much certainty as amounteth to Plerophory and doth dispell all degrees of darkness and doubting this we assert not that every one may attain such is the darkness of Mens minds neither is it needful to this that we look upon what the Apostles did as being juris divini If we mean so much certainty as doth incline the mind to the one part and not leave it in suspence we assert that this may be attained in reference to what is in Question 2. The matter in debate is very obscurely if not fraudulently expressed by these words what course the Apostles took in governing Churches the Question is not whether we can know every thing that they did in this for many particulars are comprehended in this general expression but whether we can know if the setled Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops acting with authority over Presbyters as the ordinary Officers of the Church 3. It is not fair dealing to imply as this Proposition doth that we infer the only divine Right of one form from bare Apostolical practice he knows that we walk upon other grounds viz. we take Christs command of imitating the Apostles the Parity between our case and theirs which may make the morality of our practice to be the same with theirs 4. It is not the one form which several parties imagine to come nearest to Apostolical practice but that which is proved to be really the same with it we plead for it 's not mans imaginations but Scriptural grounds which we establish that correspondency upon we are asserting between Apostolical practice and what we would have to be now in the Church The antithesis then which we maintain against this his Proposition is this That they who search the Scripture may come to be satisfied on good grounds whether the Apostles in planting Churches did setle Presbyters acting in Parity or Bishops ruling over Presbyters as their ordinary Officers so as they may considering the duty laid on us to follow them and the parity of our case with theirs infer the divine Right of that one Form of these two which was used by the Apostles For proof of this our antithesis I refer to the consideration laid down p. 184 185. about the perfection of Scripture-history and its design to instruct us in this point which doth so far prevail with me that I look upon the Authors Proposition as such a reflexion on Scripture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of To this I add that the arguments brought for Presbyterial Government by the Assertors of it do evidently destroy the Authors Proposition and do establish our Antithesis which seeing he doth not intend nor endeavour to answer we need not insist upon A further confirmation of our Antithesis shall be to take off the arguments that he hath brought for his Proposition which I now come to Sect. 11. His first argument is p. 287. from the equivalency of the names and doubtfulness of their signification from which the form of Government used in the new Testament should be determined He saith That it is hotly pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the importance of the names Bishop and Presbyter and that there can be no way to come to a determination what the certain sense of these names is in Scripture He maketh out the uncertainty by laying down four opinions about the signification of these names and from this variety of interpretation inferreth that we cannot know what sense they are to be taken in Ans 1. when he saith that it is pleaded on both sides that the form of Government must be derived from the names of Bishop and Presbyter this is a misrepresentation for 1. There be arguments from which it might well be derived though these names should never be mentioned 2. When we dispute from these Names it is not from the bare force of the word but from this that the Scripture doth often apply these names to the same thing never to divers Officers in the Church and therefore there is no ground for asserting the difference of Bishop and Presbyter This is a surer argument than what can be drawn from the importance of Names Answ 2. It is most false and injurious to the Spirit of God speaking in his word to say that there can be no way to determine what is the certain sense of these names in Scripture We must then say that the Spirit of God speaketh that which cannot be understood if he use names and words to express some thing to us and it is impossible to know what is meant by them When we hear of Bishops and Presbyters in any place of Scripture either we must say that these words signifie nothing or that they mean somewhat but no man can know what it is or that we may come to know what is meant by them The former two are foul reflexions on the Author of holy Scripture yea it were a reflexion on a Man to speak or write in a Book designed for instruction that which either hath no meaning or such as cannot be known The 3d contradicteth our Authors Assertion His proof of the uncertainty of the signification of these Names we have met with before in the like case it is a most unhappy and inconsequential reason Men have divers ways understood these words of the Holy Ghost Ergo they cannot be understood at all They must have a meaning and it is our duty to search it out however Men differ about it There are better Reasons brought by Presbyterians to prove that these two Names signifie the same thing which was incumbent on this Author to answer and not to shift the matter with saying that other Men think otherwise I shall give but this instance or hint which may satisfie any what is the meaning of these words in Scripture Tit. 2. The Apostle leaveth in Crete Titus to ordain Elders or Presbyters verse 5. and telleth him how they must be qualified verse 6 and giveth this reason why they must have such qualifications verse 7. for a Bishop must be blameless If a Bishop were another thing than a Presbyter to what purpose were this reason here brought Ergo they are one and the same thing And if any affirm that these words signifie different things in any place of Scripture let him prove it and we shall yield the cause I might also shew that the same Office and work is every where in Scripture laid on both these and that never any thing is given to the one but what is given to the other but this hath been done and other arguments managed fully by our Writers against Episcopacy neither hath Mr. Stilling had the confidence to answer them though destroying this his Assertion and therefore I shall supersede this labour For the name of Angels of the Churches the argument brought from it is not ours but our opposites Sect. 12. His 2d Argument for the uncertainty of Apostolical practice p. 290.
