mr. Stilling's cause hath received from this Testimony of Zanchie Especially if we consider with what Weapon Zan. defendeth this his Opinion viz. That it was generally practised by the Ancient Church and he would not take upon him to disallow them as may be seen in his Observations on Chap. 25. of his Confessions We see he bringeth no better Warrant than the practice of Men who might and did in many things err But Mr. Stilling telleth us of the same Opinion of Zan. de 4to praec loc 4. qu. 2. p. 943 c. and indeed he teacheth the same thing but with some advantage to our design for after he had made the ordinary Officers to be of three sorts viz. Pastors and Doctors and Ruling-Elders whose Office he proveth from Scripture and asserteth as the Opinion of the Reformed Divines generally and Deacons and had proved at length p. 950 951 952. Presbyters and Bishops to be the same in Scripture He sheweth p. 952 953. That in after-Ages one of the Presbyters was set over the rest but addeth to qualifie it p. 953. Idcirco damnari haec piae vetustatis ordinatio consuetudo non potest modo plus sibi authoritatis non usurpet Episcopus quà m habent reliqui Ministri ut recte monet Hieronymus Here he overturneth all Mr. Stilling's design for such a Bishop is but a meer President He thinks he hath gain'd another Testimony from M. Bucer whom Zan. in those his observations citeth but Mr. Stilling hath not told us wherein Bucer speaketh to his purpose wherefore take this account of Bucer's Opinion out of Zanch. He citeth two large Testimonies of Bucer the first is out of his Commentary on the Ephes where he speaketh of seven kinds of Teaching viz. By Reading Interpretation Instruction Doctrina Exhortation Catechisms Disputing private Admonition from which he saith That in the Ancient Church they brought in seven kinds of Teachers Now what is this to the Parity or imparity of Ministers He speaketh nothing here of setting a Lord-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
in Divinus i.e. Presbyter Humanus i. e. c. a President or constant Moderator Diabolicus i. e. a Prelate with sole jurisdiction The indifferency of the 2d he asserteth and will not prescribe that Form used at Geneva which was without such a fixed President to other Churches but what is this to the purpose It is a pity to see a Learned Man at so much pains and lose his labour It being so as hath been shewed Mr. Still doth fouly misrepresent the state of the Controversie about Church-Government that was between the Church of England and of Geneva in Queen Elizabeths time it was not as he alledgeth whether Parity or Episcopacy were more convenient but whether Prelacy putting sole jurisdiction in the hand of a Bishop or giving him power over his Brethren were lawful Sect. 8. Next he bringeth George Prince of Anbalt Luther Melancton and Calvin professing their readiness to submit to Bishops if they would do the duty of Bishops All which amounts to no more than this That if Bishops would keep within bounds not usurp Authority over their Brethren nor use it to the destruction of Religion they might be born with but this maketh nothing for the lawfulness of Prelacy which these Men did ever detest For Jacobus Heerbrandus I am not acquainted with his Principles nor his Book Hemingius who cometh next speaketh expresly of dispares dignitatis ordines not authoritatis and so cometh not up to the thing in Question For Zepper his judgment of the necessity of a Superintendent it destroyeth our Authors Hypothesis for if it be necessary it is not indifferent If in any case such a thing be necessary it is in that case lawful nam necessitas quicquid coegit defendit in other cases it is unlawful What he saith of Bishops in some Lutheran Churches as Sweden Denmark c. doth not weigh with us knowing that they err in greater matters also What he saith of other Churches that have their Praepositi or Seniores enjoying the same power with Ancient Bishops proveth nothing of the lawfulness of Prelacy We think their way lawful and whether it be convenient to them or not we judg not but to us sad experience hath proved it most inconvenient The next thing that he insisteth on viz. Episcopal Divines holding Episcopacy not necessary it doth not concern us to Answer and so we see to what amounteâ—… the strength of these Testimonies which he would fright us with as if all Men were of his judgment Sect. 9. Having now seen of what force are our Authors Witnesses brought for the indifferency of the Form of Church-Government let us see if there can be more pregnant Authority brought for the divine Right of it I do not question but many sheets may be filled with pertinent Citations to this purpose by one better stored with Writings of our Reformed Divines and having leisure to search them I shall give some instances such as my poor Library doth afford both of Churches and of particular Divines And before the Restorers of the Truth I shall mention those famous Conservators of it in the darkest times of Antichristianism the Waldenses whom some of our Divines call Majores Nostros their Opinion in this may be seen in Waldensiâ Confes Taboritarum per Joa Lukawitz cap. 3. p. 5. Lex evangelica Jesu Christi per se sufficientissima ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis c. 14. p. 32. Nos qui pro lege liberrima Jesu Christi per se sufficienti ad regimen Ecclesiae militantis sine Ceremoniis Legis veteris ritibus humanis post adjectis scientes quia securissimum est optimum Magisterium Ecclesiae primitivae quam regebant Apostoli actus imitari We see here the sufficiency of Scripture for Church-Government asserted and that without new Laws or humane devices which could not be if the particular Form were not determined in it but left to Mens devising Also that Apostolick practice is in this a Rule to us both which militate against Mr. Stilling's Discourse I shall next bring the opinion of the French and the Dutch Churches held forth in their Confessions which I have out of Smect sect 14. The French Church Artic. 29.30 speaketh thus Credimus veram Ecclesiam gubernari debere eâ politiâ quam dominus noster Jesus Christus sancivit then it may not be such as Men think fit nor is it indifferent ita viz. aut sui in ea Pastores Presbyteri sive seniores Diaconi then Christs institution is against Bishops seeing he appointeth the rest and leaveth them out ut doctrinae puritas retineatur Credimus omnes Pastores ubicunque collocati sint eadem aequali potestate inter se esse praeditos then there can be no imparity of power sub uno illo capite solo universali Episcopo Jesu Christi The Dutch Church Art 30. thus Credimus veram hane Ecclesiam debere regi ac gubernari spirituali illa politia quam nos deus ipse in verbo suo edocuit ita ut sint in ea Pastores ac Ministri qui purè concionentur sacramenta administrent sint etiam seniores Diaconi qui Ecclesiae senatum constituant ut his veluti mediis vera Religio conservari hominesque vitiis dediti spiritualiter corripi emendari possint Tunc enim rite ordinate omnia fiunt in Ecclesiâ cum viri fideles pii ad ejus gubernationem deliguntur juxta Pauli praescriptum 1 Tim. 3. caeterum ubicunque locorum sint verbi Dei Ministri eandem atque aequalem omnes habent tum potestatem tum authoritatem ut qui sint aequè omnes Christi unici illius universalis Episcopi capitis Ecclesiae Ministri What hath ever been the opinion of the Church of Scotland about the Divine Right of Presbyterial Government is so well known that I need not mention it also what hath been the judgment of the Presbyterian Ministers of England both in the National Synod of famous memory and the Provincial Assembly of London who have written for the jus divinum of it Sect. 10. To this Truth also the famous Professors of London bear their joint Testimony Synops Pur. Theol. Disp 48. Thes 23. Nec tamen propterea concedimus à solo aliquo Episcopo sive Romano sive Eugobino ex motu proprio aut plenaria authoritate ut loquimur hanc potestatem posse vendicari sed rectorum ac Presbyterorum Ecclesiae concilium totiusque adeo Ecclesiae aut apertum aut tacitum consensum adhibendum esse ex praescripto Christi ac purioris Ecclesiae praxi asserimus And this they prove Thes 24. Because that Tell the Church cannot be understood of one Bishop Calvin is clear for us for he maketh the Officers of the Church to be by Christs Institution and sheweth who they are that he hath Instituted Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 4. Also c. 4. sect 1. He sheweth how in the Primitive Church they studied carefully to adhere to God's Institution in the Government of the Church And on Phil. 1.1 reproving the Usurpation of Bishops he saith Perinde ac si non omnes Presbyteri Collegae essent ad eandem vocati functionem unus sibi praetextu novae appellationis dominium in alios arripuit Sect. 11. I close with a short Answer such as it deserveth to his last Assault which is p. 416. If Prudence must be used in setling Church-Government as he saith is confessed by Independents in their Elective Synods by Presbyterians in their subordination of Courts Classical-Assemblles Episcopal Men in several things Ans All this is nothing of the particular Form of Government Parity or imparity and so nothing to the purpose We absolutely deny that That is to be setled by Prudence but by the Institution of Christ though many Circumstances in Government must be determined by Prudence guided by Scripture-light For his advice in order to Peace it containeth many good things yet cannot we fully close with it till he establish on better grounds than we have yet seen the Basis of it viz. The indifferency of the particular Form of Church-Government FINIS
A MODEST ANSWER TO Dr. STILLINGFLEET'S IRENICUM By a Learned Pen. Sed hoc quidem affirmare non vereor quod heu nimium tristis Experientia jampridem docuit sensim inter eodem pari munere sacro fungentes ordinem Divinum in gradum humanum hunc gradum ruptis verorum purorum Canonum vinculis in tyrannidem manifestam si restitutam Ecclesiam malumus abolendam evasisse Theod. Bezae Resp ad Sarav de Ministr Evang. grad cap. 15. à calce LONDON Printed for Richard Janeway in Queens-Head-Alley in Pater-noster-Row 1680. ADVERTISEMENT THe Reader is desired to Correct the Mistake of the Printer in calling so Reverend an Antagonist by the name of Mr. Stillingfleet instead of Dr. Stillingfleet in so great a part of the Book And as for an Epistle though there was one provided by another hand yet an accident preventing its Publishing with the Book the Writer thereof is much better satisfied on second thoughts with its suppression finding it no easie matter to say any thing worthy of the renowned Author and so Learned a Work that hath had the perusal and approbation of as worthy and skilful Divines in the Controversie of Church-Government as are of their Age. Judicium sit penes lectorem Animadversions on Dr. Stillingfleet's Irenicum c. CHAP. I. THIS Book though set off with the specious Title of an Irenicum and carrying in its Face the pretence of a Laudable Design viz. the healing of the dangerous Wounds and sad Divisions of the Church at this time prevailing will upon due Examination I suppose be found an unsuitable Salve for these Sores and to mend our rents as they say Tinkers do by making a greater rent instead of mending a lesser For instead of a Debate about particular Forms of Government it bringeth in another Debate whether there be any Form instituted of Christ whether we must search the will of Christ about managing Church-Affaires in his Word or be content with what is the will of man Which Controversie is like to be harder in determining and more stiffly agitated than the other for sure it is harder to perswade them who would take the word of God for their rule that Christ hath not appointed any one Form of Government in his House than that he hath not appointed this or that By this device we are cast loose of all hold where we may fix and there shall be no end of Contention at least among them who consult so as to determine some one Form of all these which are thought to be lawful and when they have determined the People on whom they impose it have a very unsure bottom to settle their Consciences upon in this matter that doth so nearly concern Religion to wit nothing but the Judgment and Will of man which is often wrong and led by Interest and at best is fallible and cannot guide us certainly in that which pleaseth God Wherefore this Authors Opinion seems to be a cutting of the knot with Alexander and casting all loose when he cannot so untie it as to hold fast the exercise of Christ's Kingly Power in Governing his Church Neither is this Opinion new as the Author seemeth to imply for it was long since maintained and largely propugned by Mr. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical Polity and solidly refuted by Mr. Rutherford in his Divine Right of Church-Government and indeed hath always been and still is the main Pillar to uphold Episcopacy in these Nations it being the most ready and plausible way for them who would wreath this Iron Yoke on the Necks of their Brethren when they cannot shew them Christ's Authority for it to take the determining of the Case out of his hand and to put it in the hand of the King and then to press it from his Authority with Fire and Sword And indeed this Opinion is a most colourable excuse for the unfaithful complyance of them who would fain hold their places under any Form of Church-Government that shall lye uppermost for so they shall be sure never to cross Authority and not to cross the Interest of their own Back and Belly and how much mischief this piece hath done this way is too evident seeing men that incline to comply are satisfyed with shadows instead of substantial reason to put off troublesome Conscience Yet among them who are conscientiously zealous for any one way of Government I suppose the Lot of this Author will be that which is ordinary to such unhappy Peace-Makers as sell truth or some part of it by an over-reach of condescendency and that in Gods matters not their own in which we must bargain as hard Merchants do in worldly things to redeem peace for I suppose men of all perswasions will be about his Ears For that which I am perswaded to be the truth of God in point of Church-Government viz. Government by Ministers acting in parity and ruling Elders met in Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies it is more easily upheld against his undermining Engines than any of the other Forms for the least of his Book is levelled against it in particular and what he saith against it I hope will appear not to have great strength yea I believe that out of what he hath said this truth may be strongly confirmed which I shall thus essay in a word He acknowledgeth and stifly maintaineth that Christ hath given power not only of teaching but of ruling his Church to all and every one of his Ministers and that he hath not given more power to one of them than another nor made them subject or subordinate to one another Whence it clearly followeth that Presbyterian Government I mean the parity of Ministers and their Association is jure divino ex confesso and that Prelacy is an addition to it made jure humano And hence it followeth that this addition is unlawful except he can prove that Christ hath given a power to men to make them unequal whom he hath made equal to subject one to another of them to whom Christ hath given equal power to restrain yea and take quite away the exercise of ruling power in some of them to whom Christ hath given it as much as to others and to enlarge that power in some to whom Christ hath given no more than to others Which I am sure he will never be able to do Yea further it 's confessed by him that Christ hath instituted the Office of Presbyters and that he hath not instituted the Office of Prelates ruling over Presbyters Wherefore he must either say that the Church hath power to institute new Offices which I hope he will not assert and I am sure he cannot prove or that Prelacy is unlawful For that a Prelate is another Officer than a Presbyter is undeniable because the one is ruled by the other Now these of the same Office cannot be ruled by or subordinate to one another as common sense and reason will teach § 2.
