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 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
maintain that the Form of Church-Government is not determined by men for the Churches peace and that because there are Controversies about what is the Form appointed by Christ § 6. But I come now to examine what the Author hath to say for this Assertion of his We cannot saith he with any shew of reason imagine that Christ who hath made it a necessary duty for all the Members of the Church 〈◊〉 endeavour the Peace and Vnity of it should suspend 〈◊〉 performance of that duty upon a matter of Opinion which when many have used their utmost endeavour to satisfie themselves about they yet find that those very grounds which they are most inclinable to build their Judgments upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as themselves or else it may be they erect a far different Fabrick upon the very same Foundations Ans 1. The weakness if not wickedness of this Argument will easily appear by making an Assumption to the Proposition here set down and considering what will necessarily follow which I shall thus perform That Christ is true God is a matter of Opinion which when we have used our utmost endeavours to satisfie our selves about it we yet find that those very grounds which we are most inclinable to build our Judgments upon are either wholly rejected by others as wise and able as we or else that they erect on them a far different Fabrick for it 's well known that the Socinians who are men of Wisdom and Ability though it be unsanctifyed and especially Grotius the wonder of his Age for Learning though yet he profess the truth in this point That I say they do wholly reject all the grounds on which we do build our Faith in this point and that on many of them they endeavour to erect a contrary Fabrick It doth then follow vi syllogisticâ supposing our Author's Proposition that we cannot with any shew of reason think that Christ would have us suspend the performance of our duty in endeavouring the peace of the Church on this That Christ is true God and so we must by this Argument yield this Truth as a matter determinable by men rather than hold an Opinion in it with the loss of peace in the Church I hope the Author will not own this Conclusion wherefore he ought not to own that his Assertion out of which it is clearly deducible § 7. Ans 2. There is very great reason for that for which he denyeth all shew of reason for some matters of Opinion of that condition which he describeth are the Truths of God as is clear from what hath been said but we are to suspend the endeavouring of the Churches peace rather than part with any Truth of God or then we should yield it upto men's determinations as if it were none of his truths Ans 3. When we are to judge of the validity of the grounds on which we build our opinion about truth it is not the thoughts of men as wise and able as we that must determine us for we know the wisest may mistake when they who are less wise may hit the truth through the grace of God but we must consider whether these grounds be the dictates of the Spirit of God in his word and if they be we must not be shaken in mind by the contrary assertions of men though never so wise yea and holy too I grant the opinions of such should make us search carefully but they must not hinder our assent to the truth of God And this is a valid reason why we are to suspend our endevours of peac on some matters of opinion though contradicted by wise and able men § 8. He addeth That it is not consistent with Christs Wisdom to leave the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions which are most uncertain for it is not expected that all men should be of the same mind Ans 1. It is too great rashness to think that Christ cannot be a wise Governour of his Church unless he take courses for its setlement that our Wisdom thinketh meet I hope Christ may wisely govern his Church and yet not leave it to Men to determine what shall be the form of it's Government which yet cannot be if this reason prove that which it is brought for 2. We may easily grant the conclusion of this argument without giving the least advantage to the assertion which it is brought to prove It is true Christ hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of men's private opinions viz. So as that there can be no peace in the Church except all men agree in opinion about all things for peace may be maintained among dissenting Brethren by harmony of affection mutual forbearance and a prudent managing and concealing of our opinion so far as it may be without sin and all this may be done without denying that which we differ about to be determined by Christ and asserting it to be a thing left indifferent And if this be not particable either through the Nature of the truth that we dissent about in that it is practical or so important that it cannot be concealed or through the obstinacy or wrong zeal of dissenters the Lord hath not left his Church without a Remedy even in this case viz. they who do unreasonaly dissent must be censured or shunned and if this cannot be done without breach of peace it is our Lords Wisdom to provide that we should rather loose Peace then Truth 3. All that is here said will as well prove that there is no fixed truth in any controverted point though of never so great concernment for it may be said also in these that Christ hath not left the peace of his Church at the mercy of Men's private opinions which are not the same in the most fundamental points But of this enough § 9. From what hath been said we may see what fit advice this healer giveth while he thus saith p. 3. The only way left for the Churche's setlement and peace under such variety of apprehensions concerning the means and method in order to it is to pitch upon such a foundation if possible to be found out whereon the different parties retaining their private apprehensions may yet be agreed to carry on the same work in Common in order to the peace and tranquillity of the Church of God Hitherto we consent with him and wish he would help us to such a Foundation so as it self be founded on the Word of God and not contrary to it But he goeth on Which saith he cannot be by leaving all absolutely to follow their own ways for that were to build a Babel instead of Salem This also we grant but that which follows we cannot agree to It must be then saith he by convincing men that neither of these ways to Peace and Order which they contend about is necessary by way of Divine command though some be as a means to an end
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