Scripture consequences as well as in points of Truth And though Positives be indifferent it is not needful that Divine Institution be directly declared for their binding seeing it is the Will of God revealed that bindeth us not his Will revealed in such or such terms He were a bad Servant that would do nothing of his Masters Will but what he declareth to him directly and in the Imparative Mood such Servants to God this Author would have us that so we may have the greater latitude to be the Servants of Men taking their Will instead of Divine Institution § 11. His second Argument p. 182. is this All the standing Laws for Church Government in Scripture may be applyed to several forms ergo there is no one Form prescribed For proof of this he reduceth all the Laws about Church Government to these three heads 1. Such as set down the qualification of Officers 2. Such as require a right managing of their Office 3. Such as lay down Rules for the managing their Office On these he insisteth distinctly Before I come to what he saith on these three Heads let me answer generally to the Argument And first by standing Laws I suppose he meaneth such as are expresly set down in the form of Laws and then we deny his consequence for though these do only respect Government in its more general consideration yet that doth not hinder but the species of it may be determined another way viz. by Apostolick practices or consequences drawn from Scripture 2. Though we should grant that all the Laws set down in Scripture are equally applicable to either form yet the one Form viz. Parity may be determined in Scripture thus Parity and Episcopacy do agree in many things suppose then they agree in all that is commanded in Scripture and that Episcopacy be so far warrantable no wonder that they be not discriminated by these Laws but then here comes the differences Parity requireth no more for its establishment but these Scripture Laws and so it holdeth it self within the bounds of Divine Institution but Episcopacy goeth beyond this boundary by setting up a new Officer in the Church which the Scripture knoweth not and so one Form is determined though not by any Law condemning the other expresly yet by the Laws that warrant it and the want of any Law to warrant the other 3. We deny that all the Scripture Laws reducible to these three Heads do relate to either Form in that wherein they differ But let us hear his proofs He beginneth with the first Head p. 183. where I confess that all the qualifications of Persons which he mentioneth may be applied to either Bishop or Presbyter But then 1. This is an Argument that Bishop and Presbyter are one or rather that there is no such distinction by the Will of Christ for sure there are distinct qualifications required the one being to Rule the other to Obey wherefore if the Apostles had thought there might be both Bishops and Presbyters in the Church surely he would have set down the qualities of a Bishop as he is distinguished from a Presbyter as well as he setteth down the qualities of a Presbyter Confirmatur a man may be a well qualified Presbyter acting under a Bishop and yet not qualified to be a Bishop wherefore if the Apostle had thought it lawful to set the one over the other his qualifications of Church Officers are very lame seeing he doth not shew us who among the Presbyters is fittest to be made my Lord Bishop as well as he sheweth who among the People are fit to be Presbyters 2. The Laws concerning qualifications do require in all Presbyters an ability to rule the Church and do suppose them to be rulers of the Church as is clear 1 Tim. 3.4 5. this is not applicable to Episcopacy for in Episcopacy it is not needful that Presbyters be able to rule seeing they have no exercise of that Faculty as God createth nothing in vain so he doth not require any qualifications of men in vain Is it imaginable that if a man be well qualified to Preach c. and yet unfit to rule that the Lord will have that man kept out of the Ministry for that want of a ruling ability seeing he should have no use of that faculty if he had it Ergo these qualifications are not applicable to Episcopacy where the Bishop alone ruleth If it be said that this maketh the sole Jurisdiction of Bishops unlawful not their being Rulers together with the Presbyters Ans If Bishops be set over Presbyters they must either be only Praesides which is not contrary to Parity for we speak of Parity or Imparity of Jurisdiction or they must have Authority above and over their Brethren and if so they may rule without their Brethren seeing they may command them and make that power void which Christ hath given his Servants and so the force of what I have said doth return Again if Presbyters under a Bishop have Ruling Power either they may determine without or against his consent or not if so the Bishop is but a President if not the Presbyters are but Cyphers seeing the Bishop may do in the Church what he pleaseth Sect. 12. He cometh p. 184. to the Laws concerning a right managing of their work which I do