But to come to the Book it self My design is not a full Refutation but some brief Animadversions for private satisfaction and mine own establishment in these truths that he endeavoureth to shake Neither do I intend to meddle with the whole but only to cull out these passages that relate to Presbyterian Government and any that might infer the unsetling of that or any part of it § 3. The first thing that I meet with to be disproved is p. 2. where he asserteth a Principle that will not only shake our Faith if it be received in the point of Church-Government but which I hope he doth not intend will unsettle us in most points of Christian Religion His Principle is this That Difference in Opinion about a point and probable Arguments brought on both hands by wise and able men if it be not a matter of necessity to Salvation gives men ground to think that a final decision of the matter in Controversie was never intended as a necessary means for the Peace and Vnity of the Church of God His Opinion in this he setteth down in fewer and clearer words in the Contents of ch 1. things saith he necessary for the Churches peace must be clearly revealed the Form of Church Government is not so as appears by the remaining Controversie about it I shall first shew the danger and falsehood of this Principle and then try the strength of what he saith for the establishment of it And 1. I argue thus This Assertion destroyeth it self for if no point not necessary to Salvation be so sure that we must necessarily hold it in order to peace then this his Assertion falleth under the same condition and needeth not to be maintain'd for it is not needful to Salvation I hope they will go to Heaven that are not of his mind in this and I am confident he doth not think it so clear that no wise and able men will controvert with him about it and if it be needless in order to the Churches peace why is it here laid down as the â—…rst stone of the Foundation on which he buildeth his Irenicum but it fareth here with our Author as it doth with all other Abetters of Scepticism they attain at least so far their end as they make men question that Opinion that they labour to establish by perswading them to question every thing § 4. Secondly There is no cause at all why the Author should except from the uncertainty here asserted things that are of necessity to Salvation for if we are to think that the Lord hath so clearly revealed things not needful to Salvation which are needful to peace in the Church much rather are we to think so of things needful to Salvation which also cannot but be necessary to peace for we can have no peace with them that destroy the Foundation For it hath hitherto been a received Principle that things of necessity to Salvation are revealed with more clearness than other things And though Papists have laboured to cast a Mist upon Scripture discovery in both sorts of things that they might take all power to themselves over the Truths of God and Consciences of men in determining what is truth as Dr. Stillingfleet would darken the discovery of the circa-fundamentals of Religion that he might put the power of determining these things in the hand of the Magistrate yet Protestants have ever firmely maintained that however the Scripture speaketh darkly in some things not essential yet that the light of it is most clear in things necessary to Salvation They are not then of this mans mind who will have the things that do not so nearly relate to Salvation but are needful to peace so clearly revealed that there can remain no Controversie about them among wise and able men but excepteth from this necessity things of necessity to Salvation From what hath been said I argue thus against Dr. Stillingfleet's Principle If any things not necessary to Salvation be so necessary to be clearly revealed that we are to look upon them as not Christ's Truth if there remain a Controversie about them managed with specious Arguments on both sides among wise and able men much more things necessary to Salvation must be thus clearly revealed so that there is no truth in them if they be so controverted but the consequent is most false and absurd and overturneth all the Foundations of our Religion for have not the Arrian Soecinian Arminian and Popish Controversies been managed yea and are they not managed by the Adversaries of Truth with Learning even to admiration We must then according to this principle not take either part of these debates for truth but think that the Lord hath determined nothing in them and we must leave it to men to determine in them what they please and must embrace that Is not this a fine device to cast loose all to bring in Scepticism instead of Faith to make way for a subtle Sophister to nullifie any truth by disputing speciously against it Yet this we are to bless the Lord for that the overturners of the Government of Christ's house have no other means to cast it loose by but these that do also cast loose all our Religion which I hope will be a consideration to fix this truth the better in the minds of them who are serious and intelligent § 5. Thirdly If these things not necessary to salvation that speciously on both hands are controverted be not needful to be determined in our consciences in order to the Churches peace I ask the Author of this Assertion What things of that nature are needful to the Churches peace that we hold an opinion about them Or are there any things such or must we hesitate about all the circa-fundamentals in Religion and look on them as indifferences determinable by men if we will not be guilty of disturbing the peace of the Church I hope this good man will not say so and yet it would necessarily follow out of this principle maintained by him for I believe he cannot instance in many things scarce in any that are not of necessity to salvation which are not controverted and that with specious pretexts For learned men when they erre use not to come off so bluntly as barely to say it is so or I think so but they bring plausible Reasons and those often pretended to be drawn from Scripture for their foulest errours If then we receive this principle we must not think it needful to the Churches peace to determine whether there be two Sacraments or seven whether there be Purgatory whether we are to pray to Saints departed whether there be power of Censure in Church-men or if all Church-power be in the Magistrate whether the Pope be the head of the Church c. for all these and such-like are controverted and there are colourable Arguments for the Errours that men maintain in these points If this our Author will not assert what reason is there that he should
say of this nature we are to think that the Apostles did that which was best and most approved of God they being infallibly guided by his spirit Now that which was best to them must certainly be best to us also we managing the same affairs except some diversity of our case from theirs can be shewn wherefore we are obliged to think that the parity of Ministers in ruling the Church is Christ's will and so a moral duty not a thing indifferent seeing it was so in the Apostolick Churches as I suppose is proved by the maintainers of that way and there is no reason why it should be otherwise with us than with them For the second we have also a law for following Apostolical example as we have for following Christ's example which our Author saith maketh it our duty viz. 1 Cor. 4.16 Wherefore I beseech you be ye followers of me 1 Cor. 11.1 Be ye followers of me even as I am of Christ And lest any think that this command of imitation is only in reference to duties otherways known to be such as faith love c. it is evident that this last place relateth to Church administrations for he prefixeth this exhortation to the doctrine of decency and purity in their worship Beside that the exhortation being general can suffer no exception but where imitation would not have the same morality in us that giving example had in them viz. where the case is different Other Scriptures to the same purpose are Phil. 3.17 Heb. 6.12 and this is commended which clearly supposeth a command 1 Thes 1.6 and 2.14 2 Thes 3.9 Ja. 5.10 Wherefore if we can shew Apostolical practice for our way of Church-Government as I know we can it is incumbent on our adversaries to shew a reason why they did such things which doth not agree to our case or else to submit to that way as that which is Christ's law For the other grounds of divine right that he examineth we insist not on them as not being necessary to the defence of that truth which we maintain Wherefore I wave what might be said against what he there disputeth CHAP. II. § 1. IN the second chapter of the first part of his Irenicum he layeth some hypotheses for a foundation of his following discourse where I shall pass over in silence these things that have truth in them and these also the examining of which is not needful to the present purpose viz. defending Presbyterial Government to be juris divini Only I take notice that here and through his whole book he spendeth most of his pains and learning in proving these points which are either digressions from the present business or are not denied by any of his opposites which is magno conatu nihil agere § 2. In his fourth hypothesis p. 38. some things need our remark he setteth it down thus In things which are determined both by the law of nature and divine positive laws as to the substance and morality of them but not determined as to all circumstances belonging to them it is in the power of lawful authority in the Church of God to determine them so far as they judge them tend to the promoting of the performance of them in due manner Two things in this hypothesis I condemn 1. That he warranteth men to determine things undetermined in the Church so far as they judge needful he should have said so far as is needful for if we hold this his assertion in terminis superstitious men in lawful authority may bind us in all things where Christ hath left us free so that it shall not be lawful to speak look or act in the Church but as they think fit And indeed here is a foundation for almost all the Ceremonies that either Popes or Prelates ever burthened the Church of God with they are nothing but determinations of what is left undetermined and they judge them to tend to promote worship as it is not determined what Garment a Minister shall wear the Church judgeth a Surplice to tend to promote worship then by this hypothesis the Church may determine this which is not only against truth as might easily be shewed if that were now my work but also against this Author who declareth himself against Ceremonies of Mens appointing 2. That he extendeth this determining power so far that not only things undetermined and that must be determined otherwise the Ordinances cannot be gone about without defect or sin may be determined by lawful authority for this we grant and therefore do close with his example of appointing the place and hour for worship but also things that they judge tend to promote the due manner of the Ordinances may be thus determined which a little after he expoundeth of the decency and solemnity of worship This we cannot assent to For there is no pompous Ceremony that ever man devised but they judged it fit to promote the solemnity of worship And indeed the Scripture condemning the pompousness and gaudiness of worship and commending the simplicity of it saith plainly that it is not left to men to add their determinations to God's to make the worship as solemn as they judge meet but that we ought to be content with that solemnity which is made in worship by God's Institutions and the needful determination of circumstances Neither can this blow to his hypothesis be evited by saying that he speaketh only of circumstances which we confess may be determined by the Church For 1. All Ceremonies are also circumstances and he doth not here mention meer circumstances to exclude Ceremonies from the determing power of Authority in the Church 2. Though he should be understood of meer circumstances viz. which are such before they be determined as the habit in which we are to worship yet even such when they are determined by men without necessity only that they may add to the worship a decency which is not needful by nature civil custom nor divine institution they become Religious Ceremonies their end being Religious and they being peculiar to Religion As I have shewn in another piece § 3. It seemeth to me very strange and not to be passed over in our Animadversions that in the prosecuting of this his hypothesis wherein he had ascribed a determining power to lawful Authority in the Church he taketh notice of no power or Authority seated in Church-men but speaketh only of the Magistrate for p. 38. shewing why there is need to prove this hypothesis he tells us of some that give no power and some that give little power to the Magistrate about Religion and then falleth upon a large debate of the Magistrate's power in Church-matters Which is an evident supposing that all Church-power is in the Magistrate and in none else otherwise this discourse should be very impertinent to his hypothesis But this supposition is a gross falshood as is fully proved by many worthy men against Erastus and his followers I shall not now ingage in
on by the Church or rather by Christ the Church declaring his will for so the Church only commandeth other wise we might as well say and it must needs be this Man's Opinion if he believe what here he writeth that when the Church ordaineth a Minister and commandeth him to preach Christ the Magistrate by forbidding him to speak any more in that name maketh null the former Obligation 'T is true the Magistrate may in some cases restrain the outward exercise of what we are so obliged to and also when he doth injuriously forbid such exercise we may be in some cases obliged to cede to this violence but neither of these destroyeth our Obligation to our duty neither the power by which it is laid on more than the Magistrate doth destroy my Obligation to obey my Father or his power over me when he putteth me in Prison and so I cannot do what my Father commandeth The Absurdities that he would fright us with do not follow from our opinion but from his own false supposition For the first it is not absurd that there should be two Supream Powers about things so different that one Power cannot have them both for it's formal Object Will not the Author grant that Ministers have the Supream preaching power that is not subordinate to the Magistrate and the Magistrate the Supream civil Power Why not then that they have the Supream ruling Power in Church affairs These Powers need not clash though they be not subordinate being about things so different as are this world and that which is to come the Soul and the Body But this man feareth that Caesar be dethroned if we confess Christ to be a King and so would have Christ's Kingdome subordinate to Caesar's For the second there cannot be two Obligations here for if the Church keep within her Limits her command is Christ's And so any contrary obligation must be null if not her Authority layeth on no Obligation For the Third it is the same Argument and it admitteth of the same Answer § 8. Having made the Magistrate the sole Judge and determiner in the matters of the Church even Ceremonies themselves our Author proceedeth p. 49. to examine the extent of his Power asserted in his former Hypothesis and here he proceedeth by three steps 1. That there are some things left undetermined by the Word This we assent to as it is here set down but cannot understand it as he doth which appeareth a little after of Ceremonies but rather of bare Circumstances of the worship of God if he take these for one he is very ignorant of the Nature of both neither of the species of Church-Government for which this indifferency of things is here asserted What he discourseth here of the Nature of indifferency I shall not insist upon intending to meet with it elsewhere Only I take notice of his concession p 53. that in things wholly indifferent both in respect of their common nature and their use and end that are neither commanded nor tend to the peace and order of the Church there can be no reason why the Nature of these things should be altered by humane Laws wherefore matters that are indifferent as to a command but are much conducing to the peace and order of the Church are the proper matter of humane constitutions concerning the Churches Policy Let it be here considered that these things are not properly indifferent but commanded viz. where the peace and order of the Church is injoyned and if it be so it is the part of the Church representative not of the Magistrate to Judge what things are thus conducible to peace and order and to hold forth the doing of these as the Laws of Christ § 9. His second step is that matters of this Nature may be determined and restrained and that it is not to the wronging of Christians liberty so to do And this he doth very largely prove against some as he pretendeth of great note and learning I wonder who they are For I never met with any who do deny what he asserteth It is true that many do and that warrantably maintain that where Christ hath left us free man hath no Power by his meer will to restrain us especially in things that belong to the worship of God but all do acknowled ge so far as I know that in things though not expresly commanded which by their nature or circumstances are made conducible to the ends that Christ hath enjoyned us to endeavour the Church may enjoyn us and that without making any new Laws but by declaring the will of God This and no more do all the arguments which the Author with much pains hath set down conclude And indeed if our author had once proved the Species of Church Government to be indifferent we should not deny it to be determinable and imposeable not by the Magistrate but by the Church In the prosecution of his Arguments there occur several things that I cannot assent to but they not being to the Question in hand and intending to touch some of them in a Treatise else-where I pass them here he hath some greedy hints after obeying whatever is commanded though unlawful the non-obligation of the Covenant c. which do discover his spirit Though the Author doth state the Question as hath been said yet all his reasons whereby from p. 56. he proveth the determination of indifferent things not to take away our liberty doth prove as much that determination grounded on mans meer will doth not take it away for in that case there may be left a liberty of judgment and there may be no necessity antecedent to the command as he saith in his first Argument also in that case the determining of the things supposeth them to be matters of liberty which is a second medium and the obligation in that case is only in respect of contempt and scandal which is his third Argument and the repealing of the law or ceasing of the authority commanding may free us of impositions made by meer will which is his fourth Argument Wherefore these Arguments prove that which the Author doth not own if they prove any thing which is a token that they prove nothing at all But that I may shortly answer them The first Argument is inconcludent for though radical liberty i. e. a right to do or not do be consistent with such commands as men without warrant from God lay on us their authority never being able to destroy that right given to us which is founded on the will of God yet these commands are an unlawful taking away of the exercise of our liberty for where neither Scripture nor Reason which are Gods law do bind mans will ought not to bind especially in the things of Religion He hath here p. 57. a gird by the way at them who hold one posture of receiving the Lords Supper to be necessary as more destroying liberty than doth the command of the Magistrate imposing one posture
