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
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.
to be Christs Laws and therefore cannot be in an Errour about them But how absurd this is sad Experience maketh too evident Is it not a Controversie whether Christ hath appointed seven or but two Sacramentst whether he hath commanded us to pray to Saints departed whether Excommunication be loy his Law c. We must then either say that Christ hath made no Law in these things or that men cannot mistake in them but that they who oppose the truth herein do oppose that which they know to be Christ's Law or that Christ hath made and revealed a Law about these things but these men cannot see it which is contrary to the Author's Assertion 3. Is it not enough to bind the Conscience of any who soberly seek to know what is the good and perfect and acceptable will of God that the Lord in his word hath given some intimation from which we may gather that such a thing is his will Sure seeing it is his will that bindeth the Conscience whatever way we come to the knowledge of this will we are obliged by it to our duty Now we may be able in some cases to deduce from Scripture such a thing to be the will of God though it be not set down in such evident terms as are here mentioned as is clear to any who do consider 4. There are many points of Truth or many Credenda in the Scripture which want such an Evidence of Revelation as is here required which yet we are to believe as the truths of God for it is clear that the Lord hath taught us many things in the Bible as it were on the bye and left them to be gathered from Scripture Assertions yea many times Truths are couched in Duties commanded as Commands also are comprehended in Assertions and Promises Now if this clearness of terms in the Revelation of the Credenda of Religion be not necessary to bind the Conscience to believe how is it imaginable that it should be necessary in the Revelation of the Agenda to bind the Will to act seeing the Lord doth as peremptorily require us to believe what he hath said as to do what he hath commanded 5. For the exception that he maketh of the changing some Circumstances of old Laws I see not on what Foundation of reason the difference between these and new Laws can stand but that this shift serveth his purpose For to take his own instance supposing a standing Law for a Sabbath and that the seventh day must be kept This Circumstance as he is pleas'd to call it that not the seventh but the first day be kept is really a new law yea there are here two new laws one abrogating what was before and making it no duty to keep the seventh day another establishing a new which was not before and making it a duty to keep the first day Now if this may be thought no obliginglaw of Christ without that evidence of revelation which he talks of why may not another thing that was not such before If we are to look to Apostolick practice as ground sufficient why we should think it Christs will that we should keep the first day of the week to the Lord which was not done before why should we not think the same ground sufficient why Ministers should rule the Church by a parity of Authority Yea reason would say that there is need of more clearness in the revelation of Christ's will for altering a standing law in such of it's circumstances as doth annul one duty and establish another than for setling that as duty which is altogether new seeing in the former we must both know the will of God in abrogating and establishing in the later we are to know only that he will stablish sucha thing § 13. In his examination of what maketh an unalterable Divine right I agree to most that he teacheth only his Postulatum p. 14. one which he buildeth all his assertions needeth to be a little cleared He asserteth that nothing can be founded on Divine Right nor bind Believers as a positive Law but what may be certainly known to have come from God with an intention to bind Believers to the Worlds end Where I only take notice that though Plerophory in that case be very desirable yet such certainty is not necessary to our obligation But so much knowledge of the will of God as may satisfie the Conscience by inclining it to the one hand and not leaving it absolutely in suspence If this be not sufficient we shall take off all obligation of Gods positive laws from most men for few have plerophorie in most things I agree with him that a divine right is built on the law of nature and on the immutable positive laws of God also that these are three good marks of the immutability of divine positive laws which he bringeth viz. when the reason of the law remains when God hath declared such a law never to be changed when it conduceth to the being of a Society that he would have to continue Only I cannot see how these espeeially the former two marks do consist with the mutability of that Church government in these things we controvert about which the Apostles practised no doubt as being Christs will and law seeing there is the same reason for parity now that then was and Christ hath not said that he will have it altered in after ages § 14. Page 23. He comes to examine some pretences as he is pleased to call them for a divine right And first he laboureth to enervate the argument for the divine right of Church-Government taken from Apostolical practice of which he promiseth to say more after but what he here saith we shall examine I yield to him that all Scripture examples do not bind neither doth any example bind as an example also that the rule whereby we know what examples do bind is not immediately obligatory but directive I grant likewise that in such examples that which bindeth us is either the moral nature of the action or the law commanding us to follow the example And yet all these concessions yield him no advantage neither bring our cause any loss for when he requireth us who plead for the divine right of a particular form of Church-Government from Apostolical example to shew either the morality of their actions or a law commanding us to follow them I Answer as to the first there needeth no particular demonstration of the morality of Apostolick actions but this we can say for them the nature and condition of the actions and the Apostles doing of them being considered reason will not suffer us to question the morality of them I mean it is certain that they are the will of Christ for we must think that in matters not light and occasional but weighty and of great concernment whether they be well or ill done and which were done on mature deliberation as the administration of the affairs of Christ's house in matters I