not deny to be applicable to either form and no wonder for faithfulness is a commanded duty in what ever station God putteth a man But our Author taketh occasion here to infer the indifferency of either form 1. Because Paul did not determine in his Epistles to Tim. and Tit. which chiefly concern Church-Government whether any should succeed to Timothy and Tit. in Ephesus and Creet Ans It is a bad consequence for the thing did determine it self for they were Extraordinary Officers immediately called by God being Evangelists therefore they were to have no Successors unless the Lord did so call them Further they were not fixed in these places but for a time they did not live and die there which shewed that there was no need of Successors to them in that Office Again he argueth that the Apostle did not determine how the Pastors of several Churches should order things of common concernment which considered with the former would seem a strange omission were either of these forms necessary Ans This is no strange omission nor should it so be esteemed by this Author who maketh all that is requisite for the right managing of affairs by the Pastors of several Churches to be of the Law of Nature viz. that they should meet that one should moderate that there should be Appeals c. as I observed out of him before 2. We deny that it is omitted yea this Author in saying otherwise contradicteth himself for he will not deny but there are directions in these Epistles for Church-Government and he affirmeth that they are applicable to either form Ergo to Pastors acting in Parity neither was it needful that there should be
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
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
Scripture in the sence of the words then common is not to the purpose for Christ had made this sense common among them Neither must we understand the word as it was then commonly apprehended among the Jews but as it was apprehended among Christs ordinary Hearers who were in expectation of another Church and another way of Government in it to be set up than was then among the Jews I find no more in the Author that is argumentative either against our opinion of this Text or for his own He concludeth p. 228. that this place though it speaks not of Church-government yet it may have some influence on it by way of Analogy viz. in proving 1. Gradual Appeals 2. Church-censures 3. The lawfulness of Excommunication This he yieldeth at least that something of Church-Government may be inferred from this place then ex concessis it is not so impertinent to this purpose as he would have made us believe in the beginning of this Chapter Sect. 8. But let us see if we can draw any more out of it than he will yield us We have already proved it to be directly meant of Church-Government and to give Rules for the right managing of it now I assert that it doth implicitly determine the form of Church-Government viz. That it ought to be by Parity not Episcopacy which I thus make out The first Authority before which the complaint of the grieved party is to be brought is the Church and it is also the last but if the Church were governed by Bishops this should not be Ergo The Church ought not to be governed by Bishops The Major is clear for after secret and private admonition which are not authoritative immediately succeedeth Tell the Church sure this Church must be that Authority which we must go to prima instantia and also that which must finally decide the matter seeing Excommunication doth immediately follow upon Disobliging this Authority The Minor I prove thus in the Episcopal way the complaint must be brought to the Bishop or to his Delegate or Delegates which is all one as to the matter of Authority and he must be the last that must determine and on disobedience to him followeth Excommunication but the Bishop is not the Church Ergo In the Episcopal way complaints cannot be made to the Church nor doth the Church finally decide the matter The Minor of this last Syllogism is evident for neither the nature of the word nor Scripture-Use will bear that one Man shall be called the Church If it be said that Episcopacy be so modelled as the Bishop with the Presbyter may judg of the offence and they may well be called the Church Answ In that case either the Presbyters have a decisive Vote as well as the Bishop or they be only his Advisers In the first case the Bishop is only a Praeses which is not that Episcopacy pleaded against though we judg it inconvenient In the 2d the Bishop is the only Power and therefore there is no such Church as here meant for the Church here is a Church cloathed with Authority whom the party ought to hear i. e. obey and for contumacy against which he is Excommunicated but the Bishop and his counsel is not such a Church for his counsel hath no Authority and himself cannot make a Church and therefore both taken together make no Church having Authority CHAP. VI. HERE Mr. Stilling doth undertake to lay aside Apostolical practice from being a pattern for us in the