Answ If they hold this without warrant from the word of the Lord I yield to what he saith but if they can prove that we ought in this to imitate Christ and keep a table-gesture as he did it is no destroying our liberty unless he think it less liberty to be bound to the will of Christ declared by his example than it is to be bound to the will of men Other falshoods I pass over it not being my intention to touch every thing but I wonder at a gross aspersion that he layeth on the Apostle Paul viz. that he did use the Jewish Ceremonies as that he circumcised Timothy when they were not only mortuae but mortiferae and that where there was no opinion of their necessity What is it I pray to say they were mortiferae but that it was sin to use them for when they were mortuae they were indifferent not as to the opinion of their necessity but as to their use then Paul used them when it was sin to use them I hope the Author will not own this when he is better advised but we see whither zeal for an errour will lead men His other Arguments run on the same mistake viz. they prove that radical liberty is not taken away whatever be commanded but they prove not that when men command without warrant from the Lord they hinder that exercise of liberty that the Lord alloweth us Wherefore I need not insist on any further Answer to them p. 59. He maketh this difference between laws concerning Ecclesiastical and Civil things that these bind extra casum scandali contemptus those not so whether this doth consist with his opinion that both these Laws are from the Magistrate let it be considered I thought that the different way of obligation had been from the different Authorities not from the things about which the Laws do converse and that violation of all the Magistrates Laws had been alike opposite to his Authority I mean where the things are of equal moment as certainly may be in things Civil and Ecclesiastical The wise advice of Ambrose to Augustine which he citeth p. 60 61. I do with Augustine reverence as coeleste graculum so it be understood of Customes truly indifferent but that the things we plead about and that the Author would permit to the will of the Magistrate are such we cannot yield Wherefore all this his pains about indifferent things is to small purpose what he saith p. 62. of superstition in the imagined necessity of things really indifferent I will elsewhere examine and what others also have alledged to that purpose § 10. His third step is to set bounds to the restraint of Christian liberty where his first rule is that nothing be imposed as necessary but what is clearly revealed in the word of God But what if it be revealed so as it is visible to them who read and search attentively though it be not clearly revealed must such things be slighted as no part of Gods will but of this we have said enough before The second rule is that nothing be determined but what is sufficiently known to be indifferent in its own nature The way to know what is such he maketh to be by taking the primitive Church and the reformed Churches to be Judges in this I confess their decision should have much weight but we dare make none Judge but God speaking in the Scriptures What if Christ hath in Scripture signified his will in a point and yet these Churches looked on it and used it as a thing indifferent must we then think it indifferent I hope not This is to lay too much weight on men especially considering that the mystery of iniquity which did prostitute all or most of Christs Institutions to mens will as if they had been indifferent things began early to work in the primitive Church 2 Thes 2.2 and few reformed Churches want their own Lees from which the Lord is yet daily purging them Wherefore I think with submission to better judgments a surer standard to know what is indifferent to be this what cannot be proved to be determined by the Lord in Scripture and is not of the Law of nature neither primarily nor secondarily that is to be thought indifferent Passing his other rules in prosecuting the last he openeth a door to humane ceremonies though he seem to speak against them by approving the Feast of Dedication the Jewish Ceremonies in the Passover sure these were some more than ordinary decency neither were to be esteemed of the same rank as he doth with building of Synagogues hours of prayer which are meer order the continuation of the Passover by Hezekiah which was transient no recurrent fast and had a reason then urgent and the feast of Purim which was a Civil solemnity and the fasts of the 4th 5th and 10th Months which were occasional for the captivity and expired with it But of this matter I treat at large elsewhere § 11. In his 5th Hypothesis there is an unwary expression viz. that things determined as aforesaid by lawful authority in the Church which to him is the Magistrate do bind the conscience I suppose he meaneth that we are bound to obey for conscience sake and not that Civil Authority by it self doth reach the Conscience which Protestants with good reason deny against the Papists The rest of his first part needeth not our Animadversions seeing it containeth nothing contrary to Presbyterial Government but rather asserteth several parts of it wherefore I shall only set down briefly his Assertions many of which are so many Concessions to us He Asserteth cap. 3. that the law of Nature dictates that there must be a society of men for the worship of God that is a Church And cap. 4. that there must be a government in this society Where he maketh 6 things in this Government to be 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 Government rather than leave the matter wholly at an uncertainty and the will of men But I observe that though the one of these he doth altogether slight yet the other he doth not pass out of any misregard to it for he laboureth to take all power by Christ's gift out of the hands of Presbyters and Bishops that the Magistrate might have it in solidum § 5. 2. I observe for further clearing the state of the Question that all other parts of these two forms of Government are confessed to be juris divini vel naturalis vel positivi as from his concessions have been manifest and will yet more appear only the matter of Parity or Superiority of Ministers is in question and it being so I propose this to be considered that Parity be of Divine Right it is sufficient 1. That Christ hath given power to all Ministers to rule the Church 2. That he hath not given a greater share of it to some than to others 3. That it is his will that as he hath distributed this power equally so that no man make it unequal seeing that cannot be
used by all or appoint some who should determine what the particular Form should be But according to this mans opinion he hath done neither of these Not the first for that he pleadeth against Nor the second for our Author can shew us no Scripture where it is intrusted to any And if we should require a plain and direct Law for this in express and formal terms as he doth of us in the like case he would find it a hard task Besides if we consult Scripture there is far more to be said for the power of the Church than for the power of the Magistrate in such a determination And reason also may at least set them in equal competition if not cast the Scales in the favour of the Church it being a matter purely Ecclesiastical that is contended about and yet this man giveth the deciding power in this to the Magistrate It is strange if the Government of the Church under the Old Testament be so plain and that under the New be left at such uncertainty § 3. 2. That Moses and Christ are compared as Mediators I do not deny but this maketh nothing for but against what he intendeth For their Mediatory Work taketh in the management of all the dealings that are between God and his People and as it is here spoken of is chiefly meant of outward Administrations of Teaching and Ruling For the inward Administrations of satisfaction for sin and communicating the Spirit to Believers are not applicable to Moses Now the setling the Government of the Church cannot but be a part of this Mediatory work it being of so much and so near concernment to the spiritual good of believers Wherefore Christ and Moses are here compared in their faithfulness in setling of Church-Government as well as in other things This is clearly confirm'd out of the 5th v. of that chap. where it is said that Moses was faithful in all his house Then the Law of Comparison saith that Christ is also there said to be faithful in all his House i. e. in all the matters of the Church Now it cannot be denyed but Church-Government is one and that a main one of the matters of the Church Wherefore Christ and Moses are here compared in their faithfulness in this Administration 3. His Answer doth not well hang together when first he will have them here compared as Mediators as if the matter of Church-Government were impertinent to that wherein they are compared and yet subjoyneth that Moses his faithfulness lay in keeping close to the pattern shewed him Whereas Christ had no such command laid on him nor pattern shewed him If the faithfulness of Moses did ly in keeping Gods command about Church-Government how is he only spoken of as a Typical Mediator and how is Christ's faithfulness compared with this faithfulness of Moses seeing he received no such command § 4. 'T is false that Christ received no Command about the Govenment of the Church for the Scripture is clear that he is made head of the Church hath the Government laid on his shoulders hath received all power in Heaven and in Earth c. If he be by his Office King of the Church sure it is his Office and Trust to settle the Government of his Church This reply he maketh to himself and answereth to it p. 177. in two or three things First he granteth that Christ is King of his Church and doth govern it outwardly by his Laws and inwardly by his Spirit but we must not therefore say that one Form of Government is necessary whether it be contained in his Laws or dictated by his Spirit or not To this I reply 1. Neither do we make any such Inference If we prove not one Form to be contained in his Laws we shall pass from this Argument That which we say is that because he is King and a faithful King as Moses was who setled a Form of Government therefore a Form is contained in his Laws Not that it is necessary whether it be contained in his Laws or not 2. If Christ be King and Governs the Church by his Laws and that outwardly how can it be that the particular Form of its Government is what many may think fit and not of Christs Institution For the Church is governed by a particular Form not by a general notion of a Government for universale non existit nisi in suis singularibus if then the particular form be of mans appointing the Church is not outwardly governed by Christs Laws but by mens for men make the Laws or Rule of its Government If a King should send a Deputy to Govern a Nation and give him leave to choose what Form of Government he would either by himself or by a Council where he should have but equal power with the rest it could not be said in proper speech that that Nation is Governed by the Kings Laws for he makes not the Laws of its Government but by the Laws of them who determines the particular Form of Government Yea suppose the King should make some Laws about it as that nothing should be acted contrary to his Will or Interest that there should be Government and not Anarchy that there should be Rulers and Ruled c. Yet the Nation may rather be said to be Governed by the Laws of him who determineth the particular Form seeing the Government doth essentially consist in the management of a particular Form and not in some general directions This is easily applicable to our case for our Author will have Christ to give some General directious about Church-Government and men to determine and contrive the Form Now let any judge then whether the Church in that case be Governed by the Laws of Christ or the Laws of men Wherefore I conclude that this Answer destroys it self while it denyeth a particular Form instituted by Christ and yet will have the Church outwardly governed by his Laws 2. He saith the main original of mistakes here is the confounding of the external and internal government of the Church of Christ and thence whensoever men read of Christs power authority and government they fancy it refers to the outward government of the Church of God which is intended of this internal Mediatory power over the hearts and consciences of men Reply We are willing to distinguish these and I believe he cannot shew any of ours who do confound them yea we will go further in distinguishing the outward and inward Government of the Church than he doth and I may retort this charge on himself hoping to make it appear that he confoundeth these two and that this is the ground of his mistakes The Government of the Church is then two fold Inward and Outward both these may be distinguished according to divers objects of this Government for Inward Government is either that which is exercised in the conscience and so is invisible or that which is exercised in the Church or in matters that are properly spiritual