the one as true and not to hang between two But I prove that these Elders were the Elders of Ephesus not the Bishops of Asia 1. which Argument he mentioneth but he answereth not the Article in the Greek maketh it clear it being demonstratory doth apply his Speech to the Church which he had mentioned in particular where when it 's said that he sent to Ephesus and called for the Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it might well be translated of that Church it pointeth out that Church and no other It is an unheard of way of speaking when a particular thing or person is mentioned and the demonstrative Article joined to it that that Speech should be understood of any other but that 2. Paul sent to Ephesus for these Elders not through the several parts of Asia Ergo. They were at Ephesus not in other Churches That he did not send through other places to gather them together is evident both because the Text mentioneth sending to Ephesus not other places and it is strange if he sent through all Asia and mention be only made of sending to one place not to any other also because Paul was then in hast passing by them vers 16. wherefore 't is not like that he could stay for the convening of a Synod of Bishop from many remote parts That which is alledged by some that the Bishops of Asia did reside at Ephesus and thence were sent for by Paul is most absurd for 1. There is not the least shaddow of reason to think that non residence of fixed Officers did so soon creep into the Church Let us see any Instance or Warrant to think that any who had a fixed charge did leave it long or often or at all but upon some weighty and extraordinary emergent 2. What could be their business at Ephesus their work lay elsewhere and there they could do nothing except to meet and consult about matters of common concerment which will not infer ordinary residence there 3. The work of these Elders was particular inspection over their Flocks vers 28. over all the Flock which they could not have if they resided at Ephesus and had their charges lying up and down Asia for that probability which he bringeth for the contrary it is none at all viz. It is said vers 18. That he had been with them at all Seasons but he was not all the time in Ephesus but abroad in Asia as Act. 19.10 22 26. Answ at all Seasons must not be taken in such rigour as if he had never stirr'd a Foot out of Ephesus but that he had his residence and Preached most there which is evident from Act. 19.1 9.10 he disputed daily in the School of Tyrannus this was at Ephesus and it is said that it continued 2 years i. e. for the most part of the time he was there and yet might sometimes Preach elsewhere For the humane Testimonies he bringeth for either part I were then in the same ballance with him and shall be content to lay no stress upon them As for the 1 Tim. 3.1 which is his other place we make no Argument from it but maintain that it speaketh not of a Diocesan Bishop let them who assert the contrary prove it His discourse p. 293. is a very unsavory comparing of some Philosophical Problems which cannot well be determined and therefore we may hesitate about them with points of truth revealed in Scripture as if we might also be Sceptick in these But sure the Comparison is miserably lame for 1. These do not concerne our Faith or duty as these other do and therefore there is much less hazard in Scepticrsm about the one than the other 2. Even in those points the motion of the Earth or Heaven the Flux and Reflux of the Sea there is some truth in them though men through darkness cannot see it neither must we say that nothing there is because there is nothing certain to us in these things or that men may impose on our belief what they please in them hence men are the more studious in searching out these Secrets and give them not over as being destitute of all objective truth But he dealeth worse with the things of Church-Government he will have no objective truth in it and no duty to lye on us in searching out the truth but that we must believe what men say of it For conclusion of what I would say to this ground of his Scepticism about Church-Government I will but mention several Scriptures on which the truth in this is built viz. That the Apostolick form was parity which Mr. Still hath not so much as touched neither need I insist on them seeing Arguments from them are established by our writers and not enervated by him One place is 1 Tim. 4.14 where Tim. is said to be ordained by a Presbytery or company of Elders joyning with Paul in that Action this could not have been if Elders had not had a Parity of Power Another is 1 Cor. 5.4 5. where excommunication is transacted by the Authority of a Community not of a single Person and so is the relaxing of that Sentence 2 Cor. 2.8.10 Also 1 Thess 5.12 They who ruled that Church who were over them and must be obeyed were many not one Person yea that work and the work of labouring among the People and admonishing them are made to be the business of the same Persons which is a demonstration that the Presbyters of that Church did rule in common and not a Bishop over them Heb. 13.7 17. proveth also the same thing most clearly Other places might be brought but these Instances may shew that Mr. Stilling undertaking to shew that no place in Scripture determineth what was the Form of Government in the Apostolick Church doth not touch the most considerable places commonly brought to that purpose but hath mentioned a few and those which are least insisted on by them whom he opposeth and even to them he hath said nothing to scare any from using them as Arguments afterward His third Argument for the uncertainty of the Primitive or Apostolical Form of Government taken from the insufficiency of the Testimony of Antiquity is this I pass it because we have ground enough for the certainty of it from Scripture and what he saith proveth no more but that antiquity is not sufficient to bear witness to it also because ali or most that he there discourseth proveth that it cannot be gathered from ancient records that Episcopacy was the Apostolical form which we willingly yield Sect. 14. I come then to his 2d proposition mentioned before which he layeth down p. 322. Thus That the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches but settled it according to the several circumstances of places and Persons which they had to deal with This assertion he layeth down ex abundanti not as a Foundation of his opinion but a doctrine of probability which may tend to
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