matter of Church-Government What success he hath in this attempt we now examine His two main scopes in this Chapter are that it cannot be known what the practice of the Apostles was in this and that if it were known it is no binding example to us which desperate assertions do not a little reflect upon the Scripture and tend to the casting loose the Government of the Church The latter of them I have spoken to before and purpose to examine what he saith for it Concerning the former I shall premise but this to our trying of his proofs that it is very strange the Spirit of God in Scripture hath written so much of their practice both Historically and implied it in Doctrinal assertions and Precepts if for all this we cannot know what it was which if it do not accuse the Scripture-relation of things of great imperfection I know nothing for I am sure the Scripture doth purposely set down much of their practice both in Preaching administration of Sacraments ordination of Officers directing these Officers in their behaviour in the House of God censures and other parts of Government if yet we cannot know by Scripture what was their way in Ruling the account given of these things must be very imperfect I believe it would be imputed to any Writer of the History of a Church if out of his History could not be gathered what was the Government of that Church shall we then think that the Sacred Writers who have undertaken to give us an account of the acts of the Apostles are so deficient especially many of the writings of the Apostles themselves being added by the same Spirit out of which much may be gathered to this purpose But let us hear how he makes out this his strange opinion I insist not on what he writeth of the Apostles Commission I confess the form of Government is not expressed in it though we have ground to think that when Christ chargeth them to teath his People to observe all he commanded them Matth. 28.20 that it was his Will that they should not leave so great a matter as is the form of Church-Government to mens Will but that his Institution should be observed in this especially seeing he spent 40 days with them before his Ascension Acts 1.3 speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God that is the Gospel-Church it is hard to think that among all his Instructions to them then he told them nothing of his Will about the way of governing his Church Neither do I take notice of his large Discourse about the Division of Provinces among the Apostles nor of his too true observation that looking on ancient practice through the Glass of our own customs hath bred many mistakes only I wonder at his bringing that for an instance that Lay-Elders are proved from the name Presbyters I believe there was never any that used such an Argument seeing the name is common to them and Preaching-Elders He will find stronger arguments than this for that Order of Church-Officers if he please to read the Assertors of it Sect. 2. For clearing what was Apostolical Practice he layeth down this as a foundation p. 239 c. That the Apostles in the forming Churches did observe the custom of the Jewish Synagogue About this Notion he spendeth a huge deal of pains as if the strength of his cause lay here but to what purpose it is except to shew his reading and skill in Antiquity I know not Doth it
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
his fellow-Presbyters not to rule over Presbyters by himself singly for that they cannot give him this Power I have before proved 6. If the Elders that preach because of the greatness of their work and sufferings have more honour than they who only Rule then the Bishop being of this last sort must be inferiour in honour to those other Presbyters especially this must hold in the opinion of this Author who holdeth That Bishop and Presbyter differ not jure divino but this I suppose will not well please his Lordship and indeed is very unsuitable to the dignity of one who Ruleth over others sure the dignity of Church-Officers is to be reckoned by the dignity of their place where it is different as it is by the discharge of their work where their place is the same Sect. 17. To strengthen this his Conceit he brings a testimony out of Chrysost affirming that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the fixed Officers of particular Churches who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were inferiour to them who preaching the Gospel travelled abroad into divers places Answ This is not at all to the purpose for they who so travelled abroad were Evangelists no fixed Officers but of the former the Apostle doth not at all speak here It rather appeareth saith the Author Asser 1. Gover. Ch. Scotl. that Elders were ordained in every City there to abide with their particular charges Acts 14.23 Tit. 1.5 He argueth also thus against Ruling-Elders These Elders are not the Bishops Paul speaketh of 1 Tim. 3. For these must be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verse 2. l. Answ The Author now cited answereth this Argument brought by Dr. Field and citeth Beza answering to Sarav who had used it Passing his first Answer I make use of the 2d which is Beza's That the Ruling-Elder though he ought not to Teach publickly as a Pastor yet he ought to Teach privately and occasionally according as the need of every one requireth it is his part to oversee the manners of the people and to bring miscarriages to the Church to be censurd but first he is to labour to reclaim the Offender by private admonition according to Christ's Rule Matth. 