and not civil though they be visible to men and so outward in respect of the conscience So outward Government is either such in respect to the conscience and it is that we have now described or outward in respect to the Church viz. That that which is exercised in matters relating to the Church and yet are not properly Spiritual but Civil and concern the Church not as it is a Church but as it is a Society Or we may distinguish thus the Government of the Church is either invisible viz. in the conscience or visible and this is either in things that are Ecclesiastical and so it is inward in respect to the Church or in things that are Civil and so it is outward The first of these is immediately exercised by Christ the second mediately and that by the Guides of the Church as his Deputies the third by the Magistrate as a servant of Christ in his Kingdom that he hath over all the World I hope now the outward and inward Government of the Church of Christ is sufficiently distinguished and not so confounded as to be the cause of mistakes about it But now let us see whether he himself who chargeth others with this confounding be not guilty of it and doth not here mistake the truth by confounding the Internal and the External Government of the Church It is very evident that it is so for 1. He setteth down the bare terms of a distinction between internal and external Government but doth not tell what he meaneth by either of them Whether the distinction be to be applyed to the Conscience and so be meant of invisible and visible Government Or to the Church and so be understood of Ecclesiastical and formal or of Civil and Objective Government of the Church We are to seek in this for all his distinction 2. He seemeth confusedly to refer to both these as he here manageth the distinction or at least some things seem to draw the one way and some the other For when he denyeth Christs power and Authority spoken of in the Scripture to refer to the outward Government of the Church this must be meant of that Government which is Civil not of visible Ecclesiastical Government I hope he will not deny that to be a part of Christs Authority Again where he granteth Christs internal mediatory power over the Conscience this must be meant of his invisible Government both because it is certain Christ hath such a Power and our Author here denyeth all other power of Government to him Also because no other power is internal over the Conscience but this But what-ever be his meaning this answer doth not take away the force of our argument for if he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christs power Kingdom and Authority to be meant of Civil power but to be meant of visible internal power in the Church this is all we desire for if Christ hath such a Kingdom then the management of the visible Government of the Church is his trust in which his faithfulness would make him settle a particular form as Moses did Only I take notice how inconsistent this is with his Principles seeing he denyeth any visible power in the Church save that of Word and Sacraments as it followeth immediately and putteth all other power in the hand of the Magistrate as do all the rest of the Erastians If he deny the Scriptures that speak of Christ's Authority and Kingdom to be meant of Visible Ecclesiastical Government and make them speak only of an invisible Government over the Conscience which is exercised by his Word and spirit in this first he is contrary to all men for even Erastians themselves do grant that Christ hath such a Kingdom but they would have it managed by the Magistrate whom they make Christ's Vicegerent in his Mediatory Kingdom and others do hold such a Kingdom of Christ and that it is managed by the Officers of his Church Secondly he derogateth from the Kingdom of Christ denying that which is a confiderable part of the exercise of his Kingly Office What is Christ a King not only of Angels but of Men united in a visible Society the Church and yet hath no visible Government exercised in his name among them this is a ridiculous inconsistency Thirdly he is contrary to many Scriptures which speak of Christs Kingdom and Authority and must be understood of a visible Authority exercised in a visible Government such as Eph. 4.10 11. Setting up of Pastors there mentioned is a visible act and it is made an act of his Authority 1 Cor. 11.3 Christ's Headship is mentioned with a reference to the ordering the visible decency of his Worship Also Psal 2.8 Psal 22.27 Psal 110.3 Col. 1.13 and many other places which it is strange daring to restrict to the invisible exercise of Christs Authority in the soul Fourthly this is contrary to all these Scriptures which speak of the several outward acts of the exercise of Christs Government as gathering a people to him Isa 55.4 5. Acts 15 14 15 16 17. giving them laws Isa 33.2 Mat. 28.20 Mat. 5.17 19. Verses c. setting up Officers Eph. 4.10.11 giving them power of Discipline Mat. 16.19 Mat. 18.17 18. John 20.23 Fifthly it is contrary to himself for Preaching and Administring Sacraments are visible acts if then Christ as King hath invested his Servants with this power which he confesseth p. 177. where also he confesseth that he Governeth the Church outwardly by his Laws he must have a visible Government as he is King of his Church That which he addeth viz. that this is made known to us in the word but not the other viz. that he hath appointed a particular Form this I say 1. Beggeth the Question 2. Destroyeth his Answer wherein he denyeth Christ's visible Government for this is a part of it which he granteth § 5. Another Answer he frameth to our Argument from Christ and Moses p. 177. That if the comparison of Christ and Moses infer an equal exactness of disposing every thing in the Church then we must be bound to all circumstances as the Jews were but there is this difference between the Old and New Testament that there all ceremonies and circumstances were exactly prescribed here there are only general rules for circumstantial things there the very pins of the Tabernacle were commanded here it is not so but a liberty is left for times place persons c. Reply 1. We do not plead for an equal exactness in determining all things We know the Old and New Testament state of the Church requireth a diversity here but we plead for the equal faithfulness of Christ with Moses now Christ was intrusted with setting up a Government in the Church as well as Moses whence it followeth that he behoved to enjoyn the particular Form of it as Moses did seeing without this great matters in the Church even that whereon its Union and Being as a Society do hang are left at a great uncertainty
thus moral and assert them to be left at liberty he doth at one blow cut of all the institutions of Christ and will have the Gospel-Church so perfect as to be under no law of God but the moral Law and what Laws men please to add unto it This I hope he will retract when he considereth what he hath here asserted For I perceive that even learned men can say sometimes they know not what § 7. His second reason p. 180. is this The Form of government among the Jews in the Tribe of Levy was agreeable to the form of Government among the other Tribes and their Ecclesiastical Government was one of their Judicial Laws Wherefore if in this we compare Christ with Moses we must hold it needful that he prescribe also a form of Civil Government Ans 1. When we compare Christ with Moses we have very good cause to make an exception where the Scripture hath evidently made it We compare them then as two Mediators entrusted with managing the affairs which concern mens Eternal Salvation among which are Church Administrations Hence there is Warrant for stretching that comparison made of them in Scripture to their faithfulness in appointing Church Government but as to Civil Government the Scripture maketh a plain exception when it evidently holdeth forth Moses a State Law-giver as well as a Church Law-giver and it doth as evidently testifie that Christ was not such when he denieth his Kingdom to be of this World Joh. 18.36 And that he is a Judge and divider of inheritance among men Luk. 12.14 and his mean condition in the World unlike to Moses maketh this farther appear Wherefore there is no necessity of comparing them in Civil though we compare them in Church-Administrations The Lord was pleased to make the Government of Israel in respect of Church and State both to be Theocratia to give them both kinds of Laws immediately from himself That seeing he hath under the Gospel done otherwise as to State-Government he hath also done otherwise as to Church-Government what a mad kind of consequence is this And there is evident reason of this differing Dispensation under the Law and under the Gospel I suppose if the difference of cases that arise from variety of Circumstances did permit it were the happiest case for God's People to have all their actions and concernments particularly determined by the Lord who is wiser then men now the Lord doth thus with them so far as it hinders not their happiness by a load of multiplicity of Laws Wherefore seeing the Church and State of the Jews were commensurable being in one Nation it was as easie for them to have their State-Laws determined by the Lord as their Church-Laws But it is far otherwise under the Gospel where the Church is spread over so many different Nations of divers dispositions and manners to have determined all things for the Civil Good of all these Nations which must be superadded To the Determinations of Natures Law would have made the Bible a burthen to men But it is not so in Ecclesiastical matters there is nothing peculiar to the Church as a Church or Religious Society but supposing what Nature Dictates may without burthening People with many Laws be determined and imposed upon all Hence is it that the Lord saw it for the good of the Jewish Church to give them both Civil and Church-Laws and for the good of the Gospel Church to give them Church-Laws but to leave Civil-Laws to prudence guided by the general Rules of Scripture and Nature Neither do I think as our Author seemeth sometime to think that it was any part of legal bondage to have Laws from God even in the least matters and that which is Christian liberty to be free from Gods Laws in these things when we are bound to the same by the Laws of men I should rather prefer their state to ours thus far but their bondage was to have many things determined and imposed upon them which were naturally indifferent and so free which the Lord hath now left free under the Gospel Answ 2. It is not to the purpose to tell us that the Government of the Tribe of Levy was like that of the other Tribes For Church-Government was very different from Civil Government for all that viz. in this that it was in the hand of the Tribe of Levy and no other Tribe which was a positive Institution of God that it did cognosce of other matters than Civil Government did that it did inflict other censures But let it be never so co-incident with Civil Government yet it was of Gods Institution which is all that is needful to our purpose That the Form of Ecclesiastical Government took place among them as one of their Judicial Laws is a groundless Assertion Yea it is a begging of the Question and also taking away the Distinction of Church and State among the Jews which is not needful here to be insisted upon till some man Answer what Mr. Gillespie in his Aarons-rod hath written to this purpose § 8. His third Reason ib. is the People of the Jews were an entire People when their Church-Government was setled the Gospel Church was but in Forming in Christs and the Apostles times they settled what was for the present need of the Church in her first Constitution as in appointing Officers this will not serve when the Church is grown and spread her coat cut out for her Infancy must not be urg'd on her when grown Answ 1. This doth no way satisfie the comparing of Christ's faithfulness with Moses for Moses gave Laws in the Wilderness not only for that wandring condition but for their setled state in the Land of Canaan Must we then think that Christ took care that the Church in Infancy should have his Laws to be guided by but afterward to be left to the Dictates of men Sure our Lord was as careful to foresee future needs of his People as to provide for present wants 2. The Church in the Apostles days though not so far spread as now yet was so multiplyed and setled as that she was capable to be ruled by Parity or Primacy Might there not be a Bishop in Ephesus Corinth c. and especially in Galatia a National Church Might there not be a College of Presbyters then as well as now Wherefore if the Apostles provided for present need they behoved either to determine either of these two ex are tuo 3. What is there in our case that maketh another kind of Government needful then what was needful in the Apostles times We have many Congregations which all need their several Officers and must be ruled in common either by all these Officers or by some set above the rest was not this their case too I would fain know where lyeth the difference may be in this there could not then be one Head over all the Churches which now may seeing the powers of the world profess Christ It is true there was
a time when Government could not be fetled viz. When first a Church was planted and Believers very few But I am sure it was otherwise in many places before the Apostles departed this life 4. Must we say then that the Directions in the Epistles to Tim. and Pet. and elsewhere concerning Church-Administration do not concern us but their force expired with that time I must see stronger Arguments than any that this Author hath brought ere I be perswaded of this and yet it doth clearly follow out of what he he saith Yea we must say that these Scriptures which tell us what Officers should be in the Church as Eph. 4.12 1 Cor. 12.28 Rom. 12.6 7 8. do not reach us but it is lawful for the Magistrate in this mans opinion to appoint what Church-Officers he thinketh fit for this time as the Apostles did for their time For he saith p. 181. the Apostles looked at the present state of the Church in appointing Officers This I hope sober men will not readily yield to Yea he is against himself as we have seen before and may have occasion further to shew afterward § 9. His fourth and last Reason is p. 181. the Jews lived under one civil Government according to which the Church Government was framed and contempered but Christians live under different civil Governments therefore if we compare Christ with Moses in this we must say that Christ did frame the Church Government according to the Civil and so it must not be one but divers Ans It is here boldly supposed but not proved that the form of the Jewish Church Government was framed according to the Civil which we deny and so raze the foundation of this Reason And whereas his assertion wants proof our denial shall stand on surer ground for the Civil Government among the Jews was often changed they had Judges Kings Governors under their Conquerors but we read not of changing their Church Government which behoved to have been had it been framed according to the Civil Wherefore neither must Christian Church Government be formed by the Civil but by Christs Institution § 10. To these answers to our Argument he addeth e◠abundanti as he speaketh some Arguments to prove the Antithesis viz. that Christ did never intend to institute any one Form of Government He might have spared this his supererrogation except he had had more to say for taking off the strength of our Argument then we have met with But to his Arguments the first p. 181 and 182. he frameth thus what binds the Church as an Institution of Christ must bind as a◠Universal standing Law one Form of Government cannot so bind ergo prob min. what binds as a Law must either be expressed as a Law in direct terms or deduced by necessary consequence as of an universal binding nature The first cannot be produced The second is not sufficient except the consequence be necessary and also the obligation of what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture for consequences cannot make Institution but apply it to particular cases because positives being indifferent Divine Institution must be directly brought for their binding so that no consequence can bind us to them without express declaration that it shall so bind This is no new Argument it is proposed by him p. 12. and answered by us p. to what is said there I shall add a little applyed to his Argument as here framed his major is not so evident but that it needeth a distinction to clear it What bindeth as Christs Institution must bind as an universal Law i. e. in all times and places negatur for there are cases in which the Lord will admit and necessity will impose a dispensation with some of God's Institutions as I exemplified before in the case of Hezekiah keeping the Passeover i. e. in all times where God or Nature doth not make a clear exception or where the present case doth not exempt it self from the intent of that as being given in a far different condition conceditur Hence there were some of Christs Laws for the Church temporal some peculiar to some cafes these do not bind us all the rest do where they are possibly practicable That the Laws for parity of Offices in the Church are of the latter sort we maintain For his Miner we deny it and for the disjunctive proof of it we are ready to maintain both the parts which he impugneth And First That there is express Law of Christ for parity which I wonder he should so barely deny that it can be produced when he knoweth or might know that it is brought by our Writers out of Mat. 20.25 26. Lu. 22.25 26. But what he hath to say against the evidence brought from these and other places we shall examine when we come at them 2. Though there were no express Law for it we maintain that there is abundant evidence drawn by consequence from Scripture to shew that this is the Will and Law of Christ as for these two conditions that he requireth in such a consequence the first we own and maintain that it is inferred by clear consequence from Scripture that there ought to be a parity among Ministers thus what was the practice of the Apostles in framing Church Government should be ours also except the case be different but the Apostles did settle the Ministers in equal power without a Bishop over them neither is there any difference in our case that should cause us to do otherwise ergo we ought so to practice It is not needful to insist here on the confirmation of this Argument seeing we are here only asserting that this conclusion may be proved not undertaking the proof of it which is fully done by Presbyterian Writers and which we are ready to defend against what this Author will object For the second condition viz. that what is drawn by consequence be expresly set down in Scripture as binding this is unlike Mr. Stillingfleet's ability to require such a ridiculous condition for if it be expresly set down in Scripture as binding then it is not a consequence but an express Law and so belongs to the former part of his disjunction And besides it is a hard task to put any one upon to find out a consequence so deduced in Scripture What if Anabaptist◠who deny consequences from Scripture in the point of Institution should put Mr. Stillingfleet to prove Infant Baptism by such a consequence a◠this where something is said in Scripture from which the duty of Baptizing Infants doth clearly follow and where it is expresly said in Scripture that it doth follow from this that Infants must be baptized he would find this an hard task and yet he requireth the same of us What he saith for the warranting of this strange Doctrine wanteth force It is true Consequences cannot make an Institution yet they may declare an Institution we may gather the Will of Christ in matters of Institutions by
directions to them which are not applicable to Bishops governing because the managing of the work is the same in both ways except what Nature maketh necessary to a Society or a single person governing which also it doth teach 3. The matter is determined even in these Epistles viz. 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is not obscurely held forth that Tim. was ordained by a Presbytery which inferreth that Presbyters ought so to be ordained and not by a Bishop alone 4. Though the matter were not determined in these Epistles it is no wonder they being written to particular men but it is determined in other Scriptures viz. where Christ giveth the Keys not to one but to all the Apostles then the only Church Officers and where Paul committeth the care of the Church of Ephesus not to one Bishop but to the Elders in common Act. 20.28 Of this he saith p. 184. it is equally a duty whether we understand by Overseers some acting over others or all joyning in equality But by his leave when the Apostle giveth this charge peremptorily to all the Elders of Ephesus for to them he speaketh not to these of other Churches of Asia as he dreameth the Text may be understood upon what ground I know not there is no doubt left whether he maketh it the duty of them all in common or of some one set over the rest And may we not think that this Command is a standing Rule reaching even to us as he himself saith p. 185. of what is contained in the Epistles to Tim. and Tit. and if so then all Pastors are Bishops or Overseers not one over the rest by Apostolick Authority He argueth thus p. 185. Tim. is charged to commit the things he had heard of Paul to faithful men who might be able also to teach others 2 Tim. 2.2 Had it not been as requisite to have charged him to have committed his power of Government to them c. Ans 1. Yea he doth here commit power of Preaching and of governing joyntly to Timothy to be transferred by him to others for of both these I suppose Tim. had heard from Paul why then must we here understand the one rather then the other in that he mentioneth Teaching not Ruling it is because Teaching is the main business and hath the other power necessarily joined with it by divine Institution 2. It is not always needful to mention Governing Power where ever the power of a Minister is mentioned and here it cannot be deemed needful because the Apostle had formerly instructed Tim. that he choose none to be Pastors but they who are able to Rule too whence it followeth that when he biddeth him commit to them the Pastoral charge he intendeth Ruling Power as a part of it else to what purpose should he require ability to Rule in them To the same purpose is what he saith of Tit. That he bid him ordain Elders but told not what Power did belong to them a Negative Argument from one place of Scripture is in concludent such as this is From the Superiority of Tim. and Tit. I pass his clearing of it from being an Argument for Episcopacy be inferreth two things p. 186.187 First that the Superiority of some Church Officers he should have said Presbyters for of Officers it is not Questioned on either hand over others is not contrary to the Rule of the Gospel 2. That it is not repugnant to the Constitution of the Church in Apostolical times for men to have power over more then one particular Congregation These saith he follow though their Office be supposed extroardinary and that they acted as Evangelists Ans It will follow indeed from these examples that Superiority is not contrary to Nature nor to the Nature of a Gospel Church Also it will follow that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that the Lord should immediately when he seeth cause appoint such Superiority and what if we say it followeth that it is not contrary to Gospel Institution that in some extraordinary cases that Superiority may be allowed for a time But none of these are the thing in Question for this doth not follow that because the Lord did immediately call these men and gave them Extroardinary Power over others therefore he hath not instituted that the ordinary way of Church Government shall be by Pastors acting in Purity which is here disputed His third head of Laws formerly mentioned he toucheth p. 188. and bringeth instances of some General rules for Church Government which I confess are not peculiar to one form But this doth not hinder that there may be other Rules which are such which himself instanceth as that complaints be made to the Church it is an odd exposition to say i. e. Tell the Bishop The Church implieth clearly a Plurality p. 187. had it been the will of Christ saith he that there should be no Superiority of Pastors there would have been some express and direct prohibition of it Ans 1. Might not a prohibition by Consequence serve turn This is very peremptorily spoken 2. What needeth any prohibition when Christ had instituted a way inconsistent with it this was a prohibition of it now this he did by giving Ruling power to all Presbyters as hath been already shewed Sect. 13. He bringeth another Argument of his Opposites p. 189. Viz. That it is of equal necessity that Christ should Institute a certain Form as that any other Legislator that moderates a Commonwealth should do His first Ans To this is that Christ hath instituted such an immutable Government in his Church as is sufcient for the succession and continuance of it which is all that founders of Republicks looked after viz. That there be such an order and distinction of Persons and subordination that a Society may be preserved among them Till then it be proved that one form is necessary for the being of a Church this Argument can prove nothing Reply it is false that Legislators looked after no more but that we find none of them who setled not a particular Form yeâ— this was necessary for these Generals could not be practised but in some particular Form this or that and of these we find they choosed what they thought fittest even so Christ not only appointed Generals but knowing a particular Form is only practicable he chose that which he thought fittest mans choise in this is alterable because other men may have as much wisdom and authority as they Christs choise is not so for the contrary reasons His second Ans p. 190. Is what is not absolutely necessary to the being of a Church is in Christs liberty whether he will determine it or not even as when I hear that Lycurgus and others did form a Republick I conclude there must be Government But not that they Institute Monarchy c. this must be known by taking a view of their Laws Reply we acknowledge that Form of Government to be in Christs liberty whether he will determine it or not
but we think it like that he hath determined it as for other reasons so because even men have not appointed the Generals of Government without a form in which they should subsist much less would the wise God do so if they being wiser then others did think it fitter to choose the Form then to leave it at other mens will much more would he What he saith of inferring that they did appoint this or that Form from their modelling a Common Wealth is not to the purpose for that they did appoint a Form we know by History and I suppose that every one thinketh that they did wisely in so doing and that their doing so was for the good of the Republick hence we infer that it is like Christ did so seeing he sought his peoples good more then they and the Church is less able to choose for her self then those Republicks were seeing Church Matters are of spiritual concernment and so lie further out of the Road of mens Wit then the affairs of State do I yield to him that we could not know what Form Christ hath instituted but by looking into his Laws yea and but that way we could not certainly know that he hath determined any one form yet this doth not hinder but such Arguments as this may have their own weight The Testimony he bringeth out of Mr. Hooker is answered from what hath been said and I am to meet with it elsewhere He mistaketh our intent in such Arguments and falsly supposeth that the form we plead for is not found in the Bible Sect. 14. He bringeth another argument p. 191. from the similitude of a Vine which must have its Dressers and a House and a City which must have Government it was very easie for him to answer the Argument thus propounded I know not who ever did so manage it But it might have been thus improved a wise Master of a Vineyard will not let his servants do what they please but will appoint them his work in his Vineyard and a Master of a Family or a King in a Country or City will not let the Servants or Subjects chuse in what they shall be governed Ergo if the Church be a Vine a House a City and Christ be the Head and Ruler of it it is not like that he hath left the choise of the way of governing it to men but hath appointed it himself If he had thus propounded the Argument it had not been so easily answered The same way he useth the next Argument p. 192. taken from the difference of Civil and Ecclesiastical Government the one of which is called the Ordinance of man and the other is Gods Ordinance therefere though that be mutable this is not I chuse rather to frame the Argument otherwise out of his own Concession he maketh difference between these two Governments the one is for a Political the other for a spiritual end the one for a temporal the other for an eternal end the one given to men as men the other to men as Christians the one to preserve Civil Right the other to preserve an Eternal Interest c. Then however the Lord let men chuse the way of attaining political and temporal ends and provide for their own standing as men and preserve their Civil Rights yet it is strange to think that he hath left it to mens choise to take this or that way for attaining their spiritual and eternal end for procuring their standing as Christians for preserving their spiritual rights though the one be the Ordinance of man sure the other must be the Ordinance of God But the form of Church-Government is the way to attain these because Church-Government is the mean as is confessed and it cannot be acted but in a particular form and the form is the way of managing that mean and so attaining the end yea it is such a way as hath exceeding influence upon attaining these ends seeing a wrong form may more hinder than promote them man I suppose may chuse a way that may do more hurt than good it is strange then if Christ hath left this which is of such high concernment to such high ends to the will of corrupt men and this Argument may have the more weight ad hominem because this Author is often endeavouring to shape Church-Government according to the Civil which is very unsuitable to what he asserteth of their differences Sect. 15. Another argument p. 194. is if the form of Church-Government be not in Scripture determined immutably then it is in the power of the Church to make new Officers which Christ never made To this he answereth 1. These Officers are only said to be new which were never appointed by Christ and are contrary to the first appointment of Christ but one set over many Pastors is not such for besides the general practice from the first Primitive times Christ himself laid the foundation of such an Office in appointing Apostles Reply Here are many things hudled together to excuse Episcopacy from Novelty which we must examine severally 1. They are not a new Office would he say because Christ instituted such an Office viz. Apostles Reply I hope he will not say that the Office of an Apostle and of a Diocesan Bishop is the same Office for the Apostles had much power which Bishops have not and were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God so are not Bishops and however there may be some resemblance between them yet if they be not the same Office it must be a new Office from what Christ appointed It is not the want of Similitude but the want of Identity with what hath been before that maketh a thing new neither need we enter the dispute with him what way extraordinary and what not in the Apostolick Office nor doth the Question lie in that as he alledgeth for we maintain and I think it will not be deni'd by him that the Office in complexe viz. as it did subsist in rerum natura was extraordinary and is ceased and therefore whatever Office is made up of some part of the power they had without the rest of it must be a different Office from that and so new Indeed if Christ had given them their power by halves and made the one half of it common to some Officer appointed by him to continue in the Church viz. power over Presbyters and the other half of it peculiar to them then Bishops having power over Presbyters though they had been a new Office from the Apostles and not the same yet should they have had the same Office with these others that we supposed and so had not been new simply but there being no such thing they must be in another Office than Christ ever appointed and so simply new Wherefore it is an unreasonable demand of the Author p. 195. that we must prove power over Presbyters to be extraordinary before we say it must cease For it is enough that the whole Office be extraordinary
that it be not a patern for any other Office that should be the same Yea we can easily prove that that power as in the Apostles and making up the Complex of their Office was extraordinary because it cannot rurvive the Office it self under that notion and we can also prove that Christ never instituted any such power by it self and without the other parts of the Apostolick Office whence it clearly followeth that such a power by it self which is a clear description of the Episcopal Office is divers from all the Offices iustituted by Christ and so is a new Office What he saith of the ceasing of this power with the Apostles as to its necessity but not as to its lawfulness is most impertinent and a begging of the Question for the conclusion of the Argument is that it is unlawful because it hath no institution that institution which it had in the Apostles being ceased His confirmation of this his distinction containeth a manifest falshood viz. to make a thing unlawful saith he which was before lawful there must be an express prohibition forbidding the use of such a thing This I say applied to the matter in hand is most false for we speak of things which have their lawfulness only from institution viz. Authority given to one over others now that which is thus lawful becometh unlawful meerly by the withdrawing of the Institution though no express prohibition of it be made As is evident from the like case among men when a King giveth a Commission to a Judge it is lawful for him to act in that capacity now if the King shall call in his Commission though there be no express forbidding of the man I suppose it is now become unlawful for him to act Just so is our case one Pastor can have no authority over another unless it be given him by Christ who ascended up on high and received these gifts for men Eph. 4. Now Christ had given once such a power to men viz. the Apostles this he hath now withdrawn by not giving such Commission to any others but the Apostles for I suppose to follow the former example that when a Judge which had a Commission dieth it is a sufficient withdrawing of his Commission that the King doth not give it to any other who may succeed him wherefore any who take that power to them do it without Commission from Christ which is unlawful Sect. 16. Another Answer he bringeth to this argument p. 195. on which he insisteth much as a foundation tonding to establish his whole Cause but I hope it shall prove a ruinous foundation The Answer is this The extending of any Ministerial power is not the appointing of any new but a determining the extent of that in actu secunâ—o which every Minister hath in actu primo For clearing this he undertaketh two things 1. To shew that the power of every Minister doth primarily and habitually respect the Church in common which I do freely yield to him 2. P. 197. That the Officers of the Church may in a peculiar manner attribute a larger and more extensive power to some particular persons for the more convenient exercise of their common power Before I come to examine what he saith to this purpose let me note 1. That he speaketh here in a new strain before he had at tributed this power of determining to the Magistrate now the Officers of the Church must have it which I confess is more fit But he soon repenteth and in the end of the same page maketh it lye between the Pastors and Magistrate whether he please It is strange to see how those who loose hold of the truth hang as Meteors and know not where to fix I take notice 2. That whereas the former part of his undertaking which he knew to be out of controversie among them against whom he disputeth he establisheth by five strong Arguments but for that part where the stress of the matter lieth he hath not brought so much as one reason to evince what he saith but some few bare Assertions for the clearing of it and indeed it is sometimes easier to prove the thing that is not than the thing that is denied even to such able men as Mr. Stillingfl But let us now attend to what he saith for his Opinion We have seen saith he that their power extendeth to the care of the Churches in common that the restraint of this power is a matter of order and decency in the Church Here are two things the former of which we have heard and seen solidly proved but the latter I have not yet seen where he hath done any thing but asserted it as he here doth but sure it being a matter of such concernment and controversie needed some more proof wherefore I cannot pass it so slightly as he hath done We may distinguish a twofold restraining the same holdeth in enlarging of the exercise of the power of Church-Officers viz. in respect of the Object of it and in respect of the acts of it Restraint in respect of the object of this power may be subdivided First when that power is permitted or appointed to be exercised over more or fewer objects of the same kind which it doth respect by the appointment of Christ as that a Minister should have a narrower or larger bounds for his Parish or more or fewer people to watch over and so of the limiting of Presbyteries Synods c. This restraint or enlargement of power in its exercise we acknowledge to be a matter of order and decency and may be determined by the prudence of the Church Secondly when it is extended to the objects of another kind or restricted from the whole Species of these objects that Christ hath appointed it for as when a Bishop by himself who by Christs Institution hath only power over the people getteth power given him by man over his fellow Pastors and when a Presbyter who by Christs Institution hath a power over the Flock to rule them is hindred from the exercise of this power altogether and is set only to feed and this ruling power as to its exercise is wholly devolved upon another This we deny to be a matter of order and decency committed to the Churches prudence Restraint and enlargement in respect of acts of power is when some acts which may be by Christs Institution exercised by all Presbyters are only permitted to be exercised by some and not by others as Ordination Church-censures and when some are authorized to do some acts of power that Christs Institution giveth them no Commission unto this together with that restraint mentioned in the second member of the subdivision we prove not to be matters of order left to the prudence of the Church but to be the setting up of a new Office in the Church 1. Order that the Church is commanded to look after requireth the right circumstantiating of these acts which Christ hath appointed to be done in his Church as that