18.15 16 17. and that not only ex charitate as every Christian ought to do but virtute Officii and authoritatively and for this cause he ought to be a Man of Understanding above the common sort both able and willing to Teach so the word beareth so far as his place requireth Again he argueth from Act. 20.28 All the Elders of Ephesus had a Pastoral charge for they are bid take heed to the Flock as Overseers but this is inconsistent with the Notion of a Lay-Elder Ergo there were none such at Ephesus Answ The Major is false they had a charge and oversight but every oversight is not Pastoral Ruling also falleth under this Notion which is the Office of the Elder we plead for He confesseth p. 338. the weakness of that argument from Maintenance which he saith brought Blondel quite off from Ruling-Elders in that place of 1 Tim. 5 17. It is true Blondel de jur Pleb in Reg. Eccl. p 77 c. alledgeth That these Elders are not there meant because Maintenance implied in double Honour as is clear from ver 18. compared is due to these but not to Ruling-Elders Yet the Argument with all the enforcements of that learned Author will not prove what he designeth For 1. Some famous Interpreters understand this double Honour only of a degree of Honour beyond these spoken of before viz. Widows so Calv. in loc 2. How shall it be proved that Maintenance is not due to Ruling-Elders or the seniores plebis as Blondel calleth them His arguments taken from the disuse of it will not conclude this neither what he saith of the want of Power in any to remit it for where it cannot be had for them necessity excuseth the withholding of it where it cannot be had let the Inhauncers of Church-Rents answer for it if such necessaries be not supplied to the Church neither do I blame him for blaming p. 83. these Protestant Nations who have cast out Abbacies which abounded in Riches have rather taken the Revenues into the State-Treasury than allowed it for such good Uses as this I add for further answer out of Asser Gover. Ch. Scotl. p. 105. That a stipend though due is not essential to the Office either of Elders or Ministers and therefore the want of the one can be no argument against the other But neither is Blondel against the Office of Ruling-Elders though he deny them to be spoken of in 1 Tim. 5.17 but disputeth strongly for it yea and groundeth it on the Apostles practice p. 85 which is an evidence of Divine Right The next thing Mr. Stilling saith against Ruling-Elders is That if we remove from the Scripture to the Primitive Church we shall find the greatest difficulty to trace the footsteps of a Lay-Elder through the Records of Authority for the first 3 Centuries especially Answ 1. We look on the Scripture as a surer Word of Prophecy and therefore are unwilling to pass from it to that which Mr. Stilling hath above proved to be utterly so insufficient to determine in matters of Church-Government 2. Others are of another mind than this Author Blondel de jur pleb in Reg. Eccl. p. 85. aliis igitur saith he firmamentis iis nimirum qui nobis Apostolorum primamque per trium saeculorum periodum antiquitatis praxin stravit seniorum plebis Institutio functio ut sic dicam vitae à protestantibus per Gallias Scotiam Belgiam instituta statuminanda est And Asser Grov Ch. Scot. par 1. c. 8 9. Unpregnable and abundant Testimonies out of Antiquity are brought for this Office which seeing Mr. Stilling hath not Answered it is needless to insist on them 3. But and if in many places in the Primitive times this Office was disused it was their fault and taken notice of by the better sort Calv. in 1 Tim. 5.17 speaking of this Office saith Hunc morem Ambrosius absolevisse conqueritur doctorum Ignavia vel potius superbia dum soli volunt eminere See Testimonies for the Antiquity of it Smect sect 15. Sect. 18. His second proof of his second Proposition viz. That the Apostles took diverse courses in Ruling Churches is p. 340. from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places who managed the affairs of the Church in chief during their residence such were Apostles and Evangelists In some places saith he these were others not and in some places no Officers but these Answ This is obviated by our 3d Observ For the Question is only about Government by ordinary and abiding Officers and that only where they could be had of whom this proof doth not speak His 3d Proof ibid. is from the different customs observed in the Church after the Apostles times This is most inconsequent yea one might as well reason thus In after-times