they be done in fit time place method c. neither can this ordering of things reach beyond the determination of circumstances for whatever is more than this is not an ordering of that action unto which the circumstances do belong but an instituting of a new action because for example the right order of reading doth not require prayer or singing to be joyned with it but respecteth only the circumstances of reading it self now such restraining or enlarging of the exercise of power is no right circumstantiating of it but some other thing it being no circumstance of the exercise of Pastoral power whether he shall rule or not but an essential part I mean as to the integrality it being an integral part of that power which Christ hath given him as is confessed also giving the exercise of that power to one which belongeth to many is not adding of a circumstance but a supernumerary part of power as to its exercise above these parts that Christ hath given them ergo this is no ordering of the exercise of power but setting up of it anew 2. Order that belongeth to the prudence of the Church is that unto which confusion is opposite then is that order obtained when all confusion is avoided but confusion may be avoided without this restraining and enlarging of church-Church-power by men else it were in no case lawful to let power be exercised as it is instituted by Christ because we must always be careful to avoid confusion ergo I confess restraining of the exercise of power as to objects of the same kind as fixing of Parishes is necessary to avoid confusion but this cannot be said of taking power of ruling out of the hands of Presbyters and giving it to Bishops else we must say that Episcopacy is necessary which destroyeth this mans Hypothesis If it be said that sometimes it falleth out that this is necessary to avoid confusion and then Episcopacy is necessary Ans If we should grant that it is sometimes useful to avoid confusion as that which may be the fruit of Parity yet it cannot be said that Parity it self is confusion now it is not in the Churches power to take her own way to avoid whatever may have a bad effect for the best things may be such but she must shun that which is evil by a right managing not by laying aside that which is good wherefore seeing Order is consistent with Parity and Parity with the Institution of Christ and Imparity goeth at least a step beyond the Institution and taketh that from men which Christ gave them and giveth it to some to whom he gave it not this cannot be a right ordering of his Institution but rather setting up some other thing in the place thereof 3. The right ordering of the exercise of that power which Christ hath given to men must consist in determining of these things which he hath not determined and yet are necessary to be determined as time place extent of Parishes c. for if men either take upon them to determine in these matters which he hath already determined by his Institution or to determine things that he hath left at liberty because the determination was not needful to his design they then would be wiser then he and do not order his Institutions but set up their own Now this which our Author calleth Ordering is guilty of both these for Christ by giving Ruling Power to all Presbyters hath declared his Will that they shall all Rule and especially by requiring an ability for this as a necessary qualification of them who should be put unto that Office do not men then by appointing who should Rule pass their determination on what he hath already determined and that contrary to what he hath appointed Again Christ hath not appointed any Superiority and Inferiority among Presbyters neither is it needful this be the Church may be without it and yet men take upon them to appoint it Is this then to order that Government that Christ hath appointed and not rather to set up new Officers that men have devised Sect. 17. Next he subjoyneth a strange assertion Now saith he in matters of common concernment without all question it is not unlawful when the Church judgeth it most fit for edification to grant to some the executive part of that power which is originally and fundamentally common to them all Answ If it be so all this pains that our Author is at is needless and his Book to no purpose For I mistake much if the main business in it be not to prove the lawfulness of this which here he asserteth to be unquestionably lawful For he confesseth that ruling power is given by Christ to all Presbyters then we must either say that it is his institution that they all exercise it and so parity is his institution or that the executive part of it may be given to some or may be common to them all and so the form of Government may be left indifferent is the scope of this Book Now if it be unquestionable what needeth all this pains about it But I conceive this confident assertion is put instead of the Arguments whereby this undertaking of his should have been confirmed It is an easie thing when one cannot find proofs for their opinion to say it is out of Question but it is an unhandsome way of disputing especially unbeseeming the person who could not but know that this is denied by his Opposites and is the main hinge of the Controversie in hand We do maintain this Antithesis that it is the Question between us and them who are for the indifferency of Church Government whether the exercise of Ruling Power may be taken out of the hands of Ministers and given unto one to be Bishop over them and we maintain the negative as that which should be out of Question and this we shall not barely assort as Mr. Stillingf hath done his Opinion I. 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 be gave the charge and that is of Pastors neither will he ask Account of Bishops except for their Usurpation Ergo it is not lawful to take the exercise of Church Power out of the hands of Ministers and give it to a Bishop 3. Proof If Presbyters who have received Power from Christ may put the exercise of it into the hands of a Bishop alienating it from themselves why may not Bishops devolve their Power on one who shall be over them and so we shall have an Universal Bishop the Pope in whom shall rest all Church Power and at whose direction it shall be exercised If that may be done there is no shadow of Reason why this may not be done for if once the Power be taken out of the hand of them to whom Christ hath given it then prudence must be the only Director to teach us who must have it now prudence will as well say that Bishops must have one over them to keep them in Order and peace as that Presbyters must have one over them Neither is there here any inconvenience that is not there for that one may turn to tyranny as well as the other and a Bishop cannot oversee his charge without substitutes more then the Pope can do the one may substitute Bishops Cardinals c. as well as the other may substitute Dean Prebends Archdeacon c. Now I hope Mr. Stillingfleet is not come to that to think the Papal Office an indifferent Ceremony ergo neither should he think so of Episcopacy 4. If Presbyters may devolve the exercise of that power that Christ hath given them into the hands of a Bishop then they may also give away with their power the very Office that Christ hath given them But this they may not ergo I prove the Major for when they devolve the exercise of their ruling power on the Bishop they not only consent that they shall rule the people which they might do But they make it unlawful for themselves to rule yea they give up themselves to be ruled and commanded by them so that he is their Judge and cannot be judged by them in case of male-administration at least this is true de singulis if not de omnibus but this is to give away the very power for if I may not act how have I a power to act if both I and the people be under the command of another so that I may not act any thing in reference to the People but by his authority how have I power to rule sure a power is the possibility of the act quantum est ex parte causae and a moral power is such a lawfulness of the act but in this case Presbyters want that possibility or lawfulness of that exercise of Ruling and that so as the defect or hindrance ex parte causae is in themselves who should put forth the acts ergo they want not onely the exercise but the very power of Ruling which Christ gave them in such a case The Minor of the Argument is evident for such an alienation were a clear contradicting of Christ he saith it shall be lawful for you such a one being lawfully put into the Ministry to rule he by this alienating saith it shall not be lawful for me to rule If it be said that Christs gift maketh it lawful for such a one to rule but not in all cases as suppose the good of the Church requires that this power be taken from him his alienating maketh it onely unlawfull in this case when for the good of the Church he hath quit his right so that here there is no opposition Christ giveth him a jus in actu primo he alienateth onely this jus in actu secundo as Mr. Stillingfleet doth express it Answ 1. However there may be some colour of reason why this may be done in some extraordinary cases when Christs institution which is calculated to
Worldly to and therefore it could not be but they designed a Supremacy in that respect also not mainly both because they could not but know that their main work both in teaching and ruling was to be about the things of Eternity as also it is evident from Luk. 22.24 that their contention was about Supremacy in a Power that then they had begun to be partakers of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but they knew very well that yet they had no Civil Power seeing then they contended about Eccl siastical Supremacy and Christs answer is suted to their Intention and doth wholly discharge that Power whereof it speaketh the first of which I have proved the two latter Mr. Still hath confessed it followeth that Christ doth here forbid all Superiority of the Apostles one over another so that not only Christ had not set one over the rest but he will not permit themselves to do it if they would 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a Simple forbidding of it Hence I inferre the Argument to our purpose thus if the Apostles who had received equal power from Christ might not delegate that Power to one whom they might set up as chief then Presbyters may not do this neither Ergo Imparity of Presbyters is unlawful The consequence is evident the antecedent I prove from parity of Reason it is not immaginable that Presbyters may set one of themselves over themselves and that Bishops may not do the like and Apostles the like seeing order may require the one as well as the other Yea Secondly if there be a disparity of reason it maketh much for us for sure the Apostles had more liberty of managing that Power they had received from Christ by prudence than Pastors now have wherefore they might far rather restrain the exercise of it in themselves if they saw cause than we may do 3. I hope it will not be denied that what is here said to the Apostles is not said to them as Apostles but as Officers of the Church who have received the same Power from Christ that it is no Temporary but an abiding precept and therefore if it forbid superiority among the Apostles so doth it among Presbyters Mr. Still p. 220. objecteth thus ' this place doth no waies imply a Prohibition of all inequality among Governours of the Church for then the Apostles Power over ordinary Pastors should be forbidden Ans concedo totum we also grant inequality among Pastors and Elders But that which we plead is that here is forbidden an inequality among them who are of the same Order that when Christ hath given men the same Power and Office as he did to the Apostles they may not usurp power one over another nor take it though others would give it them This is clearly proved from what hath been said And further it may be hence also concluded that the inequality which is among Church-Officers ought not to be such as is among the Governours of the World where a single Person may have his under-Officers at his command but that inequality must be of one order above another in place and rank both which do concur jointly to the ruling of the Church and thus also Episcopacy is here made unlawful That Pride and Ambition is here forbidden I readily grant him but that these are not only forbidden is clear from what hath been said Sect. 2. The next place that he considereth is Mat. 18.15 16 17. Where after private admonition is used in vain we are commanded to tell the Church and they who do not hear the Church are to be counted as Heathens and Publicans That which he first bringeth for an Answer to this place is That because men of all Opinions about Church-Government make Use of it to establish their Opinions therefore no Argument may be drawn from it for any opinion This unhappy way of reasoning I have met with before and insist not now on it It is the Devils way I perceive to raise contentions about truth among some and having done this to tempt others by these contentions to Schism and slighting of truth But we must not quit the light held forth in this Scripture because men have darkened it by their raising dust about it let us search the more soberly and carefully not cast away the truth for this Yet for all divers Opinions that have been broached about this place Mr. Stilling hath a new one of his own which I shall briefly examine The difficulty of the place he saith well lyeth in these two 1. What are the offences here spoken of 2. What is the Church mentioned For the first he asserteth with more confidence than strength of Reason when he saith it is evident to any unprejudicated mind that the matters are not of scandal but of private offence and injurie this he proveth p. 222. his Arguments we shall consider after For the Church he proposeth at length the Erastian opinion as very plausible yet at last rejecteth it p. 224 225. and returns to the Offences p. 226. which though he makes to be private differences and quarrels yet he will not have them to be law-suits nor Civil causes but such differences as respect persons and not things And then he determineth p. 227. that the Church is not here any Juridical Court acting by Authority but a select Company who by arbitration may compose and end the difference and so concludeth p. 228. that here is nothing about Church-Government though by Analogie some things about it may be hence drawn This is the sum of this opinion which I shall first refute and then consider his grounds for it Sect. 3. And first of all I cannot but wonder that this learned Author should with so much confidence deny this place to speak of Church-Government and nor say something in answer to the many Arguments for establishing a Form of Government which are drawn from it by many Learned men as Gillespy in his Aarons Rod. Rutherford in his Jus Divin Reg. Eccles Beza de Excom Presbyt Cawdry of Church-reformation and other Presbyterians beside many Authors of other judgments What are all their Arguments unworthy to be taken notice of and easily blown away with Mr. Still his bare Assertion for what he saith of the matters of offence spoken of in this place he seemeth to aim at a new opinion but I cannot see wherein it differeth from what the Erastians hold save in its obscurity for when he hath with them made them to be no Scandals nor Sins against God but private injuries against our Neighbours he will not have them to be Civil causes or Law-suits but such differences as respect Persons not things What these can be I cannot understand for what wrong can I do to my Neighbour besides scandalising him by Sin against God for which he may not Sue me at Law if he mean not matters of Money or meum tuum but other injuries against ones Person as beating reproaches slanders c. as I guess
yield to them in circumcising Tim. a thing which might seem to cross the design of the Gospel would he scruple to retain the old Model the Synagogue when there was nothing in it repugnant to the doctrine of the Gospel Answ The Apostles at first did yield very far to the Jews because they could not at the beginning digest the taking down of the old frame of Worship and setting up a new hence they did conform to the Jews for that time as much as might be in their transient and occasional practices but this reason did no way oblige them to frame their constitutions and practices of the Church that were to abide afterward by the Jewish Patern because then the Gospel was fully promulgated and the Will of Christ known to the new Gospel-Church differing from the old and in this case we are rather to think that the Apostles did not conform to the Jewish way in things not necessary because as at first their work was to bring them to Christ and so they yielded to them as much as might be so afterwards now their work was tobring them from Moses and to this end it was fit to bring them off all those customes and waies which might keep that their I dol yet in their minds as sure he Jewish customes might do Here is more then a shew of reason which our Author requireth why the Apostle should slight the constitution of the Jewish Synagogues and besides it is reason enough why they should do this if it be not proved that they did other wise seeing they were guided by an infallible Spirit not led by mens Customes in their Actions I find no further proof of this consideration but that they did not only gather Churches out of Synagogues but that in probability whole Synagogues in some places were converted What ground there is for this probability I know not we read nothing of it as we read of whole Houses converted neither see I any reason to think that the Apostles did respect Synagogues in their reforming Churches they made the Churches of them who had before been in the Synagogues and that I believe they did according to the Peoples best conveniency for partaking of ordinances together but that their Synagogues were their Pattern I see not Another argument from the Jewish and Gentiles Coetus he would fain be helped by but finding it weak disputeth against it wherefore we lay it aside and come to his 3d consideration p. 260. viz. the Synagogue-Model was most agreable to the State of the Churches in Apostolick times because it was so ordered as that it needed not depend on the Secular Power for attaining the end of Government Answer Wherein the Synagogue-Model was in the nature of the thing fitted to the State of the Gospel we do not say that the Apostles would reject such a good thing because used by the Synagogue only we deny that they used it because the Synagogue used it so this proveth nothing Further it proveth only co-incidency between the Church and Synagogue-Government in this general that both were such as might consist without Secular power but divers particular forms may be of this nature so that there is no need from this consideration that the Church and the Synagogues be governed by the same Model Sect. 8. We see how probable he hath made this his assertion he cometh p. 261. to shew what particular practices of the Synagogue the Apostles did take up and follow and first he speaketh of their publick service in the Church where all that he can attain to is this that there was in the Church as there had been in the Synagogue solemn Prayers Praises reading of Scripture and teaching of the People out of it all which are parts of Moral worship and would have been in the Church though there had never been a Synagogue to take example by he is forced to acknowledge a considerable difference viz. omitting the reading the Sections of the Law as was done in the Synagogue and celebrating the Lords Supper which was not in it which one consideration destroyeth all that he is at so much pains to establish for if Christ and his Apostles had made the Synagogue their pattern they might easily have conformed to them in reading the Sections of the Law and taking the Lords Supper from some of their customes as well as they did Baptism as this Author alledgeth Next he cometh p. 264. to ordination about which he maketh a great deal of do but to no purpose for Ordination i. e. a Solemn setting of men apart for the Office of the Ministry doth naturally follow as necessary to Order supposing that some should be in that Office and the work be not common to all which I believe should have been in the Church whatever had been done in the Synagogue as for the Rite of it laying on of hands whether it was used in the Synagogue or not is not worth our enquiry for it will not thence follow that the Apostles took it from the confederate discipline of the Synagogue i. e. from their men-devised Customes as our Author confidently asserteth but all that he discourseth proveth not this but only if it prove any thing that it was used in the Synagogue I assert with more warrant that it was taken up both by the Synagogue and by the Apostles from the ancient custâ—me of blessing or dedicating any thing to God by this Ceremony of this Judgment is Calv. Inst lib. cap. 4. Sect. hunc autem ritum fluxisse arbitror ab Hebraeorum more qui quod benedictum aut consecratum volebant manuum impositione deo quasi repraesentabant sic Jacob benedicens Ephraim Manasse eorum capitibus manus imposuit quod sequutus est dominus noster cum super infantes precationem faceret eodem ut arbitror significatu Judaei ex legis praescripto suis sacrificiis manus imponebant quare apostoli per manuum impositionem eum se deo offerro significabant quem initiabant in ministerium quanquam usui sit etiam super eos quibus visibilis spiritus gratias conferebant We see then it was not the practice in Synagogue-Ordination only but in many things else and it is most probable that this Rite so constantly used in all Ages of the Church in all cases of blessing or consecration hath something more in it then humane Institution in the Synagogue the constant use of it by men infallibly guided as Abraham the Apostles Christ himself the commanding of it in the like case of consecration under the Law cannot but give it a stamp of divine Authority Yea we find the Levites thus ordained Num. 8.10 wherefore all this his pains doth not prove that Gospel-Ordinance was taken up from the humane custome of the Synagogue A few things in this his discourse I shall further shortly take notice of p. 264 265. he will have Gospel-Ministers not to succceed no not by Analogie to the Priests and Levites but rather to
the Officers in the Synagogues for the Priests were not admitted by Solemn Ordination but judged of their fitness as to birth and body by the same ordination but the Rulers of the Synagogues were admitted by Ordination and if any of the Priests came to that Office they as well as others had their peculiar designation and appointment to it Here I reply 1. I believe that Gospel-Ministers did not properly succeed to either of these but stand upon another foundation viz. Christs Institution and so it is needless to enquire which of them they should succeed to I yield also that the name of Priests under the Gospel hath brought in the thing it self and even the Mass which ought not to be 2. What can he design by this Discourse Would he make the Office of the Ministry stand on no other bottom but imitation of the Synagogues Rulers and these Rulers to be brought in by a confederate Discipline i. e. to be a humane invention If he say not this he saith nothing to the purpose but I hope he will not say it 3. It is false that the Priests were not solemnly set apart for their Office though they had it by birth yet they behoved to be solemnly initiated to it and I am sure Mr. Still would not have said that they were no otherwise set apart but by the judgment of the Sanhedrim of their birth and body if he had not in this so consulted Antiquity as that he forgot to look into the Bible I do not deny but there was such a Judgment to pass on them neither ought Ministers be now admitted without tryal yea the Scripture which is surer than the Talmud telleth us so much Ezr. 2.62 63. Yet we find also their solemn setting apart to the Office described Exod. 28.41 and 29.1 Lev. 8.2 c. And spoken of 2 Chron. 26.18 Yea the very Idol-Priests would not want this solemn setting apart 2 Chron. 13 9. Jud. 17.5 12. Yea our Authors opinion everteth it self for to what purpose was a publick judging of them before their entry on the exercise of their Office if there was no solemn admission of them to it sure a solemn declaring them such as God had appointed his Priests to be if there had been no more they being kept from exercising the Office till this was done was a solemn admission 4. I would know who these others were who were Rulers of the Synagogue and so Teachers of the people at least Superintenders over Gods publick Worship as he elswhere phraseth it beside the Priests if they were only Levites or others also as he seemeth to imply and if any other but Priests and Levites were admitted to that Office I would know quo warranto sure the Scripture speaketh of these as old Testament-Teachers Neh. 8.9 2 Chron. 17.8 9. and of none else but immediately inspired Prophets But I see Mr. Stilling looketh more to Rabinical stories in these matters than to the Bible and to the customs of the Synagogue in the days of the Apostacy than to the commands of God as he gave them though they be rare who are made mad by too much Learning yet there are whom too much reading without holding to the Scripture as the Rule maketh to dote I need not insist on what he writeth p. 268 c. of the Rite of laying on of Hands enough hath been said to shew that it proveth not what he intendeth nor on the persons ordaining in the Synagogue and in the Church of which he pa. 272 c. for in both he confesseth abomination to have been done in common by those in Power and afterward without divine Warrant restrained to one if Christ hath given power to all Presbyters to do it we must have some warrant to restrain this Power ere we dare do it but of this enough before Sect. 9. In his further prosecuting the correspondence of the Apostolick Church with the Synagogue he speaketh p. 285. of the Order setled by the Apostles in the Churches planted by them for ruling of them and first he maketh a work about the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used in the Synagogue but from his own Discourse it 's clear how little weight is to be laid on this consideration as to what he intendeth seeing that name was ever used to denote Power and Dignity whether in Church or State and so doth no more belong to the Synagogue than other things I take notice of what he saith in the end of p. 286. If his design is not to dispute the Arguments of of either party viz. those who conceive the Apostles setled the Government of the Church in absolute purity or else by Superiority and subordination among the setled Officers of the Church but to lay down these principles which may equally concern both in order to accommodation But I humbly conceive it was very incumbent upon him to answer the arguments of both parties and they must be answered to us before we be obliged to receive his Doctrine of which anon that we cannot know what form the Apostles setled and that they setled not any one form For as long as arguments brought by either of the controverting parties do stand untaken away to prove that the Apostles setled this or that form the Judgment can never acquiesce in his opinion that they setled none or that we cannot know what they setled This is a strange way of disputing especially when the design is to satisfie the Conscience in order to peace and yielding up its opinion to lay down such Principles to this end with strong arguments standing against them untouched or answered 'T is like Mr. Stilling thinketh that when he hath furnished Men with some probabilities that may encourage them to comply with what Government shall be set up in the Church their interest and maintenance should resist the strength of all arguments against it for he will furnish them with no help in this but they must have very pliable Consciences if Will be furnished to an opinion so maintained His Principles in order to accommodation or all that he will say of the Apostles Government he draweth into 3 Propositions p. 287. which in sum are these That we cannot know what was the Apostles practice that it was not always the same that whatever it was we are not obliged to observe it Let us hear how he maketh these out Sect. 10. His first Proposition he setteth down thus That we cannot arrive to such an absolute certainty what course the Apostles took in governing Churches as to infer from thence the only divine Right of that one form which the several parties imagine come nearest to it This Proposition is not so ingenuously nor clearly set down as need were wherefore I shall a little remove the mist cast on the Truth by his words which may make simple Souls mistake it And 1. There is some ambiguity in absolute certainty if he mean so
is That the places of Scripture most in controversie about the form of Government may be without any incongruity understood of either of the different Forms which he maketh out by going through the several places The first is Acts 11.30 where it is said That the relief for the Brethren of Judea was sent to the Elders There is nothing here saith he to shew whether there were the local Elders of Jerusalem or the Bishops of the several Churches of Judea Answ I wonder why he should have brought this as the first or as one of these few Scriptures that he undertaketh to answer for the most part of the most pungent Scriptures against his design he doth not so much as mention for I think it is very little insisted on by either party nor can I remember that I have met with it as brought to prove either Parity or imparity Yet I do not doubt but at least some probability may be hence brought that the Apostolick Churches were governed by the Parity of Elders for which I lay down briefly these grounds First The Elders here spoken of are the Governors of the Church this he doth not deny 2dly They were the Governors of the Church of Jerusalem This he saith is not sure for they might be the Bishops of the Churches of Judea But against this I argue 1. It is not enough to say they might be but what ground is there to think that they were the Bishops of Judea we bring probable grounds for what we assert but what can be said for the contrary It is a bold way of expounding Scriture to say such a sense it may have when there is no ground to think that it hath such a sense but some ground to the contrary 2. However the Relief ought to be sent to all the Churches of Judea yet it is delivered at Jerusalem to be sent abroad for it is delivered to these Elders by Barnabas and Paul whom it is not like they sent through the several Churches of Judea 't is spoken of as one single act of theirs delivering the others to a company of Elders met together Now it is not imaginable that all the Bishops of Judea were met together on this occasion for what needed such a Convention for receiving Alms Yea we have no ground to think that it was so natural to them before-hand as that they could meet about it Neither hath that conceit of some any probability that these Bishops did reside at Jerusalem such Men did not begin so soon to slight their particular Charge but of this after These Elders then were the Elders of Jerusalem 3. We find a company of Elders ordinarily at Jerusalem not only Acts 15.6 Which might be upon the solemn occasion of the Council but Act. 21.18 That these were the Elders of Judea come up with their flocks to keep the Feast of Pentecost as Mr. Still guesseth is a most irrational conceit for though many of the Jews were zealous of the Law shall we think that the Apostles had set Teachers over them who were no better instructed in the Gospel than so And besides these believing Jews ver 20 who are said to be zealous of the Law can neither be proved to have been then present at Jerusalem for they might hear of Paul's condescendency to their Customs though they were not there neither that they were those of the Country of Judea they might be of Jerusalem it self but I incline rather to the first Now we find not any other company of all the Elders of Judea met in one place these were then the Elders of Jerusalem 4. It is then observed both by the ordinary gloss and by Lyra in loc That this famine was mainly like to be in Jerusalem the Believers there being spoiled of their movable goods in the persecution about Stephen and therefore this Relief was chiefly to them Ergo they are the Elders of Jerusalem which here received it Now from these grounds it easily followeth what we intend viz. If there was a company of Elders who were Rulers of the Church at Jerusalem then this Church of the rest there is the same reason was not governed by a Bishop but by Presbyters acting in Parity It is strange if the Elders of the Church should be spoken of and no notice taken of My Lord Bishop if there were any such person in such a matter Sect. 13. The 2d place is Act. 14.23 when they had ordained them Elders in every Church to which he joineth the 3d Tit. 1.5 that thou shouldest ordain Elders in every City Of which places he saith that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie no more but Ecclesiatim and oppidatim so that the places may well be understood of ordaining one Elder in every Church and City or of more but doth not determine whether one or more were ordained in them But granting all that he alledgeth a strong Argument for our purpose may be brought from these places thus there was at least in every Church one Elder in the Apostles times and such an Elder as was also a Bishop and had governing Power over the Church as appeareth by comparing vers 7. of Tit. 2. with this vers 5. But there could not be in every Church a Diocesan Bishop ruling over Presbyters for one of these are over many Churches Ergo. The Church was then governed by the Elders of the several Churches acting in Parity for if every Church had its Elder or Elders and these all were Rulers then the Rule was not in the hand of one Superiour over many Churches Nothing can be questioned in this Argument except it be said that every Church here is not every congregational but Diocesan Church But this can in no wise be for there was a necessity of an Elder or Elders in every Congregational Church for the Peoples Instruction if these then did rule the Church was ruled by the Elders of Congregational Churches The next place is Act 20.17 And from Miletus Paul sent and called the Elders of the Church These say we were Elders of the Church of Ephesus to whom in common Paul committeth the ruling of the Church vers 28. not to one Bishop over the rest so that Church was governed by Parity of Elders To this place he answereth by shewing some Probabilities for both meanings viz. That these were the Elders of Ephesus and that they were the Bishops of Asia but taketh no pains to Answer what is said on either hand only concludeth that because there is probability on both hands there is no fixed truth on either which is most detestable Scepticism for if there be Arguments for both parts sure both cannot be true seeing they are contradictory neither can both be false for the same reason for contradictoriarum altera semper est vera altera semper est falsa then it was his part either to shew that neither of the arguments prove any thing by answering to them or to hold to
compose differences about Church-Government To clear our way in this dispute with him let it be observed 1. That the question being only about Parity and Imparity of Pastors all other differencies in Apostolick practices that may be alledged are impertinent to this purpose 2. It helpeth not him nor harmeth our cause if we should grant that the Apostles did in some extraordinary cases vary from their ordinary course for it is what they did ordinarily and where no extraordinary cause moved them to do otherwise that we inquire about 3. Our question is not about the Government of the Church that was for a time exercised by extraordinary Officers immediately sent of God but what was the way the Apostles settled that the Church should be governed in by her Ordinary and abiding Officers Wherefore it maketh nothing for his purpose if it be made out that the Church was some times governed one way by extraordinary Officers at other times or places another way by ordinary Officers Taking these considerations along with us I come to hear the Proofs of this his proposition The first is taken p. 323. from the different state condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles and here he premiseth 3 things viz. That God did not give the Apostles equal suceess of their Labours in all places that a small number of believers did not require the same number of Officers to Teach and Govern them that a greater Church did 3. That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of Believers and in order thereto in some great places About these I shall not controvert with him only the 2d must be understood with this distinction else we cannot grant it that a fewer number if formed into a Church-Society though it did not need as great a number of Officers of every kind as Teachers Elders Deacons yet would it need as many sorts of Officers and the reason is because all those acts are needful to be done to them which must be done to greater Congregations they must be taught ruled and their Poor cared for and therefore they must not want any of these sorts of Officers whose work these acts were I mean where such Officers could be had for Christs Institutions tye not to impossibilities From these Premisses he inferreth these two conclusions to make out his proposition the first is p. 325. That in Churches consisting of a small number of believers where there was no great probability of Increase afterwards one single Pastor with Deacons under him were only constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of these Churches On this conclusion before I come to his Proofs of it I shall make these remarques 1. Here is nothing here for the Imparity of Presbyters or the Authority of a Bishop over Presbyters if where more Presbyters could not be had one was to do the work this doth not at all say that the Apostles ever did or that we may set one over the rest where many may be had to rule the Church This conclusion then proveth nothing 2. These Deacons that here he speaketh of either had ruling power or not if he say the first I doubt if he can prove that ever any such Deacons were in the Apostolick Churches where the Deacons work was to serve not to rule that Church and if they had ruling power they were not only Deacons but ruling Elders both works being laid on the same Persons for want of men to exercise them distinctly which maketh nothing against Presbyterians If the second first I question if any instance can be given of a Church so constituted by the Apostles 2. If it was so it was necessity not choice that made them be without ruling Elders Sect. 15. But how proveth he this his conclusion by 3 or 4 Testimonies out of Clement Epiph. and others What hath he so soon forgot himself he had immediately before spent about 30 pages in proving that the Testimony of the Fathers is not sufficient to prove what was the Apostles Practice and that by making out the defectiveness ambiguity partiality and repugnancy of the Records of the succeeding Ages it is strange then that to prove this his assertion concerning Apostolick Practice he should bring no other Argument at all but such as he had set that Nigrum Theta upon Neither see I what those Testimonies prove contrary to us The Testimony of Clement saith no more than what is implyed Phil. 1.1 That the Apostles ordained Bishops and Deacons and our Author himself maintaineth that those were not by their constitution any more than Presbyters whatever they might after get by mens Institution proveth not what was Apostolick constitution For the Testimony of Epiphanius he confesseth its intricacie and obscurity and therefore by his own Argument of which before it is not to be laid weight upon but he taketh a great deal of pains to explain it and make it speak this in sum that at first there were only Bishops and Deacons by Bishops he meaneth Presbyters as appears from his Subjoyning immediately that there was neceility for Presbyters and Deacons and that by these all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed but afterward where there was need and there were found any worthy of it there was a Bishop appointed but where there were not many to be Presbyters they were content with a Bishop and Deacons Here are 3 cases Presbyters and Deacons a Bishop and Deacons this in case of necessity where more Presbyters could not be had this Bishop as hath been shewn before could be nothing above a Presbyter none of those cross our design for the third viz. a Bishop set over Presbyters first Epiphanius doth not say it was so appointed by the Apostles but it was done it is like he meaneth by succeeding Ages 2. He doth not say that this Bishop was set over Presbyters with jurisdiction he might be meerly a praeses so there is nothing here to prove that the Apostles ever setled any thing contrary to Parity of Presbyters The Testimony out of Clem. Alexan. even with Salmasius his commentary proveth no more but that in some places were more Presbyters in some fewer in some but one His last Testimony saith nothing at all to the purpose only that the Apostles settled things by degrees not that ever they set up Bishops Sect. 16. The 2d Conclusion that he inferreth p. 332. That in Churches consisting of a multitude of Believers or where there was a probability of a great increase by preaching the Gospel the Apostles did settle a College of Presbyters whose Office was partly to govern the Church already formed and partly to labour in converting more This we close with and from it and the former Conclusion which make up his whole Argument infer the quite contrary to his design viz. That the Apostles kept a most uniform course so far as necessity did permit in setling the Government of Churches and that they setled the Government in the hands
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-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-Church-power and might occasionally exert it though some according to their gift did ordinarily exert one part others another and that Deacons might preach and do all the work of the Pastors though ordinarily being better gifted for that they served Tables but this is to jumble together what the Lord hath made an ordinary separation of 5. This Opinion maketh the different work that Church-Officers are employed in not to proceed from distinct Office or Power but from different gifts which would bring a Babel of confusion into the Church For 1. As Men think they are gifted so will they take up their Work and so most will readily incline to the easiest work and think their gift lieth that way to the great neglect of the difficult and main business and because Ruling is sweet to an ambitious mind and laborious preaching is painful we shall have abundance of Rulers but few Teachers 2. By the same reason one may neglect all the parts of his work that he may neglect one pretending that his gift is not for this nor for that and that they may be done by others If it must be said the Church must appoint them their work and not leave it to their choice Answ If the Church appoint Timothy's work to be to Rule and exempt him from preaching ordinarily I see not how he differeth from the Ruling-Elders which this Author disputeth against notwithstanding his supposed power to Preach which to him is an idle Talent I mean if this be done warrantably otherwise it is not done especially if the Church give him no more power than Christ hath given to every Pastor that is to Rule over the flock with the equal concurrence of
soon after it began to appear and when some had thus miscarried and others stuck to the Apostolical frame of things this might quickly breed a diversity 3. It will easily appear to any who readeth this Chap. that all the Authours discourse tendeth to prove that the ancient Churches thought not Episcopacy to be jure divino let them who are concerned answer him in this if they can I am convinced of the truth of what he saith But let us take a short view of the grounds on which he establisheth what he asserteth in this Chap. Sect. 2. The first is That the extent of the Power of Church-Officers did increase meerly from the enlargment of the bounds of Churches which he maketh out in 4 steps or periods The first is when Churches were the same with Christians in a whole City And here he handleth 3 things first he sheweth that the Primitive constitution of Churches was in a Society of Christians in the same City where he will have the name Church in Scripture to be only given to that not to a particuler congregation meeting in one place I do not deny but the name is given as he saith because of that confederacy in discipline among divers congregations in one City yet neither the name nor the nature of a Church must be denied to a single congregation for a Church in Scripture-Language is a company met together to serve God now this agreeth well to a single Congregation seeing in it not only word and Sacraments are administred but also discipline is exercised as shall anon appear All that he saith proveth the former Use of the word but nothing against this latter 2. He speaketh of the Government of these Churches p. 352. And that 1. before Parishes or distinct Congregations were settled 2. after they were settled about which he largely disputeth when it began which is not to our purpose in both cases he saith they were ruled in common and p. 354. That it is a weak conceit to think that after the setling of Congregations every one had a distinct Presbytery to rule it and p. 356. this crumbling saith he of Church-Power into every Congregation is a thing absolutely disowned by the greatest and most Learned Patrons of Presbytery beyond the Seas as may be seen in Calv. Beza Salmasius Blondel Gerson Bucer and others I do readily yield to him that it is most probable that in times of Persecution particular congregations could not be soon settled and that then where there were in one City more Christians then could meet in one place they were ruled only in Common yea and had their meetings for worship occasionally as they could Also we grant that when Congregations were settled the several Congregrations in one City were ruled by one common Presbytery made up of the Officers of them all but that they had not their distinct Presbyters that ruled them severally in subordination to this superior Presbyters we utterly deny and I look upon it as a too supercilious assertion to call this a weak conceit seeing it is well known that it hath been the Judgment of men with whom for ability I think Mr. Still modesty will not suffer him to compare himself But what ever be of the ability of them who own it there is reason for it so weighty as may excuse it from weakness which is this Single Congregations meeting ordinarily together for the worship of God cannot but have many affairs that do only concern them not the other Churches or Congregations in the same City as admission or exclusion of their members from the Lords Supper rebuking them consulting about the time and ordering of their Administration c. 'T is very unfit to bring all these things in prima instantia to the Presbytery that ruleth in common This I confirm out of what himself hath written p. 368. He saith that Country Churches had their own rulers who ruled them though with subordination to those in the City is there not the same reason why particular Congregations though in City should have their Rulers 't is as really inconvenient to bring every matter of a City-Congregation at the first hand to the common Presbyters as it is to bring the matters of a Country Parish to it Yet we acknowledge that it is to be ordered according as it conduceth most to the good of the Church neither if we should yield all that he saith is it any thing against the Divine Right of Parity What he saith of these worthy Divines disowning this Power of particular Congregations we have cause to suspend our belief of it till he bring some testimony of their own writings to prove it which he hath not so much as essaid It is like they were against Independent Power of Particular Congregations not their subordinate Power for the Testimonies that he bringeth they prove no more than what we have granted viz. That the Congregations were ruled in common not that they had no particular Government in each of them as any may easily see by considering them Neither is it any wonder that the records of Antiquity speak of the acts of those greater not of the lesser and Congregational Presbyteries seeing matters coming before the latter were of so private concernment such as use not often to be so much taken notice of The 3d thing he speaketh of in this first step of the growth of Churches is what Relation the Churches in several Cities had one to another and to the lesser City that were under them and here he maintaineth that Metropolitans are not of Divine Right to which we agree I add that in the first and more pure Primitive times they had no Being at all as is clearly made out by Diocl. Altar Damasc c. 2. Where he sheweth that Justine and Ireneus have nothing of the different degree of Bishops and that Cyprian in the middle of the third Century doth often assert their Parity The second step is p. 368. When Churches took in the Villages and Territories adjoining to that Citie he saith that the City-Presbyters did Preach in these places and adjoined the Converts to the City-Church till after when they were increased in Villages they got peculiar Officers set over them who did rule them yet with subordination to the City-Church This last I only dislike neither do I see it proved by him for the Titles of matrix ecclesia et Cathedra principalis signifie no more but a greater dignity and primacy of Order not of Jurisdiction What he saith of that Eulogie sending abroad consecrated pieces of bread doth not prove the point and also it was a superstitious custome the bad improvement of it appeareth in the Papish adoration of their Hostia His next step is p. 372. When Churches did associate in one Province where he speaketh of Provincial Synods once a year and sheweth that no Bishop had power over another but that their Honour depended on their Sees Thence he cometh to the last step when the